Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Congress gets a raise
Even though the nation is facing one of its most challenging economic climates since the Great Depression, next year our congressmen and congresswomen will receive an automatic $4,700 cost-of-living wage hike. The increase, which will make the average salary about $174,000, will cost taxpayers $2.5 million in 2009.
“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.
A few legislators tried to stop the pay raise, including Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) who introduced a bill earlier this year that later died in committee. Meanwhile, Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) wants to end the automatic salary hike for House members altogether: “At a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes and their retirement, I think the least we could do is openly debate whether we should take the pay increase this year or do some belt-tightening.”
What’s your take: Should Congress have passed on the pay raise?
back to top34 Comments to “Congress gets a raise”
No wonder Congress has such a low approval rating. Fat cats get fatter and remian aloff and out of touch with reality.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry – *remain aloof* my spelur waz busticated
Report comment to moderator
Yes they should have passed on it.
It sickens me to see elected officials (county comissioners, city council etc) vote themselves pay raises. Some places have laws saying that no current councilman can enjoy any raise he voted for; it applies to his future successors.
These self-payraises and other abuses only fuel the fervor for Term Limits. Could we get by without the Ted Stephenses, the Strom Thurmonds an Teddy Kennedys? You betcha!
Report comment to moderator
Can you believe that at our nation’s beginnings, Congressmen worked for free?
Report comment to moderator
I’m of mixed feelings on this.
1. According to the article, members of Congress supposedly foreswore paid speechifying in exchange for the COLA agreement. They would have made more with the speeches, I’m sure, and thus would have opened themselves to even more influence.
2. The $4,700 works about to about a 2.8% raise. It ain’t nothin’, but it’s in the ballpark of what Federal, state, and local employee COLAs received each year. Therefore, the $2.5 million spent on members pales in comparison to the overall adjustment to Federal payrolls. Maybe we should also be complaining about every sewer worker, state agency accountant, and executive branch official who also gets a raise.
3. Congressmen work a greater number of days each year than did their predecessors who worked for free (and which supposedly had enough time remaining each year to earn a living). The longer sessions are partly the members’ fault, and partly ours, for endlessly petitioning them to write new laws about anything and everything that crosses the mind. They just can’t get it all done in a few weeks of meetings.
4. There’s a hilarious helmet-haired Nancy Pelosi picture accompanying the article. This isn’t an actual argument I’m making; just feel compelled to point it out.
Report comment to moderator
As with our increasingly federally subsidized education system, the more expensive it is, the less they accomplish of their mission they seem to accomplish.
Report comment to moderator
Given their performance, they should have gotten a significant pay cut.
Report comment to moderator
It sickens me to see elected officials (county comissioners, city council etc) vote themselves pay raises.
It would sicken me IF they voted themselves pay raises, but they don’t have to. It’s an automatic pay raise. With the effort required to actually stop the pay raise, I’m not surprised they are getting it again this year.
Report comment to moderator
In an earlier discussion it was pointed out that fame was equated in this society with success, and it appeared from the discussion that success was primarily financial.
So what would be the message we sent if we considered that the people governing us were not worth being paid at something close to market value?
They would still be governing us BUT we would be telling them that we did not value their service nor would anyone other than someone independently wealthy be able to serve (an nice study in this problem is the state legislature in Rhode Island).
We have seen say in Afghanistan what type of government this leads to.
Report comment to moderator
KRM post 7,
I agree that the Republican Study Committee members should perhaps receive a pay cut.
Report comment to moderator
KRM post 7,
after all the Republican Study committee delayed the bailout vote, costing taxpayers far more than the total of the bailout, and then reversed themselves and approved it latter.
We should charge them for the losses on wallstreet as a result of their inaction.
Report comment to moderator
Merit-based performance pay for politicians. Bring it on!
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 12,
excellent idea sawgunner.
The Republicans can take a major pay cut.
Barney Frank gets a major pay raise.
Report comment to moderator
#13 Musing
“Barney Frank gets a major pay raise.”
Why?
Report comment to moderator
Barney Frank gets a pay raise? Along with Chris Dodd, Paulson and Bernanke I suppose….
Report comment to moderator
I heard about the automatic pay raise on Saturday, and immediately fired off three emails to Georgia Congressmen. I opposed it in view of the fact that the unemployment rate is at a 26 yr high, people were losing their retirement and houses, and taking pay cuts.
I wonder how they can justify a pay raise when the rest of the country is experiencing one of the worst downturns in recent history?
Report comment to moderator
And for those who say that 2.8% is nothing, try not only not getting your Christmas bonus, or your measly raise, try taking a pay CUT! And that’s not based upon performance, that’s just based on what the economy is doing.
Report comment to moderator
No amount of good performance by realtors, builders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, or cabinet makers is going to make the money come back…
Report comment to moderator
OH. And the article I read on the subject said it was going to cost the taxpayers $12 million- not $2.5 million. Is 2.5 mil the increase?
Report comment to moderator
Congress is about as low as it can go. Except that it is about to go lower.
Report comment to moderator
#20 Xion
“Congress is about as low as it can go. Except that it is about to go lower.”
Yeah, more Democrats next session.
Report comment to moderator
How was Barney allowed to stay in office when he put his gay lover in a govt office? Didnt the NJ gay Gov get sacked for doing that? Actually the better analogy is with Gov Spitzer, no?
Now we hear that Barney is offended by Rick Warren’s [biblical] view of homosex.
Obama will have Warren deliver an invocation at the inaugural. Who did Barney want? Bishop V. Gene Robinson??
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 14,
because when the Bush administration, Paulson, and the Republican Study committee refuesed to provide leadership, Barney Frank provided the key leadership to get the bailout passed so that the Dow did not keep plunging below 7000.
Based on pay for performance, Barney Frank probably saved tax payers more than any other congressman!
Report comment to moderator
sawgunner post 22,
becauwe his constituents reelected hm?
Report comment to moderator
I’m trying to figure out how the bailout bill saved tax payers’ money…
Report comment to moderator
Cuthallion post 25,
look at the toal committed to the bailout.
Now look at the money lost in the stock market when the Republican study committe stalled the bailout. I*t exceeds the total cost of the bailout.
Now consider what the Dow would have done if there were no bailout. We saw it flirting with 7000s when the support for GM/Chrysler was threatened and only Bush’ use of TARP seems to have stabilized this potential choas.
In fact arguably the only justification for the bailout is that the alternative is more costly.
And since Bush’ relatively weak actions so far have helped stabilize the situation, I believe we have a nice existence proof that the U.S. free financial market only works if the government intervenes to ensure that it works stably (consider the impact of Madoff!
).
Report comment to moderator
#24 Musing you are right about that. Massachusetts voters are pretty easy to figure out. The sleezier the candidate, the more beloved he becomes. The fact that Barney’s personal prostitute ran a gay prostitution ring out of his house practically makes him a hero. Other states aren’t quite so permissive.
Report comment to moderator
#27 Xion
“Other states aren’t quite so permissive.”
CA is and almost as “Liberal” (i.e. Democrat) asMA and look where that has gotten us… I’ll bet all the rest of the states are just sooo jealous of the Golden State.
Report comment to moderator
#28 Ja, but you have Arnold, a properly pumped individual.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Yeah, more Democrats next session.
Kind of funny that the Democrat-hate proceeds unabated even though the two members of Congress Kristen cites as having tried to stop this are Democrats.
Where are your saintly Republican leaders on this?
Report comment to moderator
xion post 27,
you mean like Alaska?
Those who live in glass houses …
Report comment to moderator
Fundamentally American politics based on large individual donations to fund campaigns is a situation ripe for abuse.
Federally funded campaigns, while potentially an excellent idea, only work if all sources of funding in the election are cotrolled. The Supreme Court has, however, not looked kindly on such an approach.
But until we remove the financial incentives for political corruption, we can be sure that political corruption will occur.
Report comment to moderator
xion post 27,
as I think about it there is one difference between the Alaska politics (say Stevens) and Barney.
Steven’s for example has been convicted of a crime. Shall we go on with corruption convictions in Alaska?
No one has even made a primcia case whch can be seriously pursued that Barney has broken the law.
Report comment to moderator
While I will agree with you that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd getting a payraise is no different than the banker’s giving out bonuses using the bailout money, Congress’ pay raise is linked to the raises of other federal employees (not judges). If Congress cut themselves off from the other employees the way they cut judges off, life would be different for them. They’ll never do it. Don’t begrudge the regular federal employee.
(Musing, that’s prima facie.)
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!