I seem to recall this was from a few years ago. At this point, I wouldn’t hold it against her if she’s made more money. Big name politicians can make extra money through things like speaking fees and book deals. Honestly, I’d be surprised if any famous politicians aren’t taking speaking fees. Plus, her salary is $174,000/year according to Wikipedia.
I like to at least pretend in my head that I’d be an ethical politician were I ever elected (a job I would never actually want), and if somebody offered me a speaking fee that was sort of the average amount a politician might get, I think I’d still be able to convince myself it wasn’t a bribe.
Most elected positions don’t pay enough in the U.S. today. This is expecially true in state legislature where most politicians start before attempting a national run. The only people who can afford to run for underpaid positions are either independently wealthy or corrupt. For example let’s look at some of the most corrupt states in the U.S.
Texas - state senators & representatives $7,200 salary and $221/per diem when in session.
Louisiana- senator and representatives $16,800 + $178/per diem and $6000 slush fund.
Utah - state senators and representatives $0 salary and $301/per diem.
Nevada - State senators and representatives $0 salary and $130/per diem.
This lack of pay for positions is deliberate to keep “working class” out of government. It lead to open corruption and conflict of interest being normalized.
Initially politician wasn’t supposed to be a career. It was a side hustle you did after planting and after harvest. Which exains some of the session schedules you see today that seem odd.
I’d argue that we need to get these offices back to being what you do outside your day job again. Whatever that means in modern society. However, if were going to make the mistake of letting it remain a career path. We do need to pay accordingly. While codifying actual laws against graft. Not just unenforceable “norms”.
They’re 100% is. But it 100% requires addressing what you just talked about. There needs to be a new labor movement. Where terms are renegotiated again.
It was designed so that wealthy landowners could attend sessions more easily. Just like the u.s. senate does not represent the population, but the land area. The writers of the national and state constitutions were almost all wealthy landowners.
In my opinion, given the size of the population and the complexity of the economy, full time politicians who are paid very well combined with draconian anti-graft laws are needed.
The difference is that in ye olden days there was simply much less need for full time legislators. In an era where 90% of the population lived on largely self-sufficient family farms, and large scale economic regulation wasn’t widespread, part time legislators made a lot more sense.
Is it that different today? I’d argue a lot of the legislation getting done that isn’t just naming things. Or approving reoccurring spending isn’t just useless, but harmful. At least here in a red state where I live.
All I’m saying is government at all levels today does a hell of a lot more than governments did in the 19th century. We simply ask more from our governments than we used to. And the more a government does, the more legislation will be necessary.
And then they like to put up measures to increase their salary from $5k to $25k, as if that’ll let your average Joe run and isn’t just a handout to the already wealthy scum currently in office. Bonus points when they also try to increase the term limit at the same time.
Yeah I remember during one of Bernie’s presidential runs it was some sort of “gotcha” from the right that he made about $1M in a year. Like… okay? He’d be pretty fucking dumb if he didn’t make that at a bare minimum from his popularity.
I seem to recall this was from a few years ago. At this point, I wouldn’t hold it against her if she’s made more money. Big name politicians can make extra money through things like speaking fees and book deals. Honestly, I’d be surprised if any famous politicians aren’t taking speaking fees. Plus, her salary is $174,000/year according to Wikipedia.
I like to at least pretend in my head that I’d be an ethical politician were I ever elected (a job I would never actually want), and if somebody offered me a speaking fee that was sort of the average amount a politician might get, I think I’d still be able to convince myself it wasn’t a bribe.
Most elected positions don’t pay enough in the U.S. today. This is expecially true in state legislature where most politicians start before attempting a national run. The only people who can afford to run for underpaid positions are either independently wealthy or corrupt. For example let’s look at some of the most corrupt states in the U.S.
Texas - state senators & representatives $7,200 salary and $221/per diem when in session.
Louisiana- senator and representatives $16,800 + $178/per diem and $6000 slush fund.
Utah - state senators and representatives $0 salary and $301/per diem.
Nevada - State senators and representatives $0 salary and $130/per diem.
This lack of pay for positions is deliberate to keep “working class” out of government. It lead to open corruption and conflict of interest being normalized.
Initially politician wasn’t supposed to be a career. It was a side hustle you did after planting and after harvest. Which exains some of the session schedules you see today that seem odd.
I’d argue that we need to get these offices back to being what you do outside your day job again. Whatever that means in modern society. However, if were going to make the mistake of letting it remain a career path. We do need to pay accordingly. While codifying actual laws against graft. Not just unenforceable “norms”.
Most Americans get two weeks off a year, if they’re lucky. There’s no way to make this “outside your day job.”
They’re 100% is. But it 100% requires addressing what you just talked about. There needs to be a new labor movement. Where terms are renegotiated again.
It was designed so that wealthy landowners could attend sessions more easily. Just like the u.s. senate does not represent the population, but the land area. The writers of the national and state constitutions were almost all wealthy landowners.
In my opinion, given the size of the population and the complexity of the economy, full time politicians who are paid very well combined with draconian anti-graft laws are needed.
The difference is that in ye olden days there was simply much less need for full time legislators. In an era where 90% of the population lived on largely self-sufficient family farms, and large scale economic regulation wasn’t widespread, part time legislators made a lot more sense.
Is it that different today? I’d argue a lot of the legislation getting done that isn’t just naming things. Or approving reoccurring spending isn’t just useless, but harmful. At least here in a red state where I live.
All I’m saying is government at all levels today does a hell of a lot more than governments did in the 19th century. We simply ask more from our governments than we used to. And the more a government does, the more legislation will be necessary.
Did you mean after your slaves plantate and harvest?
And then they like to put up measures to increase their salary from $5k to $25k, as if that’ll let your average Joe run and isn’t just a handout to the already wealthy scum currently in office. Bonus points when they also try to increase the term limit at the same time.
Yeah I remember during one of Bernie’s presidential runs it was some sort of “gotcha” from the right that he made about $1M in a year. Like… okay? He’d be pretty fucking dumb if he didn’t make that at a bare minimum from his popularity.
She’s one book deal away from joining Obama on Martha’s Vineyard