Posted on 11/12/2001 10:09:30 AM PST by hsmomx3
Did you know that members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted on Oct. 26 to give themselves another round of raises? This time, our illustrious elected officials - by a vote of 374 for and 52 against - decided to increase their salaries by $12,105, raising their total pay and allowances to $157,105.
Isn't it wonderful in this time of economic near-crisis, decades-high unemployment rates, massive and repeated corporate layoffs and downsizing and divisive uncertainty about who's working and who isn't, that the people we elect to lead us can give themselves a substantial raise nearly every year?
In 1975, the annual congressional salary was $44,600. In 1990, it was $97,500. Beginning Jan. 1, 2002, that salary is $157,105. Does he mean 2002? Has your salary increased by 48 percent in the past decade? Has your salary even increased 13 percent since 1999? According to the U.S. Congress Disbursing Office's quarterly report, our congressmen can answer yes to all of the above.
When was the last time you walked into your boss' office and told him how much more he was going to pay you next year?
By the way, did you know that Arizona's maximum annual unemployment benefit is $5,330 ($205 per week for 26 weeks) and that that money is subject to both state and federal income taxes? Your elected leaders just voted to increase their pay by more than double that amount to a total annual salary of 29 times that amount.
What does it say about elected officials who have no qualms about giving themselves a raise that is equal to or greater than what many of their constituents earn in an entire year?
Please keep in mind that salaries and cost-of-living increases are separate from operating budgets, expense accounts, free financial privileges and a host of other monetary perks that go with the job.
There's a reason why Congress was so offended by Eddie Murphy's movie The Distinguished Gentleman, which portrayed Congress as a thinly veiled cesspool of graft and financial opportunism. Perhaps the reason for our congressmen's indignation is that the film is actually more of a documentary than a comedy.
To their credit, Mesa's Jeff Flake and Phoenix's John Shadegg both voted against the raise.
The bill addresses the coming year's legislative branch budget of $2.97 billion for House, Senate and congressional agencies, which increases by 9 percent over the current year's budget. The congressional staff cost-of-living increase and the lawmakers' raise are above and beyond the $2.97 billion.
What's really insulting is the incredulous stretch of reality that some of the representatives are using to justify their self-indulgent vote.
Virginia Democrat James Moran said funding in the bill "will enable us to be better prepared to counter this new terrorist threat. Security and the need to preserve the ability of this institution to continue to function have been our paramount concern."
Strangely enough, though, the details of the bill mention absolutely nothing about terrorism or national security. The bill's text dictates only how much more the representatives voted to pay themselves this year. Are we to believe that Moran and his colleagues are going to use their salaries to beef up their personal supply of anti-terrorism munitions?
Moran - and anyone who supported or mirrored his vote - should be ashamed, if not publicly censured, for trying to cash in on this country's single greatest tragedy and his attempts to mask personal greed in the bleeding colors of American fear and sorrow at a time when anything containing the word "terrorism" is front-page news.
Interestingly enough, none of the 54 who opposed the bill thought it important enough to speak out against the bill. Nary a contrary or admonishing word from Congress was heard.
My column in September about congressional votes on fuel efficiency and fuel funding issues upset several representatives because they feel I didn't give them sufficient opportunity to "explain the intricacies" of their votes. I see no reason to allow politicians the chance to posture and double-speak on issues that are cut and dried, as are the congressional votes on them.
Are you in favor of giving yourself a 14.5 percent raise: yes or no? There were 374 U.S. representatives who answered yes to that question in October. There is no "gray area" to be "clarified."
It seems to me that the only people who should be given the opportunity to explain are the 54 politicians who voted no - if for no other reason than to let them explain where they think that money would be better spent.
Gary St. Lawrence is a professional writer and former investigative journalist. He can be reached at 4saint@home.com. The views expressed are those of the author. Copyright 2001, The Arizona Republic. All rights reserved. Back to Article
The justification of the increases is always that we won't be able to attract quality people otherwise. This doesn't wash when candidates are willing to spend millions of dollars of their own money to get the office. It's the biggest scam going.
Government
Source: AP
Posted on 11/2/01 9:18 AM Pacific by fod
AP Headlines
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- The House approved a $32.8 billion measure on Wednesday that finances the Treasury Department and other agencies and includes big increases for the Internal Revenue Service.
The measure, approved by 339-85, needs only Senate approval before it can move to the White House for President Bush's expected signature.
The bill, for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, would provide $2 billion more than last year and $400 million more than Bush requested. Many of this year's spending bills are receiving extra money under a budget deal Bush and Congress worked out last month.
The IRS would get $9.4 billion, compared with $8.9 billion last year, with extra money for tax law enforcement and to modernize equipment. Other increases would go to the Customs Service and several drug law enforcement programs.
The measure also would continue existing law that forbids federal employees' health insurance from covering abortion, but also requires most of their health plans provide coverage for many prescription contraceptives.
Federal civilian employees would get pay raises of 4.6 percent.
The measure also opens the door for members of Congress to get $4,900 pay raises next year to $150,000. Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., has promised to try blocking the increase sometime before Congress adjourns this year. His effort is considered a long shot.
back to sleep....
It may not be unless you consider that they make more than 95% of their constituency. Then it does look like too much, way too much. Get a rope, I'll find a tall tree!
Boonie Rat
MACV SOCOM, PhuBai/Hue '65-'66
I'm completely, totally, dead serious. I think whining about Congressional pay raises is an infantile waste of time and a diversion from political issues that actually matter, and I would have no problem if the House and Senate both quadrupled their salaries tomorrow.
1) The more money and perks Congressmen get legally, the less likely they are to be corrupt.
The best recipe for bribery and political corruption is an underpaid person in a position of enormous power. Any time there's a mismatch between pay and power, corruption inevitably follows. One reason that there hasn't been a pro sports scandal involving the deliberate throwing of games since the Chicago Black Sox in 1919 is because active players are paid so well they have little motivation to jeopardize that for money. All the scandals involving game-throwing or point shaving since then involve college players, largely in basketball, because individual college players have GREAT power to control the outcome of games that many thousands of people care deeply about, yet they are unpaid other than their scholarships. If a gambler offered 1 million bucks to Kobe Bryant or Shaq to throw an NBA championship game, he'd be laughed out the door. Offer $25,000 to a college student to toss a Division I game, and you may get somewhere, if you've picked the right player.
Congressmen have ENORMOUS power..particularly committee chairs..over sectors of the economy worth tens of billions of dollars, and they can make or break Fortune 500 companies with legislation. The less pay and fewer legal perks Congressmen have, the more tempted they will be to be influenced by perks or outright bribes.
2) It's a trivial amount of money.
I really shouldn't have to point this out but people can be amazingly stupid about the US budget (and surveys have proved this...people have really crazy ideas about the budget, like thinking 25% or even more of it goes to foreign aid...foreign aid is a microscopic fraction of the US budget) and I think a lot of people think what congressmen are paid actually has some sort of measurable impact on the budget. It doesn't. It's chicken scratch.
3) Their current pay is, as it is, comically low.
People get OFFENDED by a group of 535 people out of a pppulation of over 250 million people, who govern the most powerful nation on earth, making a couple hundred thou a year? Please. Mediocre doctors and lawyers everywhere make more.
People need to get over the fact that Congress has the unique ability (actually, more of a burden) that it sets its own salary. SOMEONE has to.
Don't join the mindless knee-jerk outrage bandwagon.
THINK LOGICALLY
There were some interesting experiments this century with political systems largely concerned with making sure people all made equal amounts of money...I'd say that it sounds like you may want to try that again, but it seems clear from your sig that you've previously risked your life fighting AGAINST such political experiments, thus I'm a bit confused.
That's real nice. I've never received that much of a raise in my entire life. Guess I'm not as spesssshal.
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.