[FLHTbiker]

WASHINGTON (June 13) - Despite record low approval ratings, House lawmakers Tuesday embraced a $3,300 pay raise that will increase their salaries to $168,500.

Now isen't that just like them. Don't you wished you could vote to raise your salary or wage, who would say no to that.

[hotroadking]

Dang you're not startin a union bashing post are you?

I agree they don't deserve a raise until they fix the problems they created!

raises ought to be on the national election ballot,

[SK]

I don't think it's that easy. While I agree it seems like they're not earning their pay, it's all part of a long term bigger deal to give all federal employees a yearly 2.7% pay raise each year that was done last year. Congress is getting a 2% raise instead of 2.7%, but they can no longer get paid to do things like speechs where they were getting $10-20,000 a pop or more. I think if they hadn't voted this in, then they'd have automatically gotten a bigger raise by not voting anything in under the deal passed last year.

[CD]

At least it is tied to the COLA every year. Used to be they would just give themselves a chunk of change wheneverthey felt like it.

The only issue with the new system is that it can be called to the floor for a vote....

[SPORSTERBOY]

If You Guys Did'nt Know, Minimum Wage Here Is 7.63 A Hr. Even If Your A Bartender Or Cocktail Server. And The Cost Of Living Is Low. But According To The Gov. Most Of Us Live At A Poverty Level. HOW WE CAN GET A RAISE IS TAKE IT ALITTLE EASY ON THE TAXAS, BUT IT GETS RAISED TO RAISE THERE SALARY.

[bikerjim1]

????...sorry, got lost on that one Sportsterboy. Come again?

[CD]

While Congress doesn't always do the job right, why don't they deserve a pay hike like everyone else does? Sometimes. we loose sight of the big picture.

With the pay increase Congress has a (435 Congressmen 100 Senators)
payroll of approx $89.88 million. The total difference between the new pay scale and the old is $1.77 million. That is a very tiny little drop in the bucket compared to the entire budget.

They spend more than that on paper products like ass wipe.

[FLHTbiker]

CD, I think its just the idea that they can vote in their own pay raise. I think it should voted on by each state who puts them in office according to their performance.

[bikerjim1]

I can agree to that!...guess I'm just kinda jealous that I can't set MY own wage! Ha!

[CD]

In 1989, a law was passed that prohibited Congress from pocketing big fat speaking fees and tied pay raises to the COLA or Cost Of Living Adjustment. From what I read, Congress has the power to accept or reject the raise but not alter it.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=890450

Would you turn down a raise if you believed you were doing your job?
Many of these members are successful business people that are receiving far less than what they can make in the private sector. Yes, a ton of them are gold digging power hungry megalomaniacs you listening Hillary and Kerry? Don't hide under desk Ted, 'sides you won't fit anyway.

Prior to 1989, Congress could vote in just about any pay raise they wanted.

Do I think we have some flakes on board? Certainly. However, if you make the pay too low to be worth it, what then?

There are far larger fish to fry in the pork barrel IMHO.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?...ts_pigbook2006

I would think we would be more upset over this than $1.77 million.


Duke Cunningham (Vietnam war ace ) plead guilty to a huge fine and is going to serve 8+ years. Probably on a farm in some upstate resort but....he is ruined and for what? Money? Power?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_%...%22_Cunningham

The really sad part is that Duke was one of those bright spots during a rather dismal time in history. Greed, corruption and contact with "lobbyists" (now there's a crying shame) and big buck contractors that will spend whatever they need to to get you in their pocket.

I like this Soap Box....makes for enjoyable reading.

[FLHTbiker]

You make a good point there CD. I guess if they don't do well we just vote them out, but then how does that thing Hillary and her buddy Ted stay in office There simply must be a bunch of just dead brained people in their districts I suppose, kind of like camp followers.

[SK]

Originally Posted by FLHTbiker

...but then how does that thing Hillary and her buddy Ted stay in office

That's pretty easy. Hilary has a money war chest (contribuitions) about as big as any US Senator out there, and Ted lives in the biggest friggin bleeding heart liberal state in the union..plus having the last name of Kennedy in MA doesn't hurt.

I think CD's hit the nail on the head. Why should we worry about a measly $1.7 mil when FEMA was taken for over a billion bucks in fraud claims.

[FLHTbiker]

Yea, can you believe that guys in Jail were receiving money from FEMA and how about that gay guy who received money so he could have a sex change. There really are some brazen people out there in this world.

FEMA as it was shown has got to be one screwed up Federal mess.

[Big Ben]

It really rankles that they get a pay raise when they can't even balance the d@mn budget, but if it's tied to COLA I guess we really can't complain. It would be nice if the high salary would keep them from being tempted by pork and other corruption, but examples like Tom Delay show that some politicians think corruption is part of the job.

CD's also got a point that almost all of these people could be making a lot more in the private sector. Even if they're not from business, if someone's famous enough for us to hate them, they could make much more than that salary doing speaking gigs and consulting.

Their job is important enough that I think the salary could even be higher--if they were doing the job right. Problem is that most of them seem to think that the job is to get reelected rather than to serve the people.

[Old Fart on 87FLH]

Big Ben brought up the thing that really chaps my butt, that is the fact that darn near all of these politicians seem to go into a "re-elect" mode the day they take office! they're more worried about how much money is in the "war chest" for re-election than doing the job we put 'em there to do!
I also see CD's point about paying them a good salary, because he's right, a lot of them could do better in the private sector. After all, do we really want the mediocre people running, or the best we can get?
Also, I've long thought if we could put really strong controls on the lobbyist, it would go a long way to prevent temptation from makin' an otherwise decent guy make a really bad choice.