Congress Boosts Their Own Pay, Postpones Other Work

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
Congress Boosts Pay, Postpones Other Work :fire:

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005; 7:57 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802165_pf.html


WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.

In the final hours of a tumultuous week in the Capitol, Democrats erupted in fury when House GOP leaders maneuvered toward a politically-charged vote _ and swift rejection _ of one war critic's call for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. "You guys are pathetic, pathetic," Massachusetts Rep. Martin Meehan yelled across a noisy hall at Republicans.

On another major issue, a renewal of the Patriot Act remained in limbo as an unlikely coalition of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans sought curbs on the powers given law enforcement in the troubled first days after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Both the House and Senate were in session after midnight Thursday, working on the tax and deficit-cutting bills at the heart of the GOP agenda.

"What it does is start to turn down the escalating costs ... for our children and our grandchildren. One of the things that we cannot leave to that next generation is a huge deficit that they can't afford," House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said after enactment of a $50 billion deficit-reduction bill.

Democrats dissented, with one eye on the 2006 elections.

"The Republicans are taking food out of the mouths of children to give tax cuts to America's wealthiest. This is not a statement of America's values," said the Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. "Democrats believe that together, America can do better," she said, invoking the party's new campaign slogan.

The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress _ which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year _ marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues.

So much so that the issue was not mentioned on the floor of either the House or Senate as lawmakers worked on legislation whose passage will assure bigger paychecks.

Lawmakers automatically receive a cost of living increase each year, unless Congress votes to block it. By tradition, critics have tried to block increases by attaching a provision to the legislation that provides funding for the Treasury Department. One such attempt succeeded in the Senate earlier in the year, but the provision was omitted from the compromise measure moved toward final approval.

The overall bill provided $140 billion for transportation, housing and other programs. It cleared the House on a vote of 392-31. Senate passage was by voice vote, although final passage was delayed when an unexplained technical difficulty required a revote in the House.

Pay raise harmony aside, Republicans spent the day celebrating a party-line, post-midnight vote in which the House cleared legislation to reduce deficits by $50 billion over five years. The vote was 217-215, with all the Democrats who voted in opposition, along with 14 GOP rebels.

Acting Majority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri said Republicans would make their tax cut bill the top item on the agenda when lawmakers return to the Capitol in December.

The House-passed measure attacks deficits by limiting spending for the first time in a decade on Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and other benefit programs that normally rise with inflation and eligibility.

The House GOP leadership had hoped to clear the measure a week ago. It was forced to retreat when Republican moderates rebelled, even after Hastert agreed to strip out a controversial proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

The Senate-passed companion measure calls for less deficit reduction, $35 billion over five years, but includes the ANWR provision.

The differences are expected to make it difficult for the House and Senate to reach a compromise by year's end, particularly since Republicans can't count on any Democratic support.

The tax bill presents difficulties of its own for a GOP majority struggling to translate last fall's election gains into this year's legislative achievements.

The Senate cleared a measure after 1:30 a.m. that calls for $60 billion in cuts over five years.

The measure drew bipartisan support, passing on a vote of 64-33. Its provisions would continue a series of existing tax breaks that otherwise will expire, and shelters 14 million upper middle-income families from higher taxes.

The White House has threatened a veto, citing a provision that raises taxes on oil companies.

The House has yet to pass a companion measure. When it does, the tax on oil companies is unlikely to be included, and it is likely to be jettisoned before a compromise measure reaches the White House.

Hastert said Republicans want to "make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan ... a lot of people say: Look, this is a tough time, we just ought to pull out and leave. We pull out and leave, we strand an effort to make sure that we can tamp down terrorism, to tamp down a dictatorship, that we can stabilize an area in the Middle East," he added.

GOP aides conceded the maneuver was designed to put Democrats in a political squeeze _ voting for withdrawal and exposing themselves to attacks from the White House, or voting against it and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.

Democrats angrily attacked the GOP move. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., called the measure "a piece of garbage" and an attack on Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a decorated veteran and respected congressional voice on military matters.

House and Senate negotiators announced a tentative agreement earlier in the week to pass a seven-year extension of the Patriot Act. Key senators lawmakers involved in the talks balked at the terms, and officials said they would resume compromise efforts when Congress returns to work in December.
 
Peanuts.

It's only a $1.49 an hour raise based on a 40 hr. work week. They work many more hours than us commoners.
Thankfully they have decided to use their vast knowledge and experience to make our lives safer and better.

The real money is probably in the perks.

Vick
 
Regardless of how much more an hour it is, it still demonstrates self promoting interests in a time of war and escalating costs. Many of us will have to do without things to pay for gas to work and heating bills. Its called trimming the fat...why not theirs? We can't vote ourselves a pay raise for these increases.
 
More reason to encourage ourselves and our children to enter politics, run for election , and get these jobs secured with more people who believe in the US Constitution and not some "flexible framework/faxcimile " of it.

There is no way to justify $1.49 per hour pay raise when our soldiers are in harms way, they and their families cannot make ends meet without welfare/foodstamps..............
 
This is important work. These people work very hard for us, their efforts should be appreciated.
 
The 27th amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1992, and subsequently rendered completely meaningless by a court decision that a "cost of living adjustment" isn't a "pay raise". Thereby demonstrating that not only won't the federal government originate any amendments the states might want, but it will ignore any amendments they somehow manage to make anyway:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

The pay raise was unambiguously unconstitutional. And the legal system doesn't care.
 
Maybe if they actually DID something up there on the hill I would be all for a raise. But all they do is vote along party lines and bicker, screw whats good for the country its about whats good for ME or good for the party. I swear a single party would almost get more done least then there wouldn't be cross party bickering and fillabustering.

A raise for bickering and a two week vacation. Must be nice. Wish the place I worked allowed its employees to get together for a vote on a pay raise and damn what the people who pay it have to say :neener:
 
I'd be much happier to pay them more if they did nothing. I would be happy to offer all of them a million a year to stay home.
 
This is important work. These people work very hard for us, their efforts should be appreciated.
That's right. They put their lives on hold in the interests of public service for our benefit.
 
R.H. Lee said:
That's right. They put their lives on hold in the interests of public service for our benefit.

This just in: America's population has officially gone from "representative democracy" to "serf mentality" .
 
QUOTE: TOADMAN " 50% of our elected officials time is spent getting re-elected!! Their retired benifits are incredible ."

Yea, I understand if they finish a 4 year term they retire with full pay and benefits. What ever it is their pretty much set for life.
 
Regardless of how much more an hour it is, it still demonstrates self promoting interests in a time of war and escalating costs.

You do realize that your statement actually justifies a cost of living raise, correct? I know that I ask my boss for more money when things get more expensive.

Is it safe to assume that you have declined every offer of an increase in pay since 9/11 out of the nations best interest?
 
What if the pay wasn't sufficient to get good people to run for election? You would get nothing but rich kids, wealthy businessmen, and dependence upon dirty money.

BTW the Supreme Court hasn't had a raise in many years. I recall an interview with Rehnquist wherein he said he was turned down by Congress every time he brought it up. But yet we expect the best and brightest to make sacrifices, probably millions, to be on the Court.

If a high percentage of these people are lawyers, one would have to acknowledge what income potential they sacrifice to be in Congress. While it can be a stepping stone for career advancement, it is also a crapshoot when not already wealthy. Cheney was a good example. After serving as Sec of Defense under Bush I, he didn't have squat for personal assets. The Halliburton job was perfect, and he needed that period in his career.
 
BTW the Supreme Court hasn't had a raise in many years. I recall an interview with Rehnquist wherein he said he was turned down by Congress every time he brought it up.

On the other hand few jobs in the real world have anything even resembling the kind of job security that comes with that position.
 
c_yeager said:
On the other hand few jobs in the real world have anything even resembling the kind of job security that comes with that position.

It might explain why they take fewer and fewer cases per year, down to 85. Should they be semi retired by definition? ;)
 
Originally posted by Manedwolf
This just in: America's population has officially gone from "representative democracy" to "serf mentality"
Fess up. You call Phil Hendrie to speak with the guest, right? :p

What if the pay wasn't sufficient to get good people to run for election? You would get nothing but rich kids, wealthy businessmen, and dependence upon dirty money.
Thank God we don't have any of thos people in congress.
 
What if the pay wasn't sufficient to get good people to run for election? You would get nothing but rich kids, wealthy businessmen, and dependence upon dirty money.
Isn't that what we have now?
I believe New Hampshire only pays their legislators 100 dollars a year. Which means they have to have real jobs, and have real bills to pay.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top