Retiring GOP Lawmaker: $174,000 Isn't Enough Money for Us

I was about to comment that I basically agree with this, that since Congresspeople have to maintain both home state and DC residences that they should be reimbursed for the extra expense of needing to be in DC.<p>However, then I found an article that said <i>this already happened</i> for this year: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.closeup.org&#x2F;a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living-reimbursement-for-house-members" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.closeup.org&#x2F;a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living...</a><p>So, basically, House members already got a raise of $34k this year. The fact this wasn&#x27;t even mentioned in this businessinsider article makes me think Patrick McHenry should STFU.

For the amount of power Congresspeople command, $174k is definitely meager pay.<p>That’s why the position tends to attract already wealthy people seeking prestige and power or normal individuals who use it as a stepping stone to million-dollar book deals or cushy jobs in the private sector.

When you take into account the charisma, contacts and drive it takes to become a member of Congress, someone like that is going to have a lot more opportunities that make more than $174k and involve a lot less hassle.<p>Plus throw in having to maintain two places to live. If you come from an area with high real estate values, that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary.

The deal seems obvious: parcel a pay raise for the Congress with anti-corruption measures. Perhaps even a revolving-door cool-down period (together with paid gardening leave).<p>These are senior decision makers. Going to Congress shouldn&#x27;t mean not being able to build wealth by simply doing your job.

With today&#x27;s technology, Congressmen should not be in Washington DC. Their only office needs to be in their home district that they represent. Set their pay based on a multiple of median income in their district. This should solve the pay issue and will get them focused on their constituents instead of special interest.

I mean, I kind of agree. It&#x27;s not that much money especially if you have to bounce around between your home city and DC. But at the same time, I wish government compensation was tied to measurable targets like the health of the economy, etc. There isn&#x27;t really any incentive for people in government to do anything other than campaign for reelection and coast.

How? $170k is at least upper middle class income.

I remember someone explaining in the before times how this was a real fault line between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. For most of the Conservatives, working as an MP was a cut in pay vs their opportunities; while for many members in Labour, MP was the best paid job and pension they&#x27;d had. While in government, the perqs of power and the chance at cabinet will be enough to balance, but once out of power, sitting in opposition had no appeal. As a result, the Cameron had a terrible time finding talent in his first term after 10 years of opposition had thinned the ranks.<p>The US Senate seems to always have been a playground for the rich, but the House shows a bit of this. AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos). The more stable Rs are busy making money and having happy lives.

Tie congress’s pay to the minimum wage (e.g 7 x minimum wage). If they can’t afford to live imagine the large portion of society working making a tiny fraction of what they do.