McClatchy: Congress eyes pay raise for itself

[babylonsister]

Congress eyes pay raise for itself
By Rob Hotakainen | McClatchy Newspapers



WASHINGTON — After raising the minimum wage by 70 cents an hour this week, many members of Congress are ready to give themselves a pay increase of roughly $4,400 per year.

That would take their annual salaries to nearly $170,000.

Campaigning last year, Democratic leaders said it would be wrong for Congress to accept a pay hike until it raised the minimum wage. That happened on Tuesday, when the minimum wage rose from $5.15 to $5.85 per hour; it will reach $7.25 an hour on July 24, 2009.

Cost-of-living increases are automatic for members of Congress unless they’re voted down. The House of Representatives already has cleared the way for such a raise in 2008, but a bipartisan coalition is out to block it, with critics saying the money could be better spent during a time of war and high deficits.

“This is the people’s money, and we need to use it on their priorities,” said Republican Rep. Sam Graves of Missouri, who’s co-sponsoring a bill to prevent the raise. “Increasing the pay of members of Congress is not their priority.”

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, said she'd back a similar measure in the Senate.

“I don’t think Congress should get a raise,” she said. “I think it would be a nice thing to tell the American people that we could go a couple years without a raise.”

more...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/18464.html

[AndyA]

1. This sounds like a good idea to me.

Especially since so many Americans do not view Congress as doing an acceptable job right now. Congress' performance "needs improvement."

With the poll numbers in the low teens, they would be foolish to give themselves a raise, a "pat on the back for a good job from themselves" when the people are so unhappy.

Which is why I'm sure it will be done. We just need to remember this in 2008 and get some new ones in who still remember how it's supposed to work.

[BulletproofLandshark]

2. It's past time to tie congressional pay raises with minimum wage raises

See how often they dip into the taxpayer cookie jar THEN.

[SteelPenguin]

3. Maybe they should make even more than that?

Just devil's advocating it here, but if we paid congressmen even more than that, maybe they'd be less likely to sell their votes to special interests for extra cash?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

4. They think it would be devisive to vote for Impeachment but not a pay raise?

:banghead:

[babylonsister]

5. GREAT point!

:thumbsup:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

10. Thank you and kick! eom

[zabet]

6. According to the 'Performance Review' of Congress...

they do not deserve a raise - they need to be put on 'probation'
until they start to do their jobs.
Representing the people that put them in office.

[MikeNearMcChord]

7. This is a disaster that the Democratic leadership

can prevent, at a time when inflation, job losses, housing woes, is kicking working people's asses, congress is acting like a bunch of CEO's. And you know this will be Rove/Fox News talking point, with the Repugs happily sitting in the back. Come on Congress you got enough perks!

[porphyrian]

8. No discussion of Congressional pay raises until our soldiers are home. - n/t

[KharmaTrain]

9. More Fodder For The Corporate Media Spin Machine

Yep...I expect we'll see Tweety, who easily bags 170k a year or more (for what???) talk about how greedy and undeserving the DEMOCRAT pay raise will be. Be assured none of the accomplishments of this Congress will be cited...if anything, it'll be portrayed as "do nothing"...despite all the bills sitting bottled up by a Senate Repugnican fillibuster.

I have mixed opionions here. To sound flip, 170k doesn't go as far as it used to. For all of us, that's a lot of coin, but then most of us don't have to maintain two residences, the travel and other expenses in attempting to live two lives in two locations. However, I don't see now as the time to hike pay...especially with a corporate media just dying to something/anything to slime Democrats with. Why give them an issue that is hard to defend?

I'd prefer them to wait a year...get that raise as a reward for electing larger Democrats majorities to both houses and to the Executive.