Those poor, malnourished congress critters. While on official business in DC?
Why was it not worth a public debate?
5 Likes
It’s so secret thst @Safiel posted about it 2 days ago.
2 Likes
And as part of the deal to give McCarthy the speakership, the Office of Congressional Ethics, which was bipartisan and actually was doing a pretty good job policing the House in a bipartisan way for example, OCE led the charge against Madison Cawthorn’s AND AOC’s shady behaviors) has been gutted.
Likely paving the way for grift that will make the $34K increase look like chump change.
Grift is bipartisan.
If George Santos is praising this move…you know there’s something wrong with it.
Dam who in their right mind can support this.
1 Like
Well, the good news is the Republicans are in charge now, and they’ll immediately repeal this rule change.
Right?
It’s not like they’re such utter hypocrites that’ll whine about it, while still cashing the checks. No doubt it’ll be changed any day now.
Well when you read the article linked in the OP, there were some possibly good reasons for doing it. $175K seems like a lot, but you have to maintain a residence in DC and your own state, and that can be expensive.
However, it should not have been done clandestinely.
See @Safiel comments in the original thread.
WW
Yeah those turds are really worth a raise. 
5 Likes
As I said in the original thread, I am not entirely against this proposal.
Perhaps the AMOUNT is excessive.
And the way it was done was wrong.
And it appears Republicans were involved in the process along with Democrats, though to what degree is yet not clear.
My own proposal.
Roll back this proposal.
Then tie base Congressional salaries to Level III of the Executive Schedule.
Tie the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Majority and Minority Leaders of both Houses to Level II of the Executive Schedule.
Tie the Speaker of the House to Level I of the Executive Schedule.
That should solve what is a real problem of maintaining a DC residence while in session.
There are enough miltiary bases in the area.
I’d prefer the “DC residence” problem be solved by allowing them to stay in a base BOQ while Congress is in session.
(Not saying that Congress, which you point out hasn’t had a pay raise since 2009, doesn’t need to be fixed.)
WW
1 Like
Imagine having the power to give yourself an almost 40k raise at the whim of a vote on the back of taxpayers, not based on performance.
Cheers to the government mafia. 
3 Likes
Because the left is above us, in their opinion. They can do whatever they want, rules be damned.
3 Likes
The change was backed by BOTH sides. And if any Member was opposed, they could have spoken out and informed the public, but none ever did.
So all Members of both parties are complicit.
All this effectively did was enabled yhe landlords to raise the rent and members will be able to eat out more
3 Likes
I don’t think this will have any impact on DC rent rates at all. We’re talking about 438 people (many of which are millionaires already).
I believe many of them are the ones renting out houses.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying.
Are you saying that Members of Congress are landlords? Or that Members of Congress represent a significant portion of home renters in DC?
I would think past and present members and lobbiests are landlords and will know what they earn and will match it. Happens everywhere. Military housing allowance goes up so does rent ect. Government per diem goes up so do expenses. Electric car tax rebate, car cost goes up.
It must be so hard to maintain a large house in multiple states (with staff) off of a mere $174,000 per year.
They all must’ve been devastated when they started out.
1 Like
DC is a transitory city. A very large number of people who move there do it temporarily. More than 60% of the cities housing units are rentals - more than 200,000 (of which about 70,000 are houses, rather than apartments).
A housing allowance for 438 people isn’t going to make much of a dent in that.
