Posted on 09/15/2004 9:28:13 AM PDT by lilylangtree
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 has yet to take up the legislation.
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 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.
... or about 2.5 %, which is more than the 1% inflation that they claim exists.
Did the Senate vote on this as well?
So, you've decided to promote our culturally acceptable stupidity --- to complain about lawmakers pay without a shred of thought or consideration.
Well, thank you. Your post is both highly ethical and informative.
Uhhhh... let's see Bevis, These dudes spend 5 million to get elected for a job that pays $150,000 uhhhh that's cool!
Dunno. The article just stated that the Senate has yet to take up the issue. However, I'm sure there were some behind-the-scenes heavy discussions between both groups.
First they claim that the rich are getting too many tax cuts. Then, they give the rich people pay raises. Damn hypocrites!
People here on FR are against term limits so they must like paying those turkeys for doing nothing. At least term limits would spread the gravy around to more turkeys.
Self-righteousness is such a pain to respond in the a#s to respond to.
This is a $2/hour raise...
Think about it in this context: Did you get a $2/hour raise this year?
Well, Butthead, if you know anything about elections, you would know that officially maximum contribution to a candidate running for a House seat is $2,000 for primary and $2,000 for election. So if these jerkoffs spend $5 million to get elected, believe me the bulk of the money comes from PACS not from us little people.
No.
Careful, Republicans hold majorities in both houses.
I'm a female conservative Pubby and I support the Pres. However, that doesn't mean that I can't object to the political shenanigans going on, especially 6th straight pay raises without a space in-between. That's ridiculous!
How about countering lilylangtree's objection by explaining why you think six straight years of pay raises is a non-story?
Does the fact that Congress can simply vote to raise its salary not merit some scrutiny? I'd sure love to raise my own salary that way, and I'm sure I'd do so only from the purest motives and through completely objective analysis of my needs.
Actually, I misspoke in the previous paragraph. Congress doesn't even have to vote to get a pay raise. They must affirmatively vote to prevent an automatic pay raise.
Uh, Butthead, let's see. They do this willingly and repeatedly, and something like 96% of people in office run for re-election ... you can be sure that there are benefits far, far beyond the salary, which is why it's worth it to them to spend $5 million running for office in the first place.
Who would you rather have running the nation - a wage earner or a business consultant / corp executive?
I can tell you this that $150,000 in DC is not enough money to attract top talent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.