119th U.S. Congress: Good LORD what is Happening in There?

[Lyltia]

I will turn the argument around and argue that if you give somebody a job with all these levers of power but pay them shit, (and yes, their current pay package is kinda shit if you don’t arrive in Washington pre-wealthy), expecting anything other than rampant corruption is just silly.

Obviously we can’t just triple their salaries and expect everything to get better.

[Meresgi]

I will turn the argument around and argue that if you give somebody a job with all these levers of power but pay them shit, (and yes, their current pay package is kinda shit if you don’t arrive in Washington pre-wealthy), expecting anything other than rampant corruption is just silly.

Obviously we can’t just triple their salaries and expect everything to get better.

I mean we're already at rampant corruption now so... I agree the shit is complicated now compared to in the past and they should get paid for it but it's not hard work and there's 0 reason they couldn't be doing this AND having another full time job to help their compensation. Honestly though term limits is all we really need, can pay them w/e but get them the fuck out after a set amount of years or at a max year of age setting.

[Lyltia]

Also, how “hard” a job is is only one of many factors that governs salaries, and as that is an extremely subjective metric to even quantify, I’d say it’s rarely the primary one.

Lifting 200 pounds is hard; calculus is hard. They’re hard in different ways for different people. It’s also fashionable to cast desk jobs as “easy”; as someone who only started working desk jobs in the knowledge sector, using your brain on full blast for 10 straight hours is more exhausting than any landscaping or restaurant work I did in my youth.

[Lyltia]

Edit - delete me!

[Karbuncle]

I dare say is there any among us who wouldn't grab that Insider Trading and Bribery by the pussy if we were in their position?

Let he who is without corruption toss the first salad. Its just so tempting, who could resist?

[Outlaw]

People that are not pieces of shit.

[Lyltia]

The job of legislating being too easy is a known issue even within congress; members of the house especially are forever complaining that leadership has too heavy a hand and expects members to just show up and vote; behavior that we encourage every time we pounce on a Manchin or a Sinema for not toeing the party line, like it or not.

I know how the framers envisioned congress being part time wealthy white landowners, but that is an enormous anachronism that would not work in 2026 for many reasons both obvious and subtle. There is no way around having representatives in a representative government.

Honestly, this is one of the few areas of government that actually would benefit from being run like a business.

[Lyltia]

I believe some people are absolutely sociopaths that are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way through life, but that the majority come to corruption via a sliding scale of necessity and temptation. If we could pay our congress 1% more and it reduced absolute dollars lost to corruption by 2%, would you stand in the way of that pay raise on the basis that they don’t deserve it for whatever reason is important to you?

[Karbuncle]

I believe some people are absolutely sociopaths that are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way through life, but that the majority come to corruption via a sliding scale of necessity and temptation. If we could pay our congress 1% more and it reduced absolute dollars lost to corruption by 2%, would you stand in the way of that pay raise on the basis that they don’t deserve it for whatever reason is important to you?

If I could guarantee every a 50% raise would eliminate 100% of corruption I’d fund it in a heartbeat, but I don’t think even for a hypothetical that it’d work.

The thing about people who do corrupt things for wealth is that it’s likely not a logical act, but an act of greed, and no amount of money is enough money for those people.

Like I’m open to the idea maybe most of our representatives are just good hard working people that only turn to crime to feed their kids, but don’t expect me to hold my breath on the concept.

And also again they’re telling us to kick rocks as minimum wage has been shit for decades now and we’re discussing increasing their $175k salary for minimal work. Basically there’s a lot of other things that would need to be corrected before I’d even consider looking at a raise for them in a positive light.

[Lokus]

What are their expenses that requires a salary boost? And if we give them a boost, are we going to be able to get an itemized list of their expenses or is that going to be legislated to keep private? I'm not completely opposed to increasing their salary if the intent is to stem corruption and attract qualified people but there needs to be rock solid oversight.

I am however, not completely sold that a salary increase will even solve the issue. As we have seen within the last couple election cycles, your qualifications are second fiddle as long as you tickle the voters balls the right way. And greed is very much insatiable so I still believe a higher salary might only delay the corruption. Either way, legislate in the guardrails first, then increase the salary.

[synistar]

The House being stuck at 435 members isn't helping. 1 Rep per 760k voting citizens is absurd.

[Tyrath]

The House being stuck at 435 members isn't helping. 1 Rep per 760k voting citizens is absurd.

*cries in senate*

[Lyltia]

I’m sensing that a lot of the opposition to a salary increase is based on whether they deserve it; it is important to understand that this immaterial. Elon Musk isn’t getting a billion dollars because the shareholders think he deserves it (although I’m sure more than a few sycophants think so); he’s getting tha money because of the return on investment they expect. It is no different here. Our investment is higher salaries, the return is less money spent on corruption. It is also fallacy to oppose a solution because of the failures of congresses past; it is by definition an institution of rolling membership. Think of it less as giving the bums a raise and more as setting the conditions for future congresses to suck less.

[Karbuncle]

Personally I understand what you're saying, but I also feel like they're paid rather lavishly already when you consider the whole package, on top of the idea I don't necessarily think throwing money at this particular problem will solve it. Again this kind of hinges on what value we're talking about raising it up too.

And if this were to ever happen, it would have to first be preceded by strict, enforceable anti-corruption laws and independent watchdogs, as well as raising the minimum wage to be a living wage again. As others have said, theres a lot of jobs out there (Lets say Teachers) who deserve raises far more than our representatives, and just the whole concept of "Maybe if we double/triple their salary they'll stop being corrupt?" just feels like a dirty conversation to be having about some of the most well off people in our country making nearly triple the average US income(though actually very close to average for Washington DC specifically if they were to live there), with Healthcare and benefits eclipsing even more than that, as well as lifetime benefits even after they leave office.

Like, Im trying to evaluate this reasonably but its difficult when from my position they already make a lot of money not accounting benefits, for relatively little and frankly easy work with the hardest parts for almost all of them being outsourced to aids and helpers. I know there are extenuating circumstances to consider like how most if not all members of congress need to either live in DC or rent/own a second house for when they're in session, personally, I think Government funded housing for their DC visits wouldnt be a bad start?

[kuronosan]

I’m sensing that a lot of the opposition to a salary increase is based on whether they deserve it; it is important to understand that this immaterial. Elon Musk isn’t getting a billion dollars because the shareholders think he deserves it (although I’m sure more than a few sycophants think so); he’s getting tha money because of the return on investment they expect. It is no different here. Our investment is higher salaries, the return is less money spent on corruption. It is also fallacy to oppose a solution because of the failures of congresses past; it is by definition an institution of rolling membership. Think of it less as giving the bums a raise and more as setting the conditions for future congresses to suck less.

Except it won't.

They work a grand total of 3 months out of the year and get health care for life. If the job is easy, the path in is easy, and the reward is high, you aren't going to attract the best and brightest.

It's not about whether they deserve it. They most certainly don't.

If you worked as a carpenter and your job 10 months out of the year was to build 1 chair a week and it was easy, and you set your own salary, and you get bonuses from lumber companies, and you did a terrible job, I don't think anyone in the world would be on board with paying you more.

Resident doctors, by comparison, work 80 hours a week on average and sometimes two weeks in a row (or 2 days straight without sleep) and their total compensation package is about $120,000 year of Medicare funds... And you want Congress to make even more?

I do not accept that Musk made that much because of return of investment.

Don't try to justify paying Congress more when they get nothing done and make things objectively worse while reaping infinitely more money for a third of the time others spend working. Their job isn't THAT intense.

That's as naive a notion as trickle down theory. If only we give the greedy people more they'll stop being greedy!

Increasing their pay doesn't attract better people. That's business bullshit and has no place in politics. You can't run a country like a business because by convention running a country is going to be inefficient.

[Meresgi]

Also, how “hard” a job is is only one of many factors that governs salaries, and as that is an extremely subjective metric to even quantify, I’d say it’s rarely the primary one.

Lifting 200 pounds is hard; calculus is hard. They’re hard in different ways for different people. It’s also fashionable to cast desk jobs as “easy”; as someone who only started working desk jobs in the knowledge sector, using your brain on full blast for 10 straight hours is more exhausting than any landscaping or restaurant work I did in my youth.

Yeah but the landscaping and construction still will destroy your body unlike the other stuff lol, but yeah racking your brain for that long is hard work...but no congress person or CEO is actually doing that much thinking ever

[Tyche]

Trump has single handily created 3 lame duck senators. None of the 3 are particular fans of MAGA politics. Cassidy already switched his war powers vote, resulting in the resolution passing. Cornyn and Tillis abstained, handing the Democrats the win.

Trump has likely significantly dampened any chance he's had to move meaningful funding legislation for his vanity projects in reconciliation.

What happens to the ballroom if he can't get funding for a project he already started?

[Byrthnoth]

A subsequent Democrat won't even have to demolish it?

[Tyche]

Massie is going to lose his primary after the GOP spent $350 PER VOTER in advertising. 35mil, 5% of your total warchest, to oust someone in a safe R district.

[Tyrath]

Well you can't have a guy who is against pedophile get re-elected