Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 9 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Congress: Refuse raises
Published 12:00 p.m., January 5, 2009
Times are tough for many working men and women. Millions are having to deal with unemployment. Many more understand that next year will be tough for their companies. Pay raises normally given out for good work may not occur.
Unless you are a member of Congress. Members of the House of Representatives and Senate are to receive $4,700 salary increases Jan. 1. That will take the base pay of 535 lawmakers up to $174,000 per year.
There will be no need for lawmakers to vote on the proposal. Several years ago, Congress passed a measure that makes such cost-of-living increases automatic. They can be stopped only if senators and representatives vote specifically to suspend them.
It will not surprise you that there has been little interest exhibited in that idea, at least on Capitol Hill. According to one report, a bill to suspend the raises has been introduced in the House — but it has just 34 co-sponsors.
We realize that some members of Congress work hard. We understand that living in Washington is expensive. But many taxpayers work hard and have trouble making ends meet too. A substantial number of them are having to tighten their belts because of the downturn in the economy.
Members of Congress should set a good example by refusing the raises.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post. To post a comment you will need to register. Or, if you're already registered but have not included your true, verifiable identity with your registration, you will need to update your account to include your identity. Effective Dec. 1, 2009, all posts appear with the commenter's true identity, which must be verified by site staff. Those who registered prior to Dec. 1, 2009, should be aware that once you update your information with your true identity, all prior posts under your user name will also indicate your true identity. If you do not wish to link yourself to prior comments, you should register again with a different user name.Posted by 1125thmp (anonymous) on January 5, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It isn't simply that they make an above average salary. The 'retirement' package, if such a thing can be said of a position that one is elected to, is not regularly spoken of by Congress and the Senate as to exist's as only politicians can provide. Both the Senate and Congress provide themselves with health care, pension and other features that so outrageous as to rankle any nose who has read about it.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on January 5, 2009 at 2:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why not give some of this money to the Fergus band for the trip to DC? The politicians could easily donate to the fund. Next question, why go and play for nothing? Other entertainers get paid plenty.
Posted by AmyO (anonymous) on January 5, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
LOL! Good one, Mel. Maybe you could be the marching band's manager?
Posted by ollieoxinmn (anonymous) on January 6, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First District Congressman Tim Walz is not taking his COLA this year, just as he refused the one last year. Both increases are being sent back to the U.S. Treasury (he has to continue to return last year's raise, as it would be added to his paycheck regardless of last year's refusal).
The editorial makes a good point, but the paper should also inform readers which members of Congress aren't taking the raise--and earlier ones as well.
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on January 6, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not sure why there is so much fuss about this. 535 members of congress making $4700 extra per year is like an extra $2.5 million of extra federal spending. Ok sure this money could be put to better use, but it pales in comparison to the massive amounts of money just given out to defense contractors through the pentagon system, the $10billion per month we spend in Iraq, and our military budget in general which is encompasses over half of all federal expenditures. This complaining about congress salary hikes is akin to John McCain complaining about $3 million in earmark appropriations while supporting throwing away $10 billion per month in iraq.
Posted by liberty (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wrong protreasonist.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en...
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
liberty, first of all I am assuming that your name is orwellian. I'm sure that any dictator would commend your loyalty to the state and inability and unwillingness to think for yourself
I realize that yes I am a treasonist for questioning the U.S.'s right to spend massive amounts on reckless military adventurism. Maybe someday when you are president, you will be able to jail people like me.
Posted by liberty (anonymous) on January 12, 2009 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't jail you, protreason. I would compliment your brilliant insights, as long as you keep the lawn mowed...
Posted by proterrorist (anonymous) on January 14, 2009 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
lol...you have no idea who you are talking to you do you! if you are really a supporter of 'liberty' like your name suggests, you would denounce the wage slavery that you are planning on subjecting me to. You can't even open your mouth without contradicting yourself and making yourself sound stupid.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)
You may also register to comment in our forums at www.fergusfeedback.com.