Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise

[Pat McCotter]

Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise

WASHINGTON Nov 18, 2005 ? The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a $3,100 pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation.
...
The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress _ which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year _ marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues.

So much so that the issue was not mentioned on the floor of either the House or Senate as lawmakers worked on legislation whose passage will assure bigger paychecks.

Lawmakers automatically receive a cost of living increase each year, unless Congress votes to block it. By tradition, critics have tried to block increases by attaching a provision to the legislation that provides funding for the Treasury Department. One such attempt succeeded in the Senate earlier in the year, but the provision was omitted from the compromise measure moved toward final approval.

[Caleb]

At least the important work is getting done. 

Caleb

[Michael Fisher]

I support a year-round vacation for all of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government on every level.   

I'll even DONATE to support them to sit around do nothing, if necessary, as long as the government cannot operate.   

[Kat Kanning]

   Good reason to stop paying.

[FSPinNY]

Voting yourself a raise using other people's money is morally bankrupt.  The Tompkins County Legislature, here in upstate NY,  is about to vote themselves yet another raise.  It will be my next LTE.  Here's one from the Summer when it was first brought up:

I spent the last hour watching the City of Ithaca?s Common Council meeting on cable tonight, where they discussed raising their own salaries and the salary of the Mayor. Present at the meeting were members of the Common Council, the Mayor, a couple of city employees and a few observers. There are a number of things terribly wrong with this picture. Imagine, if you will, a group of employees in a company meeting discussing how hard they work and how each of them deserve a nice pay increase. They even discuss going back 8 or 10 years with the planned pay increase. Then, this group moves ahead with complete rationalization and self-agreement and votes to give themselves a raise! Of course, companies do not operate that way - local companies do not either. It?s just not right, and it creates a very clear moral hazard. Politicians voting themselves a raise is simply unethical, whether it occurs in Common Council, the Tompkins County Legislature or at midnight in the U.S. Congress.

It was also reported tonight at the meeting that Common Council puts in an average of 30 hours each week in their positions. I?m sure the Council members work very hard and put in a lot of hours, however, local government has obviously grown way out of proportion to what it was intended to be. My suggestion is that Common Council and the Tompkins County Legislature work less and spend less, not pay themselves more and spend more.

It?s also been stated many times locally that paying our elected public servants a ?living wage? plus benefits would allow more people to run for these offices. It would open up the option of running for office to those of all income levels. Frankly, if someone has not yet successfully provided for themselves and their family, they don?t seem to be qualified to administer the issues of the city and effectively spend our tax money. How about retired business people or successful pre-retired people that might have adequate time to volunteer and serve. These are elected public service positions, not jobs.

Brian Sullivan
August 31, 2005

[Pat McCotter]

Yes, but the US Congress has fixed the problem - they have to debate and vote on NOT to give themselves a raise.

[Dreepa]

I just sent an email to Charlie Bass.

Shameful

[Incrementalist]

Everybody who reads this thread should send a letter to their representative.

[KBCraig]

Old news -- it happens every year. To avoid the distasteful and unpopular act of voting for a raise (which can't take effect until there's been an intervening election), Congress set it up so that they get a "Cost Of Living Allowance" -- and they carefully point out that a COLA is not a raise. 

The COLA is automatic unless Congress votes to stop it. For some reason, they never quite get around to that. (Actually they did turn down the raise from '93 to '97, but other than that they've automatically received COLAs every year since 1970.)

Kevin

[Caleb]

It occurs to me that Congress wouldn't need a cost of living increase if they would peg the dollar to either silver or gold, as the Constitution requires. 

[Dreepa]

Old news -- it happens every year. To avoid the distasteful and unpopular act of voting for a raise (which can't take effect until there's been an intervening election), Congress set it up so that they get a "Cost Of Living Allowance" -- and they carefully point out that a COLA is not a raise.?

The COLA is automatic unless Congress votes to stop it. For some reason, they never quite get around to that. (Actually they did turn down the raise from '93 to '97, but other than that they've automatically received COLAs every year since 1970.)

Kevin

I guess I need to send a letter every year.
Seriously this is fucking unreal.
I'm not getting a COLA every year.
My town is having problems right now because healthcare costs are going up and the town employees don't want to pay in.
I have to pay in so should they.

[Incrementalist]

It occurs to me that Congress wouldn't need a cost of living increase if they would peg the dollar to either silver or gold, as the Constitution requires. 

Unfortunately you can't peg the dollar to silver or gold because America's economic arrangement has gotten way out of hand.  Keep in mind that the gold standard was initially revoked because the relationship was becoming unsustainable - and that was before the events of the Reagan administration and Beyond.  Trying to put America on the gold standard would lead to a worldwide recession, and quite possibly a world war.

[Ron Helwig]

It occurs to me that Congress wouldn't need a cost of living increase if they would peg the dollar to either silver or gold, as the Constitution requires. 

Unfortunately you can't peg the dollar to silver or gold because America's economic arrangement has gotten way out of hand.  Keep in mind that the gold standard was initially revoked because the relationship was becoming unsustainable - and that was before the events of the Reagan administration and Beyond.  Trying to put America on the gold standard would lead to a worldwide recession, and quite possibly a world war.

That sounds like the old argument that there isn't enough gold.

Bernard von NotHaus has what I believe is a good solution.
libertydollar.org
There's even discussion of having the states co-brand. There would be a New Hampshire Liberty Dollar that could be used to pay taxes (thus ensuring a market).

There were two problems with the original gold standard:
1) the bi-metal standard, where both silver and gold were pegged - leading to arbitrage troubles
2) the government's greed leading to it wanting more money than the gold standard would allow them

There were also problems with banks printing their own certificates. Banks that printed more certificate value than they had in silver/gold were failing. When they failed, the fools that held their certificates lost out, and the banks failed (as they should have).

<disclosure>I've been a Liberty Associate for around 5 years.</disclosure>

[Pat McCotter]

A man in front of me at the store was paying for his soda and paper and gave change to the woman behind the counter. As he was handing it to her he said, "?h, wait a minute. I'll keep this Canadian quarter and give you this Massachusetts quarter. Its worth less than the Canadian."

[Incrementalist]

That sounds like the old argument that there isn't enough gold.

Bernard von NotHaus has what I believe is a good solution.
libertydollar.org
There's even discussion of having the states co-brand. There would be a New Hampshire Liberty Dollar that could be used to pay taxes (thus ensuring a market).

There were two problems with the original gold standard:
1) the bi-metal standard, where both silver and gold were pegged - leading to arbitrage troubles
2) the government's greed leading to it wanting more money than the gold standard would allow them

There were also problems with banks printing their own certificates. Banks that printed more certificate value than they had in silver/gold were failing. When they failed, the fools that held their certificates lost out, and the banks failed (as they should have).

<disclosure>I've been a Liberty Associate for around 5 years.</disclosure>

How does the liberty dollar solve the problem?  It would solve the problem for those who use it, but not for America at large.  What good are several thousand people using real currency if society collapses around them because of unsustainable economics?