Senate Approves Pay Increase for Itself

[onehandle]

Thursday, October 23, 2003; 1:55 PM

The Senate voted itself a pay raise for the fifth straight year, boosting the annual salary to about $158,000 in 2004.

The House also agreed last month to accept an increase in the annual cost-of-living allowance, which gives all members of Congress a boost of about 2.2 percent in their take-home pay starting in January.

Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who every year stands up against pay increases, said that with the economy still weak and many Americans finding it hard to make ends meet, it was "the wrong time for Congress to give itself a pay hike."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2003Oct23.html

[GainesT1958]

1. They always seem to give themselves one of these...

At the LEAST OPPORTUNE time--during a recession!x(

Me thinks it's time once again for Dave Letterman to come out with another "Top Ten List" about "Why the Senate deserves a pay raise!":eyes:

B-)

[WillParkinson]

2. When Russ stays at our hotel...

He always refuses the free gift they try to send him.

I may not always agree with him but at least he's got ethics.

[CO Liberal]

3. Vote Every Incumbent Out Next Time

Except Russ Feingold. Teach them a lesson.

[Loyal]

18. Feingold isn't the only one to vote against it...

did you even research it?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00406

[E_Zapata]

4. What? No filibuster?

Feingold? No other options? Kind of nice to be able to oppose it but still get a few extra bucks for a trip down to Florida, eh?

Would it occur to any of them (those saying they 'oppose' the raise) to DONATE that money to a family in need? I bet not.

[sybylla]

17. As far as I know, all my Wisconsin representatives refuse their pay raises

Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl have refused to accept pay raises for the last few years at least. In fact, I think highly of both my senators for this as well as some of Wisconsin's representatives for taking such a stand. Russ Feingold is one of the poorest, if not THE poorest Senator. Don't think you can get away calling my senator a hypocrite for standing against a pay raise and then taking the money anyway.

Let's try to do a little research before we make assumptions, okay?

On edit: it appears Kohl voted for the raise. It will be interesting to see if he has changed his tune and takes it or just voted for it because he felt sorry for his fellow non-billionaire senators having to make a go on $150,000+ a year.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

5. cost-of-living increase

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said it was a mistake to call it a pay raise, and that lawmakers were merely receiving a cost-of-living increase being given to other federal workers and military personnel.

''This increase is required by law,'' he said.

[WildClarySage]

21. Gee

It would have been nice if us social services workers got a cost of living adjustment this year. Instead, our agency has had to pass along to us the cost of our insurance to fill that $30,000 fiscal gap left by VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) cutting our grant.

But I bet Haliburton et al. CEOs will get a cost of living raise out of that $87 Billion.

[arcane1]

6. "cost of living" raise???!?!?!?!?!?

you can't live on f*cking $150k?????

:wtf:


glad all of our other problems have been solved... :crazy:

[MaineDem]

7. Wow

Again my GOP Senators voted against their party! Way to go, ladies!

[tlmorris]

9. Hold the applause

Do you know why legislators vote against pay raises or propose pay cuts? They do that for two reasons:

1) It makes them look compassionate. "Why should we make so much money when people are homeless? Let's show them we care".

2) It keeps the average person from running for office because that person can't afford it.

Face it, being a legislator costs money. A lot of money. You have to have two residences. An apartment in the DC area, plus your normal rent or morgage, is more than most can afford. Add to that an office, office supplies, power, water, staff, etc. So by voting against raises and voting for salary cuts, they are actually voting against the ability of the average person to represent their fellow Americans.

Be sure to consider motives when someone votes seemingly in your favor. Sometimes, it's not as good as it seems.

[arcane1]

11. #1 makes sense, but I don't follow #2...?

welcome to DU! :hi:

[MaineDem]

12. She knew it would pass anyhow

I'm just surprised ar some of her votes lately.

Welcome to DU!

[atreides1]

16. I Have A Solution

1. All Senators and Representatives who are either single or do not have their families living with them in the DC area, should reside in Congressional dormitories.

2. The states will purchase the homes for its congressional delgation.
This way the homes would be owned by the states, and should an incumbent lose an election the newly elected representative could move in.

3. All representatives would be given an allowance for things such as office supplies, staff, etc.

4. Should a representative choose not to live in either the dormitory or the state owned house, they would be required to pay out of their own pockets

Here's the kicker, pay should be capped at $100,000 per year, no automatic COLA, and only the voters can decide if their representatives deserve a pay raise.

The raise would be dependent on the job performance of the representative. This of course means that one Senator might get a raise while the other won't.

1 & 2 will help to alleviate the problem of having to pay for two residences. With dormitories and houses owned by the states, it is one less thing that the representatives will have to pay for.

Or perhaps a military base that has been closed down, could be reopened and the housing areas utilized by Senators and Representatives. Afterall, there are only 535 members of Congress.
A reopened military base could be funded by the states with some federal assistance.

If living in dormitories and base housing is good enough for our troops, then it's good enough for the US Congress.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi tlmorris!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ixion]

8. I sure wish I could vote a raise for myself

what a crock... political raises should be matters of a vote by the people, not by a vote of the house and/or senate. :grr:

[benfranklin1776]

15. Well ixion you bring up an excellent point.

In fact that consent of the people is just what the 27th amendment was supposed to secure.

It provides:

"No law varying the compensation for the service of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives has intervened."
http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/constitution_amendments_11-27.html

This was an evident intended check on the ability of Congress to raise its own salary by requiring them to answer to the people
after they voted themselves a pay raise. If the people objected they would face their wrath at the ballot box.
It would seem this action by the Senate in the carefully crafted guise of a "cost of living increase" to take effect next January violates the spirit if not the letter of the amendment. Calling a skunk a mink does not prevent it from reeking foul.

[DieboldMustDie]

10. And don't forget that with their 6 figure incomes...

they all benefitted significantly from the 2001/2003 tax cuts.

[UpInArms]

14. let us also not forget that they have a separate retirement pension

that is not tied to social security

must be nice having the taxpayer pick up all your medical (see Cheney's $20,000(?) ticker operation)

never fear, only the highest paid can represent the people that make $5.25 per hour

and let's make sure that the minimum wage never gets too high - I would hate for folks to try to raise a family on more than $10,000 a year /sarcasm

[Walt Starr]

13. There should be a lawsuit filed

They cannot raise their pay. It cannot take effect until the next congress, so says the cosntitution.

[Loyal]

20. It's funny that you would use the Constitution's logic,

Will. lol

[Loyal]

19. How nice,

Lieberman and Graham want their pay raise.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00406

YEAs ---60
Akaka (D-HI)
Alexander (R-TN)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (D-FL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---34
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Johnson (D-SD)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCain (R-AZ)
Miller (D-GA)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 6
Boxer (D-CA)
Domenici (R-NM)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Kerry (D-MA)
Murkowski (R-AK)

Yes, I'm sure Ted Kennedy needed a raise. Fucking sick. Both parties screwed up on this one.

[leesa]

22. They are all rich but they want more and more and more for doing the

WORST job in the history of the Senate! They should be giving money back for all the damage they have caused this country and then they should vote to fire themselves.

[goforit]

23. OMG!!!!...........This is treasonous!!!!......Pure SHAME!!!!!

:argh: