Congressional pay raise

Frankly, I think a 4.1 percent increase for anyone is a bit generous these days...

Not that I begrudge anyone a raise. Maybe I'm just jealous.

Somebody needs to bring suit, that is, anyone who considers this a problem.

In the first Congress, 12 amendments to the constitution were proposed. The third through the twelfth proposed amendments were ratified, and became the first through the tenth amendments, known as the bill of rights. The first proposed amendment would have set 50,000 persons as the upper limit of the constituency of a Representative-it will likely never be ratified. The second proposed amendment, proposed on September 25, 1789, was ratified on May 7, 1992, as the twenty-seventh amendment, and it reads:

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

This means that they cannot vote themselves a raise, and get the raise until an new Congress is seated-not until they've faced the electorate.

I don't know the validity of your sources, but if they are getting raises, and they are in effect before an election of Representatives-they are clearly unconstitutional raises. In such a case, it would perhaps be necessary for a suit to be brought on the issue. The phrase "varying the compensation" rather obviates any tricks to avoid the requirement.

I would say they should get 2.1% like the military is getting. They make enough the way it is. I also think that it should be like baseball where rookie legislaters don't make as much as veterans do and that when the cap gets too high, you let 'em go...Maybe England or France could trade us some of theirs for some of ours...

Setanta
The source is as noted in the link from today's CNN

I have always wondered what the cost is to pay and maintain a member of congress. When all the perks, travel alowances, junkets and staff are included.

I think the raise should be bigger. It's easy to say that they are paid too much but also important is remembering the job we entrust them with. While I doubt they deserve the money I have lived in places where government workers are not adequately paid and the result is gross corruption and inefficiency.

The better they are paid the harder it is to bribe them, the more talent you attact (instead of loosing it all to the commercial sector) etc etc.

In the grand scheme of things their salaries are a drop in the bucket. If there is a good place to spend money on salaries it may well be on the salaries of the people who run the whole country.

In that CNN article, it states that from 1993-1997, there were no pay raises. I suspect that during that period, immediately after the ratification of the ammendment, they were at a loss as to how to pull off a pay raise without being obliged to explain that in a re-election campaign. It appears they've found what they consider a workable means. I agree to a certain extent with Craven--but if you pay them well, i also think you should have the means to nail them to the wall the first time they get caught with their hand in the till, or passing out favors to their friends.

Likely, nothing will be done, unless and until someone with a gripe and deep pockets decides to mount a court challenge.

On the one hand. we have these guys (unisex) who have to live in DC (expensive) and either have their families with them (more expensive) or their families at home and the Congressional breadwinner in a cramped but expensive apartment (two households to maintain) plus personal travel. So that makes a pay raise reasonable.

On the other, look who we have in Congress right now. Some of these guys are deeply serious jerks, corruptomaniacs, real losers-for-America, should be in stocks not in Congress.

As for that law saying they can't vote themselves pay raises: if I remember correctly, they've been doing it for years.

I support the death penalty only for public servants and for ANY infraction of the law. Run a light? Dead. Conversely I'd like to see them paid well until their executions.

The ammendment, Tart, which took effect after final ratificaiton in May, 1992, doesn't say that they can't have pay raises. Did you bother to read it?

It states that no such raise can take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. The intent and the effect is to make them face the voters before they benefit from any pay raise they vote themselves. At any event, the article AU links seems to suggest that they found what they consider a legal means to circumvent it.

Yes I read it, Set. Did you miss my point? My recollection is that they've managed to get around that law.

There is something else: I'm not sure how much attention is paid to this by the media and the public -- ie, how much it affects voting.

It may be another one of those things the voting public has just become numb to, like other forms of corruption.

You may find this interesting also

Congressional retirement benefits

Members of Congress began paying into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul. This is a requirement, and Members may not opt out of it. They then have the option of participating in one of two pension plans, depending upon when they were elected (most of them do). If elected before 1984, they participate in the Civil Service Retirement System; if elected 1984 and after, they participate in the Federal Employee Retirement System. These two plans are also offered to rank and file federal employees, EXCEPT that the Congressional plan's benefit is calculated on a more generous formula than that offered to most other government workers. The "accrual rate" is much higher, and lawmakers tend to be able to retire earlier with benefits than other federal workers (as early as age 50).

Also, Members of Congress may participate in the government-wide Thrift Savings Plan, which works like a federally-managed 401 (k) salary reduction plan. FERS participants are entitled to a government match of up to five percent of salary; CSRS participants may set aside part of their own salary, but they do not receive the match.

In both cases, Members of Congress do contribute to their pension plans, although the rates are somewhat complicated by the fact that since 1983, lawmakers have been required to pay into Social Security. Members elected before 1984 must pay 8 percent of their salaries into the pension plan, but may elect a "Social Security offset" provision that allows them to split the pay-in (6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.8 percent for the pension.) The result is that upon retirement, Members receive a pension that is reduced by the amount of Social Security that is attributable to Congressional service. Members elected in 1984 and thereafter pay 1.3 percent towards the pension and 6.2 percent to Social Security. This only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

With service of 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her final salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAs begin to kick in. For example, a Member of Congress who could collect $5 million or more, if he or she retires in his/her fifties, lives until his/her eighties, and elects to leave a part of the pension benefit to a spouse, who then live 10 or more years longer. This could include George Mitchell, especially after his post-Congressional government service. With Cost of Living Adjustments, total payments over a lifetime can reach these levels (though the more typical payout is likely to be between $1 million and $2 million).

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.

Additional information concerning pay and perks is available in NTUF Policy Paper 131 .





Does Congress pay Social Security taxes?

Lawmakers do pay 8 percent of their salaries into their pension system, although this only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.

Member of Congress began to pay into Social Security in 1983, as part of a government-wide pension overhaul.

In addition, Members of Congress DO NOT draw the "same pension" as their pay in the last year of office as suggested in a rumor circulating on the Internet; only federal judges do that under the term "retirement pay." Still, the formula is quite generous, and, with 20-25 years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his or her salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason, Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Member's final salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAS begin to kick in.

In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector. That ought to be enough to concern any taxpayer.

Additional information concerning pay and perks is available in NTUF Policy Paper 131.





Do Members of Congress pay income taxes?

Members do pay taxes on their Congressional salaries, but they have given themselves some extra perks that elevate them above normal taxpayers.

For example, they wrote into the law a $3,000 annual income tax deduction for maintaining a second residence. Normally, a taxpayer in a lawmaker's income bracket could be subject to reductions in the value of his or her mortgage interest write-off for residences. The typical American who uses an additional residence for business or rental purposes may qualify for certain expense deductions, but only by filing complex forms.

In addition the IRS maintains two "customer service centers" to assist lawmakers and Capitol Hill employees in filling out their tax forms at a cost to taxpayers of $100,000. In 1993 Money Magazine determined that 60 percent of the Members of the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees, who are responsible for our tax laws, didn't even prepare their own tax returns. (For more on the advantages of holding office, see "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers)

©2002 National Taxpayers Union

Percy, you cited...I'm sooo proud of you.

Industry Fights to Put Imprint on Drug Bill

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and GARDINER HARRIS

In the thick of the 2000 presidential campaign, executives at Bristol-Myers Squibb, one of the nation's largest drug companies, received an urgent message: donate money to George W. Bush.
The message did not come from Republican campaign officials. It came from top Bristol-Myers executives, according to four executives who say they donated to Mr. Bush under pressure from their bosses. They said that they were urged to donate the maximum — $1,000 in their own name and $1,000 in their spouse's — and were warned that the company's chief executive would be notified if they failed to give.
Bristol-Myers said no one was forced to donate. But elsewhere in the drug industry, the message about the election was much the same. At some companies, officials circulated a videotape of Vice President Al Gore railing against the high price of prescription drugs. A torrent of contributions for Mr. Bush and other Republicans resulted. And the money kept flowing, right through the elections of 2002.
Those donations may soon pay off handsomely for the pharmaceutical business. Four years ago, a Democrat was in the White House and the industry was bitterly fighting a prescription drug proposal that it said would have led to price controls. Today, a Republican-controlled Congress is preparing to send a Republican president a measure with a central provision — the use of private health plans to deliver Medicare prescription drug benefits — that is tailor-made to the industry's specifications.
The story of how pharmaceutical manufacturers helped shape the Medicare drug benefit is, in part, that of a calculated decision by a lucrative industry to throw its financial weight behind one political party — with $50 million in campaign contributions over the last four years, the vast majority to Republicans. It is also the story of a dogged, mostly unseen campaign that included a small army of lobbyists in Washington and a network of industry-financed groups, which carried the drug makers' message to the public


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/05/business/05MEDI.html?th
Did someone say that if you pay our elected official well they will not be susceptible to bribery. What would you call the activity of lobbyists