yet another lawmaker payraise

DKSuddeth

Senior Member
Oct 20, 2003
5,175
61
48
North Texas
Lawmakers to Get Federal Pay Raise

WASHINGTON - With little debate, House lawmakers on Tuesday included themselves as part of a pay raise that all federal employees will receive next year.

The cost-of-living raise would be the sixth straight for members of the House and Senate, boosting the salaries of lawmakers, now $158,100, by about $4,000 in the new calendar year.

The civil servant COLA is part of an $89.9 billion Transportation and Treasury Department spending bill that the House is expected to pass Wednesday.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the spending bill Tuesday and it, too, opened the door for lawmakers' salaries to rise.

The measure stipulates that civil servants get raises of 3.5 percent, the same as military personnel will receive next year. Under a complicated formula, that translates to 2.5 percent for members of Congress.

Like last year, the only House member to speak out against the automatic raise was Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise," he said. "Let us send a signal to the American people that we recognize their struggle in America's economy."

But by a 235-170 vote, the House rejected Matheson's procedural attempt to get a direct vote on the pay raise. In 1989, Congress decided to make annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

The pay raise would also apply to the vice president — who is president of the Senate — congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.

This year, Vice President Cheney, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Chief Justice William Rehnquist receive $203,000. Associate justices get $194,300 and House and Senate party leaders get $175,700.

President Bush's salary of $400,000 is unaffected by the legislation.

do we really think that they are working for us, or them? and are we that stupid or too ignorant to do anything about it? Or is it tolerable just so one side or the other can be in power?
 
Reprehensible !!! Is this bill signed yet and pardon my ignorance but does the president have line item veto? These selfish mother f--kers have no business bitching about ANY kind of tax cut when they give themselves a raise. They all should have their feet held to the fire on this one !! :blowup:
 
DKSuddeth said:
do we really think that they are working for us, or them? and are we that stupid or too ignorant to do anything about it? Or is it tolerable just so one side or the other can be in power?

I think it's more like Lazy and apathetic.

Our society is in the crapper as far as political responsibility goes.
If by chance Kerry would win in Nov. it would represent the final flush.
Just my opinion. Hope I'm wrong.
 
-=d=- said:
calm you jets... 3.5% will be VERY welcome around my household! :D

d, i'm sure that you, jeff, and all of your other co-workers deserve it, but the lawmakers of this government COULD have exempted themselves but didn't and with barely an utterance of protest.
 
DKSuddeth said:
d, i'm sure that you, jeff, and all of your other co-workers deserve it, but the lawmakers of this government COULD have exempted themselves but didn't and with barely an utterance of protest.
It's amazing how they manage to do this under the radar so to speak. Didn't hear a thing about it until you told me DK. Guess the media doesn't feel like they can handle criticizing both parties at the same time. :2guns:
 
Do any of you know what comparative salaries for professionals outside of gov't would be? Keeping lawmakers' salaries relatively high promotes desire to BE a lawmaker; although I'd wager most don't put up with the BS of their jobs for the money; it's out of the desire to try and make this country better.
 
-=d=- said:
Do any of you know what comparative salaries for professionals outside of gov't would be? Keeping lawmakers' salaries relatively high promotes desire to BE a lawmaker; although I'd wager most don't put up with the BS of their jobs for the money; it's out of the desire to try and make this country better.
thats why it's called civil service. If it were about the money then we'd have the crappy representatives we have now.........uh, damn. :bang3:
 
DKSuddeth said:
thats why it's called civil service. If it were about the money then we'd have the crappy representatives we have now.........uh, damn. :bang3:


Having decent salaries helps keep the most capable interested in doing the job. I say, cut them some slack...why/how is their job performance not equalling their pay?
 
-=d=- said:
Do any of you know what comparative salaries for professionals outside of gov't would be? Keeping lawmakers' salaries relatively high promotes desire to BE a lawmaker; although I'd wager most don't put up with the BS of their jobs for the money; it's out of the desire to try and make this country better.

Sure, it's common knowledge that the private sector pays more.
It's also common knowledge that in the private sector you must perform
and if you F-ck up you get fired. Not so for the Gov. Non-performance
is the norm...Example (YOU) you're supposed to be working not posting to some
Internet board.
If a Gov. employee screws-up they get a transfer...not fired..What a dick job!

Sorry if that pisses ya off but it's fact. Not intended as a personal attack.
 
-=d=- said:
Having decent salaries helps keep the most capable interested in doing the job. I say, cut them some slack...why/how is their job performance not equalling their pay?
Its about them being our representatives, last year was no exception. The job market had not started picking up yet, more people were out of work and yet the voted themselves another pay raise. It might not be such an issue but lumping it in with all federal employees and then saying their hands are tied because of it is a joke. Its nothing more than lying to us about it, basically.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: dmp
Mr. P said:
Sure, it's common knowledge that the private sector pays more.
It's also common knowledge that in the private sector you must perform
and if you F-ck up you get fired. Not so for the Gov. Non-performance
is the norm...Example (YOU) you're supposed to be working not posting to some
Internet board.
If a Gov. employee screws-up they get a transfer...not fired..What a dick job!

Sorry if that pisses ya off but it's fact. Not intended as a personal attack.

You have NO fucking clue as to my schedule, or as to my work load.
It's a fact? Prove it. You are spouting ignorance, your opinion or not; you aren't spouting 'fact'.

(shrug).
 
Personally I don't think that the salaries of our government representatives are excessive. Matter of fact, I think it is ridiculous that we pay the President of the United States only 400 grand a year while CEOs of mid-sized companies make more than twice that.

What does bother me is the overall pay package, especially the retirement scheme which is, in my opinion, nothing short of obscene. Not only that, but I also believe that the fat retirement pay received by members of the House and Senate is one of the major factors in the continuing refusal of our so-called "representatives" to fix the social security system. Most likely if they had to draw social security instead of their of special retirement they would take a far greater interest in making sure that social security works as intended.

The only way I can see to get this under control would be an amendment to the Constitution. The amendment would have to stipulate that the Senators and Congressmen from each state must be paid directly by the people of the state they represent. That way if your Senator wanted a pay raise, he would have to convince you and the majority in your state that such a raise was justified.

Do I think such an amendment has a snowball's chance in hell of ever getting any legs?

Sure I do.

You betcha.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Personally I don't think that the salaries of our government representatives are excessive. Matter of fact, I think it is ridiculous that we pay the President of the United States only 400 grand a year while CEOs of mid-sized companies make more than twice that.
most CEO's don't have their home paid for by their employees, their food purchased/cooked for them by their employees, and all transportation provided to them by their employees. Overall I'd say that the presidents salary at 400k is great, considering all the perks and bennies.

Merlin1047 said:
What does bother me is the overall pay package, especially the retirement scheme which is, in my opinion, nothing short of obscene. Not only that, but I also believe that the fat retirement pay received by members of the House and Senate is one of the major factors in the continuing refusal of our so-called "representatives" to fix the social security system. Most likely if they had to draw social security instead of their of special retirement they would take a far greater interest in making sure that social security works as intended.
amen.
 
-=d=- said:
You have NO fucking clue as to my schedule, or as to my work load.
It's a fact? Prove it. You are spouting ignorance, your opinion or not; you aren't spouting 'fact'.

(shrug).

I didn't say a thing about your schedule or workload.
As far as what I know, l'll just say this.... you really don't have a clue what I know.:rolleyes:

But I'll give ya a hint...It's much than you think.
 
Mr. P said:
I didn't say a thing about your schedule or workload.
As far as what I know, l'll just say this.... you really don't have a clue what I know.:rolleyes:

But I'll give ya a hint...It's much than you think.

You don't know from where I'm posting. You don't know if I'm on a break. You don't know how fat or lazy or incompetent I am or am not.
 
Matter of fact, I think it is ridiculous that we pay the President of the United States only 400 grand a year while CEOs of mid-sized companies make more than twice that.
There is a little more to it than that. He also gets a house, a plane, a helicopter, limos, and body guards.

What does bother me is the overall pay package, especially the retirement scheme which is, in my opinion, nothing short of obscene. Not only that, but I also believe that the fat retirement pay received by members of the House and Senate is one of the major factors in the continuing refusal of our so-called "representatives" to fix the social security system. Most likely if they had to draw social security instead of their of special retirement they would take a far greater interest in making sure that social security works as intended.
I totally agree. Why would they care much about fixing it if it doesn't affect them.
 

Forum List

Back
Top