AOC still thinks $174,000 isn't enough money for members of Congress

submitted by Drewski from (yahoo.com)

all 8 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Hematomato 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't agree with her, but I do understand the argument.

The argument is that Congresspeople are expected to undergo extremely high expenses, like $2000/plate dinners with CEOs and the like, private security details, expectations of wearing expensive clothes befitting their station, etc., and so as a result Congress is basically running on a "Bring Your Own Money" system.

And for that reason, no one who wasn't already rich can plausibly succeed as a Congressperson.

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'd argue that you want to pay your government officials and representatives well as it makes them less susceptible to bribes. Also makes them more keen on keeping the constituents happy and staying in office if they reap substantial benefits from that.

Also arguably as we all know that congressional salary isn't the real way that representatives make money and that they make way more money off of various investments, paying them more in salary would lessen their reliance on various corporate ties.

[–]Hematomato 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Those are all perfectly good points.

There's the other side of the argument, too, though - that we're supposed to be a democracy Of the People, For the People, and with that in mind our elected representatives really shouldn't be taking obscene amounts of taxpayer money to live like tycoons. They should be able to travel from the farm to D.C., serve for two years, and travel back to the farm.

And it kind of undoes everything the Revolution stood for to say "Okay, let's give up and acknowledge the truth: politics is a profession, and it's one of the highest-paid professions, and we're a people ruled by our social betters."

[–]Alienhunter 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The way I see it is that I'd rather my tax money go to paying a qualified representative of my choice to do the job I chose them for rather than have their finances reliant on other factors that may distract them from voting in the best interests of their constituents in order to pursue other more lucrative interests while they are in congress. We can have a discussion on what exactly constitutes an obscene salary, but I'd argue that congressional salaries are better off at being near competitive rates with what people can get in the private sector. Be that by pure salary or benefits.

Ideally I think it should be a volunteer unpaid position and the person goes back to their life afterwards but we don't live in an ideal world and I don't think that's a realistic expectation as it would limit congressional positions to those with means even more so than it already is.

The way I see it it's not necessarily a bad thing to consider that politics is a sort of career. But it's a position chosen by the people to represent their interests. In that aspect I think I'd prefer that congressional candidates are very well compensated for their services in the hopes it will attract more competent candidates who are more interested in the financial and material benefits of the position rather than the draw of power itself, partly because I think someone who is doing it for the salary will be more inclined to keep their constituents happy rather than bow to corporate interests as they have less financial inventives to bend an ear to the corporate interests if they are already independently wealthy.

The downside of lower paid positions is that I think it will essentially limit candidacy to the independently wealthy already and that other potentially more competent candidates will be more interested in more lucrative private sector positions to the net disadvantage of society as a whole.

I guess the way I see it is that it may be cheaper in the long run to simply pay significantly larger salaries to congressional members if that results in a congressional body that is far more sensitive to keeping their constituents happy and getting reelected over keeping their investors happy if that makes sense.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only reason to become a member of Congress is insider trading, which is illegal in every somewhat developed country.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Poor AOC

[–]Drewski[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

archive.today mirror

[–]Mark_Shill 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If she dressed like Fetterman, I might believe her