In Midnight Vote, Senate Opens Door to Giving Themselves $4,900 Pay Raise

AP | 12/08/01

[Bad~Rodeo]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Members of Congress are on their way to a $4,900 pay raise in January as the Senate used a midnight vote to thwart lawmakers who tried to block it.

After a debate that lasted five minutes late Friday night, the Senate used a 65-33 procedural vote to defeat an effort by Sens. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., to stop the increase from taking effect. Under a 1989 law, legislators get an annual cost-of-living raise unless the House and Senate vote to block it, a mechanism that often lets the increases take effect with little notice. .

The latest boost is for 3.4 percent and will raise members' annual salaries to $150,000. .

Feingold questioned the timing of a congressional pay boost when "our economy is in a recession and hundreds of thousands of workers have been laid off." He also noted that the string of four straight budget surpluses is now expected to end. .

Fourteen of the 30 senators running for re-election next year voted against the pay raise. Two who will retire in January - Sens. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. - voted for the increase, while a third retiree - Jesse Helms, R-N.C. - did not vote. .

Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., voted not to block the increase. .

The House has already passed legislation opening the door for the pay increase. .

The January increase will be the third congressional pay raise in the last four years. Before this period, lawmakers increased their salaries less frequently, but the political risk faded as the economy boomed and federal surpluses soared in the late 1990s. .

By tradition, the annual spending bill for the Treasury Department is the battleground for congressional pay raises. .

The final version of that bill, which lacked language blocking the pay raise, overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate this fall and was signed into law by President Bush on Nov. 12. .

Feingold was blocked from trying to stop the pay raise earlier this year. The vote Friday came as the Senate debated the defense spending bill. .

[GussiedUp]

The arrogance of these pieces of garbage is astounding.

[VA Advogado]

It gives the appearance of not being willing to do without or to make sacrifices. Perhaps it is not a fair expectation, but it is just one more example of our leaders not leading us.

I appreciate that. But the problem is every year you can find some reason for them not to even get a cost of living increase. Then in 10 years you find their salary way behind inflation and you're stuck trying to catch up and pissing even the normal people off, not just the soft skulls here.

[VA Advogado]

IF you are making ASSUMPTIONS that BLUE COLLAR WORKERS ARE ON 3rd BASE, LET TME TELL YOU SOMETHING WANNABE. I have 28 YEARS with a MAJOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO..MAJOR STOCK INVESTMENTS ALL PAID WITH CASH, and STILL BUYING STOCK with CASH. Merry Christmas.

Inherited? You certainly can't be a productive member of our society. No, not with those marxist views.

[VA Advogado]

You going to take your cost of living increase from social security?

[VA Advogado]

Actually we would probably be better off if they just sat around and voted themselves raises every time they got together!!! The country would probably save a lot of money and grief in the long run!

I've always held out the strange idea that they should get a commission on the amount of spending they reduced from the year before. I bet even the greedy liberals would accept cuts with a whole new excitment that way.

[Tunehead54]

Thank God these dithering old fools are retiring. I'm voting for the Constitution Party in '02 and '04.

Yeah ... great. That'll show'em. Just like the Nader vote in FL 2000 - 97,000+ votes for Ralphie. Thank you Lord! If even 1/2 had gone to Gore and the rest to Ralph we'd be busy brushing up on our Koran and "sternly" negotiating with OBL.

That's a good lil' voter - just throw it away - OR - here's an idea vote, for the people closest to your interests and then, just maybe, call the a$$hole up and try to convince them to go your way.

Funny thing ... ALL pols pay attention when they're inundated with "suggestions" from their constituency.

[Economist_MA]

Unlike 3 weeks ago. :)

I would say that three weeks ago they were absolutely breathtaking, now they just look decent. I'll make sure I get my hands on the piece in Fortune, thanks for telling me. Even "rational markets" guys like Jeremy Siegel currently estimate the expected equity risk premium at somewhere between 1 and 2 percent over the next thirty years. Sure not enough of a premuim for me...

[WIMom]

Feingold votes nay to get visiablitiy. Once again, his name will be plastered all over the state...

[WIMom]

As for Jeffords, he has done a lot of Not Voting.

I noticed that too.

[Torie]

No, actually yields on inflation indexed bonds went down to near 3% on the day the treasury announced it was eliminating issues of 30 year bonds, and now they are back up to 3.52%. That is a huge move. These puppies are essentially riskless if you hold them to maturity, but clearly not if you don't. The best deal in town of course was I bonds, until they dropped in November to 2% :(

Buffet also thinks there is about a 1.5% equity premia. That IMO might have been close to right when the market hit its bottom, but my guess is closer to half that at present. Of course, there are tax advantages with stocks outside of a tax deferred account.

[ME4W]

Every day in every way I think less of these people. I wonder how much social security folks will be getting?

[steveegg]

Vote by "class" subtotals for those who want to see who's blatant about the politics and who's betting that we'll forget when:

"Yea" vote was to block the pay raise from taking effect; "Nay" vote was to allow the pay raise to take effect.

Nay-next election in 2002

Name	Party	State
Biden	D	DE
Cochran	R	MS
Craig	R	ID
Domenici	R	NM
Gramm	R	TX
Hagel	R	NE
Harkin	D	IA
Inhofe	R	OK
Kerry	D	MA
Landrieu	D	LA
McConnell	R	KY
Reed	D	RI
Rockefeller	D	WV
Stevens	R	AK
Thompson	R	TN
Thurmond	R	SC
Torricelli	D	NJ
Warner	R	VA
TOTALS	D	7
	R	11

Nay-next election in 2004

Name	Party	State
Bayh	D	IN
Bennett	R	UT
Bond	R	MO
Boxer	D	CA
Breaux	D	LA
Bampbell	R	CO
Crapo	R	ID
Daschle	D	SD
Dodd	D	CT
Dorgan	D	ND
Graham	D	FL
Gregg	R	NH
Hollings	D	SC
Inouye	D	HI
Leahy	D	VT
Mikulski	D	MD
Murkowski	R	AK
Murray	D	WA
Nickles	R	OK
Reid	D	NV
Shelby	R	AL
Voinovich	R	OH
TOTALS	D	13
	R	9

Nay-next election in 2006

Name	Party	State
Akaya	D	HI
Allen	R	VA
Binghaman	D	NM
Burns	R	MT
Byrd	D	WV
Cantwell	D	WA
Carper	D	DE
Chafee	R	RI
Clinton	D	NY
Conrad	D	ND
Dayton	D	MN
Feinstein	D	CA
Frist	R	TN
Hatch	R	UT
Kennedy	D	MA
Kohl	D	WI
Kyl	R	AZ
Lieberman	D	CT
Lott	R	MS
Lugar	R	IN
Nelson	D	FL
Nelson	D	NE
Santorum	R	PA
Sarbanes	D	MD
Thomas	R	WY
TOTALS	D	15
	R	10

Not voting-next election in 2002

Name	Party	State
Helms	R	2002

Not voting-next election in 2006

Name	Party	State
Jeffords	I	VT

Yea-next election in 2002

Name	Party	State
Allard	R	CO
Baucus	D	MT
Carnahan	D	MO
Cleland	D	GA
Collins	R	ME
Durbin	D	IL
Enzi	R	WY
Hutchinson	R	AR
Johnson	D	SD
Levin	D	MI
Roberts	R	KS
Sessions	R	AL
Smith	R	NH
Smith	R	OR
Wellstone	D	MN
TOTALS	R	8
	D	7

Yea-next election in 2004

Name	Party	State
Brownback	R	KS
Bunning	R	KY
Edwards	D	NC
Feingold	D	WI
Fitzgerald	R	IL
Grassley	R	IA
Lincoln	D	AR
McCain	R	AZ
Miller	D	GA
Schumer	D	GA
Specter	R	PA
Wyden	D	OR
TOTALS	D	6
	R	6

Yea-next election in 2006

Name	Party	State
Corzine	D	NJ
DeWine	R	OH
Ensign	R	NV
Hutchison	R	TX
Snowe	R	ME
Stabenow	D	MI
TOTALS	D	2
	R	4

[cva66snipe]

There is no reasoning with these people. Some seem to think that because Congress doesn't do their bidding, they shouldn't get paid. Others think Congress members shouldn't make much more than they do. None worry that the smart well educated types we want in Congress won't take low pay compared to what they can make elsewhere, particularly if they have kids to educate, unless they are power mad or independently wealthy or humanities professors. And few manage to actually focus on and debate the relevant points to consider, or indeed focus at all. JMO.

Yep you're right and every soldier and sailor not making what they deserve should just go home as well to better paying civilian jobs. But why are the soldiers and military there? They are there for duty to country just as it was intended for public office to be. But public office has become a fat cat social club for rear covering thieves to draw retirement. Not all mind you but many.

When it comes to the point that staying in office rather than the constitutional goal of serving the people becomes their objective then it's time for them to leave. When a United States Senator says before a trial there is no way a criminal will be convicted then votes him not guilty in same trial it's time for him to leave office. These the beloved darlings of the party is what sickens persons like myself and worse the very ones who bless them and excuse their tossing aside of their oath.

Till the United States Congress behaves and operates its branch in a constitutional manner it deserves nothing as it is robbing us daily of what is ours to have. They robbed us of the dignity of the office of POTUS. Yes Bill Clinton did the wrong but who Torie upheld that behavior by vote and just down right SOLD OUT for political gain over and above the law? It was indeed congress the house and senate of both parties. Tracicant is a fringe loon but he was right about impeachment and the leadership of the GOP was the DEMs useful IDIOTS!!! No felony convictions for treason thank them all!

[Torie]

I'm making you my exhibit "A."

[shortstop]

Uh Bad, read it again. He didn't vote. What conscience?

[cva66snipe]

I'm making you my exhibit "A."

I see. Well I guess it's safe to say then that you think party loyality should come before any of the other following? Upholding their oath of office, upholding & defending the constitution, Upholding the laws of this nation. Just three simple things is not too much to ask. Washington expected it, as did Madison, Jefferson, Adams, and others. Their differences aside they expected no less than this standard be upheld and warned of the dangers of not doing so. Give this nation one third sitting congressman and senators who uphold the constitution and forget parties. Of course they would be both the Dems and GOP's worse nightmare as it would mean accountability to the people again and actual fear of loss of office.

[sandydipper]

Lovely - just freakin Lovely. Do NOT vote for an incumbent. I don't care if his/her opponent is an escapee from from a mental ward. No! to the A/H incumbents.

[Bogey78O]

'If we paid members what they made in private life, I believe we would have far better quality people in DC.'

I prefer "We do not professionalize unless we federalize. It's a far better dogmatic phrase.

I'm not fighting for capitalism. I'm fighting for freedom. Growing a batch of leaders who feel they deserve to live at a rate that most Americans will never see is absurd.

A priest licves a life of abject poverty to be closer with his community and not lose sight of his purpose. They are community leaders.

We're supposed to be electing leaders not electing people whose job it is to pass laws. End of Conversation!