PELOSI Act - new legislation.

by RQA 2023-01-25, 08:45

And to clarify, I have started this thread only for the humor in it, not as a political commentary or to suggest I approve or disapprove of it. And certainly not an attempt at trolling (however that is defined around here)

You have to admit that it is a very humorous play on the ridiculous practice of naming legislation for some perceived political goal rather than what the act might actually due.

Here we have the PELOSI Act: Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments

Evidently this was actually introduced (yes, by a Republican) to force legislators to place their investments in a blind trust while serving in an elected office.

Worthwhile legislation? Perhaps
Like the guy that did it? Most around here probably don't
Funny? Definitely!

by **NigelUno** 2023-01-25, 08:57

Are you asking if anyone likes the guy that did it...when you don't say who's the guy that did it?

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 08:59

Okay -

I guess this sort of thing is to try to get ahead of the sound bite narratives which dominate our MSM today. The renaming of the Build Back Better bill to the Inflation Reduction Act for instance.

Not everyone will see that as humor, some will see it as an attack on the former Speaker.

As for this particular proposal, that the Congress people & Senators can take advantage of their working knowledge of the laws they are passing or the information they have due to their elected positions, especially, but not limited to, classified information, is pretty much the same as insider trading, and should be eliminated. There is a generational argument to be made against its elimination, as all the longer-term Congress people & Senators probably have benefited from it and now this would cut off that opportunity for the newbies.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-25, 09:08

Generally a post that starts like this probably meets the definition tbh

“And to clarify, I have started this thread only for the humor in it, not as a political commentary or to suggest I approve or disapprove of it. And certainly not an attempt at trolling (however that is defined around here)”

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 09:36

Tough guy

PELOSI Act - new legislation. 200.gif?cid=ddb306a5smqzae9o5oz82fx06s3lkg6g0fanwpd9khnfjqtr&rid=200

by **Motown Spartan** 2023-01-25, 10:15

It is, by all accounts, a misnomer.

How can anyone in Washington believe the word Leaders applies to them.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-25, 10:20

Blind trust my ass. Fully divest before being sworn in.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 10:26

I'm remined of the line from Lincoln, "It's not a crime to bribe Congressmen, they'd starve otherwise".

IMO a significant pay raise for all would be needed to offset this Act, and I would be fine with that.

by RQA 2023-01-25, 11:03

NigelUno wrote:Are you asking if anyone likes the guy that did it...when you don't say who's the guy that did it?

I said he was a Republican. Didn't think I had to be more specific around here.

by RQA 2023-01-25, 11:06

Trapper Gus wrote:

IMO a significant pay raise for all would be needed to offset this Act, and I would be fine with that.

Why?

They would still have their money and access to it. They just wouldn't have control or knowledge of how it is being invested.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 11:06

RQA wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Are you asking if anyone likes the guy that did it...when you don't say who's the guy that did it?

I said he was a Republican. Didn't think I had to be more specific around here.

There you go again...

by **NigelUno** 2023-01-25, 11:07

RQA wrote:
NigelUno wrote:Are you asking if anyone likes the guy that did it...when you don't say who's the guy that did it?

I said he was a Republican. Didn't think I had to be more specific around here.

You also said you weren't trolling.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 11:11

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

IMO a significant pay raise for all would be needed to offset this Act, and I would be fine with that.

Why?

They would still have their money and access to it. They just wouldn't have control or knowledge of how it is being invested.

Congresspeople don't get paid enough to be able to have somewhere to sleep around DC, and often create "group homes" for themselves, where a number of Congresspeople rent an apartment together. Remember, their job pretty much requires that they maintain two homes, one in DC & one in their district. Generally, as they build wealth via their insider knowledge, they move on from that. What this says is they are not being paid enough to be able to do their jobs effectively, or at least not without using insider knowledge to supplement their salary. Pretty much a recipe for a corrupt Congress.

Being a proponent of good government I'm in favor of paying them so they are harder to bribe.

by Rick Saunders 2023-01-25, 11:45

RQA wrote:

You have to admit that it is a very humorous play on the ridiculous practice of naming legislation for some perceived political goal rather than what the act might actually due.

Worthwhile legislation? Perhaps

Funny? Definitely!

I don't actually find it funny just like I don't find all the other mis-named legislation funny by name. This seems particularly juvenile but they all seem to reinforce the idea that our legislators think "America is a stupid country. (B.S.)"

I am in favor of the general idea of detaching legislators from control over their investing. I'd go further and I also believe that Trapper is right that we should pay our legislators more. If we payed them handsomely and expected them to profit off their legislative work rather than profiting from the shady advantages they may have as legislators we might find that we would get a wider variety of qualified applicants.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 12:12

I’m not subscribing to the idea that we need to pay them more so they don’t cheat. They’ll just get paid more to cheat.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 12:28

kingstonlake wrote:I’m not subscribing to the idea that we need to pay them more so they don’t cheat. They’ll just get paid more to cheat.

The point I am making is, that relative to what they are asked to do, they have little choice but to use their knowledge to increase they wealth, so they can keep doing their jobs, because right now they are way underpaid for the job they have.

I wouldn't call it "cheating" because at this point it is legal.

by Rick Saunders 2023-01-25, 12:47

kingstonlake wrote:I’m not subscribing to the idea that we need to pay them more so they don’t cheat. They’ll just get paid more to cheat.

I am asking to pay them so that generally honest people would choose the job rather than be a genetic engineer or litigator for example. At the same time, I am asking that we make what we would consider to be cheating illegal. I'm not suggesting we pay them better so that they don't cheat.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 12:50

As far it being “expensive” to stay in DC have you ever thought that maybe they spend to much time there?

Eff it. Build two 250 room 1100 sq ft apartment buildings and require these POS grifters to live there.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2023-01-25, 12:53

RQA wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

IMO a significant pay raise for all would be needed to offset this Act, and I would be fine with that.

Why?

They would still have their money and access to it. They just wouldn't have control or knowledge of how it is being invested.

How are they going to retire as multi-millionaires if they don't know where to invest their money?

by RQA 2023-01-25, 13:01

Jake from State Farm wrote:

How are they going to retire as multi-millionaires if they don't know where to invest their money?

Well that's probably why the PELOSI Act won't be passed.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-25, 13:07

Jake from State Farm wrote:
RQA wrote:

Why?

They would still have their money and access to it. They just wouldn't have control or knowledge of how it is being invested.

How are they going to retire as multi-millionaires if they don't know where to invest their money?

We should pay them enough such that investing wouldn’t be necessary for them to comfortably retire with multimillions

by **MiamiSpartan** 2023-01-25, 13:13

Aww, the poor little Congresspeople scraping by on $174,000k/year.

And lets not forget $1 million to 2 million per year in expenses (yes, that includes staff salaries, but do the math and if anyone doesn't have a lot left over after paying them, then they have too many staff and/or are overpaying them).

Seriously, they could spend $5K/month on a very luxurious apartment, pay 10 staffers $100k/year, fly to/from home 20 times a year, and you're still not even at 1.2 million. And honestly, all of those are a lot more than they need.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2023-01-25, 13:14

MiamiSpartan wrote:Aww, the poor little Congresspeople scraping by on $174,000k/year.

And lets not forget $1-2 million per year in expenses (yes, that includes staff salaries, but do the math and if anyone doesn't have a lot left over after paying them, then they have too many staff and/or are overpaying them).

Seriously, they could spend $5K/month on a very luxurious apartment, pay 19 staffers $100k/year, fly to/from home 20 times a year, and you're still not even at 1.2 million. And honestly, all of those are a lot more than they need.

Don't forget free postage lol.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 13:23

kingstonlake wrote:As far it being “expensive” to stay in DC have you ever thought that maybe they spend to much time there?

Eff it. Build two 250 room 1100 sq ft apartment buildings and require these POS grifters to live there.

That's it, let your hate flow, Luke.

However, why do you hate so much?

MiamiSpartan wrote:Aww, the poor little Congresspeople scraping by on $174,000k/year.

And lets not forget $1 million to 2 million per year in expenses (yes, that includes staff salaries, but do the math and if anyone doesn't have a lot left over after paying them, then they have too many staff and/or are overpaying them).

Seriously, they could spend $5K/month on a very luxurious apartment, pay 10 staffers $100k/year, fly to/from home 20 times a year, and you're still not even at 1.2 million. And honestly, all of those are a lot more than they need.

Pretty sure the staff allowance cannot be used to pay for Congresspeople personal expenses, and AOC made big waves when she decided to pay her staff a living wage of about 50k, which is not really enough to do much in DC. Many Congresspeople already are paying rock bottom, or less, wages.

The US Government spends about 20% of the GDP directly every year and has input on how the other 80% is spent.

While the Congresspeople split their time between DC, their districts and "other" their staffs are working pretty much 24/7 either on legislation, continuant outreach and service or research for future legislation.

It is seriously the largest business in the country, and the Congress decides what it does. Limited their involvement isn't what I would suggest.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-25, 13:26

MiamiSpartan wrote:Aww, the poor little Congresspeople scraping by on $174,000k/year.

And lets not forget $1 million to 2 million per year in expenses (yes, that includes staff salaries, but do the math and if anyone doesn't have a lot left over after paying them, then they have too many staff and/or are overpaying them).

Seriously, they could spend $5K/month on a very luxurious apartment, pay 10 staffers $100k/year, fly to/from home 20 times a year, and you're still not even at 1.2 million. And honestly, all of those are a lot more than they need.

It’s not about this.

Succinctly put- if you’re concerned about corruption and them taking bribes then let’s basically bribe them ourselves and reduce the incentive to take them from other sources. We’ll be fine. It’s squabbling over less than peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the basically upper middle class salary combined with need for a second home and requirement to give up your current career for a potentially 2 year gig is prohibitive to many people getting involved. Up the salary and you’ll be able to get more candidates involved that it didn’t make sense for financially before

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 13:31

Yeah, their staffers are diligently working on only legislation, legislation reasearch, and constituent outreach.

Did you pull that from Boeberts website?

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 13:40

I think Boebert is worth $12M right now after being penniless in 2019.

So I guess we need to pay her over six million a year to incentivize her to be a good legislator.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2023-01-25, 13:50

kingstonlake wrote:I think Boebert is worth $12M right now after being penniless in 2019.

So I guess we need to pay her over six million a year to incentivize her to be a good legislator.

Well on the other hand your plan of paying them a pittance and saying “it’s your duty” is what we do now and it doesn’t seem to be working so I dunno maybe try something else

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 14:11

kingstonlake wrote:Yeah, their staffers are diligently working on only legislation, legislation reasearch, and constituent outreach.

Did you pull that from Boeberts website?

No, that was just my general knowledge, and as you might have noted, but didn't, I use AOC as an example.

However, since you are asking, and I have interest I found a general description of "how things work" for Congresspeople.

If they choose to accept them, all members of the United States Congress are given various allowances intended to cover personal expenses incurred while carrying out their duties.

The allowances are provided in addition to salaries, benefits and allowed outside income. The salary for most senators, representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico is $174,000. The Speaker of the House receives a salary of $223,500. The president pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate receive $193,400.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Congressional Salaries and Allowances, the allowances are provided to cover "official office expenses, including staff, mail, travel between a Member's district or state and Washington, D.C., and other goods and services."

Representatives and senators are allowed to accept up to 15% of their base salary in permitted “outside earned income.” Since 2016, the limit on outside income has been $27,495. Since 1991, representatives and senators have been prohibited from accepting honoraria—payment for professional services that are usually rendered free of charge.

In the House of Representatives, the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) is made available to help members defray expenses resulting from three specific components of their "representational duties": the personal expenses component, the office expenses component, and the mailing expenses component.

Use of the MRA allowance is subject to a number of restrictions. For example, members may not use MRA funds to pay or help pay any personal or campaign-related expenses. Members are also prohibited (unless authorized by the House Ethics Committee) from using campaign funds or committee funds to pay for expenses related to official congressional duties; maintaining an unofficial office account; accepting funds or assistance from a private source for an official activity; or using personal funds to pay for franked mail.

In addition, each member is responsible for paying any expenses that are in excess of the authorized MRA level or that are not reimbursable under regulations of the Committee on House Administration.

In 2016, each member’s MRA increased by 1% from the 2015 level, and the MRAs range from $1,207,510 to $1,383,709, with an average of $1,268,520.

Most of each member's annual MRA allowance is used to pay their office personnel. In 2016, for example, the office personnel allowance for each member was $944,671.

Each member is allowed to use their MRA to employ up to 18 full-time, permanent employees.

Some primary responsibilities of the congressional staffs in both the House and Senate include analysis and preparation of proposed legislation, legal research, government policy analysis, scheduling, constituent correspondence, and speech writing.

Allowances for mailing vary based on the number of residential mailing addresses in the member's home district as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

All members are required to provide a quarterly report detailing exactly how they spent their MRA allowances. All House MRA expenditures are reported in the quarterly Statement of Disbursements of the House.

Congress Person Spending Accounts - a bit dated

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 14:19

kingstonlake wrote:I think Boebert is worth $12M right now after being penniless in 2019.

So I guess we need to pay her over six million a year to incentivize her to be a good legislator.

Looks like your estimate might be a tad high, and she was the co-owner of three restaurants, so not so broke.

Still, interested individuals should know that those estimates range from $1.7 million to $2 million, which are far from being perfect but should nonetheless be useful for providing interested individuals with a general sense of things.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/4669692/what-representative-lauren-boebert-net-worth/

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 14:35

I have no doubt there’s a written description of what aides duties are, lol.

There’s also a sign telling me what the speed limit is on the way home.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 14:45

kingstonlake wrote:I have no doubt there’s a written description of what aides duties are, lol.

There’s also a sign telling me what the speed limit is on the way home.

Pretty sure there is a whole method of control, including a Congressional HR department where aids can file complaints.

This is not the "wild west".

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 14:55

Trapper Gus wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:I have no doubt there’s a written description of what aides duties are, lol.

There’s also a sign telling me what the speed limit is on the way home.

Pretty sure there is a whole method of control, including a Congressional HR department where aids can file complaints.

This is not the "wild west".

You’re right. It an institution where only the ethical and honest thrive.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 14:57

kingstonlake wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Pretty sure there is a whole method of control, including a Congressional HR department where aids can file complaints.

This is not the "wild west".

You’re right. It an institution where only the ethical and honest thrive.

It is like any other large organization. It does its best, however flawed that may be.

by **MiamiSpartan** 2023-01-25, 15:03

Trapper Gus wrote:
kingstonlake wrote:Yeah, their staffers are diligently working on only legislation, legislation reasearch, and constituent outreach.

Did you pull that from Boeberts website?

No, that was just my general knowledge, and as you might have noted, but didn't, I use AOC as an example.

However, since you are asking, and I have interest I found a general description of "how things work" for Congresspeople.

If they choose to accept them, all members of the United States Congress are given various allowances intended to cover personal expenses incurred while carrying out their duties.

The allowances are provided in addition to salaries, benefits and allowed outside income. The salary for most senators, representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner from Puerto Rico is $174,000. The Speaker of the House receives a salary of $223,500. The president pro tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate receive $193,400.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Congressional Salaries and Allowances, the allowances are provided to cover "official office expenses, including staff, mail, travel between a Member's district or state and Washington, D.C., and other goods and services."

Representatives and senators are allowed to accept up to 15% of their base salary in permitted “outside earned income.” Since 2016, the limit on outside income has been $27,495. Since 1991, representatives and senators have been prohibited from accepting honoraria—payment for professional services that are usually rendered free of charge.

In the House of Representatives, the Members' Representational Allowance (MRA) is made available to help members defray expenses resulting from three specific components of their "representational duties": the personal expenses component, the office expenses component, and the mailing expenses component.

Use of the MRA allowance is subject to a number of restrictions. For example, members may not use MRA funds to pay or help pay any personal or campaign-related expenses. Members are also prohibited (unless authorized by the House Ethics Committee) from using campaign funds or committee funds to pay for expenses related to official congressional duties; maintaining an unofficial office account; accepting funds or assistance from a private source for an official activity; or using personal funds to pay for franked mail.

In addition, each member is responsible for paying any expenses that are in excess of the authorized MRA level or that are not reimbursable under regulations of the Committee on House Administration.

In 2016, each member’s MRA increased by 1% from the 2015 level, and the MRAs range from $1,207,510 to $1,383,709, with an average of $1,268,520.

Most of each member's annual MRA allowance is used to pay their office personnel. In 2016, for example, the office personnel allowance for each member was $944,671.

Each member is allowed to use their MRA to employ up to 18 full-time, permanent employees.

Some primary responsibilities of the congressional staffs in both the House and Senate include analysis and preparation of proposed legislation, legal research, government policy analysis, scheduling, constituent correspondence, and speech writing.

Allowances for mailing vary based on the number of residential mailing addresses in the member's home district as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.

All members are required to provide a quarterly report detailing exactly how they spent their MRA allowances. All House MRA expenditures are reported in the quarterly Statement of Disbursements of the House.

Congress Person Spending Accounts - a bit dated

So they get $1.2-$1.3m in the MRA. Personnel allowance is $944k. So they have another $250-$350k per year for housing, car, etc. Those aren't going to be considered personal expenses anymore than an average person's hotel is when they are traveling for business. If it was, surely that's an important thing that your link would point out.

But even if it isn't part of their expenses, if it comes out of their salary, a very nice place would only eat up $30-$40k and leave them with $130k or more.

Maybe some go cheap because they want to use their salary or expenses for other things, but they aren't in dire straits (even if they get money for nothin' and their chicks for free).

by **MiamiSpartan** 2023-01-25, 15:04

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
MiamiSpartan wrote:Aww, the poor little Congresspeople scraping by on $174,000k/year.

And lets not forget $1 million to 2 million per year in expenses (yes, that includes staff salaries, but do the math and if anyone doesn't have a lot left over after paying them, then they have too many staff and/or are overpaying them).

Seriously, they could spend $5K/month on a very luxurious apartment, pay 10 staffers $100k/year, fly to/from home 20 times a year, and you're still not even at 1.2 million. And honestly, all of those are a lot more than they need.

It’s not about this.

Succinctly put- if you’re concerned about corruption and them taking bribes then let’s basically bribe them ourselves and reduce the incentive to take them from other sources. We’ll be fine. It’s squabbling over less than peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the basically upper middle class salary combined with need for a second home and requirement to give up your current career for a potentially 2 year gig is prohibitive to many people getting involved. Up the salary and you’ll be able to get more candidates involved that it didn’t make sense for financially before

Do you really think that paying them more means they won't take bribes? People with a lot of money are often greedy for more.

by **GRR Spartan** 2023-01-25, 15:12

Any word on THE TRUMP ACT where the IRS will start auditing the top 10%?

by **Cameron** 2023-01-25, 15:14

I am fine with a generous stipend for DC housing and travel expenses. I do not see the benefit in viewing public service as a path to riches or upward economic mobility. $200k/year, final offer.

by **Trapper Gus** 2023-01-25, 15:15

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

No, that was just my general knowledge, and as you might have noted, but didn't, I use AOC as an example.

However, since you are asking, and I have interest I found a general description of "how things work" for Congresspeople.

Congress Person Spending Accounts - a bit dated

So they get $1.2-$1.3m in the MRA. Personnel allowance is $944k. So they have another $250-$350k per year for housing, car, etc. Those aren't going to be considered personal expenses anymore than an average person's hotel is when they are traveling for business. If it was, surely that's an important thing that your link would point out.

But even if it isn't part of their expenses, if it comes out of their salary, a very nice place would only eat up $30-$40k and leave them with $130k or more.

Maybe some go cheap because they want to use their salary or expenses for other things, but they aren't in dire straits (even if they get money for nothin' and their chicks for free).

Congressional Salaries: Myths and Facts
The pay of members of Congress has long been a subject of debate, confusion, and misinformation. Members are paid a salary only during the terms for which they are elected. They do not, as has been widely claimed in social media, receive “their full salaries for life.” In addition, members do not get additional pay for service on committees, and they are not eligible for housing or per diem allowances for expenses incurred in Washington, DC. Lastly, neither the members of Congress nor their families are exempt from having to pay off student loans.

by **kingstonlake** 2023-01-25, 15:15

MiamiSpartan wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It’s not about this.

Succinctly put- if you’re concerned about corruption and them taking bribes then let’s basically bribe them ourselves and reduce the incentive to take them from other sources. We’ll be fine. It’s squabbling over less than peanuts in the grand scheme of things.

Secondly, the basically upper middle class salary combined with need for a second home and requirement to give up your current career for a potentially 2 year gig is prohibitive to many people getting involved. Up the salary and you’ll be able to get more candidates involved that it didn’t make sense for financially before

Do you really think that paying them more means they won't take bribes? People with a lot of money are often greedy for more.

A smart man once made a similar argument about Elon musk

by Sponsored content