Sorry, Lenny, that $400,000 is just the bit he can't hide from the tax dudes. Besides, wasn't it the brainy overpaid biznis types who have fried our planet, are now starving millions, and who've screwed up the economy this badly?

Mr. Pitts, please. Which one of the last three presidents came away from the trough with less than a real generous portion of swill?

Mr. Cunningham may not be able to spell or read a style guide; but, he did fly a jet did he not? Goes to show you, flying jets can't be that difficult.

"President and Congress Deserve a Raise"
.
The public sentiment being what it is
I can see our elected officials
raised up above other men,
.
their terms limited,
.
slowly twisting
.
in the wind
.
.
Term limits.

Actually, what we should do is give them a pay cut, in order to attract people to the offices that are interested in doing good for its own sake. And change our voting system so that you don't have to be rich or beholding to rich people to get elected to office. That is, fund political campaigns from the public coffers, allowing each candidate the same amount of money to run their campaign. And when they've spent the money, they've spent the money, and can't sweeten the pot with any of their own funds, or anyone else's.

Hmmm. Where does the vice-president fit in? The current occupant of that office claims to belong to no recognized branch of government -- or perhaps all of them. I've never been able to get his "logic" quite clear in my mind. Is Halliburton now a fourth branch? And do so-called "blind trusts" count in the pay calculations?

What else can you expect from the Corporate Media?

I too agree that you get only what you pay for. But using robber baron pay scales to justify a pay increase for the President and the Congress is a scam. Let's first fix the outrageous pay scale for CEOs, which is fixed my an incestuous small group of people.

Second, let's fix the two-party duopoly and the total grip of big money in our elections. As it stands today, hardly any honest and intelligent person goes into politics.

Third, today it is next to impossible to be elected to those offices, unless you are already a super-rich millionaire. They use their office mostly to enrich themselves even more, and do their best to keep out any rivals.

So, if I had only two plumbers to choose from, both of them being good for nothing scumbags trying only to rip me off, why would I ever raise their fees voluntarily? I would gladly think otherwise if the monopoly were first broken to allow new, honest plumbers to offer their services in a fair market.

(nothing against plumbers.... could have used some other profession too)

I love satire.

Keep the pay the same. Just strip them of all authority. The biggest mistake ever made was allowing these people to make decisions that become law and to tell the military when to jump.

Turn the Pentagon into a yoga/meditation center. And then make the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court into museums. Just demolish the IRS and let the employees retrain to become schoolteachers to reduce the classroom size.

Most politicians are way below average except in one respect: they excel at greed and self-aggrandizement. They have to have both to get elected in the showbiz called campaigning, which is all most US people know about "politics", thank you, very much, mediocre media.

When election reform beomes a reality I would happily endorse a pay raise for those who run the country, after they have raised the minimum wage to a living wage and spent more time creating a work environment at home rather than overseas and stop spending the majority of taxpayer dollars on illegal wars and bailing out banks who have suckered the public out of invested funds. When they have at least begun the process of making health care available to all, started repairing the infrastructure of American, begin serious debate on global warming and addressing the future of sustainable energy they will be due a raise that would be deserved.

I think Russ is on the right track. I propose that we indeed raise the salaries of the president and Congress, upon the condition that they abstain from their usual attempts to do their jobs. I believe that this position is intellectually and philosophically unassailable, since it is derived from both the Hippocratic Oath-- if you can do no good, at least do no harm-- as well as this irrefutable bit of Marxism:
_______________________________________

Groucho: What do you get an hour?

Chico: For playing, we get-a ten dollars an hour.

Groucho: I see. What do you get for not playing?

Chico: Twelve dollars an hour. Now for rehearsing we make special rates. That's-a fifteen dollars an hour.

Groucho: And what do you get for not rehearsing?

Chico: You couldn't afford it. You see, if we don't rehearse, and we don't-a play-- and that runs into money.

And..... Mr. Pitts the people deserve to have a president and Congress that works for the people.

The current president has taken more vacation time than any president in recent memory.

Congress, under the Republicans worked 3-1/2 days per week.

Under the Democrats, it's not much more. Maybe 4-1/2 days per week.

When you add their perks -- free health care, and expenses (which in the corporate world are about an additional 1/3 added to total yearly salary), it isn't lack of money that makes them greedy.

They are greedy -- because they can be. When they become "public servants" and forget about being "politicians" we can talk.

Don't hold your breath.

This is absurd. What about having some poor people serve in Congress ?...they would relate much better to what the American people deal with and face in the future. The way it is now, once someone is elected they suddenly become a member of one of the highest paid classes in the country. We loose economic represenation by class. Only the wealthy will serve their constituents....there will be no poor or middle class representatives. This type of thinking assumes that money is the only reason anyone does anything, it is corrupt and maybe, if true...we are doomed as a nation of representative democracy.

I agree with Leonard completely! My father, a government employee for life, had the same opinion decades ago. I noticed that many of the comments about your article opposed your opinion, but I think they are just repeating "conventional wisdom" that has been out of date for a long time.

As Pitts said, Congressional and Presidential salaries may seem high to most of us (myself included!), those salaries are actually pretty low for someone who pays over a $ 100,000 or more for a Harvard or Yale education. And it is low for true geniuses who could do anything they want.

Another advantage to giving politicians pay raises is that it would discourage the temptation to take bribes. Of course, the temptation will always be there, but right now the pay is considered so low that many politicians literally believe that they have every right to take bribes. Although they are wrong, of course, in their belief, it is true that their jobs are very difficult and time consuming and often thankless.

My father was a federal administrative law judge, and his pay did not go up any at all for about 30 years! When you the rising cost of living, you realize that his pay has actually gone down during that time. The same is true for all of our Congressmen and the President, and probably the Supreme Court and other high ranking jobs.

I understand the public's (rather childish) temptation to punish our rulers by universally opposing pay raises for them, because it is the only way we have to punish those who so often seem to be bullying us. It's also a little bit of pay back out of sheer jealousy.

But we really need to increase their pay substantially. Along the same lines, I would like to see equal opportunity public grants to non-profit groups like Greenpeace or the ACLU, because currently their workers, including attorneys, can barely earn enough to survive. But that's a different issue, I suppose.

One commenter, I noticed, said that the low pay of politicians does not include all the pay that they hide from the tax man, but this is also a separate issue- one that requires reform of our tax laws.

Another commenter said that Congress doesn't work very many hours. That's not true. While it is true that they are not required to show up in the office very much, there is a virtually unlimited amount of work they can do, and many do that work in their homes. That work includes research, reading, lunches, banquets, meetings, and let's not forget the exhausting work of running for office. While banquets may sound fun to many of us, I'm sure that get boring after a while, like every thing else. And politicians have no choice. They MUST dress up and put on their happy faces for banquet after banquet.

Anyway, Lenny- you go man go! I totally dig your courage to put this out in the public. I hope you and others will follow up with more such calls.

Maybe I'm wrong. The Clinton's have sacrificed so much with government service...the $100 million they have made in the last seven years is just not enough to live modestly in America. And poor Dick Cheney, he too, needs more. And Don Rumsfeld, all his years of public service have led to him being a millionaire many times over. Yes, public service. It is such a sacrifice. The american public have been made suckers to the greedy, selfish and self serving...who call themselves politicians.

Mr Pitts......

Have you lost your mind? Those highly paid CEO's in the private sector which you refer to, include many of those who ran their corporations into the ground, right after they stole their bonus money from their shareholder and employee retirement funds. Do the names Ken Lay and bernard Ebbers ring any bells? The best and the brightest?......You said it yourself, "those people are gluttonous greedheads who should be burned on a pyre of dollar bills."

The reason we are "saddled with dumb and dumber" in elected office has nothing to do with the modest salary and everything to do with the dumbing down of the electorate. We get what we vote for, not what we pay for. The answers lie in term limits, campaign finance reform and legislation that makes it unlawful for politicians to accept positions as lobbyists after they leave office.

"Incompetence, mendacity, corruption and sleaze" are also commonplace at the highest levels of the private sector as well. Your theory makes no sense!

Screw a raise - how come we never read about, like, some Sen from AZ, for example, taking a bribe from some rich hippies NOT to develop, mine or otherwise destroy some piece of land? Why is it always the bad guys and their dirty money buying the vote? Is it more fun if the deal is all greed and scum?

Instead of a raise, lets pool our resources and start buying us some "leaders" like Big Corp Whatevers. Just once I'd like to read about a scandal involving how the ACLU "contributed" to Senator X who then voted NOT to shove spy cameras up our asses. Seriously, what the f**k do our Reps care who's paying - as long as the checks clear, he/she is voting for the check.

What - are We The People too "noble" to bribe Reps, afraid of becoming what we despise? Well, enough with that shit already. Liberals, progressives, et al - get out the checkbooks and start buying us some salvation.

Oh, please! First of all, only millionaires (what a quaint term!) can afford to run for the Senate and White House in the first place. They don't call the Senate the Millionaire's Club because the occupants have million-dollar smiles.

Secondly, the deplorable status quo resulting from the juggernaut of amoral breakaway capitalism that has gained such momentum during this decade has given us a criminal class of obscenely enriched tycoons. Now Mr. Pitts suggests that it's only fair and just for our corrupt political elite to keep up with the bloating.

I believe that the gradual transformation of political office from that of civic official or administrator-- a citizen elected on merit by fellow citizens, ideally -- into big-budget technocratic, para-corporate middle management is fundamental to the disconnect between the Ruling and the Ruled.

Throwing more money at the problem (Iraq, anyone?)in the name of making political office lucrative and "competitive" simply exacerbates this circumstance; it's shallow and absurd.

Such is my childish, knee-jerk reaction to the notion that our elected representatives deserve, even require, a heftier salary to do their damn jobs even halfway responsibly.

Right on.. Pitts.

A decent pay also makes them less personally responsive to the 'under-the-table' money lobbiests offer.

In addition to raising their pay, however, we need to LOWER the amount they can get paid by sources OTHER than the public (i.e. corporate money).

We need to offer them a wage commesurate with their influence, and DENY them other sources of income while, or after, they are in office (likewise extending to their children, or to offers other than monetary).

These are OUR representatives, after all. WE should be paying them what they're worth. They are NOT corporate America's representatives. THEY should not be able to pay them ANYTHING!!!

Get effing real Pitts, this is absurd. People don't run for Congress or the Presidency for the money, they do it for the power and prestige. I read all of the above comments and was surprised nobody directly referred to how many of the entire crowd are already millionaires, altho Little Brother at least alluded to it. Simply Google 'millionaires, Congress' or some similar terms.

Personally, I think the government should be run like juries, where common citizens-ALL citizens-serve on a rotating basis, and earn a nominal fee plus expenses. And meet for a few weeks every few years, as our Founding Fathers envisioned. They are certainly not doing 'the peoples' business' for about 90% of the time, but either screwing us of enriching their contributors and themselves.

To frank1569 -- YES!! Right on. Let me get my aging hippie checkbook out (not even my aging hippie platinum credit card) and write a check and let's pool resources. Maybe we can buy a Clean Air Initiative with some teeth in it, or buy some wolves' lives from the killers who shoot them the nanosecond they set paw outside the borders of Yellowstone -- the same people who put them in the park (under protest) have permission to shoot them if they leave the park, and they patrol that boundary (excuse the pun) like wolves. I could go for that. Let's buy some poor creature a listing on the Endangered Species List and give it a break from goddamned bloodthirsty hunters who get their rocks off taking life from others who share the planet. Damn. That's the best idea I've ever heard. I can't believe I've never thought of it. You, sir, are a genius. Why is it we -- dems and progressives -- are never caught buying something good? Bribing the sheriff to disregard our little pot patch so grandma can have a toke after her chemo. It's the little things that count, right? It's always the scum-of-the-earth who buy the right to pollute, to strip mine, to dump this and that in our rivers and lakes. How about we bribe someone in the EPA to pass a law allowing us to clean up a river or two? The Mississippi is a disgrace. Think of all the good we could do with our bribes. And then, when we're sitting in prison, having properly been convicted for breaking our sacred laws, at least we can feel comforted by knowing we meant well. That, at least, is something the scumsuckers can't really have. Virtue is it's own reward.

Give them all a raise. If we don't, they will.

waterboard everyone of the elected sob's and then tar and feather them and send them to afghanistan to survive. cut the pay of all elected officials to $12.00 hr. and the same benefits walmart gives its employees. these sob's get the best socialised health care but say socialism is evil. they can all survive in the hell they have created. too bad you amerikans are too fearful and timid to arrest your leaders. oh well! it's too alte now kids.

In this political environment, the prez ought to be paid zilch and have his book deals taken away. While this may sound reactionary, angry, punitive, etc, we're talking about instilling a certain kind of attitude, one that supports the facts such as to maximize planetary well-being, you have to spread the wealth, and mr. prez doesn't need compensation. You can't really argue against this and keep your own personal freedom. If you insist that it's impractical, will never happen, etc, you are effectively pointing to invisible shackles around your legs. Not an impressive argument.

Show me any other company or business or corporation that allows its workers to decide on the amount of their pay raises, that is of course if pay raises were available in today's economy to the average working stiff. Before I was laid off I hadn't seen a pay raise in three years and I am well aware that I am not in this boat alone.

As to the quote "You get what you pay for" lets list what we have gotten for with our tax dollars, beginning with a war that costs billions, a defense department that isn't 'defending' but 'offending', a world reputation that stinks, poorer education, a crumbling infrastructure, a devastated flooded city, etc.etc.etc. We not only get what we pay for but we get to pay the interest on the borrowed money for all the stuff that we couldn't pay for. We get a lot for our money and then some.

annabelle--that's called 'your tax dollars at work'. An astute post too! Just think what they could accomplish if we gave them even more money!

politicians should receive a base salary then get a bonus for their achievements.

The only raise Bush deserves is a raise in elevation at the end of a rope after being tried and convicted for treason.

Sure let's give them a raise.

Then hold them accountable for their duties while in office.

Then those with estates valued in the millions, give it all back.

Those that served honestly deserve a bonus.

Great posts! Annabelle, Frank1569, and ACC get my top votes at this point.

Lots of other folks have presented some great ideas here. Here are some of my observations:

First, since these folks are employed by us, the people, than I think we ought to start acting like real employers. That means, to get hired for the job (be put on the ballot), you have to have a certain set of qualifications. Like being able to read and write. Being able to understand the meaning and importance of the Magna Carta, Declarion of Independence, Contitution, and Bill of Rights would be required. Having performed real work in the real world for wages would be preferred. Then, every year after being hired (voted into office), the employee (that would be them) would have to have an annual performance review. Just like every other working stiff in the nation. The performance review would be based on the job description and expectations of performance (election promises), weighted for the most important criteria, such as legislation written and how they voted during the year, and who benefitted. Of course, upholding their oath to protect and defend the Constitution would be the most heavily weighted. This performance review would be completed by every voter in the elected individuals district, state, or the whole of America. These could be handled just like voting is. The Performance Review could be graded (A-F). If a candidate gets and F than they are fired immediately, sent to clean out their desk, and must immediately leave the premises. If they get a D, they are put on probation until their performance improves. A grade of D on their next evaluation gets them fired.

Second, as many have noted, all elections must be publically financed. I would also note, that to attract the best candidates, Instant Runoff Voting is a must. This eliminates the "spoiler effect", and the "lock" on elections by the major parties.

Third, all pay to elected officials will be based on some multiple of the minimum wage as set by Congress. So lets say the preznit wants to make a paultry $400,000 a year. That means that if $20 ($41,600 annualized) became the minimum wage, than the multiple would be 9.62 for the prenit. Likewise for the congresscritters who want to make $169,300. Their multiple would be 4.07. That seems fair. We could even make it simpler and let the Preznit have a multiple of 10, and congresscritters (and the VP) a multiple of 5. The multiple used would have to be approved by a vote of the employer that would be us.

Fourth, I don't believe that term limits would be needed because of the Performance Review process. The good reps could stay on as long as they performed well.

Fifth, there should be a process for a national referendum by the people. Many States currently have voter approved referendum processes that are voted on in regular elections. I would add that Constitutional amendments would be outside of this process. And campaign finance reform would also have to apply to these referendums so that special interest/corporate money stays out of these elections.

So, there you have it. "The World According to Rebel Farmer". Did I hit most of the high points?

P.S. I believe that Performance Reviews should also be applied to all Supreme Court Justices as well on one year cycles. They should also be paid on some multiple of minimum wage as well.

Am I blacker than Leonard Pitts Jr.? Where does an article like this come from in our day and age? In writing about the Reverend Doctor Jeremiah Wright, Pitts brings up AIDS and Louis Farakhan but leaves out America's "terrorist" activities blowing back "terrorism", he critiques Wright as "Clownish" and "hypocritical", forcing me to ask where America would be without the minstrel show? And as Bill Moyers points out where would America's most critical voice be without the marriage of the Black American Church pulpit and it's cover for political messaging?

Pitts must be taking junkets to Dubai with Kwame Kilpatrick and George Bush: "oh, let's cure societies ills by getting a bigger allowance from Daddy". Pitts uses the term mendacity. I was first introduced to that word from Cat On A Hot Tin Roof, so to me it's connotation is not just that of a lie, but of a lie that is repeated over and over and over again until nausea becomes a stench of claustrophobic stagnation...especially when the lie is repeated by it's omission even though it's the $3 Trillion object sitting on the coffee table - mendacity: tedious torturous mendacity - this Pitts article of tripe.

RIGHT ON! ANNABELLE & ACC & REBEL FARMER.

I'm hoping for some kind of retro-active PAY back for all the theft in blood and treasure, using the US military to secure OIL profits or prop up the hedge fund evil geniuses... how about a REVERSE pay scale!

Hell with it let's give the lobbists a raise too....

I think I spelled that wrong mR. pITTs

When I worked at Boeing years ago, we had the worlds second worst supervisor [2nd only because someone, somewhere, might have had one even worse then ours]

Anyway, the saying in the 747 Structures Drafting Group was "Raise? Ya wanna raise? Bend over, I'll give you a raise!"

If Congress and the Prez think they should get a raise, I think they deserve the same answer.

Cut their pay and legalize dumpster diving.

Rebel Farmer: Great ideas. I really enjoy the comments, especially when the commentators are NOT bashing each other. Too bad we can't convince those running for office to spend a little more time in actual dialog with their constituents. They might just gain a little insight into the thought process' of those who vote for (hire) them. As for a pay raise for our 'employees' I would hold up on any for a while, at least until they consider the same health care benefits for their employers (us) that they receive. It is totally illogical that the employees have full health coverage for life while those paying for that coverage are forced to go without.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

You got to be kidding.

Yeah, where is the punch line?

I really don't believe most of the things I just read. We are dealing with thieves. Giving them a raise will only make them richer thieves. Simple calculation and conclusion.

Here is an even more modest proposal:

Give them a raise.......BUT take away all of their free perks and entitlements. Let them pay for things the way the rest of us non-millionaires do. That will keep them more in touch with the common man and women in the street.

Just pay them the same but remove the secret service protection, you would be amazed at how fast they strive to do the right thing and become popular, insulated as they are behind security fences and other artifices serves to insulate them from the real employers of their ilk. Or just have open season on politicians one day a year, and take their passports on that day. Either way would work for me.

No salary at all would be better. Just like a school board, the officials run for office to do good not make money.

You get what you pay for? More like we're paying for what we got…

Yes the President and Congress deserve a raise.

I'll supply the rope.

It's sad when market fundamentalism infects even liberal columnists. Since when did paying more money solve every problem? We could produce a long list of CEOs who were paid obscene salaries plus stock options, etc., and yet drove their companies into the ground.

The political system is broken, and too much money, not too little, is the heart of the problem. The need to reach millions of people means that mass media are crucial to any campaign, and advertising is expensive. As long as the size of a candidate's war chest is a major determinant of electability, we won't see a different kind of politician.

citizen1 May 18th, 2008 2:00 pm

"I too agree that you get only what you pay for. But using robber baron pay scales to justify a pay increase for the President and the Congress is a scam. Let's first fix the outrageous pay scale for CEOs, which is fixed my an incestuous small group of people."

citizen1,

I think you'll appreciate this article on incest: http://www.optionsforemployees.com/articles/article.php?id=118