Time To Pay Congress Per Diem For ONLY Time They Are In Session On The Floor

[TheMastersNemesis]

We need to change the Congressional pay system for work done. Because the GOP in particular has so little session time it is time to do "pay for performance" like they demand for every one else including teachers. They only work about 20% of the time and that is all they should get paid for.

In the private sector employers demand that they pay you only for the time on duty or for what you do like piece work. Congress should operate under the same system. The same politicians who complain about unions, overpaid workers et al are the same politicians who do not do any work at all or very little.

Demand full time work for full time pay of Congress. See how they like that. In fact put them on the clock and make them time check in for their hearings and when they go on the floor. Make them time clock in when they go to their office. Then add up their hours on duty and pay them accordingly just like ordinary working people.

Give them two weeks paid vacation, the same sick leave and health care they give their constituents. Why should they be any different than any working person.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. They shouldn't be paid at all. They should get a travel stipend (coach) and not much else. nt

[former9thward]

7. So only the 1% could be Congresspeople.

What a bright idea....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. That's what we already have. Or we have professional grifters who use government power

to enrich themselves. Fat checks and perks didn't seem to do much to keep Eric Cantor middle class.

[Plucketeer]

32. I agree!

Their public salary is inconsequential against the under-the-table and after-life rewards. A fraction of a percent of "elected" officials truly KNOW the folks in their districts. Most only know their constituents with respect to the political makeup of their districts. Nothing else about them matters!

[Jamastiene]

35. Uhm, wake up.

That is how it already is. Think you or I would stand a chance to be able to get to their position? Think again. Only the 1% is allowed any power in this country now, as it is.

Quit fucking paying them so damn much and letting them decide their own pay and give themselves raises whenever they damn well please. And hell no to the paid vacation option mentioned in the OP. Fuck them. They don't deserve a vacation until they actually do some work first. If the 99% tried to act like they do, we wouldn't have a job for more than a minute. Fuck them. Make them do it for free until they learn they actually have a job to do and start doing the damn job.

[former9thward]

59. Uhm, wake up yourself.

As others have said in this thread Congress sets their salaries and are given that right in the Constitution. So go change it.

[Codeine]

12. It's already skewed to the independently wealthy.

That will just cement things for the rich having a permanent stranglehold.

[MineralMan]

20. It is. From time to time, a regular sort of working person

gets elected to Congress, but that's rare. State legislatures, on the other hand, often have ordinary folks in them. It's costly to be a member of the House of Representatives or Senate. Maintaining two residences, and all that sort of thing. The few working stiffs who get elected often have a tough time, financially, serving in Congress.

Anyhow, suggestions like the one in the OP are usually ill-considered, overall. It's nice to think about cutting off funds to people in Congress, but it isn't a practical suggestion, really, for very many reasons. What we really need is to elect representatives who will represent us well. But that takes a lot of hard work.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Jamastiene]

36. No, it will not.

The rich won't budge to do a damn thing if lots of money isn't attached to the prospect. They wont' go into public office if there is no money for them there. Maybe someone in the 99% might stand a chance without them hogging all the positions for themselves.

[bottomofthehill]

26. They actually do travel in coach.

If they want an upgrade to business or first, they use airline miles or use upgrade coupons that they buy with their personal money.

Most Members contend they work much harder when they are at home than they do in Washington. When they are in DC, they are treated like little princes and princesses, the staff tends to their needs, when at home, they are tending to their constituents which can be exhausting (but it is what they are elected for). I love it when they are home for the month of August and they all come back to DC for some love. It is hard work being a Congressman at home.

[Veilex]

34. "They shouldn't be paid at all."

While that certainly has an emotional appeal to it, particularly when we see all the corruption that is going on, eliminating their paycheck would only make the situation worse... not better. Everyone wants (and needs) to get paid for the work they do...even if it is something they love doing... we've all got bills.

If politicians didn't get paid through their job, they'd make extra effort to make sure they got paid through bribes, loop-holes, junkets, campaign financing, etc. Eliminating pay for politicians wouldn't stop corruption... it would make it exponentially worse.

[Jamastiene]

37. Lol, then the right wing would never get paid at all.

If they get paid for the work that they do, the right wing does nothing. The Repubs and Teabaggers just obstruct. They do not work.

[Veilex]

41. "then the right wing would never get paid at all"

That'd be truly glorious wouldn't it? A merit based pay system? Pay them a base rate that increases based off actual work performed?
Ahhh what a dream that'd be.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Or they could have day jobs.

We nailed Capone because he was living outside his declared income.

[Veilex]

58. Works for me!

[SummerSnow]

2. They are no different than any other working person

and they get away with soon much. Spend our tax dollars on foolishness. But they call us lazy. They should just get per diem pay.Best we can do is vote them out of office.Unfortunately, they keep getting re-elected.

[Cleita]

3. Here, here.

Yes, just give them an hourly wage and make them punch a clock like everyone else.

[MineralMan]

18. There, there.

I can't see that working out very well at all. Besides, Congress sets its own pay. That's in the Constitution, where you can find all sorts of nifty facts about how our government works and how to change that. I highly recommend a read-through from time to time.

[Cleita]

19. You don't get irony, do you?

[MineralMan]

21. No? I use an irony frequently.

It's a great way to get the wrinkles out of my clothes.

[Jamastiene]

38. That still doesn't make it right.

It's bullshit that they get to decide their own pay and give themselves raises whenever they damn well please. Yes, it is in the Constitution as you point out. That still doesn't make it right though.

[MineralMan]

44. OK. So what's the plan to change that?

I'm all for making changes to improve things. So, if you think it would improve things to pay Congress in a different way, how do you propose to make that happen?

We either have a system of government or we don't. It's quite apparent that we do have such a system, and it's set up in the Constitution. That system includes the means of change, as well. So, either we change things according to the system that is in place or what?

What is being suggested regarding Congressional pay can't be accomplished, given the system that is in place. Without discussing whether or not that change is a good idea, how would such a change be made? I'm merely stating what should be obvious to anyone who knows how the government works. There is no existing mechanism that allows us to change congressional pay.

So, any discussion about how to make that change must include some idea of how it might happen. I've not seen any discussion of the means of changing the way Congress members are paid. Ideas for things without any means of implementation are just idle chatter.

What we can do, though, is elect new members of Congress. There's an election this November that can accomplish that very thing. Why are we not talking about how to make those changes happen by using the means available to us?

GOTV 2014 and Beyond! That's how we change things. That's not idle chatter. That's a recipe for change.

[daredtowork]

4. At the prevailing minimum wage they vote for. nt

[Jamastiene]

40. Exactly.

Let them earn what they think the rest of us should have to earn. They'll fix that shit in a heartbeat if they have to face just grocery store prices alone on minimum wage. Never mind if they have to pay rent on minimum wage while they are at it. Just the grocery store prices are enough to take a paycheck and that's if you are eating the cheap unhealthy shit. Try eating healthy on minimum wage. It's impossible if you also have rent and other crap to pay for just for your basic needs. I get so sick of them telling us minimum wage is good enough as is while they wear suits that cost more than several months of rent prices alone.

[daredtowork]

62. Let them also have to make themselves available at all hours of the day while

only being called/paid a few hours of the day.

[oldandhappy]

5. YES!!!

or put them on a time clock at minimum wage.

[Democrats_win]

6. Treat them like they treat us?

For 35 years these dirty MFs have tried to screw working people out of their wages with schemes such as contract labor, split shifts, or frozen wages. Don't forget how Wal-mart would change people's time cards.

Certainly the ideas mentioned in the original post are great ideas whose time has come. Yet given that they do absolutely nothing for the American people these dirty jerks should be fired! Pronto!

[Jamastiene]

42. Personally, I'm ready to go sharpen my pitchfork, literally.

No joking. They need to be put on minimum wage until they see why their idea of what minimum wage should be is bullshit. When they finally get the insult that minimum wage is, only then should they get paid more....and it should STILL be only minimum wage that they get paid. See how quick they fix it if they know THEY have to live on it.

[BrotherIvan]

8. And put it up to a vote of the people who elect them how much they get paid

If I could vote for my own raises, I would be rather wealthy by now.

[Andy823]

9. I would agree

I also would end their retirement perks, and let them rely on SS like everyone else, same with health care let them get their own and find the best deals they can for their income level. Set their wages then no more raises unless they increase the minimum wage for the entire country. No work no pay, and going home to raise money and try to convince those in their districts to vote for them, well no pay of that either. Only pay them when they are in D.C. and working.

Only problem is that they are the ones that have to make these changes and they will ever end the "gravy train" they have now. All that is left is to vote the crooks out of office and find replacements that will actually work for the people.

[MineralMan]

10. Congress sets its own pay. That's in the Constitution,

a document I suggest everyone read closely and on an annual basis. It doesn't take long, and helps with understanding just how this country's government works.

While this isn't a bad idea, there's no way to implement it, aside from electing a Congress that will vote to cut their own pay. I don't see that happening, frankly.

[Trajan]

11. OK ... I'll put you down as a NO

Got it ....

[MineralMan]

15. Actually, I don't think you do get it.

What you or I think about congressional pay is irrelevant. We don't get to decide, nor is there any mechanism for changing how it payment is set for Congress other than Congress setting it's own pay. Changes take effect for the next Congress.

What I don't get is that so many people seem not to understand how our government works. It's all in the Constitution. I can't imagine how anyone would have the idea that there was a way to change how Congress is paid in this country. There isn't. A Constitutional Amendment would be required. How the Constitution is amended is also described in the Constitution.

A better idea than yours is to pay close attention to congressional elections and work really, really hard to elect representatives and Senators who will do a good job. That's something we can do.

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[Trajan]

25. No ... I do get it ... It's easy

"Shut up!" ...

[MineralMan]

28. Funny. I replied to the person who made the

original post in this thread. I told nobody to shut up. I simply explained the reality of Congressional pay. See, the thing is that I don't have any ability to make people shut up on DU. All I can do is speak for myself. Anyone, including people who haven't said another word in a thread, can reply to a post I make as a reply.

I'm not telling you to shut up, either. I would never do that. I'm here to participate in a discussion, and I assume everyone else is here for the same reason. So, what would you like to say about Congressional pay? That's the subject of this thread. What's your opinion about that?

[Veilex]

39. "No ... I do get it ... It's easy "Shut up!" ..."

That seems a bit of a stretch... and seems more like picking a fight than joining the conversation.

[Jamastiene]

46. The funny thing about that idea is that

you don't seem to mind that only certain preselected people are even allowed to be on the ballots in the first place. Or that those certain preselected people are always those who will keep the status quo and not really work on anything that would even slightly help the other 99% of us. You don't seem to mind that at all. Why is that?

[MineralMan]

48. While that often occurs, it is not always the case.

In our state legislatures and congressional elections, it is up to the people in each district to select their own candidates for office. There's a process in place to do exactly that. Here in my own Congressional district, we selected a woman a few years ago to run for the House of Representatives. She won that election, and continues to represent our district. Her name is Betty McCollum. The district is MN CD-4. You can look her up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_McCollum

She does an excellent job, and is a progressive person. We elected her. We selected her as our candidate in caucuses and district conventions. Other people also sought the office, but the voters in her district selected her. Those who came to precinct caucus meetings and attended the district convention selected her. We endorsed her candidacy and she won the primary election and then the general election.

Was she preselected? Of course she was. By the people who live, work and vote in that district.

Every member of Congress is elected in a district of approximately the same population. Different states use different methods for selecting candidates, but it is the people in each district who actually decide.

That is why GOTV is such a powerful means of activism. It works. It gets people elected. It can overpower other mechanisms and elect people who deserve to be in office, but only if it is used. If it is ignored, then you get what you get. So, my final word is:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

Hint: You have to start long before the actual election if you want your candidate to win. The primaries are over now. It's too late to select new candidates for 2014. It has to be an ongoing thing, done way back before the primaries.

[tabbycat31]

51. It all varies by state (and county)

But in my state, there are county level conventions to get the 'county line' (X county Democrats/Republicans), which almost guarantees that a candidate wins the primary. Candidates can run 'off the line' but it's rare they make it through (happens more on the GOP side). Primaries get interesting when there is more than one county in the district and they endorse different candidates.

Speaking for my own county, which is fairly red, most of the time, whoever steps forward to run for X office will get the line. It's very rare when you have more than 1 person go for the same race. The county Dems also have an interview process for candidates to go through before they'll get the line (they basically want to know you are willing to put in the work it takes to run-- ie knock doors and raise $$$).

It's not as strict with the local offices (mayor, council, school board, etc). If you want to get start, I suggest running for a local office as many politicos see them as a farm system.

[Jamastiene]

43. Lol, as always.

Thanks for the straightforward reply. More people should do that.

[Iamthetruth]

13. I don't think they should be paid at all

That way the people that go, go for the right reasons.

[Action_Patrol]

52. Right?

Which reasons would those be? You really believe congress shouldn't be paid?

[Iamthetruth]

64. Nope

Congress was never suppose to be a full time job and a way to make a living. Get a real job.

[Action_Patrol]

65. Welcome to the future

It is a real job. For you to say that, you've got no concept of what representation entails.
You may not like most (or any) members of congress but the ones I know absolutely work a full time job.

[NCTraveler]

14. No thanks. Very poor thought.

Would not only hurt us in our representation more than is currently being done, it also shows a serious lack of understand with what they do.

[Mass]

16. Disagree,. This is the best way to have congress populated by rich idiots on both sides

Pay them enough that they do not think to get work in the private sector (where most of them could earn more), and HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE. Primary them, run people AGAINST THE OTHER PARTY.

But while the extreme schedule of the congress this year reflects more the need to fund raise and the fact the leadership knew they could not govern their caucus, it is not unreasonable to have people return to their district to TALK to constituants rather than governing in a vaccuum.

[hobbit709]

31. We already have it populated by rich idiots on both sides.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

17. Good idea.

[surrealAmerican]

22. The less we pay them, the more they will depend on other sources for their income.

The more they depend on other sources, the less responsive they will be to us.

Is this really what you want?

[appleannie1]

23. They don't do anything even when they are there.

[joanbarnes]

24. Fantastic idea. I have been paid on production for ten years now. If I want to make more money,

I must be more efficient. When I was hourly, literally every second of my time on the clock was monitored.

[adieu]

27. The problem with politicians everywhere, not just congress

is that while we hire and pay them as employees, they're working on the side with the competitor! Imagine you're hired at company X and being paid by X. At the same time, you only work 20% of the time and the rest of the time, you head over to competitor Y and work there as well. That's politicians in a nutshell. And Y is paying you a helluva lot more than X is paying you.

What is needed is more supervisory control. What would a company, company X say, do? First, once it is found that you're also working for Y, you're immediately terminated. Second, you're prevented from heading back to company X to meet up with former colleagues. Sure, you can meet with them outside of work. But if that's found, that person is also fired. With enough firings, people won't want to associate with you (or them) anymore.

Unfortunately, most citizens are not employers and don't know how to handle employees when the employees break rules.

[rhett o rick]

30. I appreciate your dreaming. IMO Congress couldn't care less how much we pay them. They

don't answer to us. Did you see the recent study that concluded that the common person and little or no effect on government?

[Jamastiene]

33. Pay them minimum wage.

That's all they really earn. There is nothing that damn special about any of them that they deserve more than minimum wage. See how fast they change minimum wage to a nice hefty living wage if they have to earn only that. Honestly, I still think it is an outrage they they get to decide their own pay and decide to give themselves pay raises whenever they want to.

Don't give them paid fucking vacation though. The don't deserve that. They should do community service 2 weeks a year like they tell us to do in lieu of a damn vacation. Fuck them.

[TheMastersNemesis]

45. I Realize Congress Sets Its Own Pay By Constitution. They Screw Workers & Demand Accountability ---

for everyone else. And look at how nasty they are toward teachers who have little control of the kids they get. They refuse to help workers particularly GOPPERS. What is good for theGoose is good of the gander. In a way I was being facetious because I know what I said will never happen.

[Ghost in the Machine]

47. Recommended and it has my vote if we can get it on a ballot! n/t

[LiberalLovinLug]

49. the bigger problem behind a vacant Congress is no public financing.

Most members of Congress and the Senate must spend more and more of their time away from DC trying to fund raise and meeting big corporate donors. And it seems to only cost more and more to run every year. Even the most liberal reps must spend the majority of their time begging for money.

[Kaleva]

50. That would pretty much eliminate traveling around the district to meet constituents

The average Joe or Jane can't afford to travel to Washington D.C. to have a face to face meeting with their rep or Senator.

I see this suggestion as giving the very well off even more of an advantage.

[drray23]

54. used to be that way

Congress used to be exactly that way. Per Diem for during times in session. It was the case from 1789 to 1815 (according to wikipedia).

So I guess the RW should agree to it since they always want to go back to the founders..

Now, the democrats are not all lily white in that either. The vast majority of congress are already 1%ers. Until we actually get rid citizen united and seriously curtail the power of lobbies, nothing will change.

[hughee99]

55. As long as the GOP is running congress, the more time they spend out of session, the better. n/t

[LittleBlue]

56. I'd offer congresscritters a $1m per year salary

and $2m per year retirement for life. In exchange, they agree to engage in no other moneymaking activities. No salaries, no investments, no economic gain of any kind besides their retirement and salaries.

It would cost a few billion extra per year but would more than repay itself by removing the incentive of bribery after resignation. It would also encourage turnover in congress, with most probably only wanting to serve one term and then retire. A 100% constitutional way to get term limits.

I haven't taken much time to consider the pitfalls, but none come to mind right now. Maybe someone else can shoot.

[riqster]

57. I like it. Kick.

[JCMach1]

60. How about MERIT PAY?

i.e. pay them nothing...

[dumbcat]

61. Do you think that they are not working

when they are back at their district office talking to their constituents (like, maybe, you)?

Aren't they supposed to listen to their people and get to know their opinions and concerns?

My rep is available to talk to me when he is back in my district and has pretty regular office hours.

[mopinko]

63. simple solution for a complex problem. almost always wrong.

my rep works her buns off every day. i have no desire to punish the good one to hurt the bad ones.

the solution is called elections.