What others say: Cut Congress' pay?


Return To Article
  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    March 16, 2013 10:00 p.m.

    Doc the 5 from Utah...

    5 x 175K = 875K (+ benefits)...

    A drop in the bucket...

    Purely symbolic...

    Yet, a symbol I can live with.

  • Gregorio Norco, CA
    March 16, 2013 9:01 p.m.

    Elected officials should be held accountable. If they don"t pass a budget when the constitution says they should, each day tardy is a $1,000 deduction in pay. That will get their attention. They will have to plan for a reduction just as we do for not following a budget at home.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    March 16, 2013 6:04 p.m.

    Remember all these negative comments about the performance of our national legislators when we vote in the next congressional elections. Certainly these same negative comments apply to our legislators. We may not be able to change their salary, but we have the right to retire them.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    March 16, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    It's especially galling to understand that the automatic salary increases sucked up by our Congress members in only the last seven years is equal to a the average annual wage of a Utah teacher.

    What is REALLY needed is far more complex. We NEED a complete overhaul of campaign finance laws; overturning of Citizens United; and strict term limits. Combined, those might (but only might) help bring a measure of sanity back to the Capitol.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    March 16, 2013 5:44 a.m.

    How can they ask every one to do with out and less when they are not.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    "Yes, it would be great to find a good way to hold Congress accountable for the mess it has made in Washington."


    I expecting Congressmen and/or Senators to behave responsibly because their salary is pinched a bit is ridiculous. Particularly those who **we** have put and kept in power for **decades**!

    If we really want to get the attention of the politicians we send to represent us then we should **vote for** politicians who **represent us** and vote **out** those who do not.

    In other words, it is **we**, the people, who have the power.

    Consequently, what scares me most is not the politicians. It is the electorate.

    We've become too much like the government we've elected. As much as I hate to admit it, I think the government truly **does** represent us. That is scary to the max!!

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    March 15, 2013 2:27 p.m.

    Patriot – were you also critical of Laura Bush and her trips with her daughters or is it just the Obamas you want to criticize? Laura Bush travelled to Paris, Prague, Budapest, took both daughters to Africa but on separate trips one being a safari - quit sure that wasn't an official business.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    March 15, 2013 12:14 p.m.

    So we're are talking about cuts during the sequester. How about Barack and Michelle cutting back their lavish life style a bit?? Barack's private golf lessons with Tiger Woods adds up to pretty penny when you factor in AirForce one and Secret Service. That alone would keep the White House tours open for ... oh I would say years!! Then there is Michelle taking a separate flight to Aspen - complete with secret service and the lavish Aspen price tag. Yes yes the poor will suffer from the sequestration... but not the Obama's!! The continued and predictable hypocrisy and double standard from the Obama's is hard to stomach....but low information America approves of everything this deceitful man does unfortunately.

  • happy2bhere LAYTON, UT
    March 15, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    RE: Blue If the big corporations are so influentual, then why did Obama get re-elected? Or, did the big corporations want him re-elected, and made it happen? Either way it leaves anti-corporation liberals and Democrats stuck.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    March 15, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    Increase their pay, and cut their campaign donations. They should be bought and paid for by the American people, not corporate interests.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    It is unconstitutional for Congress to alter their own pay (one of the recent Amendments, I don't remember which); they can only change the pay of the next Congress.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:28 a.m.

    Yes, by all means, let's cut the pay of elected officials, embrace a post-Citizens United philosophy that "Corporations are people, my friend," and allow corporations an unlimited ability to influence the political campaigns of legislators whose pay we have slashed.

    What could possibly go wrong?

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    March 15, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    With 47% of congress listed as millionaires for the most part cutting their pay would mean very little and currently unconstitutional, but a nice gesture none the less.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    March 15, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    Let's see if I have this straight. We cut Congressional pay and benefits, then expect that this will produce MORE and BETTER candidates for office, including those who would be taking a pay cut if elected? You'll end up with Congress being made up of nothing but rich people laboring as their own lobbyists to deregulate companies they already own.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Cutting elected government wages has all the effective results as telling a child to use a smaller spoon.

    The true wages of those people from their more permanent employers makes the wage from the government miniscule for their short temporary stint in government service.

    A better way to get good government might be to enhance the compensation we give to our government employees to reduce the treat from private commercial interests.

    Like with career appointments with life time benefits. Sort of like the theory of the Supreme Court.

    March 15, 2013 8:52 a.m.

    I think the congress and president should have their salaries and office budgets reduced 50 cents on the the dollar for the income they receive for speaking when they are sitting congressmen/women. This would help take the burden off the tax payers.

    Having to pay for their staff out of their income may cut the number of staff members, and would be no different that what our doctors, lawyers and other professionals do.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    March 15, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    Agreed, and let them purchase their own health care on the "Open Market" I believe this might open their eyes to reality.