Now that we're destroying public employee unions, can we get rid of lawmaker's benefits?

[shcrane71]

As long as we're destroying the health and retirement benefits of our teachers, police, firefighters, and other public workers, why should taxpayers foot the bill for elected official's healthcare and retirement benefits?

[Politicalboi]

1. Yes

That would be a real good idea. And if they get caught in an affair, it shuts off immediately if found guilty. And we should have them take a pay cut too. And they shouldn't get a pension either.

[CTyankee]

4. And how about increasing their work days with no corresponding salary increase AND

a penalty for NOT acting on legislation when they certainly can and docking their pay for obstructionism.

[drm604]

2. This is a very good question.

Somebody should ask Scott Walker this. I wonder what his particular civil service job pays compared to teachers. Has he agreed to any benefit cuts for himself?

[cali]

3. uh, seeing as the lawmakers themselves are the ones who control their benefits, how would you

suggest doing this?

More fantasy. Kind of a ridiculous pastime.

[drm604]

5. It makes a great talking point.

It's not a waste of time or ridiculous to put them on the spot with questions like this.

[TheKentuckian]

6. If the pay was zero with no benefits how would that benefit us?

We may as well officially declare that only the independently wealthy are welcome to hold office.

I don't see who the talking point is supposed to be reaching and what behavior it is supposed to motivate.

Sounds like standard tit for tatism that plays a big part in why things keep falling off.

[shcrane71]

11. I've been making that same point to people for years, Kentuckian.

But do you really know any elected official nowadays who isn't well-off? Maybe at the local or state level, but I can only think of one legislator in Nebraska who actually lives off his salary, until they ran him out of the Unicameral. His pawltry wages are on par with that of most of his constituents, and he actually votes for the interest of his constituents.

[drm604]

13. Totally missing the point. The point isn't that they shouldn't have the pay and perks

the point is that they shouldn't begrudge such things to other government workers while having them themselves.

[shcrane71]

23. Or if they actively work to take away the perks of others, then they shouldn't get

the same or better perks -- as elected officials.

[shcrane71]

8. Hi Cali, wouldn't Californians be able to put this up to a vote?

They seem to vote on just about anything under the sun including who can or cannot have civil rights.

[cali]

10. I don't know. I just know that as far as Congress goes, they regulate their own pay and benefits.

[shcrane71]

12. If anyone can get past the screeners, it's a question for a call in talk show.

It's good to remind Americans that these people vote to give themselves raises and extra benefits.

[nineteen50]

7. No pension. S.S.and medicare at 65.

[spanone]

9. k&r...

[CrispyQ]

14. An excellent talking point!

Now, can we put it on a bumper sticker?

[stevenleser]

15. While I understand why you would say this, understand the problem that comes along with it.

It means that only the wealthy will be able to afford being lawmakers. This is above and beyond getting elected. It means that a middle class person literally cannot afford to spend time being in elected office.

[shcrane71]

17. How many elected officials are working class, even at the state level?

Definitely no one in the Senate is working class. The House is primarily wealthy individuals. Most of your State reps are also rather well off. They don't need taxpayers subsidizing their bloated benefits when they fight tirelessly to make sure we don't have access to healthcare.

[stevenleser]

19. A lot of people in state legislatures and state senates are working class.

What you would be doing by taking this action is ensuring for all time state and local governments with only wealthy people. No one else would ever be able to afford it

[shcrane71]

20. If they have jobs that they can leave for that amount of time, then their jobs

most likely have benefits. There's no need for taxpayers to pay for the Fitzgeralds or Paul Ryan's health benefits while their ensuring that teachers, clerks, firefighters get the same crappy benefits as those in the private sector. Fair is fair.

[Kablooie]

16. Buzzt. Wrong.

The lawmakers are saving the government money so they should be rewarded with higher benefits.

[shcrane71]

18. Lol... maybe we should pay them bonuses for every piece of corporate give away legislation.

[JHB]

21. Nope. I'm not in favor of making them completely dependent on financial backers

If you take that away, you guarantee monied interests will step in to ease their burdens, while eliminating the potential for anyone not independently wealthy to stay out of someone's pocket.

the short-term savings would be satisfying, but the long-term costs are crippling.

[shcrane71]

22. So, it's for everyone else, Social Security, Medicare, and private health insurance is fine

but elected public officials must have healthcare with no deductibles, no co-pays, and premiums subsidized by the taxpayer?

No one said anything about making lawmakers work for free. Lawmakers have interns for that.

[JHB]

24. No, it's not fine, but you didn't address my point

How much will this save, vs how much will it cost when "charity" helps pay for his or her child's medical problem, or making it even more attractive to rely on sugar daddies to ensure a comfortable retirement?

It's bad enough now. I don't see the point of encouraging their hooks to dig in even deeper.

[shcrane71]

25. If lawmakers have to turn to charity to pay their medical bills, I think that we'll

get a single payer system lickity split.

[JHB]

26. Why would they pass that? /Their/ "charities" would always be well-funded...

...since there'd always be lobbyists, corporations, and influence-seekers of all types willing to contribute. A donation and an investment! Double plus for them!

Thus my use of the quote marks around the word "charities". That's what it would be called, but it wouldn't be the same charity as for the rest of us.

[shcrane71]

28. The powerful and wealthy will always have better healthcare, but taxpayers shouldn't have to

foot the bill for extravagances that the majority of Americans can't afford.

[JHB]

29. Except the point is that health coverage and retirement are not "extravagances"

They will not lose anything if you take it away. Others will do that and you will simply normalize that situation, more than it already is, while simultaneously removing a) the most convenient tool for highlighting the hypocrisy and b) one of the few ways we have for a politician trying to stay independent to do so.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it may seem fair and satisfying, but in the end it's counterproductive. It just lets the claws dig in deeper.

[shcrane71]

30. Apparently, health ins. & retirement are extravagances for teachers, firefighters & workers,

but not for your state and federal lawmakers. Who's digging their claws in deeper? Those in power? Like those who can make laws? Or do elected officials no longer have any power?

[JHB]

32. Reread # 26 above

If you don't understand how monied interests buy access and influence, there's no point in continuing this conversation.

[HiPointDem]

27. good question. let them buy their own in the private market, if that's what they're imposing on

everyone else.

[shcrane71]

31. Exactly. Why should taxpayers have to subsidize their hypocrisy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. "Some animals are more equal than others." George Orwell

[YellowRubberDuckie]

34. We just need to collect enough signatures on a petition to get it on the ballot.

Let's see how quickly people lower the wages and benefits their legislatures and then let's see how quickly they straighten their shit up.