John Kerry backed increasing judges' salaries

[beachmom]

Everyone was making fun of Chief Justice Roberts for asking for higher salaries, but I found this in an article about it, that Kerry had been a co-sponsor for a bill doing exactly what Roberts wanted:

http://www.local6.com/politics/10650452/detail.html?rss=orlpn&psp=news

WASHINGTON -- Pay for federal judges is so inadequate that it threatens to undermine the judiciary's independence, Chief Justice John Roberts says in a year-end report critical of Congress.

snip

Thirty-eight judges have left the federal bench in the past six years and 17 in the past two years.

The issue of pay, says Roberts, "has now reached the level of a constitutional crisis."

"Inadequate compensation directly threatens the viability of life tenure, and if tenure in office is made uncertain, the strength and independence judges need to uphold the rule of law - even when it is unpopular to do so - will be seriously eroded," Roberts wrote.

Legislation languished in Congress in 2006 that would have provided a 16 percent increase in federal judges' salaries. The bill was introduced by Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Leahy, incoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Roberts "is right that the issue of judicial compensation relations to the issue of the independence of the judiciary." Leahy said the chief justice "has tackled a touchy but timely topic that has been a chronic sticking point between the judicial and legislative branches."

I find this an interesting example of the weird world of politics. Where Kerry voted against Roberts, yet is actually an ally to him (among other Dems) in the Senate on this issue. It's also no surprise that the Republicans didn't care to make being a judge a better career choice -- government is the problem, remember. And activist judges the worst of them all.

[TayTay]

1. It should be done

It is the right thing to do. I'm glad Kerry co-sponsored this.

There is a lot to be said for the wrong priorities of the Repub judiciary. (Most have to do with the fact that I can type the phrase Repub judiciary and people know what I mean, sigh!) Getting better pay is a laudable goal.

[sandnsea]

2. Not surprised, but it's wrong right now

I always say the funny thing about those making $150,000 or so is that they don't even realize how small a percentage of Americans make that much, and how little it really is in the scheme of things which is why I understand Kerry supporting the raise. Certainly income hasn't kept up with real inflation for most people, including judges.

But this should also be used to highlight how difficult it is for those at the low end. I worked for the forest service in 1975. I started as a GS1, and made $2.40 an hour. Minimum wage was $2.10. 15% more. Today a GS1 makes $7.84. If it were 15% more than minimum wage it would only be $5.90. Instead it has risen from $4700 to $16,400, almost quadruple.

In 1969, district court judges earned $40,000, or just about ten times the GS1 rate. If the $5.90 minimum wage rate were used, we would have ten times $10,600, or $106,000. $165,000 to $200,000 is pretty damn good, and actually matches the GS1 pay. If anybody needs a raise, it's clear it is those at the very bottom. If the cost of living has outpaced people at the top of the ladder, how do they think the half the country at the bottom is managing to survive. When politicians express sympathy for those in the top 5% and completely ignore those in the bottom 50%, how can they wonder why they don't vote. How can they think that bottom 50% will be quiet forever.

[beachmom]

3. Sorry, I disagree -- if you want very smart people in those jobs, you

need to pay them for what they're worth. The amount of work a judge does is overwhelming compared to a food preparer at McDonalds (I used to work at BK long ago). I'm not putting down food preparers, but their job requires very little in skills, education or decision making abilities. I also think CEOs should be paid a lot of money -- they have so much more responsibility than a regular office worker. The problem in that case has been the CEOs have been paid obscene amounts of money, and often when they have done a very poor job. And that's while the regular workers are given the shaft.

The bottom should be paid more -- I agree. But people work very hard both in education and in extreme hours to become a judge. They add more to society and ought to be paid for that work, education, and difficult decision making that is required.

This is a bottom line premise in business -- that you should be paid proportionally to the value you add to the company and the responsibility you bear for that job. And in government, the same is true, which is why the prez gets paid more than senators and senators more than Congressmen/women. More responsibility requires more pay. (If Bush was in the private sector, he would have been fired by now, since he is a failed president)

More pay for judges means a better judiciary for society.

[sandnsea]

4. They make enough

The problem is the top of heap is making too much as it is, income and wealth disparity. CEO pay has gone from 24 times average pay to 262 times average pay. No, the solution is not to raise judge's salaries but to address the growing wealth gap and do something for those at the bottom of the pile for a change. I am honestly sick and tired of being told I'm supposed to feel sorry for the top 5% of income earners in this country, who are such a small sliver in the world that I don't even know if it's measured.

[wisteria]

6. While I don't disagree that people should be paid fairly based on responsibility, I question

why dedication and service and the rewards that go along with them are not also a form of compensation. Those who choose to serve in our government in one capacity or another are suppose to do so to honor our country and serve the people. They can be better compensated monetarily in the private sector if they are only interested in money.

This all reminds me of a recent incident in PA. Our state legislatures voted themselves a nice raise with fringe benefits during an all night session a few months ago. This of course was done at the tax payers expense and at a time when the average workers salaries have not kept pace with inflation and good employment opportunities are difficult to find. Well, the electorate was outraged and took it out on many of the elected officials in Harrisburg during our primaries in May and this past November. Many long term state senators and congressmen lost their jobs. Luckily, most of them were Republicans. Governor Rendell though, went through a rough time because he did not veto the legislation that included the raise and additional benefits. Many of the legislatures' said they felt they deserved the raise based on their responsibilities and cost of living factors. Obviously, those who elected them felt differently.

[karynnj]

5. I disagree

You want the best and brightest of the legal profession to consider taking jobs as prosecutors and judges. Kerry, himself, is a lawyer. He chose to become a prosecutor out of law school. In doing so he chose to have a far lower income than his peers in law school who took jobs at major law firms or who became trial lawyers. Kerry made far more money when he was a private lawyer for a couple of years than he did as either a prosecutor or a public official. Kerry was protected a bit from the economic consequences of his decision because he is very connected to the upper class through birth and friends. But having seen Kerry speak of the VT farm family forced off their farm in his speech before the Alito cloture vote, there is no doubt he could have been an extraordinarily wealthy trial lawyer.

The danger when the salary gets too low is that you are asking a person to make real sacrifices to accept a public service job. I understand your comparison to the GS1 rate, but the true choice a potential judge has is based on what he can earn in the private sector to what he can earn in the public sector. Many lawyers faced with this choice do chose to make less money and become judges. Because of the prestigious of being a judge you can make less - when it becomes an issue is when the gap is too big. (incidentally as a Democrat running for President - his stand is against the politics (where you are right) and based on what he thinks is best for the judicial system.)

[ProSense]

7. Considering the

assault (death threats, attempted poisoning) on judges by RW extremists, they deserve the increase. Someone was just sentenced to 15 years for sending poison-laced chocolate to Sandra Day O'Connor. This has nothing to do with Roberts.

[sandnsea]

8. Yep

That's why the top keeps getting more and more and the bottom gets nothing. We're supposed to just be happy to have mac 'n cheese and take pride in sacrificing our entire life for the corporate machine. Some think we're not even supposed to have children because we can't afford to raise them without federal programs, even thought we've got no power to change the economic structure that put us in that position. But not those that run it, nope, they deserve more and more and more with absolutely no regard as to who has to suffer for them to get it.

Bullshit on this asinine idea that people are only driven by money. Most people work for a sense of contribution and usefulness, accepting the salary that goes with their career. I actually don't want a judge that sees it any other way. This is just another Repubican storyline that far too many people have bought into. If you're double the median income, in the top 5%, then you need to recognize how well you have it and quit whining.

[ProSense]

9. You have a point, to an extent.

I don't agree with the idea that a pay increase for judges rather than the runaway CEO, corporate executive compensation packages has a any impact.

[sandnsea]

12. It sets a tone

It tells people who is really important in this country, and it's not the bottom 50%.

Isn't it lovely that the people who set the economic policy can just vote themselves a raise when income doesn't meet living expenses. Wish it would occur to them if they can't make ends meet, people making a quarter of what they make sure as hell can't do all the things they say are 'responsibilities' - retirement, 3 mos savings, health insurance, college fund, down payment..

[karynnj]

10. I agree that the income gap is too big

I don't agree that the pay of public servants is the cause of it. A judge getting $150,000 is likely coming from the pool of lawyers like John Edwards who had one point had a networth of $26 million.

You don't want judges on boards of directors or as "consultants". All these things compromise people's integrity.

[sandnsea]

11. Didn't say it was the cause of it

Said it was a symptom of the problem and that we need to fix the real problem, runaway corporate excesses. Of course, I bet these judges who leave to have million dollar incomes would disagree.

This is just a 'me' thing, I realize. Something I feel strongly about that I know others don't.

[beachmom]

15. Delete.

[sandnsea]

17. We see things quite differently

Starting with the idea that LBJ's plan failed. It succeeded quite well actually, that's why Republicans work every which way from Sunday to malign anyone who uses a social program. Granted, some people don't grasp what poverty was before 1970 and fail to see the successes. But for those who understand, the ability of the poor to see a doctor or eat fresh food from the grocery store or have housing and utility assistance, this is a whole other world. Talk to my husband, who lived in real poverty after his mother injured her back nursing. Talk to him about govt commodities and wearing bowling shoes to school and eating the leftovers his grandmother brought home from her waitressing job. Yes, she picked food off people's plates so he and his sisters could eat.

Consequently, I can really do without your condescending tone, as if everybody doesn't work hard, regarldess of what they do. As if a teacher or police officer doesn't work hard, and just accept the salary that goes with their career. 80% of households, not people but households, have incomes of less than $90,000. You want to tell all those people they don't have the big money because they didn't work hard and get educated??

You most certainly have sucked in way too much Clinton and Reagan economic bullshit, along with being clueless as to the lies this administration is telling us about our true unemployment rate.

[beachmom]

18. Deleted the post.

[TayTay]

19. The Great Society didn't fail,

the cost of the Vietnam War sucked all the money out of the effort. We could not do the social agenda that LBJ envisioned and put all that money into the War at the same time.

Gains were made. We have a long, long way to go. I think the saddest legacy of Teddy Kennedy is that he was unable to get a national program like Medicare for all Americans. That was/is his dream and I do not have a lot of hope that he will ever see it.

Poverty is better for some. We have made some progress. The Reagan years, and their false emphasis on 'welfare queens' who sucked money from hardworking Americans, set back the cause of income equality and poisoned the common well in so many ways. It will take a long time to put that back. (I despise Reagan for so many reasons, the undermining of unions, the active prosecution of the poor, the indifference to poverty itself as a social force and so forth.)

I still think the judges should have a raise. However, the amount of money set aside for judicial raises has next to nothing to do with poverty in America. I think that is apples and oranges and the effect of setting this small group against the larger group of Americans that do need help in treading water is ridiculous. The judges and their pay are not the reason that poverty is on the rise. It might, however, be keeping a lot of good people who might want to go into law and take on pro bono cases for the working poor from doing so. Defunding the legal support systems for the poor (and these are feeder systems for judges after all) is an avowed goal of the RWers. I do not support that.

[sandnsea]

20. That's why the rich keep getting richer

Nobody ever says no to them, but always say no to the poor, and working poor. They absolutely are related, and maybe if their salaries were the median salaries in the country, their decisions would be more reflective of the country and meet the needs of the people instead of big business.

Of course, we can always agree to disagree. :)

[demdiva]

13. I think it's the right move ... I actually think SC/Hill staff should get paid more too

First of all, most corporate lawyers in DC are making about $150k a year in base salary right out of law school. Dedicated public servants always give up some benefits they would have in the private sector and that's fine, but I think you have to consider that public servants also want to do right by their families. Sending their kids to college, buying a home in a nice neighborhood.... I don't think those things are extragant by any means, especially for those who have the option of opulence in the private sector.

Second, $150k is a nice salary, but DC is a pretty expensive place to live ... I remember hearing that the living wage in DC is like $45k a year. That's far more than most entry level staffers make on the Hill ... with our without a law degree. And I don't think clerks make too much more than that. (edited to say about $65k according to this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400788.html)

Finally, I think that that the lower salaries actually has some detremental effects besides just rising attrition rates. The truth is running for office or working for the Supreme Court or the Congress is difficult to do in DC unless you've inherited some money along the way or gotten some help from your parents. And I just don't think that's right. I think the best and the brightest should be encouraged to work for the federal government no matter what their background. And it should impede their financial stability in the end.

[demdiva]

14. An interesting article on the subject

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/14/AR2006051400788.html

[beachmom]

16. This is what I'm getting at:

They note that, to some extent, the bonuses simply compensate for the two years they spent clerking at the appeals court and the Supreme Court when they could have been practicing law. Clerks at the Supreme Court earn $63,335 a year and work notoriously long hours.