they dont deserve it

bob

a member named bob
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070628/D8Q1QF4O0.html


House Members Seek Pay Raise of $4,400


Email this Story

Jun 28, 8:19 AM (ET)

By ANDREW TAYLOR

(AP) Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., right, arrive for a news...
Full Image



Google sponsored links
20 Secrets to Retire Rich - Learn about 13% CDs, 11% bonds and 3 Great Mutual Funds In This Report
www.DailyWealth.com/Retireme


Hillary Clinton in 2008? - Do you think Hillary Clinton would be a good choice for US President?
www.PollingPoint.com








WASHINGTON (AP) - Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

The cost-of-living raise endorsed Wednesday evening gets lawmakers back on track for automatic pay raises after a fight between the parties last year and again in January killed the pay increase due this year. That was the first interruption of the annual congressional pay boost in seven years.

The blowup came after Democrats last year fulfilled a campaign promise to deny themselves more pay until Congress raised the minimum wage. Delays in the minimum wage bill cost every lawmaker about $3,100 this year.

On a 244-181 vote Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans alike killed a bid by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee Terry, R-Neb., to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it. The Senate has not indicated when it will deal with a similar measure.

As part of an ethics bill in 1989, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

The annual vote on the pay hike comes on an obscure procedural move - instead of a direct up-or-down vote - and Democratic and GOP leaders each delivered a majority of their members to shut off the move to block the pay hike.

This year's vote was made ticklish by last year's battle. Republicans said Democrats broke a promise not to use the pay raise issue against GOP lawmakers in campaign ads and therefore were, generally speaking, more reluctant to supply votes.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., worked the floor during the vote to make sure there was relative balance between the warring parties in delivering votes. Working through Blunt, Hoyer forced more than a dozen Republicans to switch their votes in support of accepting the raise, including Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton of Indiana and Fred Upton, Dave Camp and Vernon Ehlers of Michigan.

Most members support the pay raise as a means of retaining experienced lawmakers and of making sure that Congress is not simply dominated by wealthy people. Many lawmakers maintain homes both in the expensive Washington housing market and back in their districts. On most days, they meet with lobbyists making far more than they do.

"Every member has some obligation to the institution for the compensation to, as much as possible, keep pace with inflation," Blunt told reporters Wednesday.

"I don't think this is the right time for members of Congress to be allowing the pay raise to go through without even an up-or-down vote," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "We need to show the American people we are willing to make some sacrifices ... that we recognize there's a struggle for some in today's economy."

The exact figure for this year's cost of living adjustment has not been settled under a complicated formula that awards lawmakers a smaller pay raise than civil servants. But opponents of the congressional COLA estimated a pay increase this year of 2.7 percent, or $4,460.

Senators and representatives presently make $165,200 a year, with a handful of leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., earning more.

The pay raise would also apply to the vice president - who is president of the Senate - congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.

This year, Vice President Dick Cheney, Pelosi and Chief Justice John Roberts receive $212,100. Associate justices receive $203,000. House and Senate party leaders get $183,500.

President Bush's salary of $400,000 is unaffected by the legislation.
 
I agree and would love to see a law linking congressional pay to the averave wage. not average income! If average wage goes up 3% so does their if it goes down so does theirs, Make their income rely on the quality of job they are doing.
 
I agree and would love to see a law linking congressional pay to the averave wage. not average income! If average wage goes up 3% so does their if it goes down so does theirs, Make their income rely on the quality of job they are doing.

i agree.. but i dont think "quality" is a word in any politicians vocab
 
I agree and would love to see a law linking congressional pay to the averave wage. not average income! If average wage goes up 3% so does their if it goes down so does theirs, Make their income rely on the quality of job they are doing.


How does the government control what the average wage does in the market place?
 
Umm minimum wage for one. control of illegal immigration, and the general boosting of the economy. debt level, etc... Import tarifs, susbisies and tax breaks to various industries and agriculture, etc/
 
Last edited:
This is too easy a target. Why doesn't Congress deserve to have pay raises like everyone else? I would never argue that $170K is not a decent wage, but if we don't treat it like any other job - and it IS an important job - how can we expect to attract the best & brightest to Washington?
 
This is too easy a target. Why doesn't Congress deserve to have pay raises like everyone else? I would never argue that $170K is not a decent wage, but if we don't treat it like any other job - and it IS an important job - how can we expect to attract the best & brightest to Washington?

Well in their defense pay increases are usually based on performance.
 
"Well in their defense pay increases are usually based on performance."

True, but at most companies I have worked for, it's a matter of degree. EVERYONE has gotten a pay raise, but the % is based more on performance...
 
This is too easy a target. Why doesn't Congress deserve to have pay raises like everyone else? I would never argue that $170K is not a decent wage, but if we don't treat it like any other job - and it IS an important job - how can we expect to attract the best & brightest to Washington?

From the results we get out of congress it is apparent that we ahve already failed to get the best and brightest in congress.
 
"Well in their defense pay increases are usually based on performance."

True, but at most companies I have worked for, it's a matter of degree. EVERYONE has gotten a pay raise, but the % is based more on performance...

Hmm at least one mega company I am associated with only gives raises to the to tha top 50% of rated employees.
 
Regardless, we "hire" them to a very important position, we should pay them accordingly.

Even when we get only bad, or no, results?

Wouldn't an employee in the private sector be fired for that kind of performance? I don't think they'd get a raise.
 
Even when we get only bad, or no, results?

Wouldn't an employee in the private sector be fired for that kind of performance? I don't think they'd get a raise.
Then you fire them by voting them out of office. And yes, even when. We hire them to represent us at a very important position, and they should be paid accordingly.
 
Darla... and THAT is the responsibility we hold as voters. To "fire" them during the next election. Which is exactly what happened to many of the Reps in 2006. Granted, some seem to get re-elected consistently regardless of their performance, but that is the fault of their constituents.
 
Now personally, I think they should only get a raise when they lower the national debt year-over-year. Or better yet, they only get paid when the lower it year over year. Given that the last fiscal year they accomplished this feat was 1960... I would say that may be the only way we are ever going to see it happen.
 
Ok, of course we can fire them, but unlike a private corporation, we cannot fire them at will. We have to wait for a certain time. So, should we give them a raise in the meantime? I see no reason to.

Also, let's be realistic here. It is extremely difficult to get to Congress these days without having lots of money. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, these guys aren't living off just their taxpayer salaries anyway. If they were, we might not have these problems.
 
darla... I agree... at least to the extent that they should not have automatic increases every year. They should be required to give it an up or down vote every time they get another raise.
 
"We agree? Wow"

It must be a Friday thing.... or the end of the world.

Personally I am hoping it is the former.... cause the latter would suck.
 
Ok, of course we can fire them, but unlike a private corporation, we cannot fire them at will. We have to wait for a certain time. So, should we give them a raise in the meantime? I see no reason to.

Also, let's be realistic here. It is extremely difficult to get to Congress these days without having lots of money. I know there are exceptions, but for the most part, these guys aren't living off just their taxpayer salaries anyway. If they were, we might not have these problems.
A better salary might change that for the better and induce others to run for positions otherwise filled by those with means.
 
Back
Top