Elected Officials Should Follow the Lead of the Big 3....
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
December 2, 2008 1:00pm CST
US Automobile executives just did something that I challenge all elected officials in Washington DC to do.
They have agreed to an income of $1 per year.
Prs. Elect Obama should take the lead here and give up his pay. The Do Nothing Duo of Pelosi and Reid should agree to give up their pay too (it's not like they did anything to earn it anyway)... all the members of the House of Representatives and Senators should follow suit.
Furthermore, since we are trillions in debt and facing the biggest deficit in our history, all the states should agree to go without federal handouts (read pork) until further notice.
Why not? If the executives at the Big 3 can live up to that promise, why shouldn't the US government be able to?
6 people like this
17 responses
@creativedreamweaver (7297)
• United States
2 Dec 08
I couldn't agree more. The banking CEO's and upper level management should do the same. It isn't right for the taxpayers to pay their multi-million dollar salaries. As for Obama, he should lead by example yes, but not to the full extent of these companies that got themselves in trouble by being greedy. And yes, the congressional members ought to take large paycuts as well. You said it very well.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
Why shouldn't Prs. Elect Obama take the lead in this? He was a big part in getting the government to force banks and other lending institutions to take on these high risk debts.
1 person likes this
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
2 Dec 08
Lol, that would be nice. It's only for three years, and no bonus for next year. Poor CEOs, they get million dollar bonuses and million dollar salaries, lol. Yes, it would be nice for the Washington hot shot politicians to go on a dollar per year for the same amount of time but they won't.
As to the states. They have to have a balanced budget. With the revenue shortfall they either get a federal handout or they have to dramatically raise taxes besides cutting major programs. If the roads don't get fixed, kids don't get an education... don't think that's a good idea. But I would love to see the state politicians go on a $1 per year for the next three years. Here they gave themselves a 5% pay raise. Then they decided that the state employees should only get 1%. Only a handful of them found that odd, lol.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
The only reason states have become so dependent on the federal dime is they choose to be. The federal coffers are dry, so why do we keep acting like the federal government is made of money?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
Actually, unfunded mandates to the states ended years ago. The federal government is required to fund any mandated requirement to the states.
So, the answer would be, cut the program that the federal government forces on the states (almost always against the constitution) and you will free the state of that expense.
As far as passing expenses on to the people... isn't it interesting (and telling) that the states fought to do away with unfunded mandates from the federal government, but the hypocritical oafs have no problem with imposing them on the cities and the people.
2 people like this
@jonesy123 (3948)
• United States
2 Dec 08
Because it's the feds who imposed so many costs on the states such as medicare, no child left behind, road care.... Just wait until they raise the tax in where are you from, Wisconsin? It'll not only be your income tax but sales tax, and whatever other tax you have up there or not yet have. Just wait and see. The money has to come from somewhere. And it'll come from you, too.
3 people like this
@Debs_place (10520)
• United States
3 Dec 08
I think it is a great idea for the car CEOs to do this, isn't that what Iacocca did many years ago for Chrysler - he took no salary until the company was back on it's feet.
And yes Obama could do that but what he will be making as president is nothing compared to what the big 3 CEOs make. It would be nice if the government officials did give up their pay or at least a part of it...not to mention the perks. I think it would show their real attitude about the problems we have.
Personally all corporations should take a lesson from the ice cream company - ben and Jerry's where the CEO used to make I think it was no more then 5 times the salary of the lowest paid individual. I hear they abandoned that to remain competitive but I do believe that it is a great premise to start with.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
3 Dec 08
I'm not sure if you're aware, but John McCain was on the same wavelength. He said that members of his cabinet would be earning 1$ a year. "They've made enough money" he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/07/mccain.dems/index.html
Of course it was one of many great things he said that was ignored by the media in favor of smearing Palin.
2 people like this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
3 Dec 08
LOL, I think that is a great idea. The vast majority of our congressman are millionaires, and if they aren't now, then they will be when they leave office. These men and women use our system everyday to live like kings, and they really don't need that money anyways.
Now I really enjoyed your cutting the pork idea. Mainly because I would love to see Sarah Palin deal with the drop in crude prices (there goes your winfall profits tax), and losing hundreds of millions in federal dollars. This is a state that relies on the American taxpayers to pay for everything they have. If you cut off their money, then they would have to actually pay taxes, and they won't see a huge oil check next year. I really am liking this idea Para, you should start a movement, I will back you up.
@Inquisitivein (24)
• United States
3 Dec 08
No. CEO's that take $1.00 are doing so because the company is in serious trouble and likely was mismanaged. The majority of CEO's do not take a dollar because their companies are fiscally sound.
The government is not a business.
@suspenseful (40193)
• Canada
2 Dec 08
It sounds like a good idea. After all, the ones in government are not poor people who depend on their government salary and if they take a cut in pay or for an income to one dollar a year, then they would show that they are willing to help the economy. I also think that Obama should agree to the one dollar a year, unless it is found that he is not an American born citizen and is doing it to gain popularity and get his foot in the door.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
Exactly! It's hard to take them seriously when they SAY they are concerned about the deficit... but they themselves refuse to give up a single dime.
Every dime spent becomes several dollars of debt..
@CinderInMySoul (4717)
• United States
3 Dec 08
holy crap! they REALLY agreed to do that? my grandmother mentioned this to me today, but i thought for sure that she must have misunderstood or heard it wrong, something lol!
dang thats..well thats unbelievable actually! i wonder if its written into the "agreement"? somehow i doubt it..they will find a way to get out of it im sure!
shoot if all the members of the House and Senate just cut HALF their yearly salaries i bet it would be a huge amount!! not to mention all the special trips, the cars etc etc.
i still cant believe they will actually go through with only a $1 a year! i guess im gonna have to see the proof in the pudding lol!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
2 Dec 08
Well, it would be great if those who could afford it would do so but the only problem there is if that became the norm that would fully guarantee nobody would run for public office other than the very rich. I guess a good way to do it would be anyone in office who has made as much money as the auto CEO's have made in recent years with their salaries and huge bonuses should work for $1 a year.
As far as states receiving "pork", I guess that depends on what you call pork. I know in my state our roads and especially our bridges are falling apart. Any funding for our infrastructure would immediately put lots of people to work.
Annie
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
2 Dec 08
You make a good point with the "pork" thing. We all complain about it, but when it comes down to defining it, it often has more to do with our own pet peaves than anything real.
How many of those roads and bridges are federal highways? To me, pork is when the federal government spends money on things that aren't their responsibility. Your bridges may be in disrepair, but if they are on state, county or city roads, the federal government shouldn't be doing anything about them at all.
If a Senator or Congressmember can't afford to go without their pay, then they should at least volunteer to go without the perks that are unnecessary and cost money that the government doesn't have.
Paul Wellstone would be a great example of this. He drove his own car, not one provided for him by the taxpayers. He paid for a parking pass instead of one provided by the taxpayers. He flew commercial airlines when he could.. he never expected a government jet to fly him from Minnesota to Washington. In other words, he was what should become the standard for separating his official expenses from purely personal ones.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Dec 08
Now THAT I agree with 100% - about the elected officials giving up all the extra perks. We have a state senator from my district who drives his own car back and forth to Harrisburg and gives back thousands from his expense fund every year.
We sure could use more in the U.S. Senate like Wellstone.
Annie
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
3 Dec 08
In new Hampshire, we are one of the few states that still run whats called "citizen legislature". that is, it is comprised of citizens who take time out from their lives to serve a few sessions a year, for a few hundrd dollars a session, then go back to their regular jobs, lives etc. It allows and encourages regul;ar folks to run and participate. I know 3 out of the 4 thatserve my district, not justbecause they live in town with me, but because they are alos part of the community, one runs a hardware business, one has a realty thing, the other is an assistant at the elementary school. They aren't career politicians who are more concerned with their career than serving the people. Thi sis a system that not only should more states re-adopt, but should be carried over in to the national legislative branch.
1 person likes this
@ThePaintGuru (541)
• United States
3 Dec 08
Well the reason our elected officials are paid (not that it has worked out so far) is to give people without lots of money the opportunity to serve in government. Think about it, if the job doesn't pay anything then only rich people could take it. I would say that people enter office for the power and the extra money from lobbyists more than their salaries anyway, they receive an amazing and shameful amount of money from these firms. In light of this, I would have no problem at all with congress people renouncing lobbyist pay and getting paid by the government, payment which doesn't depend (as much) on their direct support for corporate interests.
2 people like this
@lvaldean (1612)
• United States
3 Dec 08
Well I am not sure whether I agree or disagree. I will have to think about it for awhile.
On the one hand, most of those currently in office, including the Pres/Vice Pres Elect have sufficient income to sustain without undue harm. Additionally, they are all part of the past and thus part of the "problem" that got us here.
On the other hand, I would not want to see us, as a country, place an undue burden on our elected officials. Meaning create a situation where only the very wealthy could afford to run for office. If we don't offer reasonable wages to our elected officials the only people who will ever run will be the very wealthy. Not what I want runnnig the country as a whole.
Do we also get to ask Bush, Cheney, Rice and others that will be leaving to "give back"?
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
4 Dec 08
Nope, because as little integrity as the leaders of the Big 3 may have... Our president and Congress have less.
@PrincessKitten (790)
• United States
3 Dec 08
ParaTed2k,
Right, the US Auto execs are being so noble. Why don't they do something that will really help?...like going ahead and building cars that have a higher MPG? Or better yet, not SUE states that want to require new cars to have a highter MPG?
Some guy taking a pay-cut is not going to help, there needs to be something that involves action.
Happy MyLotting!
1 person likes this
@CinderInMySoul (4717)
• United States
3 Dec 08
they are suing the states for requiring better cars? wtf? isnt a plan to start making greener cars part of this whole bailout thing? thats not right..im sure a judge wont uphold that..i hope.
1 person likes this
@PrincessKitten (790)
• United States
3 Dec 08
CinderInMySoul,
It's already been done, in California.
If you want to improve your own gas mileage, do some research on acetone (sold as nailpolish remover). It's cheap, easy and actually works! Just be very careful to only use the 100% acetone and not the nail-polish removers that have stuff added to them.
Happy MyLotting!
@flowerchilde (12529)
• United States
3 Dec 08
Unfortunately, those who have lots to spare are usually the most tightfisted.. unless of course, when it comes to others/taxpayer's money..
@heero1103 (322)
• Philippines
3 Dec 08
I wish that would happen here in the Philippines. Well I can only wish, for it would be hard for those RICH Philippine politicians to let go of their LIFESTYLE, even at the expense of their fellow Filipinos.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
3 Dec 08
Are you kidding? Our congress will probably vote themselves a raise.