Posted on 01/17/2023 1:26:54 PM PST by 6thavenue
WASHINGTON — A little-noticed rule change made quietly by Democrats in the final days of their majority last year could give House members a long-delayed increase in compensation, allowing them to be reimbursed for the cost of lodging, food and travel while they are on official business in Washington.
For the past dozen years, House members have declined to take a cost-of-living increase in the annual spending bills, fearful of a political backlash if they were seen to give themselves a raise. But the provision, tucked into internal rules that typically receive little attention from the public and without any open debate on Capitol Hill, could amount to a subsidy of about $34,000 per member this year, according to an estimate based on current government reimbursement rates. That would be a substantial increase for lawmakers who spend weeks on end in the nation’s capital, where living costs are among the highest in the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
I have no problem paying Congressman more. They are, after all, they only people over whom we have some control
The REAL issue is the unelected, permanent deep-state bureaucracy. Just look at people like Comey, Welensky, Fauci.
They typically are in DC for decades, have never faced election, are worth $$ millions, and have the power to overthrow Presidents and shut down the country.
I heard they were going to tear down the Hoover building. How about instead, turn it into 1 bedroom apartments for Congresspeople? Should make their late night trysts more discreet. Maybe put a bar in the lobby too.
Liz Cheney made tens of millions of dollars during her terms in Congress through perfectly legal insider trading. Perfectly legal for Congressmen, not for ordinary citizens.
No, I am not being sarcastic. They actually passed laws making such deals legal for themselves. Most Congressmen probably take advantage of such opportunities.
I don't see any problem with paying for their legitimate travel expenses. It is the other things they do that need close scrutiny.
Long-delayed? Those SOBs don't deserve squat.
That better be undone
So they can stay and dine at the Hilton while they’re in Washington?
In the progressive tone of equity and equality I think everyone in Congress should be limited to the same pay of not greater than $2500 a year and be required to work ONLY 2 weeks a year. The remaining time they get a F’n real job to survive.
A little-noticed rule change made quietly by Democrats
*********
Tax-Free not to us we pay for it.
Absolutely, I have no agreement with that observation...
I have a huge problem paying Congressmen more.
They are, after all, people over whom we have virtually no control...
They lie through their teeth to get elected, then lead a life collecting far too large a wage for the minuscule amount of time they actually work...
They need to be forced to work 40 hours a week at minimum wage so that they would feel the full impact of the nonsensical way they steal & waste taxpayers' hard-earned money!
What do you expect from Congre$$.
What do you expect from Congre$$.
If they want the job so bad they should work for FREE
That’s pretty much the case already.
The job where people spend “millions” to get a job that pays “thousands”
Public service has now come to mean that the public exists to serve its servants.
If America takes in more money than it spends, they should be rewarded. But if America spends more than it takes in, all their work was Pro Bono. No salary, no pension, no housing expense, no franking privilege, no nuttin.
Good idea
"27th" Amendment:What was finally ratified 27th was originally the second amendment proposed of twelve in the Original Bill of Rights, one of the official, large, original copies of which toured on its bicentennial. Original 1st was never ratified (though still could be) and this one took couple hundred years to ratify. Primacy popularly granted to the "current"j 1st and 2nd because of their "current" ordinal rank is false, as that's a historical fluke. However the "27th," born 2nd, may apply here.
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
This was signed into law AFTER the midterms so arguably shouldn't go into effect until AFTER the '24 election. Unless its terminology can be legally excluded from a pre-existing legal definition of "compensation." And a pre-ratification vs. a when written legal definition may make for an interesting issue should courts try to decide the point based on "original" meaning and intent of the language. I hope somebody takes it to court. IF the original intent was that this should have been covered they shouldn't be able to get around it by mere clever language.
A critical thinker might propose a pay DECREASE for Congress, as motivation to get a budget done and fix economy so they can afford ... what am I saying? The last Congress was 40+% absent and voting by ‘proxy’ among the Democrats. They should have their pay reduced accordingly.
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.