Shouldn't contractors, even in high places, be 1099s?
I've long wondered why our elected reps in congress, state govt & local government aren't paid as 1099s. They are, afterall, there for a set amount of time - e.g., 2 years.
Any homes purchased should be considered a 2nd home and not the primary home, which should be in the district from whence they came.
Near the end of a contract, they need re-apply for the position and may or may not be awarded the contract. Each stint should be considered a contract with their hiring authority - the people who elected them paying their fees and their per diem.
This arrangement would mean that they are not entitled to a lifetime salary or residual. They would also not receive a pension but would be required to create and manage their own IRAs. If the people who hire the contractors want to make a contribution to the contractors retirement plan, fine but that should be in accordance with the law.
They would be required to find the most appropriate health insurance plan to their liking. if they don't want coverage, then the policy of their home state should prevail. if the home state doesn't provide coverage for those without, then the elected reps would have none or would find coverage like any other citizen.
The people who hire the contractor (i.e., the voters) would have the right to say whether the contractor is paid a flat fee or on the basis of hours worked. Business meetings would be valid but cocktail parties would not.
The people who hire the contractors should pay the fees.
About the "staffers". Although some of these folks come and go with the contractors, some do stay and should likely be considered employees of the people (i.e., civil servants.)
izzy806
yousharknotpass
titsay
theartofmadeline
gracieabrams
discoholicmusic
snowghoul
turnnoffyourmind
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s