It might not be enough to vault members of Congress to the top of the lists of most-admired Americans, but it couldn’t hurt: Some are calling on lawmakers to roll back the 2.8 percent pay raises that go into effect today. With the hikes, a lawmaker’s base salary will rise to $174,000 – a small fortune to many Americans right now, though hardly extravagant by the standards of the cost of living in the Washington, D.C., area. “The general public can’t help but think that lawmakers are patting themselves on the back, and padding their wallets, for presiding over the worst fiscal-policy blunders in recent history,” said Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union. Lawmakers like to act as if the salary hikes are out of their hands, but in 2007 the newly Democratic-led Congress opted not to raise its pay until it raised the minimum wage. And a handful of lawmakers plan to refuse the latest raise or donate it to charity.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- gster on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Chas on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
17 Comments
Instead of a rollback of Congressional salaries, how about cancelling them altogether for 2009 and as long as it takes to get the economy improving and the world situation calmed down. I am one who thinks elected officials generally perform better when they aren’t paid.
It isnt just the salaries… I wonder what each House and Senate member has for an office budget per year?? Anybody know?? It has to be pretty high….
from c-span.org:
Personal Staff A House Member employs an average of 14 staff; the Senate average is 34. House Members may not exceed 18 full-time staff, and 4 part-time. Senators have no limit on the number of staff they can hire. Their staff budget depends on the size of the population of the state they represent – California Senators get a lot more money for staff than do the Senators from Montana, for example. Each Member of Congress can distribute staff among their Washington and District/State offices as they wish.
from c-span.org:
Personal Staff A House Member employs an average of 14 staff; the Senate average is 34. House Members may not exceed 18 full-time staff, and 4 part-time. Senators have no limit on the number of staff they can hire. Their staff budget depends on the size of the population of the state they represent – California Senators get a lot more money for staff than do the Senators from Montana, for example. Each Member of Congress can distribute staff among their Washington and District/State offices as they wish.
It really is 6 of 1 and a half dozen of another, they live and operate in a place where people surround them who have pockets full of cash and are willing to pay to get what they want from them. I have not been to the D.C. area since 1973 and then a dozen eggs was costing $2.00. The article is correct the cost of living in Washington is beyond belief. So the income of a politician is a matter of concern.
The half a dozen of another is when you are one whom often decides the living standards of others.
It is your head that is in danger if it is felt you are saying “let them eat CAKE!”. While you are seen eating fine foods. It is a story I have told on here a few times so I will not bore you again. But the short of it was during a time in life when I was trying to better my family’s situation we were on food stamps. They were cut off after I took a minim wage job that also meant we had to put the kids in daycare. The Math went:
Daycare= -$300.00 a month
Food stamps= + $300.00 a month
Net income = +$400.00 a month
__________________________
Outcome = =$400.00 a month increase.
Then because of that increase our food stamps were totally cut of saying we made too much.
This brings it back to $100.00 a month income over what my wife was making at her job! A grand total of $600.00 a month.
And at the same time the Congress was giving them selves a raise because they could not live on
$145, 000.00 a year. One of the Congressmen gives this excuse:
“The reason so many of us are caught doing illegal and amoral acts is because we can not live on what we are paid”. Which reminded me of what a common burglar said, “If you want me to quit doing crime, pay me not to steal!”.
My short answer to the raise, no a good idea at this time.
I agree..they should get performance raises only. Or do what the state is doing to my clients right now; give them a cost of living raise, then reduce their other benefits. My clients got a 5% increase in their SSI, but then they got their food stamps reduced and the co pay on their Home and Community Based Services increased…which means that when the dust settles, they will have less to survive on than before they got the “raise”. If we expect the disabled to survive this way, then we should do the same for Congress.
I think we should be paying them a half million a year. Then law it in if any are caught accepting any bribes, they lose everything and get major jail time, tar and feathered . . .the whole nine yards.
“JMWalker” suggests –
“…we should be paying them a half million a year. Then law it in if any are caught accepting any bribes, they lose everything and get major jail time, tar and feathered . . .the whole nine yards.”
I think this is a good idea. Maybe the people of the 3rd Congressional District might think twice before giving a dolt like Todd Tiahrt a cool million per term. And (I’m not that good at math) the whole package would probably cost less than a taxpayer-funded management retreat for AIG.
Oh, there will still be hacks and idiots elected. But not even William Jefferson could be bought off for a cool (heh-heh) $95 grand if it put his half-a-million salary in jeopardy. And Ted Stevens could’ve actually paid for that Barca-Lounger that he’s “borrowed” from a constituent for the past ten years.
With Five Hundred Large at stake, maybe even Rod Blogojevich might opt to be honest. (Okay, bad example. But a lot of other people might.)
Look: We’re in a society that pays Sylvester Stallone $20 million dollars for being an actor, where a third-baseman who hits .248 gets a $24.8 million dollar contract for playing a game, where CEOs fly Gulfstreams into Washington to plead poverty.
All the “original intent” advocates should be on board for the half-a-million-a-year congressional pay grade. Okay, so it’s a bit steeper than 1789’s $6 per diem. But that was pretty good money in those days; you didn’t have to tip the valet $5 bucks to get your car back. Figure in inflation. The half-a-mil-a-year works out, I think. (And with this I’m using the Benjamin Franklin half-a-shilling per whore basis for projecting congressional salaries. It seems relevant.)
I really hope Congress raises their pay to $500,000 dollars a year as their first act. Yeah, it will upset a lot of yahoos in the sticks. But it will almost guarantee that we’ll achieve, in 2010, what just about everyone says every election cycle: “Throw ‘em all out!”
And then we’ll be faced with people who either would be running for the money or for whom it’s finally worth it to leave successful careers to represent the nation’s best interests.
But if the payrate is so stinking then why do we continue to have the same people running for years and years and we always see new people willing to campaign for these jobs?
The real payoff is not the paycheck from the taxpayers – it is the power these people build up around themselves once they get into office. Not to mention, their spouses and kids all get government jobs just because they have the right letter behind their name.
Maybe we need to treat Congress like we do college kids. Make them stay in a dorm when Congress is in session and to make things interesting – make them share a room with someone from the opposite party.
As for pay – let’s pay them according to their work hours. They will need to punch a time clock like the majority of American workers. And there is no pay for going out to wine and dine – that is on their dime.
Then we’ll see how many of these people are truly wanting to serve the people back home or if they are just there to amass their own personal fortune and power.
With the advances in technology I think they should all spend most of their time in the state that elected them with their constituency. Most meetings could be held via video conferences.
The cost of most staffs and offices would be reduced.
It would be a bit more difficult for lobbyists to find a batch of them together.
Each of them could see what is actually needed by the home state and people they represent.
If we continue the status quo and they want more money now, then their retirement benefits should be reduced drastically. They should also be subject to same limitations of COBRA as evreyone else when they leave a job.
Here’s the problem.
By the time a politician gets to the national level?
They already have to be practically rich just to play the game.
What makes this problem worse is that for some, SOME people, a lot of money is never enough.
I don’t know how it is in other states. But check out the pay of a Kansas State Representative. The compensation is VERY meager and this enables only the independently wealthy to run. THIS means that the starter spot for national leaders is a pool of people who already HAVE money.
Government service IS valuable. I should rather see our leaders compensated than in search of ways to pad their own pockets.
I’d like to see state and national government service compensated so that the best and the brightest CHOOSE it because they can make a living serving and bettering their country.
MH, a two thumbs up on that:=)
What annoys me isn’t the pay that elected officials get, I agree they have to be payed even payed well, so that they can make a living while they put the job/career on hold while being public servants. It is when you have officials get convicted of corruption( Ted Stevens, Duke Cunningham, Traficant etc.) still allowed to collected pensions and other taxpayer perks while being felons
Seems to me, the ones for who the salary is their livlihood would be the ones who’d lose out the most. If the pay is high enough it should attract good candidates for the position. I think every job should come with a cola. So I can’t begrudge congress for wanting the same.
I heard S.C. Roberts wants a raise too, after the screwed up S.C. rulings, I’m not sure they’re worthy. In fact after their partisan practices in 2000, they should have a pay cut.
If this congress can help get the economy going again, they’ll have earned their money.
Looks like Obama is going to get started on the economy on Monday, maybe we’ll get an Obamarally.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090102/pl_nm/us_usa_obama_pelosi_2
Phant,
The one thing in Obama’s favor is that maybe the best thing that could happen to the economy is the absence of Bush.