2007-01-25 02:09:18 · 12 answers · asked by ? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That would be funny!!! Maybe stuff would get done like lower health care and lower housing and stuff like that!!! Im all for it!!!
2007-01-25 02:12:45 · answer #1 · answered by Tiffany 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pay is not why the run for office . It is the power and lime light . Did you ever participate in a team sport ,or sing in a choir or run for school office . If you did then you know what it feels like to be in the lime light . That is a kind of high that people are addicted to just like drugs . They need more and more all the time to feel the energy of the crowds . The cheering voices , the ability to sway others to agree with your plan . Motivating people has the reward of accomplishment for a goal that is not attainable by the individual alone . He can stand back and take the glory as the one person who made it happen . All eyes and praise are upon those people who take the lead . True the down side is your plan my fail . Yet the high derived from successes leads you to try try again .
2007-01-25 10:20:38 · answer #2 · answered by -----JAFO---- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what you classify as a regular American.
There are some who make significantly more than Politicians and most make significantly less.
If Politicians were forced to make the national average, for example, the generally held assumption is that they'll be more sensitive to graft.
If Politicians were paid an hourly wage and could only be paid for time spent working, either on the floor of Congress or in their office doing work for their constituents, few politicians would log more than 18 hours a week.
2007-01-25 10:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by Jason W-S 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe they should--it was the Dem's beloved Bill Clinton who raised the presidential pay scale from 250,000 annual to 350,000!! The next time a Liberal claims to be fiscally responsible remember this!!!
Does everyone really believe they could make more in the private sector? Who is familiar with lobbyists? If it were me, and I "could make substantially more in the private sector".......well I would go to the private sector!!! The service of there country should be enough as it was for me in the Marine Corps.
2007-01-25 10:14:05 · answer #4 · answered by Centurion529 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that is a great idea but if you got to vote for your own pay raises what would you make? I think that their pay should be very low but their food and living quarters should be paid for in full like the military. By doing this the only people who would run is people who really want to work for the country not the pay.
2007-01-25 10:14:27 · answer #5 · answered by joevette 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You would have to give them a pay raise. According to them, they can make more money in the real business world.
It is the benefit package and pension fund we need to look at. Way to generous compare to the rest of us.
2007-01-25 10:14:28 · answer #6 · answered by P.A.M. 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is an excellent idea. I have no idea what they do with all of the pay and priviliges they get. If they feel entitled to it, they should not reject increases in minimum wages and basic health care.
2007-01-25 10:15:29 · answer #7 · answered by metoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There would be a ton less people nterested in being politicians, and more things would get corrected in this country...
2007-01-25 10:13:16 · answer #8 · answered by badneighborvt 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Then you would have any Fred Blocks running for parliament.
No, pay them really high wages, and expect a lot from them. Sack them the second they step out of line.
2007-01-25 10:12:08 · answer #9 · answered by Great Dane 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You know what, WE should vote on their payscale, not them. If they do good, I'm all for paying them a lot of money, until then they're on notice.
2007-01-25 10:12:16 · answer #10 · answered by Pfo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋