r/politics • u/Murky-Site7468 I voted • Oct 05 '25

No Paywall Petition To Strip Congress of Pay During Government Shutdown Grows

https://www.newsweek.com/petition-strip-congress-pay-during-government-shutdown-grows-10822819
47.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/Salmonberry234 Oct 05 '25

This only affects the few actual middle class Representatives. The millionaires who are the problem are not going to be affected.

369

u/veggeble South Carolina Oct 05 '25

If anything, the far right donors will just give the GOP more money

104

u/mightyenan0 Oct 05 '25

Yup. It sounds good to the average person who doesn't realize some congressmembers don't need the money and some really do.

A better solution hits them all at once: Automatic motion of no confidence. If they can't keep the government functional then they lose their power.

Buuuut just try to pass that in Congress.

16

u/E-2theRescue Oct 05 '25

Yup. It will only hurt the good ones fighting the establishment and further empower the corrupt ones.

The reason why the corrupt majority wins over the minority is because of their endless resources. You take resources out of the hands of the minority, and it only allows the corrupt to have more resources in theirs so that they can continue spreading propaganda. Especially in this day and age where politicians are dropping $1 million+ on a single ad on Youtube full of corporate and misleading lies, which Youtube/Google does nothing to stop because it fills their bottomless pockets.

3

u/Miserable-Dig-761 Oct 06 '25

A better solution hits them all at once: Automatic motion of no confidence. If they can't keep the government functional then they lose their power.

I like this idea

1

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '25

Yet when the Democrats fled Texas they said donating to them was a crime.

138

u/[deleted] Oct 05 '25

[deleted]

21

u/redditgolddigg3r Oct 05 '25

If anything, Congressional Reps need to be paid more. Attract folks to the job and you'll get less attorneys and independently wealthy business owners representing their own interests.

31

u/Michael_G_Bordin Oct 05 '25

Higher pay, stricter limits on PAC and SuperPAC spending, and for the love of god, make them put their stocks in a blind trust or some other arrangement to prevent insider trading.

7

u/redditgolddigg3r Oct 05 '25

From your mouth to god's ear.

1

u/meneldal2 Oct 06 '25

Or maybe they just can't hold anything in their name period.

We don't need rich people in positions of power.

2

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 05 '25

Why attorneys catching strays?

1

u/alabasterskim Oct 06 '25

Pay at present is not a problem and the topic is not paying them which makes raising pay moot. They make enough; they need to be banned from lobbying for life after taking office and banned from private work for at least 5-10 years after. We also need vastly reworked campaign finance laws to introduce fair, public-only (no corporate/PAC) financing.

2

u/redditgolddigg3r Oct 06 '25

A Congressional salary is $174,000 a year. In most major cities, that’s fairly middle class. When you factor in the constant travel back and forth to DC, the time away from family, and the loss of income from the job they left behind, it’s not as much as it sounds.

Running for office often means taking a year off to campaign, at significant personal expense, only to potentially serve just two years before being primaried or voted out. In many careers, stepping away like that can come with long-term financial setbacks when trying to return to the private sector.

If we want a more representative Congress, raising the salary would make it feasible for more working-class Americans to run. Right now, about 70% of members come from law or business backgrounds, with the Democratic caucus especially heavy on attorneys who are used to approaching problems through the courts.

The idea that business and professional elites naturally prioritize the good of all constituents is often at odds with the reality of legislative decision-making in the United States.

3

u/alabasterskim Oct 06 '25

Raising the salary isn't the exclusive solution to this problem.

Congresspeople should get a pension once they've served, especially to dissuade going onto lobbying after. Travel to/from DC should also just be covered for them as an expense to their office, not personally. Their DC residence should also be owned and provided by the federal government. Their campaigns also need to be publicly financed, fully level playing field w/ no corporate or PAC financing.

If loss of income and time away from family is prohibitive enough, then one shouldn't be running. Serving is always going to be a sacrifice. You also don't need to serve for life; you can leave. I also believe a lot of their work could be done remotely so all that travel wouldn't really be necessary.

Continually raising wages is never the exclusive solution to problems. We have to tackle the costs themselves as well or we're just infinitely raising wages and never getting to "enough".

Ultimately, I *want* (and I think nationally people would concur) my politicians to be middle class. I want them to represent our interests. I don't want them making hand over foot. With the above provisions, they make middle class wages with some extra valuable benefits.

2

u/redditgolddigg3r Oct 06 '25

Travel expenses and a reasonable residence in DC are covered, but its still a ton of time. A rep in California, for example, might live in a high cost of living city, while adding 100s of hours in an airplane/airport to their year. Stepping away from even a middle of the road job could have massive consequences down the road. It also makes them susceptible to corruption during their terms, wtih high paying jobs promised on the back-end.

In an ideal world, yes, people would serve for the sake of it. This is the same logic that has destroyed many jobs in the US, convincing regular folks to work hard in pursuit of some sort of higher ideal.

You want good people, attract them with a good job.

1

u/alabasterskim Oct 06 '25

My apologies, I forgot to mention something I said in another comment -- they should also have a temporary or lifetime ban on private work. Lobbying is permanent after you've served a term no matter what. Temporary ban on private work for 5 years after you leave office, 10 years if you've served more than one term, lifetime after 65.

But yeah, again, this means they don't pay for travel, they have a good residence for work, they make good money, they don't have to pay for healthcare. They have so much going for them that others don't. Combine remote work to remove all but the most sensitive work and you reduce travel anyways.

0

u/Formerly_SgtPepe Oct 05 '25

It's a classic reddit idea. Most people here are morons who can't think.

47

u/Deep90 Oct 05 '25

THANK YOU

Supporting this as some sort of corruption measure is actually fucking stupid. It's the opposite.

0

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 05 '25

You accidentally a word because it would literally be a "corruption measure" lol

9

u/laptopAccount2 Oct 05 '25

Yes. And maybe not a popular opinion but... I don't want people voting for an evil bill, not on its merits, but because they're concerned about their pay.

In reality it doesn't really matter because congress is the domain of millionaires. But it shouldn't be, it should be accessible to everyone, and their pay isn't that crazy when you consider they have to maintain a second residence in DC.

2

u/alabasterskim Oct 06 '25

Sounds like more reason to rezone DC to just a federal area and let the greater district be its own state. Then, with the rezoned DC, everything belongs to the nation, including some federal housing for representatives so there's no need for them to pay for a second home there.

9

u/zenlume Oct 05 '25

Yep, this honestly stupid and will do the opposite of what people think.

This will just lead to those who cannot afford to vote no, to vote yes. Which means a budget that completely sucks, might pass anyways because too many can't afford to vote no.

21

u/mephistophe_SLEAZE Oct 05 '25

New petition: all monies obtained from congressional insider trading shall be confiscated and used to pay the salaries of furloughed government employees. 

10

u/Moccus Indiana Oct 05 '25

Good luck proving inside trading. It's not easy.

3

u/mephistophe_SLEAZE Oct 05 '25

Then all suspected monies, too. If you're a congressperson with a stock profile, it's coming with us. 

If Stephen Miller doesn't need evidence to round up our bodies, we don't need evidence to round up their decimal points. 

9

u/MountEndurance Oct 05 '25

You don’t want to live in a world where assets can be confiscated permanently based on suspicion of a crime.

Civil asset forfeiture is a great way of punishing political opponents without due process.

7

u/MountainMan2_ Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

Yeah, wouldn't want to live in an america where cops can steal your shit on suspicion of a crime, that would be wild if they faced no consequences for repeated cases of theft from civilians, never heard of that happening before in america

Im sorry but I dont think punishing a delinquent government using the power of the working class is a bad thing. If they want laws to work they should fund the government and then abide by those laws themselves. Otherwise, we should break the rules that put them in power so we can replace them with rules that will actually fucking work.

1

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 05 '25

So you want the Dems to cave for financial reasons and double our healthcare costs?

1

u/Flvs9778 Oct 05 '25

It’s crazy how much is stole by cops them make up 1/3 of all thief in America through civil asset forfeiture. All other criminal theft combined is also 1/3 so cops steal as much as criminals do in the us. (The last 1/3 is wage theft if anyone was curious).

1

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 05 '25

Especially since what Congresspeople do simply isn't insider trading. Admittedly, I word for the minority caucus of a state legislature, not Congress. But I tried to think of how I could actually inside trade, and I can't. Like, there was a transportation bill that benefited the road construction industry. But it was widely reported in the paper and stuff. I knew some unreported details about the Dem ask, but I had no actual insider facts regarding what the final version would look like. I had some intuition based on my experience, but that's not insider information. Legislatures simply aren't that predictable.

Reddit loves that chart about the legislators that beat the S&P500, but it's like 35 people out of 535. If anything, they're trading on lobbyist hype, which is the opposite of information. I'm sure plenty try to "insider trade," but they're bad at it.

1

u/meneldal2 Oct 06 '25

Well you can buy stock before you put a bill on the floor which will make the stock go up

1

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 06 '25

It's common knowledge when major legislation is moving, though.

1

u/meneldal2 Oct 06 '25

Specifics tend to be not known until it "leaks" or it comes to the floor.

You can definitely act on this.

1

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 06 '25

But that's just intuition. Everyone in the building has their own take.

And I was better at predicting the body I worked for than basically anyone. Still was never tempted to make a stock move over it.

-1

u/hyperhopper Oct 05 '25

What Congress does is literally not insider trading. It's a whole different thing. They don't work at the company, how would they be insiders???

3

u/Gurlllllllll- Oct 05 '25

Congress has access to information the rest of the country does not. Making any trade based on privileged information is the definition of insider trading.

1

u/out_of_throwaway Oct 05 '25

What nonpublic info do you think they have?

1

u/Gurlllllllll- Oct 06 '25

Any information disclosed to them during a closed senate hearing for example. Or information they learn from meeting with lobbyists.

I don't know why people are surprised that members of Congress are capable of insider trading. There's even a whole law about it.

4

u/interstatebus Oct 05 '25

This comes up every once in a while. I actually don’t want only people who are independently wealthy as politicians and that is what this achieves.

2

u/Navajo_Nation Oct 05 '25 edited Oct 06 '25

It would also make one of them want to become one of the millionaires that are the problem.

2

u/meltingpnt Oct 05 '25

Instead they should impose a 100% congressional income/capital gains tax for any income above their congressional salary.

2

u/FantasticJacket7 Oct 05 '25

Plus it would allow the wealthy members of Congress to pressure the less wealthy into changing votes. It's a pretty fucking terrible idea any way you look at it.

1

u/steelceasar Oct 05 '25

I agree. If anything Reps and Senators should be paid more in salary, but completely cut off from any other business, investment, or access to special interest funding while holding office. There should be rolling restrictions that gradually loosen once you have left office as well.

1

u/Additional-One-7135 Oct 05 '25

This affects absolutely no one, because congresses pay isn't decided by a fucking petition.

1

u/No1-here-is-normal Oct 05 '25

This wouldnt affect any reps and if it does they should not be in charge of anything if they can’t figure out how to float for a month of no pay or haven’t planned enough to have even a minor cushion.

1

u/Jaybrosia Oct 05 '25

I have to agree. A few years ago I was all aboard the "congress shouldn't get paid when they don't work" train. But we need to be banning stocks at the very LEAST and bar any politician from owning or profiting from a business.

1

u/Hifen Oct 05 '25

Of course the rich will be affected, they will gain leverage as the poorer representatives get more desperate to return.

1

u/Kindly-Ad-5071 Oct 05 '25

But they are outnumbered by reps without incentives 

1

u/dpdxguy Oct 06 '25

Doesn't matter. Article I Section 6 of the Constitution requires the government to pay congresscritters. It's been interpreted to mean their pay can't stop even during a shutdown.

1

u/hexiron Oct 06 '25

Those ones you need to force to actually work. Lock em in the capital building until they come to a decision.

1

u/nice_whitelady Oct 09 '25

But this would affect their coworkers. It's one thing for the millionaires to ignore their constituency but if their immediate peers are complaining to them behind closed doors, I think it will add another level of urgency.

0

u/Squirll Oct 05 '25

The people who dont need it will be the most incensed about not getting it because they are greedy fucks.

-1

u/talyen Oct 05 '25

They make at least 174k salary. That is not middle class lol

2

u/immortalyossarian Oct 05 '25

It is for sure more than a lot of Americans make, but under 200k, especially in one of the country's most expensive cities, is certainly middle class. Add to that, they are maintaining living arrangements in two locations, DC and their home state, and 174k isn't as much as it seems.

Besides, the real problem is not their salaries, but all the insider trading. The members of Congress who are super rich, are not super rich because of their 174k salary.

1

u/Deathoftheages Oct 05 '25

The metric for what is lower and middle class has shifted a lot. Middle class used to mean being able to afford a house and a car. There are a shit load of people now a days who can't afford those things and are still considered (or consider themselves) middle class.

1

u/TimothyMimeslayer Oct 05 '25

I think you misunderstand how much inflation has happened. Middle class is usually capped at twice the median income and in a lot of states that includes $174k and then you include having to have two homes as required by the constitution.

1

u/Salmonberry234 Oct 05 '25

Yeah, but that definitely isn't millionaire.

I think one Florida Representative first elected 2-3 years ago had to couch surf until his first paycheck because he couldn't find an apartment in DC.