Democrat darling says "give me a raise or I'll be forced to take bribes"

[japantiger 4,051]

AOC is pure comedy gold...if we only gave everyone in Congress $4500 more per year for doing nothing; when they already make 3-times the national average income; and are a part of the evil top 5% of wage earners; then we wouldn't have corruption ... I hope she gets re-elected forever....if I were the current administration; I'd let her use the WH briefing room.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez‏Verified account @AOC

FollowFollow @AOC

More

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Retweeted Matt Stoller

Yep. Voting against cost of living increases for members of Congress may sound nice, but doing so only increases pressure on them to keep dark money loopholes open. This makes campaign finance reform *harder.* ALL workers deserve cost of living increases, incl min wage workers.

[AUloggerhead 2,229]

I am in favor of the Congress increasing their salaries -- as long as they first submit the proposal to a national referendum for approval. 

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

I actually have no problems with Congress getting a cost of living increase. There are not many jobs where you have to keep two homes. One in your home state and one in DC. Cost of living in DC is extremely high. That said they need to show up for work on a regular basis (how many sessions and votes did they miss).  They need to pass legislation where they can't use their Congressional job to become a lobbyist  as soon as they leave office. They shouldn't come into office as middle class person and come out of Office as a rich person.

I have a better idea instead of a Salary increase why not have the congressman live in their own district have an Office in their own District and vote from that Office. With modern technology they can do remote meetings and caucuses, remote voting and only have to pay for a single staff instead of one in their state and one in DC.  Keeping congress men at home also dilutes influence of lobbyists and special interests. This also makes the congressmen more accessible to their constituents.   Having congressmen all over the country makes them less accessible to Lobbyists and also makes it easier for us to see who is visiting them and who isn't. Doing this also makes it safer from an attack as people are not all in one place.

[japantiger 4,051]

I agree with your point on the use of modern tech to reduce the need for being in DC ... I think we just need to do away with DC.  Minimally, move it to the geographic center of the US.... if the capital was suddenly in Lebanon, Kansas; corruption and lobbying would drop dramatically.  

[japantiger 4,051]

I think we've found AOC's real father....this is what $175k a year buys us...

For the third Congress in a row, Rep. Eliot Engel has reintroduced his Flamethrowers? Really? Act, which serves no purpose other than to highlight Congress’ overcriminalization problem.

The bill would make it a crime to own or transfer a flamethrower.

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/bill-ban-flamethrowers-solution-search-problem?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thf-fb&fbclid=IwAR17cTLqgs2NH0zszgMTV-zN1X1mshSEI3Z8QlX1AM20tXybzJvcDwyqysg

[alexava 6,973]

Give them free housing in DC. Similar to college dorms or section 8 apartments. 

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

Give them free housing in DC. Similar to college dorms or section 8 apartments. 

Good idea Alex. New section 8 multi family is very nice today. Granite counter tops, community amenities, the works. Unfortunately you and I are to fortunate for an affordable unit.

We all know the doll is talking about about a minimum wage increase which ludicrous. Government has no business setting any wage.  

[alexava 6,973]

I have never seen public housing with those amenities. 

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

I have never seen public housing with those amenities. 

They dress them up on the outside to make the outward appearance look good for the neighborhood, but I highly doubt anything Salty said was factual. Formica *maybe*, but they aren’t putting granite in Section 8 housing lol. 

They sure as s*** aren’t putting them in the projects. I’ve been in the projects and they’re just as s***ty as they look on television and movies. 

[alexava 6,973]

1 hour ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

They dress them up on the outside to make the outward appearance look good for the neighborhood, but I highly doubt anything Salty said was factual. Formica *maybe*, but they aren’t putting granite in Section 8 housing lol. 

They sure as s*** aren’t putting them in the projects. I’ve been in the projects and they’re just as s***ty as they look on television and movies. 

Yes. I concur. Especially on the granite. 

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

9 hours ago, alexava said:

I have never seen public housing with those amenities. 

Affordable government housing. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. While most have a mid grade cabinets with p'lam tops many enjoy stone counter tops. The community area amenities are also very nice. Upscale in some communities.  A very lucrative business to be in from the development/property management and construction side.

Most people in the business vote straight democrat of course. 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

Doublewides in Lebanon Kansas ... use the FEMA emergency housing trailers.  Cut the session to 3 months or only do semi-annually.  

[japantiger 4,051]

More comedy gold from the Swamp...moving jobs out of DC to where they actually need to be and save tax $$...these poor bureaucrats....this needs to be carried out on a massive scale.

Government employees turned their backs on Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue during a meeting Thursday as a silent protest over the decision to relocate the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA).

https://dailycaller.com/2019/06/14/sonny-perdue-silent-protest-kansas-city/

 

[alexava 6,973]

9 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Affordable government housing. Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. While most have a mid grade cabinets with p'lam tops many enjoy stone counter tops. The community area amenities are also very nice. Upscale in some communities.  A very lucrative business to be in from the development/property management and construction side.

Most people in the business vote straight democrat of course. 

 

I need to get into the business. 

[channonc 466]

Where to begin with some of these comments... I'm sure this will be too long for most and blown by because it doesn't fit in a tweet, but here's my $0.02.

Let's start with Congressional pay.

Member pay is as follows:

• Rank and file Members of the House and Senate make $174,000/year. 
• Speaker: $223,500/year
• House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders: $193,400/year

Unlike with state legislatures, Members of Congress are forbidden from holding other jobs. So this is it. While there are several members that are independently wealthy, the reality is, if you don't just want the rich to be the only ones to be able to afford a life of public service in Congress then we really need to have a real conversation about raising their salaries. 

As some up thread have mentioned, DC is not a cheap place to live, and trying to maintain a residence both in DC and in your home state/district is extremely tough and in some cases ensures that you have to come from a 2 income family to even do. DC's median rent is $1550 for a 2 bedroom apartment with the national average is $1180. Let me tell you to live anywhere near Capitol Hill rent is pretty much double that. To buy it is even more expensive. DC's median home price is $600,000. Again on Capitol Hill (or anywhere within a decent commute is much closer to $1m and above). 

Again, our nation has always tried to be one where our systems were set up for the average American to be able to run for and hold office in our government. Keeping pay low ensures that only the rich and privileged will be able to afford to be a MoC. Additionally, low salaries does increase the likelihood that someone could be vulnerable for blackmail or illegal ventures-- it's also why Congress requires on it's own disclosures to not just list your assets, but also your debts. 

Lastly, there were some comments about Members being absent for a lot of votes. Actually, missed vote percentages were very low for last Congress. In the House, the person who missed the most votes was Rep. Cummings (D-MD) at 33.2%. I suspect a lot of that missed time was when he was hospitalized with some major heart issues. However, most House members missed less than 10% of the votes. LINK

In the Senate, Senator Menendez (D-NJ) missed 14% of the votes-- mostly due to his trial and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) in second at 12.9% who was out for several weeks on maternity leave. After that, most Senators were well under 5% of the votes missed. LINK

While I agree that Members should try not to miss any votes at all. I don't think these percentages are as high as some in the thread imply they are.

Moving Congressmen and Senators away from DC and allow for purely online/electronic voting.

While I'm all for telecommuting where it makes sense, it does not make sense for Congress. We are now being exposed to cybersecurity issues with voting machines in our state-run elections. I can't imagine the cost of having to set up a secure system with which to set up electronic voting for Members of Congress. Time zones also pose a challenge. The US and it's territories cover 11 time zones in total. Can you imagine everyone at their various homes trying to cope with doing business during a set time zone while not actually residing in that zone during the work hours. This would make work/home life for a lot of members almost impossible because even though they are at home, they would be unable to visit with constituents-- unless they don't actually want to sleep. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I've been around DC for a long-time and one of the frustrations is the lack of bipartisanship. Frankly, it's very hard to get more compromises and moving issues forward without the lawmakers having relationships with each other. Splitting up everyone all over the country would make it almost impossible for those relationships to form and common ground to be found. Having meetings with those in the Executive Branch would also be impossible. Forming relationships at the White House would be impossible. All of this is necessary to understand the issues in detail facing our government and working out ways to solve them. In the social media world today, a lot of this seems very simple, but the biggest thing I hear from freshmen members is how much they realized they don't know until they arrive in DC. 

Relationships is a big part of getting this right, and it is hard to form relationships built on trust through a phone call/skype or email. We are still social creatures and in-person interaction usually helps form the bonds necessary to do the business of your consituents.

Lobbyists/Outside Influence

The first amendment allows for everyone to assemble and to petition their government. Doing this in groups is certainly not prohibited and our system encourages it. There is a misnomer out there that every lobbyist is out there peddling policies that go against those of the average American. This is simply not true. As a lobbyist, most of my clients are local governmental entities who are acting as extensions of their constituents and the same constituents of the MoCs themselves. In addition, there are lots of lobbyists who work on behalf of groups of concerned citizens. The idea that every lobbyist is working for big oil, big pharma, alcohol, tobacco, or whatever "evil" special interest is pretty far from the truth. Eliminating lobbyists in their entirety would be in direct violation of the first amendment and would be swiftly challenged in Court.

Over the past 15 years, lobbying disclosure rules have really tightened. Reforms that were necessary in response to Jack Abramhoff. Lobbying is defined in code, and anyone who spends 20% or more of their time lobbying as defined by law must register. Registered lobbyists must then disclose their clients, issues lobbied on behalf of that client and how much money per quarter (anything above $5K/quarter has to be disclosed, otherwise only the activities themselves are subject to disclosure). Registered lobbyists are also required to disclose all political donations made-- how much and to whom (candidates, PACs).

Search the lobby disclosure database here.

Search the lobbying contributions database here

Be careful what you wish for in terms of trying to eliminate the appearance of direct lobbying. What I'm witnessing is that with the move to try to brand all lobbyists as bad or putting bans on anyone registered from moving back into the government for service is that you end up with what I call underground lobbying. These people are also well connected individuals, but only play in the world of campaigns for their influence and avoid activities that require them to register. This makes what they do and who they represent hidden from the public-- which is something I am completely against. I have no problems with anyone knowing who my clients are and what issues I am working on their behalf and I don't know of any other registered lobbyists who are against having to disclose what they do for whom and for how much. Those that work underground in the darkness are growing as some MoCs, particularly freshmen (of both parties) talk a big game about trying to steer away from lobbyists. Instead, they will interact with these other types of folks in the dark out of the eye of the public. It's not healthy for our democracy.

I would also highlight that almost every citizen is employed or a member of a group that hires a lobbyist in some fashion. Your company, your professional membership association or society, all the way down to AAA hire lobbyists-- both internally to the organization and external to the organization.

Again, I know my thoughts here won't change many minds. But I hope it's at least given you another perspective to consider.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Not what she said, not that the mischaracterization surprises me.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

18 hours ago, ShocksMyBrain said:

They dress them up on the outside to make the outward appearance look good for the neighborhood, but I highly doubt anything Salty said was factual. Formica *maybe*, but they aren’t putting granite in Section 8 housing lol. 

They sure as s*** aren’t putting them in the projects. I’ve been in the projects and they’re just as s***ty as they look on television and movies. 

I work with my church we pick up donated gently used furniture and deliver to families in need. I have delivered to a lot of Section 8 housing. There are no granite tops and the places are usually very small. Some are pristine and well kept because the people living there keep it that way and others are not because the people living there don't take care of them.

[SaltyTiger 7,793]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I work with my church we pick up donated gently used furniture and deliver to families in need. I have delivered to a lot of Section 8 housing. There are no granite tops and the places are usually very small. Some are pristine and well kept because the people living there keep it that way and others are not because the people living there don't take care of them.

We are talking two different types of "communities". Look around any city or town and note the popularity of the  multi-family living trend. Some developers are in the business of taking advantage of low interest loans and huge tax credits by investing in affordable family housing. All specs and amenity are based on government guidelines. Been around for a while. The owner/developer/contractor/property manager do assume some risk but it is very lucrative.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I work with my church we pick up donated gently used furniture and deliver to families in need. I have delivered to a lot of Section 8 housing. There are no granite tops and the places are usually very small. Some are pristine and well kept because the people living there keep it that way and others are not because the people living there don't take care of them.

You should see the government housing in Nola. You wouldn’t know that’s what it was just by looking. Very modern look and good amenities. All post-Katrina of course. 

[japantiger 4,051]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

After reading all of this I have a serious question.  For those that have children or grandchildren; what do you try to instill in their thoughts going forward?  Is it even worth trying to get an education and just accept they can’t improve their lot in life and give up?  Or get your education, make good decisions and live your life the best you can?

 

18 hours ago, channonc said:

Where to begin with some of these comments... I'm sure this will be too long for most and blown by because it doesn't fit in a tweet, but here's my $0.02.

Let's start with Congressional pay.

Member pay is as follows:

• Rank and file Members of the House and Senate make $174,000/year. 
• Speaker: $223,500/year
• House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders: $193,400/year

Unlike with state legislatures, Members of Congress are forbidden from holding other jobs. So this is it. While there are several members that are independently wealthy, the reality is, if you don't just want the rich to be the only ones to be able to afford a life of public service in Congress then we really need to have a real conversation about raising their salaries. 

As some up thread have mentioned, DC is not a cheap place to live, and trying to maintain a residence both in DC and in your home state/district is extremely tough and in some cases ensures that you have to come from a 2 income family to even do. DC's median rent is $1550 for a 2 bedroom apartment with the national average is $1180. Let me tell you to live anywhere near Capitol Hill rent is pretty much double that. To buy it is even more expensive. DC's median home price is $600,000. Again on Capitol Hill (or anywhere within a decent commute is much closer to $1m and above). 

Again, our nation has always tried to be one where our systems were set up for the average American to be able to run for and hold office in our government. Keeping pay low ensures that only the rich and privileged will be able to afford to be a MoC. Additionally, low salaries does increase the likelihood that someone could be vulnerable for blackmail or illegal ventures-- it's also why Congress requires on it's own disclosures to not just list your assets, but also your debts. 

Lastly, there were some comments about Members being absent for a lot of votes. Actually, missed vote percentages were very low for last Congress. In the House, the person who missed the most votes was Rep. Cummings (D-MD) at 33.2%. I suspect a lot of that missed time was when he was hospitalized with some major heart issues. However, most House members missed less than 10% of the votes. LINK

In the Senate, Senator Menendez (D-NJ) missed 14% of the votes-- mostly due to his trial and Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) in second at 12.9% who was out for several weeks on maternity leave. After that, most Senators were well under 5% of the votes missed. LINK

While I agree that Members should try not to miss any votes at all. I don't think these percentages are as high as some in the thread imply they are.

Moving Congressmen and Senators away from DC and allow for purely online/electronic voting.

While I'm all for telecommuting where it makes sense, it does not make sense for Congress. We are now being exposed to cybersecurity issues with voting machines in our state-run elections. I can't imagine the cost of having to set up a secure system with which to set up electronic voting for Members of Congress. Time zones also pose a challenge. The US and it's territories cover 11 time zones in total. Can you imagine everyone at their various homes trying to cope with doing business during a set time zone while not actually residing in that zone during the work hours. This would make work/home life for a lot of members almost impossible because even though they are at home, they would be unable to visit with constituents-- unless they don't actually want to sleep. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I've been around DC for a long-time and one of the frustrations is the lack of bipartisanship. Frankly, it's very hard to get more compromises and moving issues forward without the lawmakers having relationships with each other. Splitting up everyone all over the country would make it almost impossible for those relationships to form and common ground to be found. Having meetings with those in the Executive Branch would also be impossible. Forming relationships at the White House would be impossible. All of this is necessary to understand the issues in detail facing our government and working out ways to solve them. In the social media world today, a lot of this seems very simple, but the biggest thing I hear from freshmen members is how much they realized they don't know until they arrive in DC. 

Relationships is a big part of getting this right, and it is hard to form relationships built on trust through a phone call/skype or email. We are still social creatures and in-person interaction usually helps form the bonds necessary to do the business of your consituents.

Lobbyists/Outside Influence

The first amendment allows for everyone to assemble and to petition their government. Doing this in groups is certainly not prohibited and our system encourages it. There is a misnomer out there that every lobbyist is out there peddling policies that go against those of the average American. This is simply not true. As a lobbyist, most of my clients are local governmental entities who are acting as extensions of their constituents and the same constituents of the MoCs themselves. In addition, there are lots of lobbyists who work on behalf of groups of concerned citizens. The idea that every lobbyist is working for big oil, big pharma, alcohol, tobacco, or whatever "evil" special interest is pretty far from the truth. Eliminating lobbyists in their entirety would be in direct violation of the first amendment and would be swiftly challenged in Court.

Over the past 15 years, lobbying disclosure rules have really tightened. Reforms that were necessary in response to Jack Abramhoff. Lobbying is defined in code, and anyone who spends 20% or more of their time lobbying as defined by law must register. Registered lobbyists must then disclose their clients, issues lobbied on behalf of that client and how much money per quarter (anything above $5K/quarter has to be disclosed, otherwise only the activities themselves are subject to disclosure). Registered lobbyists are also required to disclose all political donations made-- how much and to whom (candidates, PACs).

Search the lobby disclosure database here.

Search the lobbying contributions database here

Be careful what you wish for in terms of trying to eliminate the appearance of direct lobbying. What I'm witnessing is that with the move to try to brand all lobbyists as bad or putting bans on anyone registered from moving back into the government for service is that you end up with what I call underground lobbying. These people are also well connected individuals, but only play in the world of campaigns for their influence and avoid activities that require them to register. This makes what they do and who they represent hidden from the public-- which is something I am completely against. I have no problems with anyone knowing who my clients are and what issues I am working on their behalf and I don't know of any other registered lobbyists who are against having to disclose what they do for whom and for how much. Those that work underground in the darkness are growing as some MoCs, particularly freshmen (of both parties) talk a big game about trying to steer away from lobbyists. Instead, they will interact with these other types of folks in the dark out of the eye of the public. It's not healthy for our democracy.

I would also highlight that almost every citizen is employed or a member of a group that hires a lobbyist in some fashion. Your company, your professional membership association or society, all the way down to AAA hire lobbyists-- both internally to the organization and external to the organization.

Again, I know my thoughts here won't change many minds. But I hope it's at least given you another perspective to consider.

Good thoughtful post.  

The challenge I have with this is that you don't address real issues by creating more separation between the political class and "the people".   It's contradictory to decry "inequality" in CEO's or business leaders (evil 1%'ers) while making those that are supposed to represent "the people" those that you decry.  Politicians are not a separate species.  They are people and subject to same vices as anyone.  And from what I see; moreso.  10,000 years of civilization and the laws in place to prosecute political corruption proves where there is politics and money; there is corruption.   The mere fact that they regularly exempt themselves from the laws they expect the rest of us peasants to live by should tell you all you need to know.   

There are simply too many incentives and the $$ are just too large to trust that they will act in the peoples interest.  The "Founders" were unpaid and they did OK.  The House of Representatives needs to be "representative"; sessions need to be shorter and/or semiannually; DC needs to be decentralized; and Congress must live by the same laws they impose.  

[channonc 466]

17 minutes ago, japantiger said:

 

Good thoughtful post.  

The challenge I have with this is that you don't address real issues by creating more separation between the political class and "the people".   It's contradictory to decry "inequality" in CEO's or business leaders (evil 1%'ers) while making those that are supposed to represent "the people" those that you decry.  Politicians are not a separate species.  They are people and subject to same vices as anyone.  And from what I see; moreso.  10,000 years of civilization and the laws in place to prosecute political corruption proves where there is politics and money; there is corruption.   The mere fact that they regularly exempt themselves from the laws they expect the rest of us peasants to live by should tell you all you need to know.   

There are simply too many incentives and the $$ are just too large to trust that they will act in the peoples interest.  The "Founders" were unpaid and they did OK.  The House of Representatives needs to be "representative"; sessions need to be shorter and/or semiannually; DC needs to be decentralized; and Congress must live by the same laws they impose.  

What do you mean separation? Very few MoCs are not readily accessible. Most are extremely accessible to the average person. 

Decentralizing DC will do nothing but create further inefficiencies in running our government. Like it or not, managing the federal government is a big job and solving the nation’s problems is not an easy 1-2 fix. This is not a state government. All THREE branches of government need to work, in order for the people’s business to get done. 

[japantiger 4,051]

1 minute ago, channonc said:

What do you mean separation? Very few MoCs are not readily accessible. Most are extremely accessible to the average person. 

Decentralizing DC will do nothing but create further inefficiencies in running our government. Like it or not, managing the federal government is a big job and solving the nation’s problems is not an easy 1-2 fix. This is not a state government. All THREE branches of government need to work, in order for the people’s business to get done. 

Separation: increase the wage gap between the average American and the Political class.  Congress currently earns 3x the average American.  Any proposal to increase salaries for the Political class, increases the separation between "the people" and politicians who are supposed to represent them.

Decentralizing DC: You make two distinct points....I run a global organization.  Modern tech makes it pretty seamless.  Any major US business leader deals with this.  If we have a breed of bureaucrats that can't manage in the current environment, get rid of them and get new ones that can.  This is what the rest of "the people" have to do in the "modern" world.   Gov't shouldn't be different than the people.  Decentralization is the enemy of bureaucracy, waste and inertia; that is the whole point.  We need smaller, accountable gov't with less central staff.  As for all 3 branches of gov't needing to work; it doesn't today.  Status quo is the enemy.  When something is broke; you don't tiptoe around it.  Congress is fundamentally broken.  Shake it up.  

We need a convention of states to fundamentally restructure what the Federal gov't is and does.  

 

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, japantiger said:

........We need a convention of states to fundamentally restructure what the Federal gov't is and does.  

 

Didn't we try that once? 

 

 

 

[japantiger 4,051]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Didn't we try that once? 

 

 

 

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Thomas Jefferson

[homersapien 11,367]

Man, talk about "pearl clutching" topics, this thread is a perfect example!