Posted on 10/24/2005 6:43:28 AM PDT by Cagey
WASHINGTON -- Squeamish lawmakers wrestling with federal spending cuts to pay for hurricane disasters and the war in Iraq are squirming about whether to give themselves a pay raise.
Senators, about half of whom are millionaires, were eager last week to show their willingness to make a sacrifice by voting overwhelmingly to freeze their own salaries -- and those of their House colleagues.
But House members, whose personal wealth tends to be much more modest, don't share that enthusiasm.
The pay raise, which automatically kicks in unless it is blocked, would give a 1.9 percent boost to annual salaries for rank-and-file lawmakers, an increase of $3,100, to $165,200.
"Most of our members are not individuals of great resources, they're families trying to send kids to college," said House Republican Leader Roy Blunt, R-Mo., defending his support for a pay raise.
"Most members of Congress probably have more debt after they've been in Congress for a few years then they had when they came to Congress," Blunt said, adding that keeping residences in two places is costly.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also backs the raise.
The Senate included the pay freeze as part of a spending bill that covers federal salaries, but the House has not included the freeze in its version.
The real battle will come next month when a House-Senate conference meets behind closed doors to resolve differences between the two bills.
Members of Congress have accepted cost-of-living increases in seven of the past eight years. They last turned down a raise in 1998.
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who is a relative pauper in the Senate with a reported net worth of $257,000, said the 92-6 vote in the Senate for the pay freeze shows members realize "this isn't the year for the Senate to give itself a pay raise." In 2003 and 2002, Feingold failed to freeze pay raises when he couldn't gather enough votes.
If members boost their salaries "it sends a really bad message in a really tough time," Feingold said.
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., a co-sponsor of the pay freeze, estimated it would save the federal treasury a small amount of money -- $2 million out of a targeted $50 billion in cuts, but he said it has symbolic value.
"If members have made their sacrifice, there's more of an impetus to find the rest of the money," he said.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who opposes the pay raise and whose personal wealth is listed on Senate disclosure forms as more than $13 million, said the conference committee "has become a black hole" where legislation disappears anonymously behind closed doors.
Clinton said House members reluctant to freeze congressional pay are "demonstrating they don't know what's going on in America."
"People can't pay gas prices, can't pay tuition, can't pay for health care," she said. "Why should we be giving ourselves a pay increase?"
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who says he "always wanted to be" part of the millionaire's club but has never qualified, said the overwhelming Senate support for the pay freeze "is another indicator that we are getting serious about controlling federal spending."
Hanging over the pay raise debate is a new Gallup Poll showing that Congress gets only a 29 percent public approval rating, one year before congressional elections.
"In no other job can you give yourself a raise. "
Sure you can. It's like being on a board, or being the owner of a bussiness.
I sure would love to have these salary options available for voting by US since we pay them.
This is why Congresscritters and Senator should employeess of their state governments and have salaries and expenses paid by the same. Then they would not have a say in this matter (except to quit if they didn't like their pay!). As it is, they represent themselves to the Federal Government, not the States and the People.
"In no other job . . ."
There are plenty of jobs where the workers give themselves a raise. Usually they are small businesses, a sole proprietership. Difference there is, they own the business and can do what they please.
Here the congressmen work for us. Vote against any congressman voting him/herself a raise.
With a pension and benefits that are unequaled in private industry. Send these assclowns home next election.
They shouldn't have a second residence in DC. Each state should maintain its own compound and their Senators and representatives should live there.
After spending our tax dollars at a greater clip than during the Lyndon Johnson administration, the only thing I see these guys deserving is a tar-and-feathering.
"With a pension and benefits that are unequaled in private industry. Send these assclowns home next election."
Oh yes, I forgot the pensions. The company I work for is eliminating pensions. I've been here for over 26 years and was told that I would have a pension whe I hired in. Not anymore.
I have never been able to figure out how these annual pay raises do not violate the 27th Ammendment to the Constitution.
I hope my congresscritter, Melissa Hart, votes herself a nice big fat pay raise.
My seriousness about dieting and weight loss is shown by ordering the large fries once a month instead of the super size ones I usually have.
If these cuts of $3,100 per year per Congressman is kept up for 132 years it would pay for Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere.
What a great scheme/scam!
Business owners don't get raises, they have to EARN them.
I have not exactly been overwhelmed with their performance this year..or last year..or the year before that..
No raise for you!
They should be made to cut pork barrel spending in order to finance their pay rise.
Regards, Ivan
I bet these guys don't reach into their own pockets more than once a month, if that.
Henry B. Adams
Congress is spending more than it can afford. It doesn't deserve payraises.
And $160,000 isn't modest. I live off of a lot less.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.