High public office brings with it more intangible satisfactions (power and honor) than enjoyed by corporate executives.

Also, at the USGovernment level, that includes perks like free flights on Air Force aircraft.

Of course, getting elected to the Senate is pretty much the easiest way to become a millionaire. So there is that.

Well at least they aren't going to do identity theft like the California Obamacare enrollment counselors will be able to do.

Incentives drive everything. There is no incentive to become a congress(wom)man who downsizes government and removes government power. There is no money in it. So, who is going to change the system to favor the taxpaying citizen? The supposed conflict between the political parties creates more opportunities to raise money for campaigns.

There may be a partial fix. I think congressmen are underpaid. Each should receive say $2 million per year.

Congressional seats inspire costly and determined campaigns. This is not because people are willing to spend fortunes to serve in honor and principle. Most issues affect business interests, and most congressmen leave Congress quite rich or with well-paying jobs consulting on the legislation they promoted.

A truly honest and principled man is rare in Congress, because he must trade favors to make a big income. The path to success is there for the dishonest man, but not for the honest one. Pro rata, the US spends about $5 billion per congressman in taxes raised. $2 million per year is cheap for a good thinker and administrator handling that flow of wealth. Current fraud and pork costs about $5 million/year, and those other billions are misdirected. A large salary would make each congressmen more independent from bribes and schemes, and would allow people to run for Congress who are not already millionaires or pawns of some interest group.

$2 million/year would identify a congressman as a privileged member of society, as he truly is. He would be watched more closely, and any fraud would get no sympathy. We should make the job of congressman a directly profitable job to hold, for the best and honest people, rather than a job which pays that $2 million only from side deals with the dishonest.

In my town, the town leaders are unpaid, and they have long-standing interests in businesses which carry out the town's good works. A reform councilman would have to be personally rich and interested in good government rather than money. Still, the other 5 councilmen could outvote him. We would need to elect four wealthy saints at the same time to break up the deals within town government. This will never happen. My town will never pay a salary to the town leaders. They will always serve out of a heartfelt interest in directing the town's resources to quality companies.

Crook will skim, no matter how much you pay them. You want honest men? Free airtime, free advertising and no campaign contributions. Campaign contributions are free speech my ass. You want to advertise for your favorite politician, do, just don't give him any money.

I'd say a limited number of hours of air time, starting in october.

Other than that they should use youtube

I think the problem isn't income but career politicians. No one should spend 20-40 years in politics. Do your term and go home.

Exactly right, MonicaP. But it looks like once they get a taste of that kind of power, they are loathe to give it up.

I think the problem isn't income but career politicians. No one should spend 20-40 years in politics. Do your term and go home. -- MonicaP at July 17, 2013 7:01 AM

I think we need an amendment that reads something along the lines of:

A Congress member can not run for any elected Congressional position after having served more than twelve continuous years in Congress. The person may run again after leaving office for a minimum of two years.

Basically they aren't stopped from ever again, but they would have to be out of office at least a little bit before they can get back in. And it would allow a five term rep to run for a senate seat, but they would only get one Senate term.

Yes SCOTUS struck down term limits, but doing it as an amendment process makes it harder to get around. It also doesn't violate the state's rights because the same congress critter can run again, just not right away.