The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on December 20, 2008, 08:18:57 PM
-
Each lawmaker is due for a $4,700 cost-of-living wage hike starting in January, which will amount to a total cost of $2.5 million for taxpay
As Americans across the country grapple with one of the worst financial crises since the Great Depression, members of Congress quietly are getting a pay raise.
Each lawmaker's annual salary is due for a $4,700 cost-of-living increase starting in January, which will amount to a cost to taxpayers of $2.5 million in 2009, infuriating watchdog groups.
"Members of Congress don't deserve one additional dime of taxpayer money in 2009," said Tom Schatz, president of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.
"While thousands of Americans are facing layoffs and downsizing, Congress should be mortified to accept a raise," he said in a written statement.
Members of Congress make an average of $169,300 a year, with Congressional leaders making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Cailf., makes $217,400, while the majority and minority leaders in the House and Senate each make $188,100.
The raise will increase the average salary to about $174,000, up 2.8 percent.
Pelosi's and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's offices did not respond to FOXNews.com's requests for comment.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/20/pay-raises-lawmakers-angers-watchdog-groups/
-
You know, there's a whole lot of waste in how lawmakers are treated.
I suppose most here remember two years ago, when Bela Pelosi "demanded" that George Bush give her something equivalent to Air Force One.
And then about that same time, I learned that state senators and state representives--my God, "state" lawmnakers, which aren't high on the food-chain--in California get free motor vehicles leased for both public and personal use.
Geezuz.
One wonders how many of the homeless could be homed, the hungry fed, the naked clothed, the afflicted healed, on the perks given lawmakers.
And to think personages such as John Adams and James Madison--among many others--used to ride in common coaches and stay in common inns.
-
Politicians.... The New American Royality.
Y'all bow and kneel like good little peons and surfs.
-
Has congress even accomplished anything since the Dems took over? It's time for them to be given merit raises, or pay cuts based on performance.
-
My google fu is weak on this one. Anyone here know how to find out who voted which way on this bill?
-
My google fu is weak on this one. Anyone here know how to find out who voted which way on this bill?
It was done years ago, late 80's I believe for an automatic pay raise. However they have to vote for it every year and have done so for the past five years. It's usually tied in with other goverment raises.
-
how does this automatic pay raise jibe with the 27th amendment?
-
I actually don't have a problem with it. Perks and corruption are another question entirely, but what we pay them versus the job responsibilities (however poorly those are acquitted by so many of them) is really chump change. Outrage over a $4700 buck increase on a 170K salary for what is basically being a member of the national board of directors? Honky, please.
:whatever:
-
It was done years ago, late 80's I believe for an automatic pay raise. However they have to vote for it every year and have done so for the past five years. It's usually tied in with other goverment raises.
No, not quite.
I did some research on this some months back (and no, I'm not going to dig it up again), but the whole business on congressional pay raises used to be a matter of a vote, and how much.
Once upon a time, Congress used to physically vote Yea or Nay on their own pay raises. Pretty straightforward, that. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that kind of practice led to some political ramifications. Oh, My! What to do???
In the late Nineties, Congress changed the way they'd vote for their own pay raises. Instead of voting for a pay raise, they changed the method such that the pay raise was automatic -- under a very complicated system -- unless they voted to deny their pay raise.
IIRC, for 2000 and 2001, maybe even 2002, Congress actually denied their own pay raises. But then they decided to not do anything, which, of course, means they voted for it. And since that time, it's been more of the same.
I wonder if John Kerry had anything to do with drafting this legislation....."I was for it before I was against it...."
I wouldn't have such a problem with a pay raise -- hell, as an Army retiree I'm getting a healthy one for 2009 -- but I feel that this kind of bullshit is duplicitous and disengenuous. Let's be transparent about this stuff, Congress!
-
No, not quite.
I did some research on this some months back (and no, I'm not going to dig it up again), but the whole business on congressional pay raises used to be a matter of a vote, and how much.
Once upon a time, Congress used to physically vote Yea or Nay on their own pay raises. Pretty straightforward, that. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that that kind of practice led to some political ramifications. Oh, My! What to do???
In the late Nineties, Congress changed the way they'd vote for their own pay raises. Instead of voting for a pay raise, they changed the method such that the pay raise was automatic -- under a very complicated system -- unless they voted to deny their pay raise.
IIRC, for 2000 and 2001, maybe even 2002, Congress actually denied their own pay raises. But then they decided to not do anything, which, of course, means they voted for it. And since that time, it's been more of the same.
I wonder if John Kerry had anything to do with drafting this legislation....."I was for it before I was against it...."
I wouldn't have such a problem with a pay raise -- hell, as an Army retiree I'm getting a healthy one for 2009 -- but I feel that this kind of bullshit is duplicitous and disengenuous. Let's be transparent about this stuff, Congress!
This raise is their COLA...........not really a raise per se. A quick search showed they passed this COLA thing in 1989. They still have to vote for it...............a Utah democrat (of all people) is the one who tried to get it out of a bill and vote on it separately....................We see how that turned out :whatever:
-
I actually don't have a problem with it. Perks and corruption are another question entirely, but what we pay them versus the job responsibilities (however poorly those are acquitted by so many of them) is really chump change. Outrage over a $4700 buck increase on a 170K salary for what is basically being a member of the national board of directors? Honky, please.
:whatever:
I don't have a problem with this small raise either. 5% COLA for Social Security receiptants on Jan 1st.
-
This raise is their COLA...........not really a raise per se. A quick search showed they passed this COLA thing in 1989. They still have to vote for it...............a Utah democrat (of all people) is the one who tried to get it out of a bill and vote on it separately....................We see how that turned out :whatever:
I was wrong about the year. BFD.
Here's the rest:
The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 changed the method by which the annual adjustment
is determined for Members and other senior officials, based on a formula using changes
in private sector wages and salaries as measured by the Employment Cost Index. Under
this revised method, annual adjustments were accepted 12 times (those scheduled for
January 1991, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008)
and denied six times (those scheduled for January 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, and
2007).2
The annual adjustment automatically goes into effect unless:
(1) Congress statutorily prohibits the adjustment;
(2) Congress statutorily revises the adjustment; or
(3) the annual base pay3 adjustment of GS employees is established at a
rate less than the scheduled increase for Members, in which case
Members would be paid the lower rate.4
Projected January 2009 Member Pay Increase of 2.8%
You can call it a COLA, "annual adjustment," pay raise, or all three. The end result is the same. Congress doesn't really have to do shit to get its pay raise. It happens automatically. Ergo, no names need go into the Federal Register.
Slick, eh?
That's our Congress - hard at work, lookin' out for you.
Pay Raise History (http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/97-1011.pdf)
-
I have a problem with it because these are the same people tsk-tsking about how it is for "working families" and even dressing-down the auto CEOs by trying to make them cut their salary to a dollar a year. A symbolic pass on this latest automatic pay increase for Congress would have made them seem maybe a tad less arrogant.
They don't even want to vote on record, and always have these automatic pay raises schedulded right after they all win reelection, cowardice from cowards.