mnealtx 0 #1 June 29, 2007 They bitch about the money being wasted, but they sure don't have a problem giving themselves pay raises year after year... I appreciate the efforts of the congressmen that raised a bill to try to block the pay raise. From AP QuoteHouse Lawmakers Seeks $4,400 Raise WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000. The cost-of-living raise endorsed Wednesday evening gets lawmakers back on track for automatic pay raises after a fight between the parties last year and again in January killed the pay increase due this year. That was the first interruption of the annual congressional pay boost in seven years.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #2 June 29, 2007 QuoteThey bitch about the money being wasted, but they sure don't have a problem giving themselves pay raises year after year... I appreciate the efforts of the congressmen that raised a bill to try to block the pay raise. They're spending almost nothing on themselves. 4400 * 435 representatives = $1.9M, which is barely .00006% of the $3T annual budget. If they were C-level executives in a corporation spending their share of the budget ($7B) a year they'd be making piles more. While more than a lot of us make, it's nothing compared to the tens of billions in pork they slip into "essential" bills to say nothing of non-discretionary spending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 June 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteThey bitch about the money being wasted, but they sure don't have a problem giving themselves pay raises year after year... I appreciate the efforts of the congressmen that raised a bill to try to block the pay raise. They're spending almost nothing on themselves. 4400 * 435 representatives = $1.9M, which is barely .00006% of the $3T annual budget. If they were C-level executives in a corporation spending their share of the budget ($7B) a year they'd be making piles more. While more than a lot of us make, it's nothing compared to the tens of billions in pork they slip into "essential" bills to say nothing of non-discretionary spending. Agreed - that's why the watchdog sites they have for that is so nice.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #4 June 29, 2007 I don't agree with the raise either. Most members of Congress are millionaires anyway. For members of the House, it would seem to me that it would be better to build a pay structure adjusted for each term, instead of each year.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #5 June 29, 2007 QuoteThey're spending almost nothing on themselves. 4400 * 435 representatives = $1.9M, which is barely .00006% of the $3T annual budget. If they were C-level executives in a corporation spending their share of the budget ($7B) a year they'd be making piles more. If a civilian came into work as little as they do and produced as little, they'd be on the street. I wonder what their hourly wage is for doing nothing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airkid 0 #6 June 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteThey bitch about the money being wasted, but they sure don't have a problem giving themselves pay raises year after year... I appreciate the efforts of the congressmen that raised a bill to try to block the pay raise. They're spending almost nothing on themselves. 4400 * 435 representatives = $1.9M, which is barely .00006% of the $3T annual budget. If they were C-level executives in a corporation spending their share of the budget ($7B) a year they'd be making piles more. While more than a lot of us make, it's nothing compared to the tens of billions in pork they slip into "essential" bills to say nothing of non-discretionary spending. umm how about you do the math correctly there genious........ it wouldn't be 4400 X 435...... it would be the individuals yearly salary which is like 170000 X 435 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #7 June 29, 2007 Got mixed emotions on this one. For one, they're working more than the last Congress. Then again, instead of doing stupid stuff like debating brain dead women and anti-gay amendments they're continuing to make bad spending decisions and legislating incredibly backassward ideas like making auto fuel from coal. So I'd just as soon not give them any more money. But I'm willing to make a deal with them. If they'll quit taking bribes from wealthy individuals and corporations then I'd support the raise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #8 June 29, 2007 just goes to show that rep or dem they are both thieves and will take our money anyway they can - besides why do they need a raise ? they already get alot of their expenses paid on the expense accounts - the only difference i see is how they take the money from us and who gets it - my experience is that republicans take it out of the people's income and the democrats take it from the buisinesses - i would rather see it come out of my check so i know what's being taken - when it is taken from the employers they either lay off people or raise prices to stay profitable - i see alot of people bitch about the republicans because of taxes but don't bitch about the democrats they both take the money from you weather it is out of your check or that gallon of milk you bought went up to ofset the tax hike to the buisiness - that is why alot of large companies support republicans so they don't have to hear the bitching about layoffs and price hikes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #9 June 30, 2007 It's about a 2.5% pay raise. Not too outrageous. QuoteGawain: For members of the House, it would seem to me that it would be better to build a pay structure adjusted for each term, instead of each year. I agree; and in fact, many states' constitutions mandate exactly that for their legislators. The idea being: if you vote yourself a pay raise, you don't get it until your next term; and in the meantime, the voters, who know about your vote, get to decide whether you deserve that next term. I like that policy. QuoteRoyd: If a civilian came into work as little as they do and produced as little, they'd be on the street. I wonder what their hourly wage is for doing nothing. Seems like a fair sentiment - at first blush. But like it or not, a huge amount of that "doing nothing" is actually lots and lots of fund-raising, both for their next election and for their party. It's not too different from many professionals (architects, advertising execs, lawyers, engineering consulting firms, etc.) who spend a lot of time on marketing and client development in order to maintain a "book (client base) of business". Remember, their "workplace" may be Washington, DC, but their home base, where a lot of their fund raising is done, is often across the country, so some of them lose 2 days per week just in travel time right there. Like it or not, money runs the system. If we don't like all that non-legislative time Congressmen and Senators spend, We The People should work to change the electoral system to be less money-dependent. And you know that sure as hell ain't gonna happen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #10 June 30, 2007 Not bad for not doing anything worthwhile. They're all over-paid as it is. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites