exc-54f1c11ae4b0d786dd059edd
The President of the United States is paid $400,000 per year.
Most Congresspeople are paid $174,000 per year; the Speaker of the House makes $223,500.
This puts our national elected officials squarely in the top 5% of income earners, and the President is a “One-Percenter.” About $100M is spent on Congressional salary every year.
Does this feel like too much, or not enough?
Often people from both sides of the aisle bemoan how much congresspeople make. Maybe it puts them out of touch; maybe it means congress is able to compete with the market for talent and experience.
Both sides often cite another problem with Congress: monetary kickbacks from lobbyists and other interest groups.
Something to consider: if we reduced Congressional pay, might that make those kickbacks from lobbyists more alluring?
Might we consider paying Congress more in order to make them less interested in private money? What if they were paid $1M/year? How about $5M? What might the consequences be for the behavior of politicians? Might it have a positive impact on the influence of lobbying and graft, or would it be a waste of money? Could it be offset by reductions in pork-barrel spending, or perhaps by an economy made stronger by better regulations?
What do you think Congresspeople and the President should be paid? Drop a comment with your thoughts.
Are your views different from your friends or other acquaintances? Why do you think this is? What do you agree on?
Ukrainian victories on the ground have been swift, dramatic, and devastating. And each win seems…
The Russians just got whipped. What the heck happened?
Mark Schauss is the host of Russian Rulers History and Battle Ground History. Known for…
https://play.acast.com/s/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62f43f685dc1ea00136539f2 Hot Updates Severodonetsk fell slowly as expected, but then Lysychansk fell quickly because Russian…
https://embed.acast.com/d1a6ddca-f102-4b5c-8d87-630132fe5aaa/62d0a6529385dd0012e405d1 Lots of ways we can split this. Much has been discussed about decoupling of…
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the…
View Comments
I contend that there is no amount of money you could pay congresspeople that would disincentivize them from taking lobbying kickbacks, especially since one of those kickbacks is the prospect of continued lucrative employment after they leave congress (at which point the salary of congresspeople will be irrelevant to them).
We don't pay NSA employees millions to prevent them from giving up state secrets for money; they have a sense of duty and a healthy fear of consequences for breaching the trust placed in them (speaking from personal experience). Congress would benefit from a similar set of motivators.
I do think it's dangerous to pay them too little -- so little that they must stress about day-to-day living and putting food on the table instead of thinking creatively about solving the country's problems. Here's something to consider: peg their salary to the median income in the United States.
Er, this was meant as a reply to you:
"Last line -> mind = blown."
Most people do not get into public service for the salary. Unfortunately, the ones we WANT to get into public service won't do it because the private sector pays better. The best and brightest, generally, go into business. If we mean to attract them, we need to offer salaries competitive with big companies. OTOH, since there are so many people willing to spend millions of their own money to try and get a place in the history books, it may be impossible to get talented people to consider the job unless they have other goals as well.
Last line -> mind = blown.