They make way too much money for what they do.

[OLDMDDEM]

Senate Salaries since 1789
Years Salary
1789–1815 $6.00 per diem
1815–1817 $1,500 per annum
1817–1855 $8.00 per diem
1855–1865 $3,000 per annum
1865–1871 $5,000 per annum
1871–1873 $7,500 per annum
1873–1907 $5,000 per annum
1907–1925 $7,500 per annum
1925–1932 $10,000 per annum
1932–1933 $9,000 per annum
1933–1935 $8,500 per annum
1935–1947 $10,000 per annum
1947–1955 $12,500 per annum
1955–1965 $22,500 per annum
1965–1969 $30,000 per annum
1969–1975 $42,500 per annum
1975–1977 $44,600 per annum
1977–1978 $57,500 per annum
1979–1983 $60,662.50 per annum
1983 $69,800 per annum
1984 $72,600 per annum
1985–1986 $75,100 per annum
Jan 1, 1987 – Feb 3, 1987 $77,400 per annum
Feb 4, 1987 $89,500 per annum
Feb 1, 1990 $98,400 per annum
1991 $101,900 per annum
Aug 15, 1991 $125,100 per annum
1992 $129,500 per annum
1993 $133,600 per annum
1994 $133,600 per annum
1995 $133,600 per annum
1996 $133,600 per annum
1997 $133,600 per annum
1998 $136,700 per annum
1999 $136,700 per annum
2000 $141,300 per annum
2001 $145,100 per annum
2002 $150,000 per annum
2003 $154,700 per annum
2004 $158,100 per annum
2005 $162,100 per annum
2006 $165,200 per annum
2007 $165,200 per annum
2008 $169,300 per annum
2009 $174,000 per annum
2010 $174,000 per annum
2011 $174,000 per annum
2012 $174,000 per annum
2013 $174,000 per annum
2014 $174,000 per annum
2015 $174,000 per annum
2016 $174,000 per annum
2017 $174,000 per annum
2018 $174,000 per annum
2019 $174,000 per annum
2020 $174,000 per annum
2021 $174,000 per annum

[Irish_Dem]

1. Plus the bribes and insider trading.

[OLDMDDEM]

2. I agree

You are spot on.

[VarryOn]

7. Exactly. Look how many start out middle class...

Then retire very wealthy after years of public service.

[Irish_Dem]

10. Yep. Go to congress poor and come out rich.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Dunno about that. Their primary job is fundraising, and a good...

fundraiser is priceless.

[Beatlelvr]

6. Uh oh

Lookout...they haven't had a pay raise since 09. They sure are asleep at the wheel if they haven't given themselves a raise in so long a time. I guess they are just putting too much effort into their jobs (like trying to rig our precious electoral systems).

[Walleye]

4. Yeah, how much does Sean Hannity make? Tucker Carlson?

[OLDMDDEM]

5. Hmmm

I read somewhere that Hannity made 36 million in 2018. Carlson's salary is 6 million per year.

[Walleye]

8. Sweet gig. Sits on his ass and talks all day has no responsibility for anything

I don’t happen to think most of our lawmakers are overpaid. Of course some of them don’t really deserve any salary at all. MTG must be in negative numbers by now as many fines as she’s gotten

[YorkRd]

9. It's really not very much. The insider trading is the real issue.

They really should be paid more. https://fourpillarfreedom.com/visualizing-200k-income-households-in-all-3000-u-s-counties/

[mathematic]

11. $174k is too much money for a couple hundred of the most important jobs on the planet?

This is a bizarre take. Senior engineers at any large company routinely make that much money.

[OLDMDDEM]

12. I don't disagree

If they work instead of having needless political arguments over nonsense things. Just look at their amount of time off. Engineers work, and get paid for 260 days total with maybe 25 to 30 days off for vacation and holiday.

[mathematic]

13. Senators don't get a minute off the entire year. They are always "on call".

You're talking like you think they're only working when they're voting on things but you can't possibly believe that so I'm a little confused on what point you're trying to make.

[former9thward]

16. Let's not exaggerate.

I have no complaints about their salary but they get plenty of vacation time. No, they are not "always on call".

[MagickMuffin]

26. Tell that to my Representative and Senators

They're lines are always full so you can never leave a message. Plus my senator went to Cancun while my state froze.


Always "On Call" is simply not true.

[mathematic]

30. "On call" means that they can be called into work at any time under exceptional circumstances

It doesn't mean that you, MagickMuffin, can call up their office at any particular time and talk to a person.

The reason you think Cruz behaved wrongly during the TX freeze was precisely because a senator is always on call. You agree Cruz was on call and he ignored his duty to do his job. If he wasn't on call, staying on or going on vacation is doing nothing wrong.

In the private sector, if you're on call, you can ignore being called in to work. This may result in getting fired. I think we both agree this would be suitable for Ted Cruz as well.

[inthewind21]

21. Most important job on the planet?

Really? Can you be any more over the top? Let's see, they work a complete year, they accomplish virtually nothing, most of their time is spent on FB, TWITTER, fundraising or mugging for the camera. It's not supposed to be a career move. It's called public service. Most "important job on the planet" yeah, no. Not even close. 174K a year with benefits that NO ONE else comes close to getting, no experience required and after what 1 or 2 terms you get all your benefits for life in a country where the average pay is 35K a year, pensions are a thing of the past, ss is not enough to live on, yet here we are, reading proclamations how important and special they are. You think the likes of Joe Walsh, MTG, Boebart, Gossar and the other morons in congress landed that gig for their overwhelming intelligence and concern of for the country? Most important job on the planet. LOL

[mcar]

14. Completely disagree

$174,000, while a healthy sum, is not that much for people who have to keep 2 homes. One of the reasons most in the Senate are already millionaires - in this stupid elections system of ours, you need a lot of money to run and govern.

Even worse though is the staffers' salaries. The people who actually do the work of running Congress make terrible wages.

[wryter2000]

19. I'm with you

One of their dwelling places is in DC.

[eppur_se_muova]

32. TX thought it was clever to pay its state reps very, very little. It just made them very corrupt.

It also guaranteed that "regular folks" couldn't afford to hold office -- only rich ranchers and, later, oil men could afford to run for office.

Anyone in the Lege who needed influencing was plied with "beef, broads, and bourbon" -- i.e. high living which they could never honestly afford themselves, on lobbyists' expense accounts -- until they came around.

We see the same in Congress today -- make your fortune first, then run for office. Especially for Uglicans, who mostly hold office to cut their own taxes.

[mcar]

33. That's right.

[dugog55]

15. It is hard to say if $174K is too much for them to make. It is a lot of money

for 90% of Americans, but they have expenses too. Living in or around DC, travel, etc... I am not sure how much of that is covered by an expense account, or if they even have one. And who pays for their aides or assistants?

The item I am concerned with is their pension. There should be none, or it should be based on their time of service with a set amount. Example; Senators are elected with a six year term. They should get one month of severance for each year. That amount to be determined, but probably around 1/12 of their yearly salary which would be about $15K a month for six months. That's it, period. NO extended health care or other benefits either.

They get elected as "Public Servants". NOT life long mooches. It is bad enough they have gamed the system so badly that they come out millionaires with insider trading or just information they can pass along to "friends" and donors. They have passed rules for themselves that make it almost impossible to nail them for acting fraudulently in office. Then when they leave office, they get some high paying job as a lobbyist or Board Member at some company that they received donations from to pass friendly legislation for. Most of it stinks to high heaven.

The Senate and House both need to be cleaned up, and get dirty money out of the system.

[tenderfoot]

17. Much like working burger joints and waiting tables, serving in office isn't meant to be a career.

[karynnj]

18. I do not agree

They need to live in both their state and the DC area meaning housing costs in both. In addition, many made more in their non government job without those extra costs. The result of reducing the salary would be to eventually have only independently wealthy people run.

[OLDMDDEM]

20. I think

one of the requirements to be a senator or representative is that your net worth cannot exceed the average of the constituents you represent.

[karynnj]

24. If you use the median as average, you effectively disenfranchised half the people

Including the most successful. This would preclude not just those, like FDR, who was born wealthy, but people like Frank Lautenberg, the son of two immigrants whose dad worked as a laborer in Patterson, NJ's silk mills. Frank fought in WWII and went to college on the GI bill. He was one of the founders of ADP. He then sought the Senate seat and was a very strong advocate for labor unions. I heard him speak at a county Democratic picnic explaining why strong OSHA laws were personal to him. His dad and uncle had told their children they needed an education to avoid the mills, where you could see filaments floating in the air. They intuitively knew this would harm them. Both died young per the Senator. Yet, he was a multimillionaire when he ran for Senate. Would you reject him?

Not to mention, what about someone whose wealth changes? Let's say someone is elected as a single person and then marries. Must he or she resign if they then exceed the amount?

[inthewind21]

23. No

It's a PUBLIC SERVICE job. Period. Kyrsten Sinema is a prime example of WHY the endless list of losers in the congress get in and then spend their entire time there trying to stay in. Her net worth when elected in 2019, 32K, her net worth by 2021 over 1 milllion. Bue hey, let's pay her more, she NEEDS it.

[maxsolomon]

22. Ridiculous post.

I suppose you're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore?

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Just Silly

Their salary is hardly a problem.
Our household income is higher than that because of stuff we used to do.
I agree with others that their elbow rubbing with money makers which gives them an inside edge their constituency will never have is the issue.
$174k for someone maintaining a second home in D.C. is fully justified.

[OLDMDDEM]

27. I agree

but most of these people are millionaires several times over.

[ProfessorGAC]

28. Perhaps $174k Is A Reason

One cannot afford to suspend their careers over $174k with dual residency.
Maybe if it paid better, we'd get more accomplished people running that aren't already wealthy.
It's expensive to run, expensive to serve in the role. We've turned being rich into being a prerequisite.

[OLDMDDEM]

29. You make a good point.

[Celerity]

31. Disagree. Now if you want to talk their bullshit insider trading being allowed, then I agree.