I think most of us agree that nobody, especially Congressional reps. should be able to dictate their own salaries; however, in all honesty, don’t you think that those in Congress would rather you look at their voting of their own pay raises as “the issue to debate and waste time on” (much like a red herring) so that the American People don’t focus on the REAL source of Congressional income for most of these crooked traitors, which amounts to 100x to 1000x their normal annual salaries – that being non other than what has already been uncovered by the DOGE team with the VERY FIRST audit of USAID?
It is not like we don’t know how these traitors were REALLY being compensated, and why they choose to remain in office so long. It damned sure aint because of that peon salary that we are now debating.
For example, we knew this even BEFORE Trump won the election…and even BEFORE Elon entered the picture. Want proof? Here is a policy proposal from NOVEMBER 2024 indicating that there were signs of massive money-laundering taking place through govt departments, which invariably point back to the very branch of government who is responsibly for SPENDING and BUDGETS – Congress itself, while also describing exactly what was happening within USAID even before the DOGE team even started looking at it…
Bottom line…we might focusing on the crticial areas that are the real underground avenues and four-lane highways of money flows, and not chase red herrings and microscopic issues like publically-disclosed salaries and pay raises that do very little to save money or pinch pennies. Congress wants you to bicker about their self-administered pay raises – because when you focus your attention there, then you are not looking at their REAL source of income, which is in many cases, more than a hundred times greater. We should commend the DOGE team for their incredible work at reducing REAL Congressional pay raises, like this forum shows that it wishes to do (by different and less-effective means), shouldn’t we? It is not that we shouldn’t control what Congress pays themselves, moreso than it might be that we might devote our time more wisely and proportionally to what does more to save our tax dollars in the long run, and which efforts might buy us the greatest gain and quickest return, for the smallest and more effective use of our time and resources – and DOGE expsomg USAID in criminal kickbacks and money-laundering, thereby indirectly controlling REAL pay raises for Congress, is perhaps a prime example of keeping our eyes on the ball, avoiding red herrings and planted distractions, and solving real problems at the source.
For example, now knowing what we know thusfar about kickbacks, money-launding, and Congress’ tinacity for creating distractions in one hand while pulling corruption in the other, I would go back in time, identify all instances where Congress publically discussed calling for pay raises, then look at major budget items that they over-whelmingly passed right before that time, and dig through that legislation looking for massive budget allocations earmarked for a particular purpose. Then I would have my fiscal investigation teams comb through payment systems tracking those monies through various agencies and organizations, looking for evidence of kickbacks and money-laundering back to Congress. Once I found the completed kickback trail, I would yank the person out of Congress, confiscate all assets, clawback unspent laundered monies, and throw him/her behind bars for 20 years Then I would have those assets auctioned off and the funds placed into an interest-bearing escrow account that would be used to pay for the future salary increases of the rest of Congress who was not yet caught stealing taxpayer funds. This is precisely how I would solve the “pay raises for Congress” issue, leaving others to discuss the intracacies how much their publically-disclosed salaries should be, and based on what criteria. As former attorneys, Congress expects (and even anticipates that) you to “go by the book” – which is precisely why you NEVER do things “by the book” with them. My two cents. 