"I'd start with cutting salaries of congressmen!!!"

[King]

I get tired of hearing it.  The salary of 535 people is about half of a drop in the bucket of the federal budget, yet that's the only thing people seem to think needs to be done to balance it.

[Donerail]

Something dumber: "Reducing defense spending now would be a dangerous mistake. Don't cut military spending."--Jim Talent

[John Dibble]

Dumbest? No, I doubt it. I don't have a particular example of something dumber but I find it highly likely far dumber things have been said. While it certainly wouldn't balance the budget, I wouldn't mind it happening - Congress has an extremely low approval rating. For us normal folks having an approval rating like that from whomever employed us would get us fired. Alas, the system by which we elect the members of Congress generally presents us with replacements that we view as even worse. Cutting pay would be punitive to some degree, though. Also, on principle you don't pay someone highly when they keep getting you deeper into debt with no apparent plan to get you out of it.

[GMantis]

It would not be a very quick way of reducing the deficit (it's not efficient either, of course) as due to the 27th amendment it would not take effect until the next congress.

[Indy Texas]

Members of congress aren't overpaid. A lot of them actually take a pay cut by serving in Congress rather than in whatever their previous job was. Paeans about public service aside, you get what you pay for. If we cut lawmakers' salaries to $30,000 a year, a lot of intelligent, qualified people wouldn't run for congress because they'd have better opportunities elsewhere. You'd end up with a bunch of super-rich people and poor dummies in Congress, and a bunch of highly intelligent and ambitious people working in the "private sector" as lobbyists where they can get paid what they're worth.

I also think it's crazy that they don't get a housing allowance for their time in DC. There are people sleeping on couches in their offices because they literally cannot afford to maintain their district residence and pay $2,000 a month in rent in DC. But we pay them to spend 3 days a week flying back and forth to their district where they're often fundraising rather than doing actual work. Give them someplace to live and pay for them to go home one weekend a month, which they have to use solely for public meetings and attending to constituent services.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Members of congress aren't overpaid. A lot of them actually take a pay cut by serving in Congress rather than in whatever their previous job was. Paeans about public service aside, you get what you pay for. If we cut lawmakers' salaries to $30,000 a year, a lot of intelligent, qualified people wouldn't run for congress because they'd have better opportunities elsewhere. You'd end up with a bunch of super-rich people and poor dummies in Congress, and a bunch of highly intelligent and ambitious people working in the "private sector" as lobbyists where they can get paid what they're worth.

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

I also think it's crazy that they don't get a housing allowance for their time in DC. There are people sleeping on couches in their offices because they literally cannot afford to maintain their district residence and pay $2,000 a month in rent in DC. But we pay them to spend 3 days a week flying back and forth to their district where they're often fundraising rather than doing actual work. Give them someplace to live and pay for them to go home one weekend a month, which they have to use solely for public meetings and attending to constituent services.

I would agree to this. It really is a solid reform proposal. Why this hasn’t been picked up on is beyond me.

[badgate]

I think the unequal "If I can balance my checkbook" metaphor is the dumbest, imo

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

No, not in the form that says "I'd start with."  In the form that says "Instead of . . ." (usually Social Security is what I've seen mentioned) - yes, absolutely. 

[CountryRoads]

"Let's get rid of foreign aid" is dumber.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, in 2009, California had an election full of budget related propositions, and they all failed except for 1F, which prevented pay raises in years of deficits. It got 74%.

Later, voters actually passed meaningful propositions related to the budget. 25 in 2010, and 30 and 39 last year.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Cutting the salaries of Congress isn't about balancing the budget, it's about making the idiots in charge of creating the mess experience some consequences for their actions.

As for something more foolish, how about, "Wasn't Barack Obama supposed to put an end to partisan bickering and finger pointing?" from House Republican Leader Eric Cantor's spokesman Doug Heye.

[memphis]

I just had this conversation on facebook. It's disapointing to me because it shouldn't take much common sense or any actual knowledge to understand. How many Congressmen do you see every day at the grocery or wherever? And how many people over 65 do you see?

[TNF]

I think the unequal "If I can balance my checkbook" metaphor is the dumbest, imo

[Simfan34]

I think the unequal "If I can balance my checkbook" metaphor is the dumbest, imo

Well I don't think it's inherently dumb. What makes it dumb is the fact that most people generally aren't balancing their checkbooks.

This too, also, is pretty stupid. Lower salaries increase the risk of corruption

Also, the idea entitlements don't need to be cut or managed to a sustainable level.

[Peter the Lefty]

Yeah, that's just populist idiocy.  The Presidential salary, on the other hand, really should be cut back.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

No: "Let's gut foreign aid and PBS! Together they make up 15% of our budget!"

[ingemann]

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

174 000$ a year and barely able to feed his family, impressive. What do it say about congress that its members think that 174k are a low wage?

[DC Al Fine]

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

174 000$ a year and barely able to feed his family, impressive. What do it say about congress that its members think that 174k are a low wage?

It's split 2 ways, but still, plenty of 6 figure incomes manage to keep a house and a cabin.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

No: "Let's gut foreign aid and PBS! Together they make up 15% of our budget!"

That kind of reminds me of Mike Naso's Atlasia tax cut proposal.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

174 000$ a year and barely able to feed his family, impressive. What do it say about congress that its members think that 174k are a low wage?

The guy had 8 kids, 4 of whom are in/going to college, 4 of whom in elementary school, to be fair.

[ingemann]

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

174 000$ a year and barely able to feed his family, impressive. What do it say about congress that its members think that 174k are a low wage?

The guy had 8 kids, 4 of whom are in/going to college, 4 of whom in elementary school, to be fair.

So he had gotten more kid than he could feed and likely his wife didn't work, and somehow it was the fault of others. Maybe before he produced so many kids, he should have asked himself how he would provide for them.

[Donerail]

For some, this is true. The candidate whose campaign I worked for told me that he met a Congressman from Wisconsin who said he could barely feed his family with the salary. Most members of Congress are independently wealthy to begin with though.

174 000$ a year and barely able to feed his family, impressive. What do it say about congress that its members think that 174k are a low wage?

The guy had 8 kids, 4 of whom are in/going to college, 4 of whom in elementary school, to be fair.

How much birth control can you buy for $174,000?

[Mr.Phips]

No, this isnt a stupid idea.  Most members of Congress are already wealthy when they get there.  Id propose cutting Congressional salaries to $60,000 a year and getting rid of Congressional pensions and forcing them to pay half of their health insurance costs.  Like I said, most of them are already wealthy. 

[Badger]

No, this isnt a stupid idea.  Most members of Congress are already wealthy when they get there.  Id propose cutting Congressional salaries to $60,000 a year and getting rid of Congressional pensions and forcing them to pay half of their health insurance costs.  Like I said, most of them are already wealthy. 

True. Calling this a stupid idea would be highly complimentary.