Posted on 06/28/2007 5:12:32 AM PDT by AmericanMade1776
Say What? That’s right the most “ethical” congress in history voted itself a payhike today. I am looking for the roll call and I will post it when it when I find it.
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., worked the floor during the vote to make sure there was relative balance between the warring parties in delivering votes. Working through Blunt, Hoyer forced more than a dozen Republicans to switch their votes in support of accepting the raise, including Mike Pence and Daniel Burton of Indiana and Fred Upton, Dave Camp and Vernon Ehlers of Michigan.
Pence did what? Hoyer and Blunt working in tandem, what in the WORLD was going on in the House today?!?!!? I mean holy insanity! The article is a must read though extremely depressing.
Roll call is apparently here but it wasn’t a straight up or down on the payraise but a vote about voting on it…
(Excerpt) Read more at savethegop.com ...
They won’t get it until after the next election (see 27th amendment). By then a lot of them will be gone. Then the next congress should repeal it (which they won’t).
Meanwhile, the deficit is down to $150 billion thanks to the tax cuts and increase in revenue. The budget could be balanced tomorrow.
You apparently think that that it's OK for the entire U.s. congress to make in a year as much as a star of "The Pirates of the Caribbean" makes in six weeks. I do not.
??????
I said the congress’ salary was govt. waste. unless you think they should make more?
I dont understand your response.
There are two exceptions: CEOs and senators. I would like to be led by talented people. And, since talent costs money, I am willing to pay.
I also think it is unfair to the families. A lawyer making 300,000 should all of a sudden have his salary cut in half simply because he wants to provide service to his country and run for the Senate. Even he is willing to make that sacrifice, why should his family do so? It is simply unfair.
I sum, I think it is both unfair and stupid to pay little to our elected representatives.
I agree. 170K in Washington DC is around 50K here in Ohio. Then there is the cost of maintaining two homes, and the same bills you and I deal with.
I’d take a PAY CUT if I ran for elective office...so no chance I’ll ever toss my hat in the ring, as the saying goes.
Get yourself a membership at Sam’s or Costco.
LOL......You can eat at the senior buffet and save your lunch money.
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.
Thanks,I was just being sarcastic,but that’s what I got for a raise twelve bucks a month no sh*t!These cretins just gave themselves a raise.They are making One Hundred Seventy Five grand year!
AND they would all vote for amnesty, but for our outrage.
Where’s the picture of Church Lady saying what she always said?
You live in a representative republic.
Not only that, but the *salary* they earn is almost petty-cash, considering all the other monies doled out to each member. Unless I'm much mistaken, they do not pay the salaries of their staff nor the fee for office upkeep out of their *yearly wages* -- they all have an enormous expense allowance/budget, travel, clothing, food, all manner of items that the taxpayer foots for them but pays for himself out of what he truly earns.
OK, so we make it an amendment to the US Constitution.
We are discussing whether to pay for something --- say, a TV set --- $300 or $500. You come in and say, why do you need tv in the first place? This may be an interesting argument, but it is unrelated to what we discussed before.
If you care, you might want to consider this question: even if they were employed part-time, by what standards should they NOT get more. They now make in a year what a moron like Adam Sandler makes in two days. I mean it literally: he makes $5M a week. Even if senators were working part-time, isn't it fair that they make at least some fraction of that? They make now about $3,000 per week. A raise to 1/10 of Sander's does not seem excessive, right?
Those are your own words, sir. Don't try to run from them.
The premise of your argument is that "Senator" is a full-time job. If it weren't, then our oh-so-public-minded lawyer wouldn't be having his "salary cut in half", now would he? Hmmm? So I attack the premise. Senator should be a part time job. Very part time.
They now make in a year what a moron like Adam Sandler makes in two days.
BFD. Are we paying folks according to IQ? Hmmm? I think not. No employer ever asked me my IQ. They asked what I could do for them. Adam Sandler entertains folks ... for which they're willing to pay a great deal of money. He's never got a red cent from me, FWIW.
So: what, exactly, are Senators doing for us that's so valuable? They're pumping up the size of the government, in contravention of their charter. They're taking our money at gunpoint, and wasting it on socialism and bureaucracy. They're attempting to micromanage our lives. They're failing to adequately defend this great Republic.
That's worth less, to me, than Adam Sandler's antics. They deserve a pay cut.
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.