Ben Franklin on the politician's pay rates

[jdfreefly 1]

I've been reading the book the 5,000 Year Leap. I recommend that people read it; I find the author's desire to tie a Christian God more than a little disturbing but I enjoy political sparing with my father, and understanding his point of view is critical to a reasoned discourse....but that's not the reason for this post.

Last night I was reading this book and came across a few quotes from Benjamin Franklin on the subject of pay for our politicians. Franklin felt that it was imperative that our political offices be filled with people of the highest moral character. He felt strongly that making political office a position of profit ran contrary to that goal, and he expressed this on more than a few occasions. What follows was a speech he gave at the Constitutional Convention in 1776 with regards to payment in the executive branch, but I think it is safe to say he would extend his thoughts to all public office. I beg you to read this quote in its entirety and think of those on both sides of the aisle who have backed this country into a corner:

Quote

Sir, there are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are ambition and avarice; the love of power, and the love of money. Separately each of these has great force in prompting men to action; but when united in view of the same object, they have in many minds the most violent effects. place before the eyes of such men a post of honour that shall at the same time be a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it. The vast number of such places it is that renders the British Government so tempestuous. The struggles for them are the true sources of all those factions which are perpetually dividing the Nation, distracting its councils, hurrying sometimes into fruitless & mischievous wars, and often compelling a submission to dishonorable terms of peace.

And of what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable pre-eminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers. And these too will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation: For their vanquished competitors of the same spirit, and from the same motives will perpetually be endeavouring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people.

Today the base salary of our "Leaders" are:

• President - $400,000
• Senate & House - $174,000
• Justices - $208,000

In addition to the rather generous salaries, they also receive incredible benefits and pensions. And since we have the government so entrenched in corporate affairs we see jaw dropping deals where former members of congress responsible for passing laws that directly effect corporate or union interests "retiring" to sweetheart positions with the very interestes they were positioned to regulate.

Quote

It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your Government and be your rulers.

I believe this is core to the problems we as a nation find ourselves in. Do you agree, disagree? If you disagree, why; more importantly would you argue that the people who have been elected to public office are cut from the cloth Franklin hoped, lovers of peace and good order and fit for our trust? If you agree that this is an issue, what could possibly be done to fix the issue?

-daless

[airdvr 197]

I think when Mr. Smith goes to Washington he is full of morals and ideals. Reality sets in pretty quickly and he soon learns that nothing is accomplished without promising something in return. It's a little like prostitution without the need for condoms.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Today the base salary of our "Leaders" are:

• President - $400,000
• Senate & House - $174,000
• Justices - $208,000

In addition to the rather generous salaries, they also receive incredible benefits and pensions. And since we have the government so entrenched in corporate affairs we see jaw dropping deals where former members of congress responsible for passing laws that directly effect corporate or union interests "retiring" to sweetheart positions with the very interestes they were positioned to regulate.

I don't see these are particularly high salaries. Not peanuts, but I'm close to some of them in recent years, and yet I'm still renting in SF. These guys have to maintain two homes, and never mind the money spent on campaigns - a California sentator may spend 50-100M to get that $174,000 salary.

They go on to make much more money afterwards, doing those questionable jaw dropping deals you mention. In that regard, their salaries may be too low, though I'm not about to suggest they should be any higher. (That would be an insult to the general public) But lower? no.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

But lower? no.

Won't argue that, but getting that salary and benefits for life after 2 years of service is a bit much. I could be wrong on the salary, but that's my understanding.

We are all engines of karma

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

But lower? no.

Won't argue that, but getting that salary and benefits for life after 2 years of service is a bit much. I could be wrong on the salary, but that's my understanding.

if the benefits and pension are full after a single term in the House, I'll grant you the point. I don't know the benefits package aside than the one for the President. But the salary part does not bother me.

[sfzombie 3]

the salary part bothers me greatly. if a regular guy could run for an office with any hope to get it, then it may be somewhat fair, but these guys are rich to begin with. if you read the quotes, it sounds like franklin is talking about politics in this country today. at least they started out with high hopes before human nature got involved. and as for maintaining two households, we could solve that by housing them at a subsidized rate, if we could get the ##sholes to agree on a decent budget and start to get rid of the deficit. some say it can't be done, that's the biggest load of crap that's spoon fed to the masses who eat it and clamor for more.

http://kitswv.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

the salary part bothers me greatly. if a regular guy could run for an office with any hope to get it, then it may be somewhat fair, but these guys are rich to begin with.

Consider the average salary+bonuses for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. None of them control a trillion dollar budget, but the President does on a 400k salary. By salary standards of a big city like SF or NYC, $174k is not a huge amount. It won't even get you a nice home (settle for flat or condo).

And I can't go with the notion that it's impossible for a regular guy to make it. Clinton and Carter had good educations, but not considerable wealth behind them. Reagan was mostly self made. Obama was close to the other two Democrats. Now the Bush family is in an entirely different ballpark, but the senior Bush made his way, doing a lot of different jobs for the country before he was President.

The point I was making about the "lowness" factor is that if you cut if further, you increase the incentive for them to start making deals with their post Congress employers who will happily make up the difference and far more.

[lost_n_confuzd 0]

The salaries seem right to me. I don't want our elected officials making chump change so may can be more corrupt than they already are, but they also shouldn't have loaded salaries.

Also, I don't think they pay for their residences around the beltway, that probably comes from their congressional budget. Same for official travel and all that jazz.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Last night I was reading this book and came across a few quotes from Benjamin Franklin on the subject of pay for our politicians. Franklin felt that it was imperative that our political offices be filled with people of the highest moral character. He felt strongly that making political office a position of profit ran contrary to that goal, and he expressed this on more than a few occasions.

Our leaders are horribly underpaid. Either they're not in it for profit like Ben Franklin wanted or they're profiting in some way other than salary and official benefits like health care and pensions.

Quote

Today the base salary of our "Leaders" are:

• President - $400,000
• Senate & House - $174,000
• Justices - $208,000

CEOs of companies with 20B in annual revenues have compensation packages worth 20M a year. Obama is getting just $400K for running a company with 2100B in revenues.

One could say that on average, each representative is responsible for 4.8B in revenue, perhaps like a senior executive vice president. At Wells Fargo those guys make 2.7 - 3.2 million a year including $600-$700K in cash.

You could also note that most of those guys are lawyers. With the talent to land one of 535 slots in a nation of 300,000,000 with different career goals they should be able to get themselves into one of several hundred equity partner positions in a large number of law firms. Equity partners in such firms generally make over $1M/year.

Their salaries don't even compare well against director level management positions at big companies.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I think when Mr. Smith goes to Washington he is full of morals and ideals. Reality sets in pretty quickly and he soon learns that nothing is accomplished without promising something in return. It's a little like prostitution without the need for condoms.

The Family Values politicians have certainly found a need for condoms in bulk while serving their moral majority constituents while they are in office.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

But lower? no.

Won't argue that, but getting that salary and benefits for life after 2 years of service is a bit much. I could be wrong on the salary, but that's my understanding.

Congresspeople must serve five years to be eligible for any pension with a current member serving six years netting about $17,000 a year after they turn 62.

Most serve a lot longer, with the average pension payment under the current Federal Employees' Retirement System pension being about $36,000 as of 2006.

[Bolas 5]

Salary is just one part. What would be interesting to compare would be the total compensation packages of high level government vs. corporate positions.

Additionally divide by the hours worked or "on call" to get a per hour amount.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[jdfreefly 1]

I think many of you miss the point.

Franklin's hope was that the people attracted to public office would view it as a great honor and would be happy to make the personal sacrifice.

170K is in the top 95th percentile of incomes in this country, you could cut it in half and it would still be around the 80th percentile...and yet most of us are so brainwashed into believing that our oligarchs deserve to live so well.

We're so far removed from what happened in 1776 that we no longer think it's even reasonable to expect that public office be a noble sacrifice, but more of a golden ring to be chased by those with the most greed and lust for power.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[jdfreefly 1]

Quote

Quote

I think when Mr. Smith goes to Washington he is full of morals and ideals. Reality sets in pretty quickly and he soon learns that nothing is accomplished without promising something in return. It's a little like prostitution without the need for condoms.

The Family Values politicians have certainly found a need for condoms in bulk while serving their moral majority constituents while they are in office.

Way to throw the first partisan stone into what I tried quite hard to build as a bi-partisan discussion about the pay and other benefits of office are attracting the wrong type of people.

I find it disappointing.

Methane Freefly - got stink?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think when Mr. Smith goes to Washington he is full of morals and ideals. Reality sets in pretty quickly and he soon learns that nothing is accomplished without promising something in return. It's a little like prostitution without the need for condoms.

The Family Values politicians have certainly found a need for condoms in bulk while serving their moral majority constituents while they are in office.

Way to throw the first partisan stone into what I tried quite hard to build as a bi-partisan discussion about the pay and other benefits of office are attracting the wrong type of people.

I find it disappointing.

Personally I think that is the wrong type of people, a lot of the guys here in SC though... think they have the right stuff so they vote for them over and over and over. It goes to EXACTLY what you were saying.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think many of you miss the point.

Franklin's hope was that the people attracted to public office would view it as a great honor and would be happy to make the personal sacrifice.

170K is in the top 95th percentile of incomes in this country, you could cut it in half and it would still be around the 80th percentile...and yet most of us are so brainwashed into believing that our oligarchs deserve to live so well.

We're so far removed from what happened in 1776 that we no longer think it's even reasonable to expect that public office be a noble sacrifice, but more of a golden ring to be chased by those with the most greed and lust for power.

our scale of government is also quite far removed from what it was in the Colonial days. When Ben wrote this, it was practically a hobby for well heeled landowners. Not enough work to deserve much compensation.

You're in SF - you know that those percentiles apply to a different reality. 85k could be 80th percentile, but it's barely over the minimum for a family of 4 to live reasonably in the Bay Area.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

I think many of you miss the point.

Franklin's hope was that the people attracted to public office would view it as a great honor and would be happy to make the personal sacrifice.

170K is in the top 95th percentile of incomes in this country, you could cut it in half and it would still be around the 80th percentile...and yet most of us are so brainwashed into believing that our oligarchs deserve to live so well.

We're so far removed from what happened in 1776 that we no longer think it's even reasonable to expect that public office be a noble sacrifice, but more of a golden ring to be chased by those with the most greed and lust for power.

our scale of government is also quite far removed from what it was in the Colonial days. When Ben wrote this, it was practically a hobby for well heeled landowners. Not enough work to deserve much compensation.

You're in SF - you know that those percentiles apply to a different reality. 85k could be 80th percentile, but it's barely over the minimum for a family of 4 to live reasonably in the Bay Area.

No-one is forced to live in the Bay Area. It is your choice so to do.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

You're in SF - you know that those percentiles apply to a different reality. 85k could be 80th percentile, but it's barely over the minimum for a family of 4 to live reasonably in the Bay Area.

No-one is forced to live in the Bay Area. It is your choice so to do.

The congressman for our district (in this case, Congresswoman and Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi) IS in fact forced to live in San Francisco. It is about the only job requirement, in fact.

Local salaries are both the cause and effect of the higher cost of living here. Same as is true in Chicago to a lesser degree.

Put more succinctly, blow off (in your private plane).

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You're in SF - you know that those percentiles apply to a different reality. 85k could be 80th percentile, but it's barely over the minimum for a family of 4 to live reasonably in the Bay Area.

No-one is forced to live in the Bay Area. It is your choice so to do.

The congressman for our district (in this case, Congresswoman and Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi) IS in fact forced to live in San Francisco. It is about the only job requirement, in fact.

Local salaries are both the cause and effect of the higher cost of living here. Same as is true in Chicago to a lesser degree.

Put more succinctly, blow off (in your private plane).

No-one is forced to live in the Bay Area. Nancy doesn't even need the job. It's her choice.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The salaries seem right to me. I don't want our elected officials making chump change so may can be more corrupt than they already are, but they also shouldn't have loaded salaries.

Agreed. Salaries that are too low increases the temptation for corruption. A reasonable balance should be struck. I'm not uncomfortable with these salaries as they currently are.

Quote

Also, I don't think they pay for their residences around the beltway, that probably comes from their congressional budget. Same for official travel and all that jazz.

No, I'm pretty sure that their Washington residences are paid-for out of their own pockets. A number of less-affluent Congressmen share rental houses or apartments with each other for exactly that reason: to ease the personal expense.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

these guys are rich to begin with.

Some are, especially Senators; but many Congressmen/women come from fairly modest beginnings and are not particularly wealthy; they're just politically connected. For example, as I just posted above, it's not unusual for some Congressmen to room together to ease rental expense.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

No-one is forced to live in the Bay Area. Nancy doesn't even need the job. It's her choice.

If no one chose to live here, then houses would be very cheap, and there would be only one Representative for a larger area, rather than the half dozen plus we do have.

I didn't say Pelosi had to live here. But the Representative of the district does.

[livendive 8]

Given the current economic situation, how about we incentivize their compensation? e.g. for each of the next 5 years, they get

1E-6 of the current year's budget surplus
+ 1E-9 of the current GDP
------------------------------------------------
- 1E-8 of the total budget deficits projected in the following 5 years



Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)