0
   

Our Congress at work

 
 
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:36 am
WASHINGTON Jun 28, 2005 ?- The House on Tuesday agreed to a $3,100 pay raise for Congress next year to $165,200 after defeating an effort to roll it back.

In a 263-152 vote, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to force an up-or-down vote on the pay raise. Instead, lawmakers will automatically receive the raise officially a cost of living adjustment as provided for in a 1989 law that barred them from pocketing big speaking fees in exchange for an annual COLA.

Matheson was the only one of 434 House members to speak out against the 1.9 percent COLA, which will raise members' salaries in January.
Top Stories

"Now is not the time for members of Congress to be voting themselves a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices," he said.

The vote came as the House debated a spending bill containing a provision to guarantee a 3.1 percent pay increase for federal civilian workers. The bill, which funds transportation and housing programs and Treasury Department agencies, was scheduled for a final vote later Wednesday.

A similar effort to block the raise could occur when the Senate considers its version of the bill. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., has tried in the past to block it but has had no more success than Matheson did.

In a House riven by partisanship, raising members' pay is one of the few things Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., agree on.

The annual debate on the members' COLA resembles kabuki theater: Both Democratic and Republican leaders guarantee sizable majorities of their members to block the effort, and they make sure there is not a clear-cut vote on the measure. None of the party campaign committees uses the pay-raise issue in campaigns.

"Each side put up their required quota" of votes, said Rep. Deborah Pryce of Ohio, the fourth-ranking Republican in the House.

Republican leaders who succumbed to pressure to block the COLA for three of the first four years their party controlled Congress now are strong advocates of it. The last time it was rejected was in 1998.

"It's not a pay raise," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."

source

You would think they'd have more important issues to discuss and vote on...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 522 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 07:58 am
yeah really, what they should be doing is working on legislation for a new Shiavo bill to resurrect the dead, but seriously folks, I think congress should be paid a salary equal to their responsibility not unlike the private sector, the fact that most/all of the members of congress for freaking idiots (not unlike many ceo's in the private sector) there are so many reasons to vote the bastards out of office and put in some real fruitcakes like Tom Cruise (if the money is right)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:37 am
Quote:
"It's not a pay raise," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas. "It's an adjustment so that they're not losing their purchasing power."


I don't even know how to formulate the words to respond to this.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:48 am
When you consider all the perks and fringes a congress person gets I wonder what they actually cost the taxpayer.
Of course one should never forget the little "gifts" they get from lobbyists and "donors" and the family members they have on the payroll.
Regarding whether they deserve a raise in pay. Based on performance they should be out on their A$$es
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:51 am
When the First Congress sent out a bill of rights for ratification, they sent twelve proposed amendments, not ten. The first proposed will likely never be ratified. The second proposed amendment was ratified more than two hundred years later:

AMENDMENT XXVII

Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

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



Somebody should sue those sons-of-bitches.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:55 am
Setanta
Don't they get around that law by calling it a COLA not a raise?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 08:58 am
That's why someone needs to bring suit, AU . . . the men of the constitutional convention and in the First Congress were no idiots--they intentionally worded things broadly so as to facilitate interpretation, and make the law flexible and durable. The text reads: " . . . compensation for the services of . . ." and i purport that a good case can be made that a cost of living increase is a variation in the compensation for their alleged services.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 09:04 am
Not that I want to be in the position of defending politicians...

but you guys are a bit hasty in your blanket condemnations and it is causing you all to be rather loose with the facts.

If I understand correctly the COLA is an automatic raise that is already law. Under the current "contract" that the congresspeople work under, they are due this raise.

The honorable senator is asking to change the law to stop a benefit they already have. This has nothing to do with congressmen asking for more. This is why the 27th Amendment doesn't apply.

This is at base a workers rights issue....
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Jun, 2005 09:18 am
I beg to differ, read the article again, carefully . . .
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Our Congress at work
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/12/2026 at 07:58:51