Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike

classicman · 03-05-2009, 10:32 PM

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 156) that would prevent an automatic $4,700 pay increase for Members of Congress in 2010. If passed, H.R. 156 would save taxpayers an estimated $2.5 million.

Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $174,000 (more than double the median household income of about $80,000 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. Especially in light of troubled economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad an already sizeable Congressional compensation package.

How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn't start out this way:

According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session.

But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index:

COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill [or in recent years the Financial Services Appropriations Bill] becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur.

Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it.

Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. We were flabbergasted that the House accepted its 2008 and 2009 pay raises by failing to schedule votes to block them. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases this year by cosponsoring H.R. 156 and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit.

Sincerely,

Kristina Rasmussen
Director of Government Affairs

TheMercenary · 03-06-2009, 07:44 PM

Don't count on much support from the teat suckers.

Beestie · 03-06-2009, 07:55 PM

I don't think $174k is too much for a congressman or congresswoman. Around here (DC area) $174k isn't all that much.

I used to know Paul Hewitt - exec director of NTU. I used to have some interesting debates with him.

sugarpop · 03-07-2009, 12:56 AM

It's astounding to me that they have no problem taking that much of a raise for themselves, but they refuse to make sure the minimum wage is raised every year to keep up with inflation and that the working class has a real, honest to god LIVING wage.

classicman · 03-07-2009, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

I don't think $174k is too much for a congressman or congresswoman. Around here (DC area) $174k isn't all that much.

That puts them in the top 5% of all wage earners in the country and thats without all the extra perks they get.

Shawnee123 · 03-07-2009, 10:22 AM

So you take the job. I bet it's a lot of fun, listening to people bitching 24/7.

The pay is OK with me; it's a high level position, and certainly not in keeping with CEOs of the entities who have all the real power.

TGRR · 03-07-2009, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

So you take the job. I bet it's a lot of fun, listening to people bitching 24/7.

I would have an AMAZING amount of fun with that job.

Because I know that their retirement pay kicks in after a single term, and I would have absolutely no desire to be re-elected.

Rep Roger (Asshat - AZ): Blah blah blah dildo tax blah blah blah exemptions for midgets blah blah blah...

Rep Giffords (Dem - AZ): Would the honorable gentleman from my state yield?

Rep Roger: Eat a dick.

Speaker: Please have the honorable gentleman from AZ removed.

Rep Roger (being dragged out): See you in the bar, Nancy! Try to stay dressed this time! NOBODY needs to see THAT, again!

Shawnee123 · 03-07-2009, 11:20 AM

Stop cracking me up!

classicman · 03-07-2009, 02:13 PM

...and then we get to pay your retirement benefits for the rest of your life? Geez and I used to wonder why Al Franken wanted to get into politics. Maybe its just a natural progression for people with tax issues.

TGRR · 03-08-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

...and then we get to pay your retirement benefits for the rest of your life? Geez and I used to wonder why Al Franken wanted to get into politics. Maybe its just a natural progression for people with tax issues.

Probably. I don't have any tax issues, though, so maybe I'm not eligible.

It would still be the best job ever.

classicman · 03-08-2009, 01:41 PM

.

TGRR · 03-08-2009, 07:42 PM

Precisely.

TGRR,
Would start the revolution, backwards.

03-05-2009, 10:32 PM	#1
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike Dear Representative: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 156) that would prevent an automatic $4,700 pay increase for Members of Congress in 2010. If passed, H.R. 156 would save taxpayers an estimated $2.5 million. Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $174,000 (more than double the median household income of about $80,000 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. Especially in light of troubled economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad an already sizeable Congressional compensation package. How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn't start out this way: According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session. But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index: COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill [or in recent years the Financial Services Appropriations Bill] becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur. Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it. Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. We were flabbergasted that the House accepted its 2008 and 2009 pay raises by failing to schedule votes to block them. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases this year by cosponsoring H.R. 156 and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit. Sincerely, Kristina Rasmussen Director of Government Affairs __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

03-06-2009, 07:44 PM	#2
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Don't count on much support from the teat suckers. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

03-06-2009, 07:55 PM	#3
Beestie -◊\|≡·∙■·∙≡\|◊- Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Parts unknown. Posts: 4,081	I don't think $174k is too much for a congressman or congresswoman. Around here (DC area) $174k isn't all that much. I used to know Paul Hewitt - exec director of NTU. I used to have some interesting debates with him. __________________ ♠ ♥ ♣ ♦

03-07-2009, 10:22 AM	#6
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	So you take the job. I bet it's a lot of fun, listening to people bitching 24/7. The pay is OK with me; it's a high level position, and certainly not in keeping with CEOs of the entities who have all the real power. __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

03-07-2009, 11:20 AM	#8
Shawnee123 Why, you're a regular Alfred E Einstein, ain't ya? Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 21,206	Stop cracking me up! __________________ A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones who need the advice. --Bill Cosby

03-07-2009, 12:56 AM	#4
sugarpop Professor Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: the edge of the abyss Posts: 1,947	It's astounding to me that they have no problem taking that much of a raise for themselves, but they refuse to make sure the minimum wage is raised every year to keep up with inflation and that the working class has a real, honest to god LIVING wage.

03-07-2009, 02:13 PM	#9
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	...and then we get to pay your retirement benefits for the rest of your life? Geez and I used to wonder why Al Franken wanted to get into politics. Maybe its just a natural progression for people with tax issues. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

03-08-2009, 01:41 PM	#11
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	. Attached Images __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

03-08-2009, 07:42 PM	#12
TGRR Horrible Bastard Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: High Desert, Arizona Posts: 1,103	Precisely. TGRR, Would start the revolution, backwards. __________________ What can we do to help you stop screaming?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)