House Dems to give up pay raise

[ensho]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18683.html


The economy hit home in the House on Tuesday, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi telling Democrats in a closed-door meeting that members will forgo their cost-of-living increases for the coming year.

A House Democratic leadership aide said the decision would force senators to forgo their raises as well.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) — a man of relatively modest means who usually advocates for congressional pay raises — told reporters that it would “not be appropriate” for members of Congress to accept a salary increase this year.

The leadership’s move comes on the heels of President Barack Obama’s decision to freeze the salaries of top White House aides. And paradoxically, it may be popular with members; already, 107 House members have signed on to co-sponsor bills that would block the 2010 raise.
-snip-
-------------------------


if this has already been discussed on DU, sorry, I haven't seen it.

[WI_DEM]

1. Good!

[sandnsea]

2. Net Worth - $334,000 - $760,000

modest means.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/otherdata.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00001821

[thevoiceofreason]

3. But how much of that is/was his house?

[sandnsea]

5. How many people don't own a house?

That's modest means.

Dennis Kucinich, modest means.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00003572&year=2007

[Jennicut]

8. Love that website. Our VP was the poorest member in the Senate in 2006. Ouch.

[Zynx]

15. Compared to a lot of Congresscritters, that is fairly modest.

[sandnsea]

16. Compared to most Americans, it's rich

Median net worth is $100,000.00. I don't know why people feel the need to defend the wealthy. It's another reason we're in this mess. Who is defending the 50% of Americans who can't even afford to have a child without some sort of public assistance. Talk about screwed up priorities.

Did you defend the poor $500,000 a year CEO's too? Some people around here are.

[Zynx]

17. No, but I would not go so far as to call Stenny Hoyer loaded.

Those CEOs, incidentally, probably had net worths of $50 million or greater. They spend like drunken sailors, but they probably have vast bank accounts.

[sandnsea]

18. Top 2% of Americans

Who have the top 10% of wealth in the world. Yes. He is loaded.

[Zynx]

19. However, I would make a distinction between him and, say, Herb Kohl and John Kerry.

[terisan]

4. Uh colas won't kick in this year unless inflation starts-this is political bs

[midnight]

6. Democrates in the House who give up the pay raise-take a bow.

[AndyA]

7. I can do them one better.

Why don't they remove the stipulation that they receive automatic pay raises every year?

Actually, I think salaries of Senators and Representatives should be set by a vote of the people they represent. If an area is depressed and not doing well, those Congress people shouldn't be receiving automatic raises. They should undergo a performance evaluation just like the rest of us.

You want change? Make it happen, Nancy. Undo the automatic pay raises, and let the people decide how much all of you are worth. It might make those phone calls more important to all of you, and you might just stop ignoring what people want, too.

Elections have consequences, right?

[Oak2004]

12. No, because it becomes a political football

It's easy to rile up the public to cut politicians' salaries. And congressional salaries can look mighty big until you realize they've got to support two homes (one in a very expensive place to live, DC), and fly back and forth from DC to their home state many times a year. Once you realize that you'll understand why some congressfolk sleep in their offices rather than rent an apartment.

We don't want our reps living on ramen and running from creditors, and we don't want a situation where only the independently wealthy would dare run for office. The ugly fact is that underpaying representatives is a sure path to increased corruption as reps try to supplement their incomes just to make ends meet. And underpayment would almost certainly result if we let demagoguery determine salary.

[AndyA]

14. I said nothing about underpaying them.

However, in the real world, NO ONE gets automatic raises unless they do something to stop it.

Well, maybe bank CEOs do...

Many don't seem to have any concept at what it really costs to live in today's world, which could explain why minimum wage wasn't raised for so long.

There needs to be less of a disconnect between them and reality, and when you get an automatic raise every year regardless, it's easy to understand why.

[Oak2004]

20. Do you know how the automatic raise came about

For political reasons Congress was loathe to raise its own pay. Pay raises became campaign issues as sure as night becomes day. This was irrespective of whether a representative was doing a good job, given that campaigns today are about who can buy the most and best propaganda, and not a serious discussion of ideas. Frankly, as long as congressional salaries are not obscenely high (and for them to be that high it would be necessary to hike the presidential salary into the stratosphere), congressional salaries don't make much of a dent in

The result was that, as inflation ate away buying power, some of the representatives who weren't independently wealthy started to really suffer. And I mean ramen and tuna fish level suffering: anyone who, even today after scheduled pay raises, has no wealth outside of his or her congressional salary, is functionally middle class.

Automatic pay hikes eliminated the political obstacles to salary hikes, and prevented the middle class congressmen from having to pick between corruption, dropping off a financial cliff, or leaving office to earn a living at something that didn't come with such high overhead.

Why congress sometimes seems so out of touch is not that they are paid overly well: it's that the rich find it much easier to get elected and to serve than working class candidates. And many of the reps who aren't rich got elected with the benefit of rich peoples' money, and know who bought them to work on their behalf.

Money in politics is a very serious issue. But it's not the salaries, it's campaign contributions, that are at the source of the problem.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Horrible idea.

It's bad enough that the system pretty much only encourages rich people to run for office. Your idea would make it entirely prohibitive for anyone with a modicum of talent to run for office if they aren't already rich.

If you want an aristocracy, be my guest. Me? I think the people who run our country should actually be compensated, probably a lot higher than the Wall Street assholes.

[Abq_Sarah]

22. Exactly

They work for us yet they get to set their own pay and choose their own benefits?

That's bullshit. Their salary and benefits should be set by the people they work for. Of course, they don't consider themselves employees so that would be a tough sell.

[JerseygirlCT]

9. Good. It's only symbolic, but symbols matter

and this is also smart politics.

[Cha]

10. Good for the House..Everyone

needs to pull together to get us out of the crisis that the bushits put us into.

Everyone because we know there will be a certain amount who want Obama to fail so they'll be working against it to cut off their collective nose.

[MiniMe]

11. Will this apply to the repubs too? Or just the dems?

[rvablue]

13. Both. n/t