There has been considerable debate, in the wake of the Abramoff scandal (actually, that's bad metaphor: how about "in the first surging of the bow wave of the Abramoff scandal(s)"), on how to keep corruption out of politics, or at least minimize it....

The idea that a Member of Congress should live in slum housing as a price of his service is rather ludicrous.

I guess that depends on how they vote...

No wonder Congress cannot acomplish anything (as a representatives of US). We can't even agree on how much it costs to live in the DC area...

Seriously though, the effect of lobbies is nothing more than a symptom. Federal government has reached into far more facets of our lives than it was ever intended to. You remove the government from some of these issues, and very soon the lobbies will have little to influence.

The idea that a Member of Congress should live in slum housing as a price of his service is rather ludicrous.

No one is saying that a Member would live in slum housing. You had said that their current salary is "not a lot." The point is $162,000 per annum is WAY MORE than enough to live temporarily in DC and maintain a home in their district (generally). The median household income in the US in 2004 was $44,000--in the district it was $46,000.

These people make twice the combined median income for a US household and a DC household!

You are not going to be forced to live in "slum housing" making that kind of scratch. For average Americans, $162,000 is filthy rich.

These people are extraordinarily well-paid. To suggest otherwise is to be divorced from reality.

There are plenty of places in DC to get cheap housing.

Indeed -- if you don't mind having happen to you what recently happened to Marion Barry in his own house.

Allow me to introduce you to a concept known as the survival instinct.

Those figures are highly deceptive.

The figures are not "highly deceptive"--they are entirely accurate. There are plenty of places in DC to get cheap housing. Yes, there are "underprivileged" areas; yes, you can find more affordable housing in those areas than in, say, Georgetown.

I have lived in Ward 8 in Anacostia for years. My townhouse cost $90,000 in 1999--. It was in pretty good shape. Our crime rates are high, but they mostly attributed to disputes relating to drug peddling.

I see nothing wrong with a Congressman having to "slum" it in a neighborhood like Anacostia. Their $160,000 will go quite far here.

In the last census the median gross rent in DC was reported to be $618/month. Median household income was $40,127.

Those figures are highly deceptive. DC proper includes vast sections of, shall we say, underprivileged and the housing prices reflect that situation. The realistic cost for a one bedroom apartment inside the beltway in a nice neighborhood is about $1000-1500. 1 BR condos in those areas go for about $300-400k.

Sure there are? Oh yeah they render a service, "to themselves".

"Critical to a democratis society", Sure is? the only thing critical to all of them is to get, by hook or crook, legislation they seek and to hell woth the taxpaying public who pay the bills.

Where in the hell is "representation of the people"? if the politician doesn't see a fistfull of dollars in front of them, the the public to, can "go to hell"

All lobbying should be banned and made a criminal offense. All lobbiest do is to put money in the politicians face and the crooked politician takes it, "in the name of the people" who put them, by voting for them, in office.

$162,100 annually places Members of Congress in the highest quintile in the District. This is plenty of money to maintain an apartment in the District and living arrangements at home.>>

I rather doubt that they live in DC proper - they all live in more "desireable" areas. How about we use one of those "excess" military bases and provide them housing? At the very least, maybe it would convince them to improve military housing...!

While $162,100 a year is good money, it's not a lot when you consider the need to maintain a home in their state or District

What planet are you living on? In the last census the median gross rent in DC was reported to be $618/month. Median household income was $40,127.

$162,100 annually places Members of Congress in the highest quintile in the District. This is plenty of money to maintain an apartment in the District and living arrangements at home.

If you make it illegal to make a living from lobbying do you realize that the unemployment rate in DC jumps to around 20% overnight?

Heh.

I do think the pay should at least cover reasonable housing and living expenses in the District area-while leaving enough left over to maintina housing at home. If a study indicates that this isn't the case for the majority of congress members then I would support an increase based on that, but if the reasoning for a pay raise is that it will lower temptation to corruption, I am not swallowing that pill.

I absolutely agree that congress should be enforcing the ethics violations it has on the books, and they also need to do more than swat wrists, when they catch somebody in a violation.

To those, I would add Significantly raises congressional salaries. While many Members are independently wealthy through inheritance or prior success in the business world, others rely exclusively on their salary. While $162,100 a year is good money, it's not a lot when you consider the need to maintain a home in their state or District, one near Capitol Hill, and the expense of flying back and forth every weekend. Free meals and vacations are pretty good perk.

I can't say I agree with you here. The nature of avarice (and one of the reasons it's considered one of the Seven Deadly Sins) is that it's not self-limiting. Raising congressional salaries would have no effect whatsoever on altering motivations to accept a bribe.

There is just no way to get the money out of politics unless you get politics out of money.

My own solution to the problems with professional lobbyists is to make it illegal. Notlobbying—that's protected by the right to petition government. I mean making a living doing it. That's well within the Congress's powers to regulate commerce.