They just love our money!
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.
Well of course they did.
What'd anyone expect 'em to do?
...take a pay cut? :o)
If you've ever been in DC and understand the multitude of perks (try putting a value on these too) that go with the job, which is being a public servant, you would understand the significance. Plus, CEO salaries, if you've noticed, are coming more under public scrutiny and most of these high-paying salaries aren't merited.
The new tone in Washington.
What is the connection? Am I doing the same work? Am I doing it equally well? And, most importantly, do the market forces compel my bosses to give me a raise so as not to loose me to competitors?
These are the considerations that go into determining someone's pay. What you did was expressing envy: I did not get a raise, why should you? You are also rather presumptuous: are you doing an equally important and complex job as the lawmakers? What gives you the right to think that you are even in the same league.
Since you went that route, I'll counter with another perspective. The whole of the U.S. Senate earns in the course of a whole year less than an "entertainer" Adam Sandler earns in six weeks. Does that not strike you as a problem? And, when was the last time you complained about the pay of Jay Leno or David Letterman (30-40 million)? Or NBA player, who cannot read, think, or even keep track of were their pee-pees go and sire children out-of-wedlock? The last I heard, the average was $600,000 a year -- these morons deserve it and senators do not?
You can certainly scream, but you do not say a word of what's wrong with that, and how this is different from any other job. Nor do you tell us what you think makes you qualified to judge the workings of the labor market --- yes, that is the subject you are talking about here, apparently without recognizing even that.
I was referring to defamation of character: it is acceptable and even laudatory in our society to simply call these people crooks and say that they do not deserve a penny. One does not bear false witness: if one has arguments against a particular person's wrongdoing, they should be stated. But one does not raise an accusatory finger without reasons. I do not see why lawmakers should be an exception.
Further, most of the people who scream about this as if it were a self-evident truth have no clue about management, whether private or public. They do not even know the basics of how labor markets work. It is much like posting, "The speed of sound is smaller than a speed of light! Outrageous!" Nobody does that, because these are facts, laws of nature. But economics and management are somehow excluded: one does not feel an obligation even to study them before passing judgment. And that shows: such posts scream of the ignorance of the poster.
Congress doesn't even have to vote to get a pay raise. They must affirmatively vote to prevent an automatic pay raise.
Correct.
I have not studied the arguments advanced for that measure. But I certainly think that it is a move in the right direction: out lawmakers are grossly underpaid.
Unfortunately, it is the common envy of our people that prevents the adjustment to be made all at once. Perhaps, these raises are designed to do so gradually.
I know that I'd sure like to have a "non-pay-raise" like that!
THE "TWO-PARTY CARTEL" again at what they do best. No one surly thinks this is going to change by voting them back in.
Fair enough; an opinion worthy of civil debate.
I don't object to the raise as much as I do the manner in which it occurs. They should be required to vote to enact a pay increase -- and take whatever political heat comes -- rather than having to vote to prevent an automatic increase from occuring.
They think they're underpaid? Fine. Let them to make their case to the American people.
Why? There are millions of civil servants, including political appointees --- should they fall into that category?
Do you want a spectacle of the president's salary being debated by a public? Probably not?
And, why not include every governor and mayor into this category?
=========
Yours is a good example of why we have a Republic (an indirect democracy) rather than a direct democracy. We elect people that UNDERSTAND (in contrast to a common Joe and Jane) the issues and make decisions in our behalf. The opposite is a weakness of a direct economy: just ask yourself, how many pay raises would ANY politician receive if the public were asked to vote? Probably zero.
The same is true in private administration: ask, how many pay raises would a CEO, or a senior vice-president of a company would receive if everyone, down to janitors and secretaries, were voting for that? Exactly zero. In fact, even the lowest of the lowest would not receive any: for every such person there are at least three of his/hew subordinates that are mad at the boss for this or that and would use that as a chance to get even. Salaries of managers are assigned, not voted for.
As I said earlier, I have not studied in detail the arguments behind that law. Buy I strongly suspect that it was designed for precisely that purpose: to avoid a spectacle of moronic, uneducated people who don't even care to learn the issues voting on the salary of law-makers.
There is yet another angle, purely from the standpoint of principle. If you vote for a person you do not OWN that person: you simply have chosen him for a job. You do not say to a plumber, "Just because I chose you for a job, now I decide what to pay you." Instead, HE tells you what the job costs, and you typically take it or leave it --- for another plumber, since markets forces are at play. But you do not TAKE his services and then decide how much to pay. So, what moral right do you, or I, have to tell law-makers to do the job and then dictatorially decide --- collectively TELL them via vote --- what that job is worth? Again, people don't follow this rule anywhere else but make an exception for managers, both public and private.
Finally, there are market forces at play here too (and that, by the ways, is one of my main concerns). A graduate with an MBA, a kid in mid-twenties, makes $120,000-200,000 per year. A doctor makes easily thrice that much. Lawyers, if they are any good, the same. Plumbers charge $100/hour (not all of it is wage, but if it were, that would be $200,000 per annum). So, how can you attract a person from that pool of talented people to give up their carriers and incomes --- moreover, with possibly no return after four or eight years?
A president of a major university makes close to $1M a year. How can you ask that person to run for office and make in four years as much as she makes in seven-eight months? Whom would you get, then? Either power-hungry people, for whom having that power is the reward in itself, or mediocrity. That is a problem: you should not ask the person who is honest and wants to contribute to society to be a martyr and sacrifice both his life and the lives of his family members for that. There is simply no reason for that.
Now, you may or may agree with some or all things I said. That is not an issue. But ask yourself: how many people have even thought about these matters and understands the pros and cons of giving or witholdinng a pay raise? And how many would even understand what we are talking about, the intricacies of labor markets, incentive pay, the foregone opportunities associated with employment --- even if you tried to explain it to them? Just a few. Do you really want them to vote on that point? Probably not. They don't vote on whether we should spend money on a new submarine or an air carrier --- precisely because the voters have not a clue about the issues involved and, worse, have no desire to learn (and, just as pay raises, would probably voted it down. I can almost here: "We already have plenty of submarines").
Well, the question of pay is not that much easier. You do not let populous vote on it directly for much the same reason. And that's the republic vs. democracy argument.
Do you want a spectacle of the president's salary being debated by a public? Probably not?
And, why not include every governor and mayor into this category?
Not a single soul in the list you just gave sets his/her own salary. They're not relevant to the point I'm making.
The "republic v. democracy" point (though well made) is also not relevant to my argument. I'm not saying that the people should vote on congressional salaries (that would be foolish in the extreme). I'm saying that the process by which the pay raises come should have a little more sunshine on it -- and that the legislators should be ready to defend whatever position they take on the issue. Better accountability to the constituents--that's it.
That's a valid point. Why should they get pay above inflation? It's not merit pay, since it doesn't meet any definition of merit pay. What could it be?
Considering that we the people foot the bill then we should have some say. Also bear in mind that at America's founding being a public servant was not supposed to be a road to riches, but rather a duty and not a life long career.
I had not heard about pay raises for those POS. I am totally fed up with this $hit. Long ago we fought a war against an imperial government rejecting taxation without representation. What has happened along the way? We now have a government of aristocrats that are no different than old King George. We have lots of representation and lots more taxation. May the citizens of this country get a brain and reject this bull$hit!
They just love our money!
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.