House approves pay raise for lawmakers (CNN)

Didn't see this posted, so...

<snip>

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House on Thursday agreed to a 2.2 percent pay raise for Congress -- slightly less than average wage increases in private business but enough to boost lawmakers' annual salaries to about $158,000 next year.

The House members decided to allow themselves a fifth straight cost-of-living raise after rejecting them for several years during the 1990s. Their annual pay has risen from $136,700 in 1999 to about $158,000 in 2004, if the legislation clears Congress and is signed by the president. Their salary this year is $154,700.

As in past years, the congressional COLA was automatically included as part of pay increases that all federal civilian and military employees will receive. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, wages among all nongovernment workers rose an average 2.7 percent from July 2002 through June 2003.

Both the House and Senate, ignoring a White House recommendation that civilian pay raises be held down next year, have decided on 4.1 percent raises for almost all federal workers.

The pay increases are part of an $89.3 billion spending bill for the 2004 budget year for Transportation and Treasury Department programs. Final passage of the spending bill was expected next week.

<snip>

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/05/congress.raise.ap/index.html

Probably need the raise for national security reasons, no???

:puke:

When so many of us are out of work, when our schools and other services are underfunded, when the job just isn't getting done, they give themselves a raise.

:mad:

These Democrats are different from Republicans, How???????

Your point isn't entirely validated.

In Northeast Ohio:
Regula (R) didn't vote - knew it would pass?
LaTourette, the purportedly-left-leaning R, voted for it.

Sherrod Brown & Tim Ryan (yet to show too much favoritism toward the NRA cash that helped him defeat Tom Sawyer) voted against it.

themselves what I am sure is a nice pay raise while shrubbie said a 4% pay raise for Federal workers was too much!


I'll bet Gephardt made this vote.

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

I mean, WE (the people) hired them (by voting for them). They are there for US, for OUR well-being.

At my husband's job, he gets a raise ONLY if his performance is up to par.

He won't get a raise if he comes in late every day, leaves early every day, takes 5 hour lunches, and doesn't produce a certain amount of work.

So why aren't these slouches held to the same standard?

Let their CONSTITUENTS vote on whether they get a pay raise, and for how much.

It's amazing that they can keep upping their salary, in ADDITION to the wonderful fucking benefits they get, while continuously giving the royal screw to the american people.

Or how about this---every elected official must live on the AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY of their district---if a governor, then they must live on the AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY of the citizens of their state. If on City Council, then the AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY of members of their city.

See what it's like to raise a family of 4 on less than $40k a year. See what it's like to stretch $800 a month through $900 in bills.

Stupid fuckers....

Hardly. I don't think you know what you are talking about. They work 12 hour days and often work well into the night. They come back on the weekends and are constantly meeting with constituents. They have to try to raise money in any free time they have so they can get reelected. They actually probably work a lot harder than most people in this country.

They have to make more than the people in the districts because they have to have two homes. I don't think it would be easy for most people to just double their housing expenses and get by. They have to make a lot of money or nobody would do the job. Who would want to be a congressman if they are going to be poor?

Also, a lot of the people that everyone here thinks are so great voted for the pay raise probably because they needed it.

It sounds like that if you decided if they got a pay raise you would never vote for it because you clearly don't know what your talking about. A lot of people wouldn't vote for it because they don't realize that they work hard and have to pay for two homes.

Also, your plan would only affect the poorer congressmen. It wouldn't change the lives of the very rich that don't really care if they get paid 2 dollars or 200,000 dollars becuase they are rich anyway.

Have Public housing for the Congress people when in DC.

Have public finacing of elections mainly through the use of the airwaves and the public "owning" it. Commercials and equal time needs to be provided and it is a fair compensation for the use of our airwaves.

They wouldn't want to do it if they were poor? Good those type are the ones I wouldn't want representing me.

Teachers, Policemen, Firemen, etc do work without expecting to become rich and yet they are some our best and brightest. Why shouldn't our persons in Congress be expected to serve because they are decent people instead of being concerned about making money.

100% of every dime they spend for housing in DC is tax-deductible; not just the mortgage interest like the rest of us, every dime.

We're paying for those second homes, 100%.

Too bad we can't afford more than one increase in the minimum wage in 21 years, ain't it?

(Course, those people don't work hard or deserve much, anyway!)

I know that I am going to offend people here who are teachers but all I know is that most of my teachers that I have had aren't particularly smart. If they got paid more I think that I would have much smarter teachers because more people would be interested in the job and there would be more competition for the job. And a lot of the policemen and firemen aren't necesarily the smartest people and they do get the ability to retire pretty early which probably attracts a lot of smarter people to those professions.

I think that the idea of public housing in DC could be a good idea. But, what do you mean by that? I don't think that most of the congressmen would be particularly happy about living in a run down place but if it is in a safe neighborhood than that would be fine.

And, it isn't about making money. $150,000 dollars doesn't make you rich. It will just make them have enough money to live comfortably. Many of them would be making a lot more if they weren't in Congress.

Damn Incompetent Realtors. I had the home I left when I relocated, and the apartment I was living in waiting for the house to sell so I could get another.
I'm still living in the apartment. Damn house bankrupted me.
Got no sympathy for the Congressfolk. Hell, most of them not only have 2 houses, but condos or time shares in several posh locales, too.

*I* don't get a COLA on *MY* salary! I haven't since I got laid off from Western Electric in 1982. It's been solely "Merit (ass-kissing) Raises" ever since....

there is no money for health care! Ugh!

At least they bucked Bush and gave 4.1% to federal employees (although I wonder who won't be getting one, since the article said "most" of them would). I would've been really irritated if they gave government employees less than 4.

At times like these they should take a pay cut. These career politicians are self-serving bastards. Meanwhile, they will vote to cut overtime for people with real jobs. Can we take back our country from this destructive cabal????

...and decided as a multiple thereof. e.g.,

Representatives: no more than 3X the median
Senators: no more than 6X the median
President: no more than 12X the median

Amendment XXVII

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

Under the constitution, this pay raise cannot take effect until 2005 after the new congress is sworn in!!!

So your point is moot.

and is an official part of the U.S. Constitution.

Amendments to the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. They are the constitution.

Congress submitted the text of the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the States as part of the proposed Bill of Rights on September 25, 1789. The Amendment was not ratified together with the first ten Amendments, which became effective on December 15, 1791. The Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified on May 7, 1992, by the vote of Michigan.

So again, an amendment to the constitution CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE CONSTITUTION!

These fucks all violated our constitution.

They have an increase for a "cost of living adjustment." It is supposed to go up because the cost of living goes up. So, the Congress claims that this is not technically a pay raise. I don't know, but I assume that the courts have found this to be constitutional.

...but cut their pay while raising ours. Gee, what a good idea!:think: :spank:

people lose their jobs by the thousands every month, these guys get a pay raise.

1) The pay raises for all federal employees SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED.

The headline is misleading. To the extent that Bush tried to cap federal pay at 2.1%, and justify that cap with his ridiculous war on terror argument, the Congress was right to vote FOR the pay raise for all Federal employees. In fact, many people on this very board were arguing for the passage of this bill - indirectly - just last week, when Bush's absurd argument came to light.

HOWEVER

2) Some brave Congressperson should have added an amendment which specifically DENIED the pay raise for Congresspersons, or any Federal employee making over $125,000 per year.

That way, the good (that is, the 4.1% pay raise for federal employees) could have been achieved without the ridiculous (that is, the pay raise for people who do not need it and who further alientate a struggling constituency with their obscene salaries, in Congress).

Now, the obvious arguments will follow: Why shouldn't people making over $125,000 get a cost of living increase like everyone else? Isn't that just unfair? In a sense, yes, but only when the quantity is taken into account rather than the quality. The point is that $125,000 is sufficient for a decent living anywhere in this country, and if your standards exceed that, take into account that you are performing a public SERVICE, and that such services may require sacrifices. Especially in these tough economic conditions, with the federal budget teetering on the brink of catastrophe, take the hit for the good of the country. It is your duty. You accepted it willingly, so discharge it honorably. For many working in the public employ, neither the same level of duty, nor the same capacity to meet basic standards is present. In those cases, the pay raise is fully justified, despite the budget problems.

The danger is in thinking that 4.1% is 4.1% is 4.1% - whether it is for the struggling Clerk III making $28,000 while trying to save for her children's college, or the multimillionaire representative, who claims hardship for flight costs while preaching sacrifice for servicepeople. To claim an E-Quality there is absurd; it can only be accomplished by ignoring quality itself. Why an amendment wasn't attached is an great mystery, if a lowly outrage.

Republicans were just screaming bloody murduer about a "midnight pay raise" in the middle of a recession.

pay raises!

have a link showing a member by member vote on this?

Link: http://uswomenschamber.com/html/how_voted.htm

I'll see if I can find it!!!

:hi:

Link: http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=463

There are a whole series of related votes and they are here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/index.asp

(Near bottom of page, click on Roll Numbers)

:shrug:

Since our beloved chimp wants us to make sacrifices to support his wonderful war, shouldn't Congress lead the way? They could serve as examples to us all if the Senate decided not to support this pay raise.