General Discussion

Panich52

(5,829 posts) Wed May 27, 2015, 10:37 AM May 2015

Democrats praise Hoyers call for lawmaker pay raise

The Hill

Democrats praise Hoyers call for lawmaker pay raise
By Cristina Marcos

House Democrats are defending Minority Whip Steny Hoyers call for a lawmaker pay raise, saying hes right to warn about Congress becoming dominated by the wealthy.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/243156-democrats-praise-hoyers-call-for-lawmaker-pay-raise

Sounds reasonable, until one remembers that there are already so many millionaires in Congress, and too many who abrogate their duties (like frequent, and top-billed no-show, Rubio). Oh, and let's not forget their perks, great healthcare coverage, and pension plan.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Democrats praise Hoyers call for lawmaker pay raise (Original Post) Panich52 May 2015 OP

well, that should go over like the proverbial lead balloon with the public rurallib May 2015 #1

Until we get a decent minimum living wage he can go suck eggs. hobbit709 May 2015 #2

Doesn't sound that reasonable to me. Erich Bloodaxe BSN May 2015 #3

rurallib

(62,448 posts)

1. well, that should go over like the proverbial lead balloon with the public

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 10:40 AM

May 2015

But then the public doesn't set the pay. 535 members of congress set their own pay.
Do I need to say how little respect congress has for the public?

hobbit709

(41,694 posts)

2. Until we get a decent minimum living wage he can go suck eggs.

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 10:43 AM

May 2015

Those bastards in congress have very little idea what the average American goes through to survive.
What a Congresscritter makes in a month is more than what I get on SS for a whole year.

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)

3. Doesn't sound that reasonable to me.

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Wed May 27, 2015, 10:44 AM

May 2015

In fact, I'd go the other way.

Require anyone who gets elected to Congress to liquidate 100% of any equities they hold, and ban them from having any market holdings as long as they're in office. It's a conflict of interest to have the people who make decisions that drastically change equity values have any involvement with the market. (And no, 'blind trusts' are not good enough.)

Let's see how many millionaires and multimillionaires would be running for office given those sorts of restrictions.

Reply to this discussion