6 ms·

Retiring GOP Lawmaker: $174,000 Isn't Enough Money for Us

13 points by DocFeind 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
The deal seems obvious: parcel a pay raise for the Congress with anti-corruption measures. Perhaps even a revolving-door cool-down period (together with paid gardening leave). These are senior decision makers. Going to Congress shouldn't mean not being able to build wealth by simply doing your job.
- tristan957 3y ago
  Serving in Congress doesn't have to be a lifetime career either. We need to make lobbying illegal. There should be a mandatory retirement age for federal officials. Think about it. Why are pilots forced to retire from commercial service, but Diane Feinstein can be rolled around Capitol Hill like everything is fine? Federal officials should only be able to invest in blind trusts, instead of using their insider knowledge to publicly trade, see Mr. Pelosi.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > We need to make lobbying illegal This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition. Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.
    - mpalmer 3y ago
      Not to mention that businesses lobbying Congress is not actually a bad thing ipso facto. It's the volume of speech- excuse me, money involved.
    - blitzar 3y ago
      Far easier solution, elect some representatives that have actual moral fibre, backbone and enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for and won't sell out their neighbours (and themselves) for a steak dinner.
      - alephnerd 3y ago
        You can't actually sell yourself for that steak dinner. Accepting a fancy meal does count as a bribe. There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts. Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules. If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
        blitzar 3y ago
        > past members are now learning Sounds like you can and they have.
        alephnerd 3y ago
        And are now paying the consequences. Most people don't do it because being nailed by the DoJ sucks. They have a 99% conviction rate as they only take those cases to court they know they will win.
      - psunavy03 3y ago
        Great. Vote for one the next time. Guess who chooses the representatives?
        blitzar 3y ago
        I did. It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      ^^^ this 100%. One person's activist is another person's lobbyist. Lobbying is an efficient way to bring up issues to your elected representatives. Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade. Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.
boeingUH60 3y ago
For the amount of power Congresspeople command, $174k is definitely meager pay. That’s why the position tends to attract already wealthy people seeking prestige and power or normal individuals who use it as a stepping stone to million-dollar book deals or cushy jobs in the private sector.
- BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
  The power is its own kind of payment. It's a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do Anyone who believes this does not understand how power works and is maintained.
- SammyStacks 3y ago
  That may be their salary, but their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall.
  - thekevan 3y ago
    Not while in office for most of them. Those that do already had those opportunities. They don't get the good payday until they retire and do lobbying or consulting.
    - buffington 3y ago
      > Not while in the office for most of them. I was prepared to dispute this, but now I'm not certain. According to capitoltrades.com, a site that tracks US politician stock trades, 213 politicians made trades within the last 3 years. Assuming those are senators and congress members, then it's fair to say that most aren't making trades. That said, the GP comment that asserted "their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall" isn't incorrect. 213 politicians take advantage of their elected positions to profit from the stock market.
teg4n_ 3y ago
Tie congress’s pay to the minimum wage (e.g 7 x minimum wage). If they can’t afford to live imagine the large portion of society working making a tiny fraction of what they do.
- tristan957 3y ago
  Could someone help explain why a minimum wage exists? I would be hard-pressed to find a job paying less than $15 an hour these days, which is double the minimum wage. Seems like the free market is doing its job?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - teg4n_ 3y ago
    If no job was paying less than a living wage it wouldn’t harm anything to guarantee you get a living wage via the minimum wage either.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm > In 2022, 78.7 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.6 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 141,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 882,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.3 percent of all hourly paid workers, little changed from 2021. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.) It has gotten significantly better, but it's still easy to forget about the other 1%.
    - tristan957 3y ago
      I would really like to understand what these jobs actually are. How many of these people are taken advantage of due to their immigration status?
j0hnyl 3y ago
I mean, I kind of agree. It's not that much money especially if you have to bounce around between your home city and DC. But at the same time, I wish government compensation was tied to measurable targets like the health of the economy, etc. There isn't really any incentive for people in government to do anything other than campaign for reelection and coast.
michael1999 3y ago
I remember someone explaining in the before times how this was a real fault line between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. For most of the Conservatives, working as an MP was a cut in pay vs their opportunities; while for many members in Labour, MP was the best paid job and pension they'd had. While in government, the perqs of power and the chance at cabinet will be enough to balance, but once out of power, sitting in opposition had no appeal. As a result, the Cameron had a terrible time finding talent in his first term after 10 years of opposition had thinned the ranks. The US Senate seems to always have been a playground for the rich, but the House shows a bit of this. AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos). The more stable Rs are busy making money and having happy lives.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos) AOC and Taylor-Greene are living their best lives in Congress. (Unlike Boebert, they're popular with their voters.) Closer to the centre you find cross-sector competence that is better remunerated in the private sector.
  - afavour 3y ago
    Can't remember where I saw this now but IIRC in an interview AOC said she doesn't really enjoy serving in Congress all that much and wasn't sure how long she'd be doing it for. Could always just be saying that for effect, of course, but I'd imagine both AOC and MTG could quit tomorrow, get jobs as on-air analysts on cable news networks and make significantly more money (and probably have a better quality of life).
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      The hours suck, there's a lot of politicking (unsurprising), and if you're a junior member in either party you gotta pay your dues which takes forever. And there's a bit of unofficial hazing (eg. the freshman get the crappy offices with no AC, which is hell in DC during summer) Those who stick around either really believe in their cause, have a strong following back home, and/or have invested heavily in living in DC by buying a house or have family ties (eg. Pelosi)
thekevan 3y ago
When you take into account the charisma, contacts and drive it takes to become a member of Congress, someone like that is going to have a lot more opportunities that make more than $174k and involve a lot less hassle. Plus throw in having to maintain two places to live. If you come from an area with high real estate values, that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary Many freshman lawmakers live together in D.C. From what I've heard, it's both fun and productive, with the stories I've heard reminescent of start-ups' garage days.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I was about to comment that I basically agree with this, that since Congresspeople have to maintain both home state and DC residences that they should be reimbursed for the extra expense of needing to be in DC. However, then I found an article that said this already happened for this year: https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living-reimbursement-for-house-members https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living... So, basically, House members already got a raise of $34k this year. The fact this wasn't even mentioned in this businessinsider article makes me think Patrick McHenry should STFU.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  $34k after tax (which Congress members pay) becomes around $20k after tax, which does help a bit, but still makes it very expensive to maintain a 2nd residence in a city where Studios go for $2300-2500/mo and there isn't any rent control.
  - millzlane 3y ago
    Sounds like they need to move to cheaper places and commute in like normal DMVers do.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      The hours on the Hill are insane. Starting work around 7-9am and finishing up by 8-9pm was fairly common. As such, you want to be close to work. It's essentially PM type hours without PM type pay. You easily earn more and work less hours as a GS 12-14 with much less stress (GS-15 sucks though because you start dealing with SES and Political Appointees)
      - azemetre 3y ago
        In no sane world is >$150k bad pay in any city in the USA. Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so. Maybe over time it will reduce the division between members when you’re forced to live with them and realize that they’re humans too. Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation, they shouldn’t be rewarded with more money. If I only shipped two features over two years at my job I’d be rightly fired. Certain members of Congress think that you can literally object to everything and grind things to halt then have the audacity to call this “government.” Force them to do their job and maybe they can discuss an additional raise (they already got one this year).
feverzsj 3y ago
How? $170k is at least upper middle class income.
strahan 3y ago
With today's technology, Congressmen should not be in Washington DC. Their only office needs to be in their home district that they represent. Set their pay based on a multiple of median income in their district. This should solve the pay issue and will get them focused on their constituents instead of special interest.

13 points by DocFeind 3y ago

The deal seems obvious: parcel a pay raise for the Congress with anti-corruption measures. Perhaps even a revolving-door cool-down period (together with paid gardening leave). These are senior decision makers. Going to Congress shouldn't mean not being able to build wealth by simply doing your job.

tristan957 3y ago
Serving in Congress doesn't have to be a lifetime career either. We need to make lobbying illegal. There should be a mandatory retirement age for federal officials. Think about it. Why are pilots forced to retire from commercial service, but Diane Feinstein can be rolled around Capitol Hill like everything is fine? Federal officials should only be able to invest in blind trusts, instead of using their insider knowledge to publicly trade, see Mr. Pelosi.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > We need to make lobbying illegal This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition. Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.
  - mpalmer 3y ago
    Not to mention that businesses lobbying Congress is not actually a bad thing ipso facto. It's the volume of speech- excuse me, money involved.
  - blitzar 3y ago
    Far easier solution, elect some representatives that have actual moral fibre, backbone and enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for and won't sell out their neighbours (and themselves) for a steak dinner.
    - alephnerd 3y ago
      You can't actually sell yourself for that steak dinner. Accepting a fancy meal does count as a bribe. There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts. Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules. If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
      - blitzar 3y ago
        > past members are now learning Sounds like you can and they have.
        alephnerd 3y ago
        And are now paying the consequences. Most people don't do it because being nailed by the DoJ sucks. They have a 99% conviction rate as they only take those cases to court they know they will win.
    - psunavy03 3y ago
      Great. Vote for one the next time. Guess who chooses the representatives?
      - blitzar 3y ago
        I did. It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    ^^^ this 100%. One person's activist is another person's lobbyist. Lobbying is an efficient way to bring up issues to your elected representatives. Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade. Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.

boeingUH60 3y ago

For the amount of power Congresspeople command, $174k is definitely meager pay. That’s why the position tends to attract already wealthy people seeking prestige and power or normal individuals who use it as a stepping stone to million-dollar book deals or cushy jobs in the private sector.

BugsJustFindMe 3y ago
The power is its own kind of payment. It's a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do Anyone who believes this does not understand how power works and is maintained.
SammyStacks 3y ago
That may be their salary, but their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall.
- thekevan 3y ago
  Not while in office for most of them. Those that do already had those opportunities. They don't get the good payday until they retire and do lobbying or consulting.
  - buffington 3y ago
    > Not while in the office for most of them. I was prepared to dispute this, but now I'm not certain. According to capitoltrades.com, a site that tracks US politician stock trades, 213 politicians made trades within the last 3 years. Assuming those are senators and congress members, then it's fair to say that most aren't making trades. That said, the GP comment that asserted "their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall" isn't incorrect. 213 politicians take advantage of their elected positions to profit from the stock market.

teg4n_ 3y ago

Tie congress’s pay to the minimum wage (e.g 7 x minimum wage). If they can’t afford to live imagine the large portion of society working making a tiny fraction of what they do.

tristan957 3y ago
Could someone help explain why a minimum wage exists? I would be hard-pressed to find a job paying less than $15 an hour these days, which is double the minimum wage. Seems like the free market is doing its job?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- teg4n_ 3y ago
  If no job was paying less than a living wage it wouldn’t harm anything to guarantee you get a living wage via the minimum wage either.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm > In 2022, 78.7 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.6 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 141,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 882,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.3 percent of all hourly paid workers, little changed from 2021. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.) It has gotten significantly better, but it's still easy to forget about the other 1%.
  - tristan957 3y ago
    I would really like to understand what these jobs actually are. How many of these people are taken advantage of due to their immigration status?

j0hnyl 3y ago

I mean, I kind of agree. It's not that much money especially if you have to bounce around between your home city and DC. But at the same time, I wish government compensation was tied to measurable targets like the health of the economy, etc. There isn't really any incentive for people in government to do anything other than campaign for reelection and coast.

michael1999 3y ago

I remember someone explaining in the before times how this was a real fault line between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. For most of the Conservatives, working as an MP was a cut in pay vs their opportunities; while for many members in Labour, MP was the best paid job and pension they'd had. While in government, the perqs of power and the chance at cabinet will be enough to balance, but once out of power, sitting in opposition had no appeal. As a result, the Cameron had a terrible time finding talent in his first term after 10 years of opposition had thinned the ranks. The US Senate seems to always have been a playground for the rich, but the House shows a bit of this. AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos). The more stable Rs are busy making money and having happy lives.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos) AOC and Taylor-Greene are living their best lives in Congress. (Unlike Boebert, they're popular with their voters.) Closer to the centre you find cross-sector competence that is better remunerated in the private sector.
- afavour 3y ago
  Can't remember where I saw this now but IIRC in an interview AOC said she doesn't really enjoy serving in Congress all that much and wasn't sure how long she'd be doing it for. Could always just be saying that for effect, of course, but I'd imagine both AOC and MTG could quit tomorrow, get jobs as on-air analysts on cable news networks and make significantly more money (and probably have a better quality of life).
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    The hours suck, there's a lot of politicking (unsurprising), and if you're a junior member in either party you gotta pay your dues which takes forever. And there's a bit of unofficial hazing (eg. the freshman get the crappy offices with no AC, which is hell in DC during summer) Those who stick around either really believe in their cause, have a strong following back home, and/or have invested heavily in living in DC by buying a house or have family ties (eg. Pelosi)

thekevan 3y ago

When you take into account the charisma, contacts and drive it takes to become a member of Congress, someone like that is going to have a lot more opportunities that make more than $174k and involve a lot less hassle. Plus throw in having to maintain two places to live. If you come from an area with high real estate values, that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary Many freshman lawmakers live together in D.C. From what I've heard, it's both fun and productive, with the stories I've heard reminescent of start-ups' garage days.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I was about to comment that I basically agree with this, that since Congresspeople have to maintain both home state and DC residences that they should be reimbursed for the extra expense of needing to be in DC. However, then I found an article that said this already happened for this year: https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living-reimbursement-for-house-members https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living... So, basically, House members already got a raise of $34k this year. The fact this wasn't even mentioned in this businessinsider article makes me think Patrick McHenry should STFU.

alephnerd 3y ago
$34k after tax (which Congress members pay) becomes around $20k after tax, which does help a bit, but still makes it very expensive to maintain a 2nd residence in a city where Studios go for $2300-2500/mo and there isn't any rent control.
- millzlane 3y ago
  Sounds like they need to move to cheaper places and commute in like normal DMVers do.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    The hours on the Hill are insane. Starting work around 7-9am and finishing up by 8-9pm was fairly common. As such, you want to be close to work. It's essentially PM type hours without PM type pay. You easily earn more and work less hours as a GS 12-14 with much less stress (GS-15 sucks though because you start dealing with SES and Political Appointees)
    - azemetre 3y ago
      In no sane world is >$150k bad pay in any city in the USA. Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so. Maybe over time it will reduce the division between members when you’re forced to live with them and realize that they’re humans too. Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation, they shouldn’t be rewarded with more money. If I only shipped two features over two years at my job I’d be rightly fired. Certain members of Congress think that you can literally object to everything and grind things to halt then have the audacity to call this “government.” Force them to do their job and maybe they can discuss an additional raise (they already got one this year).

feverzsj 3y ago

How? $170k is at least upper middle class income.

strahan 3y ago

With today's technology, Congressmen should not be in Washington DC. Their only office needs to be in their home district that they represent. Set their pay based on a multiple of median income in their district. This should solve the pay issue and will get them focused on their constituents instead of special interest.