@bkcunningham
Wow. Alright. I am not, not, suggesting anything that “should” be done. That’s why I didn’t want to answer “how much?” as I mentioned. None of these are solutions, only suggestions. On a quick note on the critique – paying out a regular salary at x amount, and reducing it by y, and then providing Congressional housing requiring an initial investment of z may be a short-term loss. However, over time, the reduced payout of income may very well make the initial purchase and upkeep worth it, and further may enable cost control for reimbursed living costs we may be seeing. We don’t know, as no one’s presented a detailed line-item. But there’s no reason to consider an initial outlay will result in a permanent net loss rather than a net savings.
What I’m saying is that operating budget is vague. Are they cutting it by firing a whole bunch of people? Is that a good way to revitalize the economy? What are the paired unemployment outlays from those layoffs? If we’re laying people off, are we also reducing salary levels? Are we doing that first, or firing first? Why? I said employer as a shorthand – by employer, also include U.S. Government.
For the Congress, ”[a]s of January 2010, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000 (the same for Senators).[14] The Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders earn more: $223,500 for the Speaker and $193,400 for their party leaders (the same as Senate leaders). A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. Congress sets members’ salaries; however, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a change in salary (but not COLA[15]) from taking effect until after the next general election. Representatives are eligible for lifetime benefits after serving for five years, including a pension, health benefits, and social security benefits.”
There are over 500 members. The reduction in operating budget could be covered with a 70k reduction in salary if we weren’t Constitutionally prohibited from it. That means that the lowliest is still getting a six figure salary.
Now, that’s not feasible. But if it were…well, I think it’s still pretty fair. And that’s the extreme.