Congress Salary and Compensation Funded by State?

#26
#26
Tyler Durden said:
Pretty sure their main focus is always on getting reelected, so they're always keeping their constituents in mind. That's why a lot of the Republicans today and Democrats under Obama have/had a hard time going against the president.
Click to expand...
So you think the real power lies in the ballot box and not the source of their pay?

Assuming that’s correct I don’t agree with it and I’ll point to the re-election rate on incumbents as proving we the citizens don’t actually do that. But that could very well have been the insight the founding fathers were counting on and didn’t think we would become such party driven mindless sheep? That isn’t at you, I’m just lamenting the general voting patterns of the average generic citizen. It’s become party centric which I simply don’t believe was ever the intent.
 
#27
#27
Tyler Durden said:
I think when they are working in a federal capacity, making decisions, and creating policies that affect the entire nation, not just their constituents, then it makes sense that they are paid as federal employees.
Click to expand...

Ok but they represent their districts and states it would make sense for them to be compensated by their constituents.
 
#28
#28
hog88 said:
The FFs set it up to be a part time job so my guess is they never envisioned what congress would evolve into.
Click to expand...
I think that’s fair and likely. I just speculated they never imagined how we the voter would abdicate our responsibility to party lines.
 
#29
#29
Tyler Durden said:
I think when they are working in a federal capacity, making decisions, and creating policies that affect the entire nation, not just their constituents, then it makes sense that they are paid as federal employees.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should be more concerned about their constituents than the nation as a whole?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb
#30
#30
Tyler Durden said:
Pretty sure their main focus is always on getting reelected, so they're always keeping their constituents in mind. That's why a lot of the Republicans today and Democrats under Obama have/had a hard time going against the president.
Click to expand...
I infer from your post that you are saying that it is difficult for an individual member to buck party lines and focus on their constituents is that fair?
 
#31
#31
NorthDallas40 said:
I think that’s fair and likely. I just speculated they never imagined how we the voter would abdicate our responsibility to party lines.
Click to expand...

No I think they thought about that possibility and that’s why they made it hard to amend the constitution.
 
#32
#32
NorthDallas40 said:
So if I infer that the states send them to Congress you don’t want any special focus on their home state and to weigh all states equally and by separating their compensation from their state legislature they are not needlessly hindered in their legislative debates ? Is that a reasonable way to state your stance?

I am not trying to trap you I give you my word I’m just trying to expand on and infer from your post. We are just comparing opinions.
Click to expand...
It appears to me your stance is essentially saying that our senators and representatives would be more in tune with their electorate if they were being paid by the state they were elected from. I disagree because they are already being hired/rehired/fired by their electorate and thus ensuring they don't do anything that would go against the people who've elected them is by and large already their number 1 priority.

Every 2 or 6 years they are held accountable for the job they've done by their constituents. That wouldn't change no matter who's writing their paycheck. Since their actions as federally elected officials will affect the nation, I think it's appropriate they are paid by the federal government.
 
#33
#33
hog88 said:
No I think they thought about that possibility and that’s why they made it hard to amend the constitution.
Click to expand...
Ok fair enough they considered we’d become mindless and thus made the founding documents difficult to modify. And I think it’s pretty clear they didn’t intend it to be a full time job initially but honestly now it is. But since that “condition of employment” has changed I don’t see why their strings haven’t accordingly changed to keep their eye on the target focus wise. Which is to say constituents/state not political “club”
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#34
#34
Tyler Durden said:
It appears to me your stance is essentially saying that our senators and representatives would be more in tune with their electorate if they were being paid by the state they were elected from. I disagree because they are already being hired/rehired/fired by their electorate and thus ensuring they don't do anything that would go against the people who've elected them is by and large already their number 1 priority.

Every 2 or 6 years they are held accountable for the job they've done by their constituents. That wouldn't change no matter who's writing their paycheck. Since their actions as federally elected officials will affect the nation, I think it's appropriate they are paid by the federal government.
Click to expand...
I respectfully request you to go examine the incumbency re-election rate as to how we in general have vacated our oversight on their performance.

Reelection Rates Over the Years

01E6D87F-0A9B-4268-B3B2-F083BDB9C9A4.jpegCBA0C282-1DAB-44EA-A547-07E009124269.jpeg
 
#35
#35
NorthDallas40 said:
I infer from your post that you are saying that it is difficult for an individual member to buck party lines and focus on their constituents is that fair?
Click to expand...
Actually the reverse. I think the focus on their constituents makes it harder for them to buck party lines.

Now, the party influencing the way their constituents think and who to vote for definitely affects things, which is why the fear of being primaried is probably greater than the fear of losing to the opposing party for about 90% of them.
 
#36
#36
Tyler Durden said:
Actually the reverse. I think the focus on their constituents makes it harder for them to buck party lines.

Now, the party influencing the way their constituents think and who to vote for definitely affects things, which is why the fear of being primaried is probably greater than the fear of losing to the opposing party for about 90% of them.
Click to expand...
That sounds like your putting the crux of power on the party over the voter and the Reps are just dragging along. If so I won’t disagree with that basic premise I do believe the average voter has vacated their individual concerns to one of the two major political “clubs”
 
#37
#37
#39
#39
Tyler Durden said:
This doesn't have as much to do with our view of their performance as it does with gerrymandering and political warfare
Click to expand...
Gerrymandering is used to typically pick up seats not keep the ones you got. Sure it’s been used for it but that’s typically not why the map gets redrawn
 
#40
#40
volfanhill said:
Gerrymandering is used to typically pick up seats not keep the ones you got. Sure it’s been used for it but that’s typically not why the map gets redrawn
Click to expand...
And it’s largely driven by party dynamics. I’d go so far as to say if party agenda is vacated when it comes time to draw district lines I’ll bet the district shapes normalize fairly quickly.

The more I think about the compensation source coupled with the incumbency re-election rate which is tied to party funding support Im guessing this is just one area where the FF’s just didn’t project the power of party accurately. Parties of course existed at that time but the power of party funding over members of Congress whom tended to be fairly independent and wealthy just blew out of proportion in an exponential way over time I think. Now Congress isn’t quite as self made as they were back in the day and their pay is more of a factor. Which sadly their states don’t control. That’s where I think I’ve reached.
 
#41
#41
NorthDallas40 said:
So if I infer that the states send them to Congress you don’t want any special focus on their home state and to weigh all states equally and by separating their compensation from their state legislature they are not needlessly hindered in their legislative debates ? Is that a reasonable way to state your stance?

I am not trying to trap you I give you my word I’m just trying to expand on and infer from your post. We are just comparing opinions.
Click to expand...

I started out on your side, but Tyler actually has a point this time. I've even thought in the past that states should provide housing in DC for the state representatives, so maybe they could concentrate on the job rather than keeping up appearances and paying the outrageous DC cost of living. This couldn't come down to a bidding war for representatives- say GA pays better than TN, so that wouldn't be the problem. It does make sense that being in a legislative capacity for the entire country that the legislators should think of the country as a whole - states have their own legislature making state law. But you do have to wonder if thinking that way paved the way for federalism, and to me federalism is the great undoing of the county. Interesting topic with thought provoking posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#42
#42
NorthDallas40 said:
And it’s largely driven by party dynamics. I’d go so far as to say if party agenda is vacated when it comes time to draw district lines I’ll bet the district shapes normalize fairly quickly.

The more I think about the compensation source coupled with the incumbency re-election rate which is tied to party funding support Im guessing this is just one area where the FF’s just didn’t project the power of party accurately. Parties of course existed at that time but the power of party funding over members of Congress whom tended to be fairly independent and wealthy just blew out of proportion in an exponential way over time I think. Now Congress isn’t quite as self made as they were back in the day and their pay is more of a factor. Which sadly their states don’t control. That’s where I think I’ve reached.
Click to expand...

The state/party relationship is not unlike the company/union relationship. Serving dual masters is a problem and a conflict of interests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#43
#43
AM64 said:
I started out on your side, but Tyler actually has a point this time. I've even thought in the past that states should provide housing in DC for the state representatives, so maybe they could concentrate on the job rather than keeping up appearances and paying the outrageous DC cost of living. This couldn't come down to a bidding war for representatives- say GA pays better than TN, so that wouldn't be the problem. It does make sense that being in a legislative capacity for the entire country that the legislators should think of the country as a whole - states have their own legislature making state law. But you do have to wonder if thinking that way paved the way for federalism, and to me federalism is the great undoing of the county. Interesting topic with thought provoking posts.
Click to expand...

Ok all fair points. Take congress back to a part time job, paid accordingly with no benefits. Fed government build some dorms with cafeterias and eliminate per diem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tbwhhs and AM64
#44
#44
AM64 said:
I started out on your side, but Tyler actually has a point this time. I've even thought in the past that states should provide housing in DC for the state representatives, so maybe they could concentrate on the job rather than keeping up appearances and paying the outrageous DC cost of living. This couldn't come down to a bidding war for representatives- say GA pays better than TN, so that wouldn't be the problem. It does make sense that being in a legislative capacity for the entire country that the legislators should think of the country as a whole - states have their own legislature making state law. But you do have to wonder if thinking that way paved the way for federalism, and to me federalism is the great undoing of the county. Interesting topic with thought provoking posts.
Click to expand...
And here’s why I challenge that. Congress is negotiating law for the entire country I agree. But Reps from one state should be negotiating with a focus on their states needs and each states Reps do this. I do not believe the Reps primary focus should be country I think it should be state. When all of that gets mashed up and a policy drops out by definition it should be representative of what’s best for the largest ensemble of states if the Reps kept their focus right?

With regard to your point on state legislatures defining state focus yes I absolutely agree with that. In fact most of the legislation I interact with routinely should be state level not fed.

I’m wondering if the Reps were more beholding to the states maybe we could get back to more of a “do we really need another damn federal law on this” vs “we must enact national legislation to address this issue!” 🤷‍♂️ I think that’s largely federalism in a nutshell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#45
#45
NorthDallas40 said:
And here’s why I challenge that. Congress is negotiating law for the entire country I agree. But Reps from one state should be negotiating with a focus on their states needs and each states Reps do this. I do not believe the Reps primary focus should be country I think it should be state. When all of that gets mashed up and a policy drops out by definition it should be representative of what’s best for the largest ensemble of states if the Reps kept their focus right?

With regard to your point on state legislatures defining state focus yes I absolutely agree with that. In fact most of the legislation I interact with routinely should be state level not fed.

I’m wondering if the Reps were more beholding to the states maybe we could get back to more of a “do we really need another damn federal law on this” vs “we must enact national legislation to address this issue!” 🤷‍♂️ I think that’s largely federalism in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

I thought pretty much the way you do, but then I realized that somebody still has to think of governing the country as a whole. Interstate commerce is an example - maybe not a great or the best one, but just looking at transportation - standardization of roads so that trucks can get from one coast to another. That requires legislating for the country as a whole rather than what a state wants. What CA is trying to do right now with trucking laws needs to be slapped down because it has the potential to interfere with commerce entering the country on the left coast and movement to the remaining states.
 
#48
#48
AM64 said:
I thought pretty much the way you do, but then I realized that somebody still has to think of governing the country as a whole. Interstate commerce is an example - maybe not a great or the best one, but just looking at transportation - standardization of roads so that trucks can get from one coast to another. That requires legislating for the country as a whole rather than what a state wants. What CA is trying to do right now with trucking laws needs to be slapped down because it has the potential to interfere with commerce entering the country on the left coast and movement to the remaining states.
Click to expand...
Oh I don’t disagree that there needs to be some focused legislation at the national level im just not sure it wouldn’t fall out naturally anyway. Just my opinion I don’t have any real facts on it 🤷‍♂️
 
#50
#50
NorthDallas40 said:
So first off I know this is a pipe dream and is still born before it goes anywhere.

But can somebody tell me why the compensation package for Congress doesn’t come from the states they represent? I mean they don’t represent “the people” they represent their district or state. So why doesn’t their compensation package come from their state? And why doesn’t their state legislature control the package makeup? And why can’t each state set limits on gifts to their Congressional representatives. Don’t get me started on the crooks controlling their own salary and benefits package.

But why the federal budget? They’re supposed to work for their state. I mean... historically people pay attention to who writes their paycheck right? 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
If you want to go one step further, I'm sure you would be opposed to the 17th Amendment.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top