Posted on 12/08/2001 8:52:29 AM PST by 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. .
Oh thank you for taking the bait and asking me what gives me the right to decide how much anyone earns. I ask you then what gives an employer the right to do the same? Should he just say you are going to pay me the wages I determine? No he would be shown the door just as many in congress should be done likewise.
But here's your answer. The answer is simple and one many politicians have long forgotten. Who do they work for? They work for taxpayers namely the American citizen. That I do believe gives me the right to object to or give approval to their wages does it not? Yes I voted. I voted for Howard Phillips. Care to call him a Marxist? No indeed he's not. He is the president and founder of the Conservative Caucus. He has fought the good fight long and hard for principles I hold to and respect.
You tell that to the men and women over there in Afghanistan right this second while you're sitting behind your keyboard. In fact, tell it to Mike Span's family or those Special Opps guys that just got dumped on with friendly fire. You. People like you that attack our military are no better than the Clinton types that tried to take it down in the 60's.
Uh, the Senate didn't give the $4,900 pay raise to servicemen, they stuffed it in their own pockets.
Can you explain?
I don't care if these wienies get a pay raise, because it means the military will also get theirs, but once, just once,I wish Trent Lott, (or any republican leader), would switch his vote at the very last minute, leaving Daschle, (or any democratic leader), looking very embarrassed.
Some on this thread are all in favor of congress critters getting their regular raises...well and good... but most people think it's unseemly for these already well-paid public servants to be getting raises when so many Americans are going bankrupt, being laid off, or suffering reversals because of the economic down turn.
The Congress Critters of the Night know this, hence the late Friday night vote, when nobody's watching. Most of the time they aren't even in town on Fridays, and most of the time they don't even have scheduled votes after 2 or 3 in the afternoon. Sneaky little congress critters of the night.
I don't think he implied that. But here's one for ya. Our congress and POTUS GHW Bush Sr. Clinton, and the sitting Congress during their terms made a wreck of our military. Where is the 66% of Cold War strenght Reagan proposed? Instead it was brought down to a one third strenght powered Navy.
Well at least I'm smart enough not to vote for one disguised as being GOP are you?
OK, genius, if the raise isn't a big deal, why did this vote take place late on a Friday night, when the Senate isn't normally in session? And why was there only 5 minutes of debate on the subject? If they thought they were going to receives bouquets from the masses, why didn't they hold this vote first thing Monday morning?
This is simply further proof that these guys are out of touch with reality. To take any sort of pay raise at a time when many people are losing their jobs shows that Congress, at best, has a tin ear politically, while the worst case would be that they are simply a bunch of elitists (which they are, of course).
BTW, VA, which senator do you work for?
Uh, Uh, Roscoe, Bush's proposal was for a 4.6% military pay raise. Some members of congress have introducted bills to give them 7.3%. Thats uh, MORE than the % the Senate got. Add in any tax breaks they get for hazard duty service and I would say the government is doing a fine job in this area, despite what some of the miltary haters on here have implied.
Remember from your book "Constitution for Dummies" that a vote on legislation requires the consent of both houses of congress. Do you remember what time of day the house had voted on this bill?
That's what they count on
Thompson: Good old when's lunch Fred. Remember him? He was the committee chairman who roars "Let the chips fall where they may" He was also the one when the chips were about hit the fan roared "Don't name no names." But better yet his Not Guilty vote in the Senate trial. Fred very well had the tallent to take Clinton down. I refer you to the movie and book "Marie". That involved the corrupion of the Tennessee Governors office of which he helped bring to justice. Fred fell a long ways.
The difference between me and many is I don't set it aside for the beloved Party's sake.
That's a great way to put it. Thats why a decent salary with COLAs is the way to go. I think ordinary americans are ok with that. Of course the dissenters here on this thread are something less than ordinary.
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.