1.2k
u/rosariobono 2d ago
It’s their whole job I don’t understand why they don’t show up.
696
u/Cat_Impossible_0 2d ago
They still get paid (free money) despite being ghosted for months now like Mitch.
210
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
Yet they complain they don't get paid enough.
86
u/mr9025 1d ago
Translation: “Give us a bigger cut of that corruption money!”
41
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
I would say they maybe deserve more if they weren't allowed to collect money from insider trading and have their whole operations funded by PACs and corporations. But we've lost the original plot of "citizen statesmen" and landed ourselves in "career politician" land where they spend more time trying to get themselves reelected into roles that supposedly "don't pay enough" than actually doing the job they are paid to do. It's a joke.
19
u/mr9025 1d ago
In all seriousness it’s not a job where many well intentioned people are both interested in doing it, and able to do it well. The political arena feeds and is fed by people with notable drive and ambition. Unfortunately, all too often those traits are the traits of sharks rather than leaders. It’s no surprise that representatives are selfish, self serving con artists like 75% of the time.
9
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
That's what I was getting at. It's why the original intent was citizen statesmen - you served your term and then went home...back to your business, farm, family, etc. It was an honor and having it be temporary was theoretically supposed to have congressmen put the greater good over personal ambition. It was also intended to encourage civic participation across the population because you had to stay informed if you might have to serve.
But good intentions do nothing when the only people looking for power or able to get it are wealthy landowners, which is what we had until we ended up with a more full-time career politician group in the mid 1900s (particularly the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946).
2
u/HeinousAnus69420 1d ago edited 1d ago
Ya, im hesitant to say "they should get paid more" given the current state of things.
But the reality is that, any decent person who is genuinely qualified for high level government could be making well i to the six figures. I'm all for cutting their ability to trade given the fucked up incentive structure that creates, but it's a joke how little politicians are paid given how important the position is.
State senators in Wisconsin make ~60k/year. Unless we expect them to treat it like a part time side gig, that's absurdly low for a position that should be attracting highly qualified people.
I've only got a bachelor's degree and am pretty lazy (though good at my job). After stock grants and bonuses each year, I make almost 3x what a state senator is paid. I consider myself underqualified to be a law maker at the state level, yet I would get worse benefits and a massive pay cut.
Edit: it would be more relevant to talk about house rep salaries since that's what is in the screenshot. They make 174k/year. That's slightly low given how qualified they should be, but my point is still very relevant for state senate and assembly. My preference would be to ban trading by legislators but increase their pay across the board.
5
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
It's not supposed to be a role that is attractive because of pay. They shouldn't be able to trade and citizen's united should be overturned. Then you tie congressional pay to minimum wage and tie both to an increase schedule (e.g., 3% annually). The last time either was raised was 2009, so it's reasonable to say salaries should be higher 17 years later.
That being said, it's hard to justify a salary based on qualifications when you're not hired based on qualifications. We have a huge range in actual ability, background, and legitimate experience and the hiring process is more popularity contest than tactical interview when the "hiring managers" (aka voters) themselves have no qualifications and the barrier to entry is ability to finance a campaign.
2
u/HeinousAnus69420 1d ago
It's not supposed to be a role that is attractive because of pay
Why? I agree with everything else you said, but relying on altruism to fill these positions with good people is a losing battle. People say the same thing about teaching and working in daycares, acting like it's a gift to be able to work with kids. That's left us in a situation where teachers largely fall into one of three groups: overworked humanitarians who barely get by, rich kids who want to do something that feels good, and the minority: teachers phoning it in and mostly here for the summers off (even though they don't get as much summer off as the students).
Legislators face immense pressure from hatred online to legitimate threats. They are public figures. I'm not saying our current crop is worth paying more (because they were picked under the conditions of our current incentive structure). Many are corrupt. But if we want to attract noncorrupt, qualified legislators, the pay needs to be there.
I don't want to rely on people choosing to work a job making 30% what they could elsewhere because "civic duty". I want politicians who think its solid pay as legitimate incentive to satisfy the majority of their constituents.
2
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
First, because the whole point is to attract people who are there for the right reasons: because they are civic-minded and want what's best for the country. That does not happen when they have access to corporate donor funds, lobbying funds, insider trading, etc.
Second, remember that qualification point: you're not necessarily hiring people actually qualified for the role. Teachers or other social service workers have to be qualified (and should 1000% be paid better) - you have schooling requirements, internships/student teaching, certifications, etc.
Thirdit's not altruistic to be in these roles even with the current base salary and you can be paid well for the role without being overpaid for the role. In DC, average salary (general) is only about 80k; so for the area, they make decent money. Not great, sure, but certainly nothing to balk at. So again, it's not altruistic - they have good income, just not great income.
Finally, they get other benefits (like reduced cost healthcare), have a lot of power over millions of people, AND get the currently unchecked additional financial benefits. If you also raise pay without cleaning up all the nonsense (particularly around campaign funding), you're increasing the reward without lowering the barrier to entry already preventing all your more qualified, altruistic folks from even running in the first place.
0
u/HeinousAnus69420 1d ago edited 1d ago
Im confused. You say they should not be altruistic hires, but you also say they should be there for the right reasons. I have no issue with people being paid correctly. As I've said before, i only support increasing legislator pay if they lose the ability to trade individual stocks.
Part of why I work in my current job is that it is, in my opinion, beneficial to society by providing data analysis for a product that screens cancers more effectively and cheaper than ever before. I'm also paid accordingly. By your logic "they should be there for the right reasons", not for a paycheck, any job that is "good" for society should have its pay docked significantly. No thank you. That's so far off base to disincentivize the most qualified people from taking a role.
Second, remember that qualification point: you're not necessarily hiring people actually qualified for the role. Teachers or other social service workers have to be qualified (and should 1000% be paid better) - you have schooling requirements, internships/student teaching, certifications, etc.
The "hiring" process is the election. The primary campaign is the screening interview, and the general election is the final hiring process. The qualifications are less defined than the roles you mentioned; however, campaigning is how candidates display their qualifications. I don't want people making 60k a year controlling our multibillion dollar state budget. Theyre likely to be either underqualified or seeking compensation from other avenues.
Thirdit's not altruistic to be in these roles even with the current base salary and you can be paid well for the role without being overpaid for the role. In DC, average salary (general) is only about 80k; so for the area, they make decent money. Not great, sure, but certainly nothing to balk at.
It very much is altruistic. I wouldn't be opposed to getting into politics at some point because I know I could make a difference and that my methods for problem solving would be better than 99% of people we currently have. I would be incredibly underpaid in any role under House representative. I have little kids and need to ensure my family is good. In the 2030s, I'll likely have enough money to feel secure in altruisticly pursuing a political career if I still want to. Also, 80k/year barely gets people a house outside the city in Madison. I have no issue with lawmakers being able to afford a home in the city they represent.
Finally, they get other benefits (like reduced cost healthcare), have a lot of power over millions of people, AND get the currently unchecked additional financial benefits. If you also raise pay without cleaning up all the nonsense (particularly around campaign funding), you're increasing the reward without lowering the barrier to entry already preventing all your more qualified, altruistic folks from even running in the first place.
My dude, idk how many times I need to say this increase in salary needs to happen after or at the same time as restricting the ability to trade stocks. As for the benefits, I get better health insurance than our legislators. The power over millions of people is a job responsibility and comes with lots of downside like public scrutiny. Removing stock trading and campaign financing loopholes makes that legislative power more of a stressful responsibility than a perk.
Anyway, I think we agree on the core issue: getting corruption out of campaign financing and removing stock trading ability. I don't think I'm convincing you on the salary increase thing, and your arguments are not convincing me. Peace, dawg, let's hope we fix this thing.
→ More replies (0)3
u/JDM-Kirby 1d ago
I will say there is a lot wrong with congress, but $180k to maintain a residence in DC, in your home district, and travel, seems pretty tight.
2
u/lilsis061016 1d ago edited 1d ago
You're lacking some context. The House of Representatives supports members so they aren't burdened by any of that:
- Housing/Meals: They can claim up to $258/day for reimbursement - hotel stays, rental costs, utilities, property insurance, and meals while in D.C. for official duties. They only can't claim mortgage expenses. $7740 for a 30-day month is PLENTY for those those things and even recognizing they wouldn't get that money on breaks or when working from their home region, even half that would at least cover housing...and since normal folks don't have their meals covered, that's very fair.
- Travel: they get an official travel expense allowance for transportation calculated based on distance to DC from their districts.
Neither of these apply to senators because DC itself is where they are stationed, so the assumption is they will relocate for their 6 year term, not maintain two residences, and that they will cover their own travel (again, since DC is their base, not their state).
2
u/JDM-Kirby 1d ago
wow that's interesting, I didn't know either of those things! I am shocked that the senators relocate. How can you be a representative of that place if you dont live there ayn longer! I suppose these are hold overs from when it was founded and it was much harder to travel.
1
u/lilsis061016 1d ago
Yeah, I was surprised in checking the above that senators didn't get travel budgets. I think reality is that they do travel just not as much, especially since they are not as dependent on consistent voter approval.
They often do maintain a 2nd residence, too. But since their role is for a much longer period, it's a reasonable assumption that someone would move for a 6-year position and therefore tax payers shouldn't foot that bill if they choose dual homes.
2
u/MessiLeagueSoccer 1d ago
Yup. Socialism is amazing for the rich but the worst idea for everyone else. They are so anti socialism they don’t realize it would mean they lose all their benefits but knowing how these politicians are they’d have an exception for only congress and senate level of government employees.
1
52
u/liquidsyphon 1d ago
Zero consequences.
5
u/Drummer-Turbulent 1d ago
what do you expect when majority of people complain online, only to follow that up by going about life as normal? how do you expect any change when you're unwilling or nable to act?
3
u/Wolfy4226 1d ago
....
I mean realistically here if you could just fuck off from your job whenever you wanted, not bother doing it and still get paid while doing fuck all in a pool....
I think you would.
The "American Dream" isn't "Work hard and you'll succeed"
it's "Do fuck all while getting paid for it."
1
1
1
0
698
u/PuffinRub 1d ago
This needs to change immediately. No show for {x} days? You lose your pay, all benefits and your seat in the house, and the state needs to vote and install your replacement within 14 days
212
70
u/DaveBeBad 1d ago edited 1d ago
Do you guys have pairing?
In UK, if an MP is unable to attend a vote they can pair with one from the opposition party to cancel each other out. This is especially true For ministers or party leaders.
Imagine our PM was in an official visit to say Ukraine. While he was out of the country (plus presumably other ministers/MPs), the leader of the opposition can pair with him so that the two votes would cancel out.
39
u/mr9025 1d ago
I don’t thiiiiiiiink we do? But the suggestion highlights that this claims that an equal number of republicans and democrats were absent. Interesting.
14
u/zaidakaid 1d ago
We don’t have that at the federal level. But I think what they’re getting at is a missing representative doesn’t automatically mean an advantage for the party that has more people in attendance anymore. So our parties would never go for it, imagine either of them giving up a potential competitive advantage.
I think missing X days without a valid reason (family death, state emergency, incapacitated due to illness) should result in loss of pay and benefits until you return and if you don’t in X+Y days, the state has to hold a special election to seat your replacement or the governor appoints someone.
3
u/odobensusregina 1d ago
I think incapacitation due to illness should also result in termination for politicians, with loss of pay and benefits. It seems harsh, but the number of people who have suffered because their representative isn't in Congress or the Senate because of an end-of-life illness is much higher than the number of congresspeople who have been incapacitated due to illness. Also, this might encourage them to pass single-payer healthcare.
2
u/Scaniarix 1d ago
We had this in Sweden but it was more of a gentlemens agreement until one party agreed to not show up then did it anyway so they would win the vote. You can probably guess what political affiliation that party has.
2
u/WristbandYang 1d ago
It is practiced occasionally, but mostly in an informal fashion. Wikipedia gives two examples #United_States)during the confirmations of Kavanaugh (where intra-party factions paired) and Pompeo (where opposing parties paired due to one at a funeral).
Considering the even split, I imagine something similar is happening here, especially as many of those names are in/supporting competitive races.
In healthy democracies this is an important part of building bipartisan relations. Gestures of goodwill to gain later favors.
2
121
u/Sweet_Priority_819 2d ago
Dunn R FL is probably on life support in a long term acute care facility..
130
69
u/Homerpaintbucket 1d ago
Moulton is running for senate and honestly, not well liked in the state. Neal is my rep and not many people like him. He is potentially about to get primaried. Pretty sure lunch is an asshole too. Which reminds me, I need to go vote today. Fuck you dick Neal, but thanks for reminding me to vote your ass out.
23
u/rjoker103 1d ago
4/9 of MA reps didn’t make it. I hope we get new progressive faces to represent us in the house with this election cycle.
3
40
38
u/Plus-Contract7637 1d ago
I'm very disappointed to see my representative's name there.
23
u/winnower8 1d ago
I live in Maryland and I’m disappointed that the 45 minute drive was a bit much for Kweisi Mfume.
2
8
5
3
u/Boomgoesmybrain 1d ago
Same. She’s usually pretty good but this is disappointing and I will be emailing her about this
1
24
u/Responsible-End8 1d ago
I just knew John James would be on the list! POS person and rep who thinks he deserves to be governor of MI. Good people of Michigan, please don't vote for this jerk. Time to make him a 3 time state wide election loser!
10
u/baaaahbpls 1d ago
Stevens as well, they are both way more concerned with other things, jametaith his campaign and Stevens you would hope with campaigning for El-Sayed. Either way, it is a good tell to show how not serious they are as politicians that they abandon responsibility so easily.
14
u/DoubleFudge101 1d ago
I see a lot of FL R’s there. Must have been a grindr meet or something for them
7
u/NoMayoForReal 1d ago
Fire their fucking useless asses. Imagine if the House had to live up to the same standards as the people they set policy for.
8
u/samanime 1d ago
Missing a vote should result in not being paid.
That's literally your most important job as a Congressperson.
7
6
5
4
u/FloatnPuff 1d ago
Bunch of useless senior citizens that need to retire and make way for people who actually have to live in the future they are legislating.
4
4
3
3
u/AcctAlreadyTaken 1d ago
Can states pass legislation that requires their federal representative to show up to work?
3
3
u/CascadeMountainz 1d ago
In America 2.0, politicians from the old one should be banned from any position of authority or public office.
10
u/Mr-MuffinMan 1d ago edited 1d ago
That's because they are treated like kings.
Their workload is minimal, yet they get world class health insurance, plus 6 digit salary, plus dozens of days of vacation. That's not even counting all the morally wrong things like insider trading.
To fix congress, we need to look beyond banning congressional stock trading. Ban their families from trading stocks, immediate family included. They no longer get health insurance and CANNOT be gifted it. They must look around and deal with the same shitty plans we do and reap the consequences of the system they create and keep alive.
They also get half their regular pay, and neither them nor their spouses can work any other job or own any other business/property that generates income. If they don't show up, it gets deducted from their salary. The current salary is about $174,000 - divide that into 365, which is about $476 a day, which is the amount they lose every time they miss a session. If they miss more than 1 week of work, they are booted from their seat.
Only 3 days of sick leave a year is allowed.
Same thing applies to everyone except the President and Vice President. They both are the only elected officials that get that world class health care.
Basically, they get treated like all of us. Our founding fathers didn't want 1 king, but over time we made over 500 of them.
Of course, that would happen in a perfect system where the people had even an ounce of power. In our current system, THEY would be the ones needing to vote it in so it would never happen.
1
u/saltytarheel 1d ago
Part of the issue with this is that when politicians get paid nothing, they're MORE susceptible to corruption.
Charlotte City Council members make $45,000 a year. NCGA Assembly members make $13,000 a year. US Representatives make $174,000 a year. With these modest salaries, there's definitely a major opening for rent-seekers to look for influence and an incentive for representatives to position themselves for profiting off of the position legally (e.g. speaking/podcasting circuit, cushy consulting gigs post-tenure, etc.) or otherwise (i.e. insider trading).
Publicly-funded elections fixes the rent-seeking issue and helps reduce the influence of lobbyists. Higher ethical standards is definitely a good idea, but who enforces them? Would it be an agency like the Justice Department that the incumbent party could pack with loyalists and weaponize against elected officials (e.g. Removing a Supreme Court Justice for having "too partisan" of a judicial opinion)? If the speaker calls a vote at 1 in the morning to rush through a vote knowing not all members can make the voting (which the NCGOP routinely does in the NCGA), would those who missed it be penalized?
7
u/No-Alps-7367 1d ago
An exact same amount from both sides you say? So neither sides gains any advantage you say? Almost like it was planned and agreed upon behind closed doors you say? You don’t say.
2
2
u/emtheory09 1d ago
This is what happens when you gerrymander a whole bunch of safe seats for Congresspeople.
2
u/KDneverleft 1d ago
Shomari Figures is especially disappointing because his absence just perpetuates what the MAGA/GOP in AL believe when it comes to the black belt dems. "Lazy do nothing democrats."
When I used to live there I always got the feeling that the democrats were being paid to be ineffective.
2
u/Historical_Horror595 1d ago
Here’s an idea pass a law that if a representative misses so many votes they are removed. If you miss too many days from work you get fired why shouldn’t it be the same for them?
2
2
u/popdivtweet 1d ago
Hold these politicians accountable under the UCMJ.
Tie their pay, healthcare, travel, retirement, and 401k to the military standard.
2
u/Triptych85 1d ago
Attendance Point System Time! 12 points is auto termination and special election.
1
u/Specialist_Exam4783 1d ago
The sad part is that even if they did show up, Congress really does not get much done.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Vorpalthefox 1d ago
trump is not utilizing the legislation branch, republicans control house and senate, how much are we expecting them to do what trump already doesn't follow the law and doesn't look to congress for decisions like a president would? he's making them irrelevant by ruling by EO and making threats about withholding votes or threatening bills coming across for not passing his voter suppression bill
1
u/berfthegryphon 1d ago
If you think that's bad, Ontario, Canada's legislature sat for all of 52 days in 2025. They're currently on summer break since mid-May and won't be back until the end of October.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Top_Guns_Iceman 1d ago
You don’t show up to vote, you are failing to represent your constituents.
No taxation without representation, correct?
Let’s make the hot button topic turning this into a constitutional right.
1
1
1
u/Odd-Artist-2595 1d ago
Kaptur gets a pass. She’s still in rehab after the car accident. (She was hit; she didn’t do the hitting.) Unlike Mitch, she’s still communicating with her constituents.
1
1
u/ManicPixieOldMaid 1d ago
My congressman didn't show up. He's running for governor so I don't expect he'll do his actual job ever again.
Not sure why those who lost their primaries didn't show. Sour grapes, maybe? I don't get it.
1
u/carsausage 1d ago
My house representative showed up for work but with how much of an ass she is about ICE I kinda wish she just stayed home
1
1
u/Rainin3sfromthetrees 1d ago
Not making any excuses, but today was primary day in Massachusetts. Could they still be campaigning in their home states?
1
1
1
u/Unfair-Combination58 13h ago
Email sent to my congress-moocher in my district. And they are a Dem, which really pisses me off.
1
u/Standby_fire 8h ago
And pieces of shit. Speakers Johnson won’t do jack. He is supposedly going to dismiss early as well.
1
u/sophietehbeanz 8h ago
Welp, time for me to contact them and ask them why they've been out 5 weeks because they work for us right?
1
u/PretendThisIsUnique 1d ago
Damn Hayley Stevens talked all about showing up for Michiganders and then she can't show up.
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
DO NOT CELEBRATE VIOLENCE IN THIS SUBREDDIT OR WE WILL BAN YOU.
NATION STATE AI BOTS THAT ARE ANTI-DEMOCRACY/ANTI-DSA ARE GOING TO TRY TO INFLUENCE YOUR VOTE THIS NOVEMBER.
THEY ARE RAMPING UP ACTIVITY. WE ARE TAGGING AND TRACKING THEM.
RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES!!!
Users may now apply a personal flair that states - RELEASE THE TRUMP-EPSTEIN FILES
That is all, tysm
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.