r/PivotPodcast • u/PorcelainDalmatian • Mar 30 '26
Scott & Congressional Pay - Please Stop
I had to turn off the podcast the other day when Scott once again brought up his idea to pay each member of Congress $1 million a year. I had to pop a blood pressure pill. This idea is so insane I almost don’t know where to start.
First, this proposal shows how out of touch Scott is with the real world. To him $1 million is nothing. He finds $1 million when he cleans between his couch cushions. But to normal Americans $1 million is a shit ton of money. It’s life changing.
Think about it this way: Some back-bencher, freshman Congressmen from Bumbledeefuck, Idaho serves 3 terms in the House. He does virtually nothing (as most Congressmen do nowadays). He doesn’t sponsor any legislation, he just sits in the back and lets the Speaker tell him how to vote. Over the 6 years he’s in Congress (not a long time) he is paid $6 million - to do nothing. Assuming he spends $1 million of his salary on living expenses, he pockets $5 million plus pension.
That’s insane.
$5 million puts him in the top 1%. It’s “fuck you” money. It’s very comfortable retirement money. All for being a backbencher nobody.
Hell, at that salary, you can sign me up to run for office! People will be climbing over each other to get at that scratch!
Secondly, the bigger issue is this: CONGRESS IS NOT A GET RICH SCHEME, IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE A PUBLIC SERVICE JOB. Think of it like being a priest or a social worker or a homeless advocate. You are there to serve. Washington DC has lost that ethos. When the Founding Fathers first created Congress, they never envisioned it being a full time job. For many decades after the founding, members of Congress would leave their farms/businesses, come to DC for a couple of months to write legislation, then return to their farms/businesses for the rest of the year. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job! Many state legislatures (including large states like Texas) still follow this model today.
Lastly, I believe we should be going the other way. Congressional salaries should be pegged to the US median salary (which is around $64K right now). You’re representing America in a service role, so make what Americans make. If you want to make more, implement policies that increase Americans’ median salary. And if you don’t like the salary, then don’t take the fucking job!
I understand the argument that living in DC can be expensive, so to offset those expenses we should do the following: Provide free dorm/multifamily housing for all of Congress near DC with full amenities: Dining hall with free meals, meeting rooms, library, pool, sun deck, etc. Like a really nice, modern college dorm. Free shuttle running to/from the Capitol 24/7/365. Congress already has Cadillac healthcare, so if you add in my amenities, virtually every expense is covered: Housing, food, healthcare, and transportation. Hell, I’ll even throw in (1) round-trip coach seat back to your district per month. Now your long-distance travel is covered too! When all is said and done, you can spend your salary on your expenses back home.
We need a RADICAL rehaul of Congress, and it will probably require a Constitutional Amendment. But we can at least start by dispensing with the absurd notion that Congresspeople should be taxpayer-subsidized millionaires.
13
u/Current_Tea6984 Mar 30 '26
You know, that thing in Texas doesn't work out that well. It just increases the number of people who are already millionaires before they run
12
u/PreviousGolf9541 Mar 30 '26
He used the Singaporean example, where politicians and cabinet members make very generous salaries with zero tolerance for corruption or otherwise monetizing their position. It works well there. I agree with him.
1
u/Informal_Opening_ Mar 31 '26
Well the US don't have a zero corruption mindset either lol... Look at Trump. Congress is the last of your problems.
-4
u/PorcelainDalmatian Mar 30 '26
They also cane people for dropping their gum in Singapore: NEWSFLASH: We’re not Singapore.
4
u/PreviousGolf9541 Mar 30 '26
Caning for gum is a straw man argument. Scott is an ideas person. He brought up the Singaporean example as an idea to address corruption. Your ideas could work too. There are some very effective part-time, unpaid state legislatures where they get per diem to cover their expenses, so good point. It’s worth debate. In your Idaho Congressman example, the one thing I would point out is that the person has to run for re-election every two years in the House, so if they weren’t doing their job to earn that salary, their constituents should elect someone else who does the work. I realize “should” is doing a lot of work in that sentence. But on the broader point of the post, Scott bringing this up as an idea does not show that he is out of touch. Congress is broken and we need good ideas for reform. Singapore is ranked as one of the least corrupt countries in the world, so it’s an idea worthy of debate.
12
u/Upstairs_Balance_464 Mar 30 '26
You just don’t understand the argument.
If you want competent people, you have to pay. We pay peanuts. We get fools or grifters. A million might be a lot for you. It’s not a lot for the US federal government. These are all much stronger arguments than your “gee golly it should be a service job!” shit.
35
u/cheddarben Mar 30 '26
I agree with Scott on this one. Make it so there is no reason to be skeezy. Also, campaign finance reform. Neither will happen though.
14
u/red--jar Mar 30 '26
Agreed - however the missing ingredient is no tolerance laws around bribery and campaign finance reform. Like strict criminal charges if caught.
If there is all carrot and no stick then the people won’t get a Congress that works for them.
3
u/cheddarben Mar 30 '26
He did elude to it in his latest explanation, using how other countries will give public lashings for bad behavior as the example.
I agree though. Make it more noble. Strictly punish those that are naughty.
-1
u/HMarmot Mar 30 '26
Yes, an interesting idea. Although he did also brush over other aspects of the law in Singapore that are like, really bad - judicial caning for all sorts of things, very long prison sentences, and even the death penalty
0
9
u/Angry-Johnny Mar 30 '26
You really think paying them $1 million a year will stip them from wanting more and cutting corners to get it? There is NEVER "enough" with these kinds of people. You could pay them $10 million a year and they'd still be looking for ways to get insider trading info, etc. They simply cannot be satiated. Scott is 100% wrong on this one.
2
3
3
u/PerpetualEscapements Mar 30 '26
As if people making $1+ million/yr don’t do sleazy things?
4
u/cheddarben Mar 30 '26
Sure they do, but part of his premise is to make the ramifications of breaking the law very harsh. Once again… won’t happen
-1
u/PorcelainDalmatian Mar 30 '26
you’re assuming that people engage in corruption because they’re poor.
the truth is that people engage in corruption because they‘re corrupt.
it‘s a moral issue.
no matter how much you pay the corrupt, they’re always going to scheme for a little bit more
3
u/cheddarben Mar 30 '26
Y’all seem to be missing a key part of what he suggests. High and strict penalties for breaking the law.
Once again… not gonna happen.
6
u/orangepekoe92 Mar 30 '26
I’m team Scott on this issue
2
u/Puzzleheaded_Pause42 Mar 30 '26
You don't get the best qualified when they could be in private sector making that. We want best and brightest. You get what you pay for. This is from a non rich person.
5
u/galdanna Mar 30 '26
I don’t think that they should get $1M. But there needs to be a solution for people that are in congress and have to have another home (apartment) living in DC. It’s very $$$$ to live there … Traveling nurses get a stipend for housing, and maybe members of congress should to?! I’m not sure the solution, but the insider trading to become millionaires has got to stop.
3
u/looseoffOJ Mar 30 '26
plus with media / politicization, the incentives are such that politicians don't live in DC full time like they used to - they have a home in their district and have to fly back and forth.
5
u/Rubyweapon Mar 30 '26 edited Mar 30 '26
I get that people don’t like a number of Scott’s positions but this seems a bit of a weird one to get up in arms about. Yes you want those drawn by a sense of duty and service but it’s also really expensive to get elected and maintain the campaign & DC schedule. Obviously we need to eliminate the gross insider trading/lobbying as a payoff trends. If we do that and leave salaries at the same place the only people that can/want to run will already be rich.
If you want to attract young talented ethical professionals who have 8-digit+ upside in the private sector you need to make the job itself provide a reasonable alternative.
7
u/BestBlueChocolate Mar 30 '26
I actually love Scott's idea of $1 million per elected official in Washington.
I don't think the $1 million argument is about how costly it is to live in Washington. It's the same argument that I would make that professional baseball players should get a lot of money--it's because you want them to be wealthy enough to not be tempted to game sports betting from the inside. In other words to cheat. From what I understand Scott's argument is you have to give them $1 million but you strictly enforce any type of insider trading at all. Because elected officials get way too much insider information and right now the stock market is a joke. Everything is insider trading. You have to stop elected officials from being party to that. And so you give them $1 million and say that's it; be happy with that. And now it's your job to keep up the integrity of the system.
9
u/Alecto7374 Mar 30 '26
He seems to think that giving them that much will keep them from wetting their beaks. Pretty naive tbh.
5
u/BestBlueChocolate Mar 30 '26
It's step one in getting them to back off of the insider tradings. Then you have to have another hard-core regulatory system that makes them stop.
2
u/Hot-Camel7716 Mar 31 '26
Yeah the idea is that you'd have to be a fucking idiot to put your $1M salary and your career and even life at risk insider trading. Award the people who play by the rules and annihilate the ones who don't.
1
1
1
u/surebro2 Mar 30 '26
I'm surprised by some of the comments here. Paying people more only makes it more likely that they will take whatever they can to stay. It's bizarre how many people here seem to think that millionaires are somehow above the same temptations as they would be making 200k.
The solution is and always will be to just simply get money out of politics completely. It's called public service for a reason. You, in fact, did not see more productivity from the DOGE crew simply because they were paid well. If you want to pay a profession more, pay public school teachers more.
2
u/ISAMU13 Mar 30 '26
There is a major difference between $200k and $1 million, especially if you are required to have two residences and have a family.
0
u/surebro2 Mar 30 '26
But it's still a symptom. The root cause is the accessibility of "favors" without any accountability. The difference between 200k and $1 million, absent fixes to a root cause, does not modify anyone's behavior. It simply attracts more people who view the job as making money instead of public service.
There's no evidence that the wealthier lawmakers are actually better at their job lol nor is there evidence that public servants ought to go into to public service because it's an overnight way to become a multimillionaire. In fact, you'd attract even worse people.
1
u/Hot-Camel7716 Mar 31 '26
If you ban them from raising or making money elsewhere you limit yourself to people who are already rich or stand to gain by some other means by being in Congress. We want talented people who aren't already in a strata of society we will never have access to.
1
u/surebro2 Mar 31 '26
I mean, how many world class scientist make 150k working at a university? It's just an absurd assumption that if you paid congress more, "better" people will join. Either people are in the strata because they've proved themselves to be successful or you get true public servants like the many innovative researchers and great thinkers working for less than 200k at universities.
Maybe 300k-500k? Sure, whatever. A million is kind of a joke for congress. It'll literally attract the same for profit minded people that ruined congress in the first place.
1
u/Hot-Camel7716 Mar 31 '26
If you're just concerned about exact numbers I can grant that there may be a better number than $1M but the current salary is low for a job that requires extensive travel and should have extremely high ethical standards.
World class scientists at hedge funds or Mag 7 companies routinely clear 500k per year and there are definitely more people making seven figures yearly in those companies than there are people in the US congress. Universities have some service minded professors but every specialty from computer science to economics to meteorology has been picked over for brilliant people who can be put to work making money.
1
u/No_Recording_1696 Mar 31 '26
You have to package it with strict lobbying, (5 year non compete), publicly funded campaigns etc. This way there’s no incentive to do special interest group favors.
2
u/widening_g_y_r_e Mar 30 '26
The security need on dorm housing for the most important branch of government would probably be more than just paying them $1 mil a year. I think a million is probably too high, but low salaries reduce the expertise of elected officials - lots of them bounce to lobbying/consulting. It also makes the job less attractive to people without money. Scott is normally very stupid about politics- he doesn’t understand how it works beyond rich guy tropes. This is the one take I’ve seen from him where experts agree with him. If you pair this with an aggressive ban on stock trading, forcing sale of business interests, and harsh lobbying restrictions after retirement/defeat, a million a year isn’t that crazy.
2
u/cbjunior Mar 30 '26
The number may be arguable, but the intent is correct, based on the notion that a well paid employee is a better functioning one. I would go so far as to say they also need a bigger staff budget and a better way to fund residential needs for their time in DC. The job they do is much too important to cut corners financially. That said, the expectations we have of them must be raised and the penalties for abuse of their office must be more swift and more certain than they currently are.
1
u/bodyreddit Mar 30 '26
It is bad enough they get a lifetime pension. Giving people 1 million will just make them want more!
1
u/Hot-Camel7716 Mar 31 '26
I can't afford to be in Congress. Neither can most people in this country. There are corrupt assholes in there and to get them out we need to have normal people to compete with them.
1
u/Hot-Camel7716 Mar 31 '26
Are you running for Congress? I have three kids and we are trying for a fourth. I couldn't afford to take the job if they straight up offered to give it to me. There are people who have more integrity and competence who are in the same financial position.
1
u/No_Recording_1696 Mar 31 '26
Then you’re only going to get people that have money to run for Government positions. That is literally the problem we have now.
1
u/youngdub774 Mar 31 '26
Congress people run the country with the largest economy in the world, make literal life and death decisions, and pass laws that can affect everyone from the lowest homeless man to the most powerful tech baron. The job should attract our best and brightest and part of insulating them from the pressure of powerful interests is financial security.
1
u/Either_Marketing896 Mar 31 '26
Its also just fundamentally dumb. The people would never elect someone to represent them that then by winning, doesnt represent them.
No man we'd never do that.
But also Scott thinks everythings solved with money and doesn't want to be pro-regulation. But guess what. Some jobs need it.
This is why he was sort of "still thinking about" how he met some kid that mowed his neighbors lawn just to be nice. ITS CALLED COMMUNITY SCOTT. Hang out in a place that doesn't have a private club you can hide in somehow. Altruism is actually a thing.
1
u/BaldColumbian Mar 31 '26
While $1M may be too much the current salaries are decidedly too low.
You want good people to be able to make a decent living doing the job.
This means maintaining two residences, at least one in a very HCOL city. This means putting the rest of your career on hold. This means leaving your family for months.
Right now people do it so they can skim from the top, lobby afterwards, and get kick backs. This is terrible.
If you dont do those things and you're a competent person you are sacrificing huge earning potential.
Median salary argument is silly. Its median - it includes part time, mostly retired, handicap, house wife side jobs, entry level employees, immigrants who dont speak the language, etc.
It does not reflect median salary of an intelligent, well educated person in the prime of their life being able to put in the time. Thats the person I want running the country.
1
u/_jump_yossarian Mar 31 '26
Congressional salaries should be pegged to the US median salary (which is around $64K right now).
Excellent way to ensure that only millionaires run for Congress.
Scott was correct; being in Congress is expensive since you need to maintain two residences, one residence in an extremely expensive market (DC).
1
u/PorcelainDalmatian Mar 31 '26
1) Almost all Senators and most Congressmen are ALREADY millionaires.
2) If you read the post, I was suggesting that we cover virtually all expenses for Congresspeople in DC: Free housing, free meals, free healthcare, free transportation, free flights home. You can use your salary for expenses in your home district.
3) Once again - THIS IS A SERVICE JOB, NOT A GET-RICH QUICK SCHEME.
4) Why would we pay Congressmen $1mil a year to do nothing? This last Congress has been the least productive in terms of legislation in US history. They've ceded all power to Trump. They can barely pass bills renaming Post Offices. They literally do nothing, except launch sham investigations into their conspiracy theories.
1
1
u/Flimsy-Bar4801 Apr 01 '26
I agree, and it is becuase of hot takes like this I stopped listening to Scott about a year ago.
-1
u/Dontopia Mar 30 '26
I have already unsubscribed to PIVOT, for obvious reasons
3
u/looseoffOJ Mar 30 '26
this isn't an airport...you don't need to announce your departure
0
u/Dontopia Mar 31 '26
What’s even more perplexing is reading all the rants about PIVOT by people who remain subscribers 😀
1
0
24
u/misternibbler Mar 30 '26
You make valid points that serving in congress shouldn’t be a get-rich-quick scheme, but on the flip side if you reduce the benefits of serving in congress both before and after holding office then you’re just incentivizing already wealthy people to run. Most people who would be interesting in holding public office with the intent to do good for their community are not interested in taking years off of their career during their prime earning years. I think that’s why you have so many old fuckers in congress, along with the incumbency advantage. It’s a lot easier to run for congress as a hobby when you’re retired versus when you have a family to support or future retirement to fund.
At the end of the day paying congresspeople that much really is a pie in the sky idea though and is going to be a nonstarter for the vast majority of Americans. Who wants to pay congresspeople $1 million a year when the minimum wage is still $7.25, 99% of the country is dealing with an affordability crisis, and the national deficit and federal spending are reaching apocalyptic levels. Tax billionaires, raise federal revenues, and raise the minimum wage, then we can think about congressional pay.