Dec. 8, 2001, 8:02PM Late-night vote gives Congress $4,900 raise Associated Press WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are on their way to a $4,900 pay raise in January as the Senate used a midnight vote to thwart lawmakers who tried to block it. After a debate that lasted five minutes late Friday night, the Senate used a 65-33 procedural vote to defeat an effort by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to stop the increase from taking effect. Under a 1989 law, legislators get an annual cost-of-living raise unless the House and Senate vote to block it, a mechanism that often lets the increases take effect with little notice. The latest boost is for 3.4 percent and will raise members' annual salaries to $150,000. Feingold questioned the timing of a congressional pay boost when "our economy is in a recession and hundreds of thousands of workers have been laid off." He also noted that the string of four straight budget surpluses is expected to end. Fourteen of the 30 senators running for re-election next year voted against the pay raise. Two who will retire in January -- Sens. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. -- voted for the increase, while a third retiree -- Jesse Helms, R-N.C. -- did not vote. Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., voted not to block the increase. The House already has passed legislation opening the door for the pay increase. The January increase will be the third congressional pay raise in the last four years. Before this period, lawmakers increased their salaries less frequently, but the political risk faded as the economy boomed and federal surpluses soared in the late 1990s. -- sneaky bastards. rH
I saw this. I find it just absolutely ridiculous. Just as an example, 8 of the 10 members of Bush's cabinets are millionaires with 4 of them worth more than $10 million each!!! Many of the congressmen and women as well as senators are successful and have money. I find it incredibly cheesy that they would do that with Christmas coming and so many Americans facing layoffs.
I think all of us in the BBS should take a vote, on whether or not we deserve a raise? And by the way, who would vote against it? Why, do they even put it up for vote? That's like going to a starving, third world country and asking them who would like a gourmet meal....
As liberal as I am, I'd have to agree with the sentiment that it's just being a politician. But, I will ask you this. Honestly, if your company gave you the power to vote yourself a raise, would you vote against it?
This is another reason we need term limitations. While this pay increase isn't that bad (percentage wise), it still comes out of the tax payers pockets. It's a d*mn shame that the President of the United States (the most powerful position in the world) can only serve for two consecutive terms & yet, the Kennedy's, Thurmond,s...& so on, can make a life time career out of the same position. Term limitations would eliminate the need for annual or semi-annual pay raises, with the exception of cost of living increases & would keep the politicians from thinking that we work for them. I'd like to see the Senate limited to two consecutive terms & the House to three consecutive terms. Then, (so as to not eliminate those that are truely humble civil servants) we could allow them to run for one of the other offices for a term or two & then rerun for the office that they previously held. For instance, say that Joe Schmo served for two terms as a Senator, he could then run for the House & serve one term. After that term was up, he could rerun for the Senate position again. Actually, it should be for a four year window, before he could rerun for the Senate again. That might eliminate some of the cronyism that goes on in politics.
Rocketman95, No, I would not vote against it. However, there is one big difference, my company is a business making money by selling a product or service for profit, while our Government is not a business & only receives money from the hard working tax payers. While they do provide a service, it's not a service for profit.
I think they're ridiculously underpaid, and a COLA is the least they should get. Maybe if we paid them what they should be worth, they wouldn't have to live on subsidies from PACs.
That would depend mainly on the financial state of the company.... Unless of course I didn't really give a crap about the company I was working for, then I would vote myself a fat raise every chance I got. and...industry kickbacks....under-the-table donations...etc. If we paid them what they're really worth(which is a hell of a lot less than they make now) they might have more of a feel for the common people in this country. That would be the people that elected them...the people they are supposed to represent.
Maybe they go by the Patrick Ewing credo: "We make a lot of money, but we also spend a lot of money."
Actually, I agree with you on this one. Maybe we could make teachers first on the list with senators second. The thing is that it really requires a rich person to be able to fly back and forth between DC and their home state, plus keep up offices and residences in both locations. I had a government professor who worked as an aide to Lloyd Bentsen and he said that the cost of Bentsen keeping offices in his home district, Austin and Washington along with an apartment in DC, his home in Texas and a rented place in Austin was incredible and that doesn't count the cost of travel to and from numerous times throughout the year. Unfortunately, they live off of the "kindness of corporations."
Apparently, giving money to heads of companies/government in red-ink is a popular thing. http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/011206/business_manufacturing_polaroid_dc_3.html Snippets: <I>Polaroid Corp. (OTC BBRDCQ.OB - news), which slashed jobs and retiree benefits before filing for bankruptcy protection in October, wants to reward top executives with up to $19 million in bonuses and incentives as they dismantle the instant camera and film maker to pay off creditors. </I> <I>In a more recent case, collapsed energy trader Enron Corp. paid $55 million in bonuses to about 500 employees, days before it filed for bankruptcy and laid off 4,000 workers, sources told Reuters. </I>
Well, he didn't have to rent a home in Austin or even keep a home in Texas if he didn't want to. Martin Frost hasn't had a home in Texas in years, but that doesn't disqualify him from being a US Rep from Texas. And office expenses don't come out of the salary figures. Congresspersons get extra money for office expenses such as rent and the like. That's not to say that it can't be financially consuming to be in Congress, of course. And I don't have a problem with the amount of money that Congressmen are paid. (I do have a problem with Dallas City Council Members getting $50K per year or whatever they're paying themselves now. Not only are they incompetent, but being a city councilperson really should be a part-time job... And I remember that the city of McKinney was wanting to pay their councilpeople a similar salary, but I don't recall if that became law or not).
Pole said: I think they're ridiculously underpaid, and a COLA is the least they should get. and Jeff seconded it. Let me say I support this. Another $4900 per year is nothing. The real problem is that they can give out hundreds of time that much more money to their rich corporate patrons. By a wrong vote they can literally waste ten thousands times that much of our money. The main problem with the congress is that we need 100% public financing of campaigns with strict limitations so that they are not basically captives of rich usually corporate contirbutors. We also need a cap on the spending by rich individuals of their own private money to essentially buy the office. I don't believe this type of obvious conflict with the interest of general society is permittted so blatantly in any other modern democracy. A democracy where a rich individual or corporate leader can in essence outvote hundreds if not thousands of ordinary individuals is a flawed democracy. It is plutocracy, government of the rich by the rich and for the rich. While we are all Americans there are many issues in which their interest is not in line with the interest of the rest of us.
Republican or Democrat, it doesn't really matter. They all get paid...err i mean recieve "contributions" from the same people. Term limitations are the only answer, but to get that you need the professional politicians to vote for them, and that aint gonna happen. Our country got hijacked by the lobbyists long ago, and short off a miracle, we'll never get it back.
