Rants 'n Raves

Many in Congress are Already Millionaires...

Updates:

03/25/2010 - "Congress Gets Death Threats - Little to No Moral Outrage"
http://tobuds.com/blogs/blog1.php/2010/03/24/congress-gets-death-threats-by-their-own

03/18/2010 - Tom Perriello (D-Va.), "If you don't tie our hands, we'll keep stealing."
Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/87797-periello-if-you-dont-tie-our-hands-well-keep-stealing

(If you want to write them, their contact info is on the right side of this page.)

Your hard-earned money is being used to pay those greedy members of congress a salary of $174,000 a year - - - and you also give them a very generous office allowance, a "gold-plated" healthcare plan, a fantastic pension, an extremely liberal expense account, and many other elitist perks. But they typically only work 90 days a year. Wow! What a great job!

And why do you pay them so much? So that they can pass legislation that you don't want, bail out their friend's failing banks and corporations (with your money), take over your healthcare plan, and force you to pay higher income taxes. What a great deal, huh?

Yet, while you (the dirty commoners and astro-turfers) sweat your butts off just to pay your rent, they treat you like despicable servants. And like fools, you continue to pay them like kings!

The real unemployment rate is near 17% (because it includes those who don't qualify for unemployment benefits), yet your fearless leaders in congress needs another pay raise! As if what you have already sacrificed to pay for their gluttony isn't enough, they still expect you to suffer more! Don't you wish you could give yourselves a pay raise every time they raised your taxes?

A $4,000 Pay Raise

Members of Congress are adding another 2% pay raise for themselves in the $1.1 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill in 2010 (that you'll have to pay) - - - and that's on top of everything else they are forcing you to finance, such as their Cap and Trade scheme.

UPDATE: Raise was canceled for ONE YEAR ONLY (see below)

The salary for an average Federal employee is $71, 206 per year, while the average tax-paying "Joe Blow" in America only earns a measly $41,331 (before taxes). Do they expect you to eat cake while they travel around Washington in stretch limos like "fat cats"?

The simple answer: Yes!

The 27th Amendment:

The Constitution of the United States: Article I - The Legislative Branch: Section 6 - Compensation

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.

The 27th Amendment: No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

It is the most recent amendment to the United States Constitution, having been ratified in 1992... more than 202 years after its initial submission in 1789.

It was intended to serve as a restraint on the power of Congress to set its own salary - an obvious potential for conflict of interest. Congressional cost of living adjustments (COLAs) have been upheld against legal challenges based on this amendment.

Since 1995, the White House has been required to deliver a report to Congress listing the title and salary of every White House Office employee. In addition, this report also contains the title and salary details of administration officials who work at the Office of Policy Development, including the Domestic Policy Council and the National Economic Council - along with White House Office employees.

Download PDF file here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records

The Plan?

It's human nature to always vote in one's best self- interest. If there's bigger government (more Federal government jobs) and more Federal unionized workers, they will accept provisions acceptable to them, even if it means raising Federal income taxes on everybody else. Voting to cut spending (and taxes) would be for them like voting themselves out of work. The government retains their power this way, by buying support in the form of government employment. (And this is most likely why they increase the pay and benefits for the military and law enforcement agencies as well...because in extreme cases, the government might have an insurrection from it's citizenry to deal with!)

Are Members of Congress Above the Law?
http://tobuds.com/blogs/blog3.php/2010/03/17/are-members-of-congress-above-the-law

UPDATED JANUARY 5, 2010: (Thanks Jim!)

Congress canceled its raise for ONE YEAR ONLY in the 2010 Omnibus spending bill.

The very last sentence of the bill says: “Notwithstanding any provision of section 601(a)(2) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31(2)), the percentage adjustment scheduled to take effect under any such provision in calendar year 2010 shall not take effect.”

Congress should have canceled its automatic pay increases entirely.

There was a vote to repeal the automatic pay raises, but the majority of Senators voted NOT TO CANCEL their automatic pay raises.

Statement of Purpose: To repeal the provision of law that provides automatic pay adjustments for Members of Congress.

Vote Counts:

52 YEAs (Continue automatic pay raises) = 5 Republicans - 45 Democrats - 2 Independents

45 NAYs (Repeal automatic pay raises) = 35 Republicans - 10 Democrats
(Not Voting 2) - Johanns (R-NE) - Kennedy (D-MA)

Full List:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00095

UPDATE JANUARY 10, 2020 (From 12/26/09)

U.S. lawmakers rejected their scheduled automatic annual pay raise for 2010 in light of the ongoing recession, but since 1990, congressional salaries have nearly doubled thanks to a 1989 law that grants automatic raises with no standalone vote.

The fact that members of Congress make 94 percent more than they did in 1990 is tough for many Americans to swallow and it draws complaints from activists for a more efficient government. Lawmakers up for reelection in 2010 mid-term campaigns can say they didn’t raise their salaries for 2010, but Congress has accepted automatic yearly pay bumps allowed through “The Ethics Reform Act of 1989” in 13 different years and rejected them for seven others since 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service at the Library of Congress.

As a result, base salaries for rank-and-file lawmakers jumped from $89,500 annually, which senators and representatives made from 1987 until February 1990, to $174,000 now. The Speaker of the House makes $223,500, while the House and Senate majority and minority leaders make $193,400.

David E. Williams, vice president of policy at Citizens Against Government Waste, a private nonpartisan and nonprofit organization that looks for federal government inefficiency and mismanagement, said the congressional salary system wouldn’t stand in most American workplaces.

“The automatic pay raises show just how out of touch Congress is with the American people,” Williams said. “In the private sector you don’t get a pay raise for poor performance. Also, in the private sector you don’t get an automatic pay raise, you actually have to work for it.”

Williams said Congress should only be allowed to vote for a pay bump when there is no federal deficit and it wouldn’t be a bad idea to freeze salaries now.

The automatic raise was set by Congress as a “cost of living” increase to make up some of the difference after lawmakers banned themselves from receiving speaking fees to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The raises are usually accepted as part of a large appropriations bill. The law also allows lawmakers to vote down the increase, which is based on a complex formula. Opponents say rejecting the extra money could save U.S. taxpayers about $2.5 million some years.

Williams said the 1989 law is “misguided” and does the opposite of what it was intended to do. He’s also for standalone votes on salaries, which some lawmakers try to get, but don’t succeed in most cases.

Earlier this year, more than 100 House members signed on as co-sponsors of the Stop The Congressional Pay Raise Act of 2009 and when the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 was signed into law in March, it prohibited the scheduled 2010 pay raise. The pay raise defeat came while lawmakers were eyeing mid-term elections in 2010.

Congressional pay hikes are unpopular and incumbents who voted for them often are the focus of attack ads during reelection bids. U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker, who was blasted during his 2008 campaign by Democratic challenger Ronnie Musgrove for pay raise votes, said this week that before he was elected to Congress, lawmakers voted for raises whenever they decided it was necessary, which caused controversy. The 1989 legislation was an effort to remove the decision from politics and was replaced by a formula similar to what’s used to decide cost of living raises for federal employees, Wicker said.

Though Wicker voted for large bills that included automatic pay raises in nine different years since he came to Congress in 1995, he said he’s also voted for every amendment offered to stop those raises.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Gene Taylor said Taylor generally votes against appropriations bills when they contain a pay raise and also votes against pay raises when they come up for an individual vote, but according to Roll Call, Taylor voted for House Resolution 2829 in 2007, which included a 2.7 percent pay raise. The bill was never voted on in the Senate.

Taylor also notes Congress can’t vote on a salary hike that would take effect during that particular session.

U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran, who has voted for congressional pay raises before, said the current system was established “to make it more consistent with modern businesslike practices.” Cochran thinks Congress should review compensation rules on a regular basis to ensure they’re “serving the public interest” and “fair to both members and the taxpayers.”

When asked whether he thought the system in place now, which has allowed a 94 percent increase in less than 20 years, was fair, Cochran responded “that question is one the voters will decide.”

Source:
http://www.sunherald.com/local/story/1831023.html