• Pyr@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 days ago

      As if they aren’t already bought. At least you’ll have one of your own elevated and not some already rich asshole trying to get richer.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think this is overstated. You can’t even run for Congress without being a millionaire, a millionaire’s family, a lawyer, a lobbyist, or a military officer looking to cash out.

      You can’t get in the door of Congress without being in hoc to a constellation of private interests. Capping their pay won’t change that.

      • thegerald@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        you got a point. Also I think that they get bought of either way, so why not safe a little on their salary ;)

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          Because Congress sets its own salary. I don’t. So, I have no say in the matter.

          Also because there’s no real “cost savings” in a material sense. Congressional spending has been decoupled from federal taxation since the Great Depression. Pay congressmen $1/term. Pay them $1M/hr. I don’t see any kind of change in my material condition.

          Incidentally, the Gingrich Era Contract with America was billed as a legislation package to rein in the capacity for Congresscritters to personally enrich and profiteer off their positions. Similarly, Pelosi’s For The People Act included a number of reforms intended to prevent Congress from double-dealing and insider trading. Despite both Speakers enjoying a bicameral majority and a friendly President during their careers, neither successfully advanced legislation to handcuff members of Congress.

          Asking Congress to regulate itself is a fool’s request.