There ought to be a law against them voting pay raises for themselves. Can’t the president veto it? And $154,000. That’s a freaking lot of money. And they don’t even work all year.
Archives
Search
Meta
There ought to be a law against them voting pay raises for themselves. Can’t the president veto it? And $154,000. That’s a freaking lot of money. And they don’t even work all year.
Not So Fast 
Congress may not be in session all year, but it’s not at all fair to say that they don’t work all year. Even when Congress isn’t in session policy is being debated and legislation is being drafted. On top of that, each member of Congress has to take care of the concerns of their constituents.
Additionally, you’ve got to remember that being in Congress means having two residences. In fact, there are some members of Congress who, having no outside source of wealth, are forced to sleep in their ofices.
I’m not saying that raises are the best solution, but the money doesn’t go as far as you seem to think.
BTW, while it doesn’t prevent raises to sitting members, the 27th amendment does provide that raises can’t go into effect until after the next House election.
I’m just jealous. The economy sucks here, so no cost-of-living pay raise for me (not that I need one, heh, hi Bob). And I still think people that make more than 5 times what I do really ought to be able to squeak by, even in Georgetown.