Conservative pundits and politicians have long called for the repeal of the federal minimum wage, claiming that it increases unemployment and hampers business.
Considering that a lot of them seem to think that $7.25 (the current federally mandated minimum wage) is plenty for the American people that they supposedly work for, I think that dropping their salaries down to twice the minimum wage would be the right thing for them to do.
I say twice, because they do have to maintain a residence not only in their home district, but in DC as well. Since they seem to consider that $7.25 should be enough for working Americans to maintain one household, then it shouldn’t be much of a stretch to assume that they should be able to maintain two on twice minimum wage.
Since they seem to be completely out of touch with the public, this would also serve the purpose of putting our legislature in a position of actually understanding where the average American stands.
Then bring in campaign finance reform in the form of public funding only for campaigns, kick lobbyists out of DC, and maybe we can get something done in this country.
Oh, and I think that, given the tendency for these politicians to not show up for work, we should probably install a time clock in both chambers.
Rank and file members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate make $174,000 yearly, or $83.65 an hour, assuming 52 weeks of 40 hours a week worked.
Party leaders in both the House and the Senate make a salary about 1.11 times that of the rank and file, $193,400 yearly, or $92.98 hourly, again assuming 52 weeks worked 40 hours per week.
The Speaker of the House makes 1.28 times the rank and file $223,500 yearly, or $107.45 per hour. Also assuming the 52 weeks worked 40 hours per week.
Since we all know that they don't work anywhere near that, the hourly rate would be a lot higher in reality. For the sake of simplicity, we will leave out all of the benefits and perks they receive simply for being legislators.
There are 535 members in the House and the Senate. Our expenditures for legislation are:
$92,220,000 yearly for the rank and file combined.
$773,600 yearly for the four party leaders.
$223,500 yearly for the Speaker of the House.
$93,217,100 is the total for the combined yearly salaries for all of our federal legislators.
If we bring them down to the reality that they seem to believe that the rest of us should be able to live in, and use the same multipliers from the base for the leaders, then we have the following:
$30,160 yearly for rank and file members, based on minimum wage times two.
$33,478 yearly for party leaders in both chambers, based on rank and file pay times 1.11.
$38,605 yearly for the Speaker of the House, based on rank and file pay times 1.28.
This works out, when combined, to:
$15,984,800 yearly for the combined rank and file
$133,392 for the four party leaders
$38,605 for the Speaker
$16,156,797 would be the total cost to taxpayers for the combined yearly salaries for all of our federal legislators, for a savings of $77,060,303.
This is truly only a drop in the bucket as far as federal expenditures go, but this, to me, is as good a place to start saving as any.
AMMENDMENT (01/09/2011) I should add that, as our representatives in Washington, D.C. are expected to make frequent trips to their home districts, We the People should be expected to foot the bill for one (1) round-trip coach class airfare per month for them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would also recommend regular random drug testing and mandatory breathalyzer tests before being allowed to vote on any bill. TSA should assume responsibility for scans and pat-downs before any member is permitted to enter the chamber. Let them live the way they expect the rest of us to live.
ReplyDeleteVery good, I hadn't thought of that. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteI cringe not so much that that the current congress costs over 90 million in salaries, but more so at the bigger crime that they get such a sweet retirement deal... or is it? Wait, I just looked that up, and it is de-bunked at http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp
ReplyDeleteOk, so maybe that was a red herring.
But what I REALLY cringe at is the silly claim "that $7.25 (the current federally mandated minimum wage) is plenty for the American people " and "they seem to consider that $7.25 should be enough for working Americans to maintain one household."
This is silly for at least two reasons. One is that the flip side of the bill is that it outlaws working for less than $7.25 per hour, thereby barring millions of teenagers and other entry-level workers from the job market.
The second is inpications that jobs which are so easy or non-demanding as to only be "worth" say $6/hour are now illegal. How does this make sense, and who does it benefit? Hint: follow the money, and it points to big business benefiting at the expense of the poor, and here's one illustration: Opening a "Mom-and-Pop" restaurant is notoriously labor-intensive, and one reason is that they have less expensive kitchen automation than large chains, and another is that they are more likely to shop locally for fresh ingredients that require more prep time than the bulk/frozen/pre-processed food delivered by corporate-owned trucks to the franchises. One loop-hole in the minimum-wage allows family members to work for less. This one loop-hole is responsible for thousands of jobs, and millions of satisfied eaters. Next time you enjoy a mom-and-pop meal, be thankful, and imagine how many other small businesses might be started and thrive if they could only be staffed affordably in their early start-up years.