If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[angus]

Abolish both chambers of the US Congress and replace it with one chamber that has about 1.5 times as many members as the current US House.  Each member serves five-year terms and is remunerated annually at the rate of exactly two times the most recent year's median annual household income.

[angus]

Seems to me that measures to limit Congress's pay would only further limit membership to the independently wealthy.

Jobs that pay a hundred thousand dollars a year limit membership to the independently wealthy? 

You and I must come from different sides of the tracks.

[angus]

Let me be sure that I can understand you.  In the current system, we can attract lots of high-powered attorneys and businessmen, because they'd presumably be willing to serve their government for 400 thousand per year.  Many of those types might not be so attracted to government service if it only paid 100 thousand per year.    Farmers, public school teachers, janitors, firemen, and housewives, on the other hand, who do not give up substantial salaries when they accept a 100 thousand-dollar per year job presumably would not automatically be put off at my suggestion.

You somehow manage to observe that the most salient aspect of my proposed amendment is the fact that some working-class people (ultrawhite-collar working class, I might add) would presumably not be as willing to serve, and that this is tantamount to limiting the office to the non-working, independently wealthy class.  

I'm a bit baffled by your response.  The US Congress is hardly representative of the people, and I am trying to ameliorate that condition in three ways.  Of course I'm not suggesting that we do what the Texas state legislature does (and even it does not limit membership to the independently wealthy, although it does limit membership to those of means).  I'm merely suggesting that we limit it to those who really want to serve, and the wage I have suggested is already generously higher than the mean household--not individual!--income.

I do not think your snide attack on my proposed amendment is merited.  If however, you can present some data or case study that at least gives it a veneer of legitimacy, then I'll read it.  And, no, I do not consider your one-sentence response a legitimate defense of your remarks.

[angus]

Nah, I'm good. Your post let me know that I have no further interest in interacting with you.

Thank you.  And I'll thank you more if you put me on Ignore until and unless you have something intelligent to contribute.  I have enough idiots to contend with in real life.

You may be long gone, but this needs to be said:

The thread asked for "a" constitutional amendment.  That indefinite article implies one.  Not five, not three, not two.  One.  You clearly want to vetch about campaign finance reform.  That's your prerogative and it's a reasonable suggestion--although I'm not sure how you'd address it with only one amendment, and the OP certainly doesn't ask about rewriting the entire document.  

What you should never do is make your original complaint in the guise of commenting on mine.  "Jobs that require you to be able to finance a year of applying for them" ?!  Really?  In the first place, I don't know how you make your living, but it's not a year's salary for me, and it's not a year's salary for those making a 400 thousand dollars per year.  It's much more than that.  Sure, the cost of winning elections is a legitimate complaint, but it is tangential to my post.  Moreover, my post clearly stipulated that the terms should be longer, and precisely for the reason that you imply.

I support the creation of only one chamber, for reasons I don't mind defending, and I think that they shouldn't be in constant campaign mode, and I really think that it should be the people's chamber--not just the rich people's chamber.  I perceive those as three separate problems that could be reasonably addressed by one constitutional amendment and I made some suggestions to answer those three problems.  You took off in a different direction and did it in a way that misrepresents the thrust of my proposal and the nature of it.  I resent that.  This sort of thing happens in politics all the time.  I don't think people should get away with that sort of thing.  So I'm calling you out.  

Don't ever play me like that.  Or anyone else.  It's rude, it's unethical, and it's dishonest.  If you have your own original idea of a problem that might be addressed with one single amendment, then put that into words.  If the cost of calling you out for being disingenuous is me looking like a jerk, then I'll pay that price.  What I won't do is let you twist the substance of my post into something other than what it was intended to be.  

[angus]

Okay, I was probably pissy last night.  Anyway, apologies given and accepted all around.  Sincerely.

Well, you're right about campaigning being expensive.  

I suppose that I was thinking about the president's salary.   I looked it up and was reminded that the senators and representatives make 174 thousand per year.  

I'll stipulate that the benefits of serving outweigh the pay.  In fact, it goes beyond what you mention and is related to another issue, but I'll remind you that this thread only asked for one amendment.  To address the problems of venality and cronyism, you'd need to propose others.  (yes, I read your response that you really weren't trying to complain about this, but you cannot complain about expenditures, both personal on the job and for campaigning to get the job, without complaining about the spending expectations generally, which inevitably leads to a conversation about not only campaign finance reform, but about the influence of money in Washington.)

If we create enough offices to keep it local, and don't require them to have to get re-elected every two years, and remove the chamber that has archaic rules about order and has a membership disproportionate to the electorate, we will alleviate, or at least ameliorate, some of these problems.

Of course we'll still have the underlying problem of the influence of money in lobbying for bills and for favor, and in financing elections.  That has to be a different amendment, I'm afraid, and I've already spent my quota on this one.