I don’t know why the hell people are downvoting this. AOC is quoted in the article talking about why this exact sort of thing is necessary.
Washington, D.C. has a 50% higher cost of living compared to the rest of the US. Even just for the rent, you’re already down a considerable amount for something that’s strictly extraneous and only done for your job.
Generally speaking, you’ll maintain a residence in your home district as well. There are plenty of practical reasons for this. Maybe you have a family which doesn’t want to upend their lives to live in DC. Maybe you want to run for re-election, in which case the US Constitution is extremely clear that you must reside in the state at the time you’re elected. Maybe you want to be able to go home when Congress isn’t in session. Maybe you want something to fall back on if you get voted out. This isn’t bourgie; it’s pragmatic and makes your job at least somewhat bearable. This sets you back a fair bit as well.
As a politician in a national legislature, you should at least ideally have attained higher education (looking at you, Boebert and MTG). There isn’t technically a requirement for this, but most members do, and furthermore, members should be encouraged to be highly educated. That is, you should seek to attract highly qualified candidates, even if the US right now is backsliding on that. The job of a national politician, done right, is extremely tiring, stressful, complicated, high-profile, and thankless, so you want to at least be competitive in a way that doesn’t make taking this job feel like a sacrifice. (Done wrong, of course, and we end up with fascist Republicans and neoliberal dinosaurs pocketing millions. But that’s not a problem of the salaries being ineffective; that’s the result of things like Citizens United, failing to disallow stock trading, defunding public education, etc.)
If you have a family that lives back home, you’ll have a situation where your spouse is functionally a single parent, and thus costs for childcare etc. will be astronomically higher.
The job is inherently unstable, thus not giving most members a reliable long-term financial plan unlike what you might have, say, in a highly skilled position at a company.
I appreciate the nuance and detail of your comment. I wanted to make sure I started with that so you don’t think I’m just here to shit on your comment. I’m upset that we’re here and slapping bandaids on this shit instead of actually thinking about solutions.
Congress can’t pass a budget, but they can raise their own pay. They haven’t passed any meaningful legislation in two years, but they can raise their own pay. They can’t raise our minimum wage, but they can raise their own pay. Idk about you, but I’ve never gotten a raise for pisspoor performance at any job I’ve ever held. I’ll be receiving a 3.5% raise in a couple weeks, and I’ve very much earned that, and it’s thankfully a bit higher than the ~2.8% inflation over the past year so it’s an actual raise. Not everybody has been so lucky. I’m completely on board with paying Congress well so that it’s not gated off for only the wealthy elite to have access to, but let’s not pretend that passing a raise for themselves right now is eradicating all semblance of corruption once and for all.
Why does Congress actually need to be in DC anymore anyway? Why not have an office in their district and securely remote vote? Having them in DC maintaining two residences is costing them more, keeping them physically distanced from their actual constituents, and making corporate lobbying significantly easier since they can easily talk face to face with dozens of reps/senators in a single afternoon. We could also raise the cap on the House since it’s been undersized for proper representation for decades; no need to cap it to a number that can regularly gather in the chambers anymore. I’d rather they just stay in their district and lock their pay to their local inflation rate. If they want better raises, then they need to actually help their district.
I don’t know why the hell people are downvoting this. AOC is quoted in the article talking about why this exact sort of thing is necessary.
I appreciate the nuance and detail of your comment. I wanted to make sure I started with that so you don’t think I’m just here to shit on your comment. I’m upset that we’re here and slapping bandaids on this shit instead of actually thinking about solutions.
Congress can’t pass a budget, but they can raise their own pay. They haven’t passed any meaningful legislation in two years, but they can raise their own pay. They can’t raise our minimum wage, but they can raise their own pay. Idk about you, but I’ve never gotten a raise for pisspoor performance at any job I’ve ever held. I’ll be receiving a 3.5% raise in a couple weeks, and I’ve very much earned that, and it’s thankfully a bit higher than the ~2.8% inflation over the past year so it’s an actual raise. Not everybody has been so lucky. I’m completely on board with paying Congress well so that it’s not gated off for only the wealthy elite to have access to, but let’s not pretend that passing a raise for themselves right now is eradicating all semblance of corruption once and for all.
Why does Congress actually need to be in DC anymore anyway? Why not have an office in their district and securely remote vote? Having them in DC maintaining two residences is costing them more, keeping them physically distanced from their actual constituents, and making corporate lobbying significantly easier since they can easily talk face to face with dozens of reps/senators in a single afternoon. We could also raise the cap on the House since it’s been undersized for proper representation for decades; no need to cap it to a number that can regularly gather in the chambers anymore. I’d rather they just stay in their district and lock their pay to their local inflation rate. If they want better raises, then they need to actually help their district.
Money bad. Congress bad. Double bad. Oo.