DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Congress members actually believe they deserve a pay raise

Hoyer: Members of Congress deserve a raise

By Lauren French
Politico
5/19/15

Most members of Congress make $174,000 a year. Two senior House Democrats say lawmakers deserve a raise.

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters on Tuesday that he’s concerned that static congressional salaries — the pay level has remained the same since 2009 — will dissuade all but the uber-wealthy from serving in Congress.

“This will be the seventh year in a row that we have not done a cost-of-living adjustment….I think it was appropriate at the time of the recession,” Hoyer said. “But to continue that on, we will dictate that the only people who can serve are the rich and I don’t think that’s what the Founding Fathers had in mind.”

Hoyer also raised the concern at a Democratic caucus meeting Tuesday morning, saying he planned to speak with Speaker John Boehner about unfreezing cost-of-living increases for members of Congress, according to sources in attendance. Hoyer, whose suburban Washington district includes many federal workers, is also concerned about small or non-existent cost-of-living-increases for many federal employees.

While most members avoid complaining about their $174,000-a-year salary to avoid looking politically aloof, Hoyer is not alone in arguing that lawmakers need cost-of-living raises just like private-sector employees.

Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) also pushed this week for bigger paychecks for members, arguing that the salary doesn’t cover the cost of maintaining two homes, one in D.C. and another back home.

“Members deserve to be paid, staff deserves to be paid and the cost of living here is causing serious problems for people who are not wealthy to serve in this institution,” the Florida Democrat said at a Rules Committee meeting.

Former Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, a Democrat, also championed pay increases for members before he left Congress last year.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/co...l#ixzz3ac3l0GOL

Oh Democrats, what are you doing?

That is quite an assumption that private sector workers are all receiving cost of living adjustments.

This just shows almost perfectly that there is really no difference in the parties - they are all so disconnected with reality it is almost scary. 174k puts them in the top 10% of wage earners - you know, those evil rich people.

Let's not forget those public speaking engagements that can even get a new congressman a few k's. Or the whole they can pretty easily do insider trading.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpoliti...der-trading-law

Remember they overturned major sections in the STOCK law.

I suppose I ought to get more money too, as I have never in my adult life had a cost of living wage increase. In fact, I make less now than I did 5 through 12 years ago.

Add in that I don't qualify for any fed. pension, (or ANY pension other than what I do myself) I don't get perks, I don't get health care (other than through my wife's work - which she pays for).

Give me the benny's a congress person gets, pay me $174,000 per year (hey, I'll even pay all the taxes I owe, unlike too many in gov't.)

Better yet, let's make congress a part time job. That's pretty much all they work anyway. Let's put a limit on how much you can spend on running for office. Let's put some "average" people in congress.

Talk about out of touch. Most of us struggle to maintain one home while managing rising health care costs at the same time, feeding our families and paying taxes (well...some of us).

According to the US Census Bureau, the median "household" income from 2007-2011 is $52,762. This is household. May be two folks working. Congressional members make more than triple that, work less days, take advantage of many, many perks, pay only part of their health care premium and have great pensions.

A full pension is available to Members of Congress who are:

62 years of age with 5 years of service
50 years or older with 20 years of service

Or who have:
25 years of service at any age

Congress worked less than 1/3 of a year in 2014 (113) but continued to receive full pay and full benefits. This rounded to $192.47 per hour in 2014. To be fair, they spend considerable amounts of time in their districts. Consider the lavish dinners, ceremonies and trips most of them take and ...wow...they have a pretty nice life.

The plan is for more sessions in 2015 (188 days). We'll see.

Most of us are in the wrong calling if the goal is to make money and set ourselves up for life.

I've literally never heard of "cost of living" increase in America other then "what-ifs". Has anyone had a cost of living pay increase for more than a year?

The reality is that you have to be wealthy in order to be in Congress.

Democrats, heh...

Give the pay bump to the soldiers (who actually deserve it)!

I will agree that they probably do deserve a bump in pay... if they will agree to 8 year term limits and no lifetime of benefits... deal?

That just shows you why our country is in the shape it's in today, either these guys think were all ignorant or they are just plain nuts ...

We deserve the representation we get. As a society we idolize celebrities, snicker at STEM fields, and spend more money than we make. Why wouldn't those we elect feel the same way??

Great point.

I think they should give all the Tea Party and regular Republicans half, just half, of what they saved this Nation in taxes by shutting Obama's crazy spending down!

I have worked in the private sector for a long time - over 30 years - and I have never received a COL raise. All my pay raises were merit based. I work with union guys - I'm not in one - and they don't even get COL raises. I have no idea what Steny Hoyer is talking about, except maybe telling the Big Lie and hoping no one notices. Congressman Hastings talks about having to maintain two residences because of working in DC, but does not mention that the second home offers a sizable tax deduction on the Schedule A of his annual tax return. Maybe he doesn't even know what Schedule A is ... it wouldn't surprise me. They only administrate the tax code - can't really expect them to understand it - can we? What a bunch of frigging blockheads. DCDawgfan is right - you can have a raise if you get the hell out after 2 terms for Senators and 3 or 4 terms for House members. Its supposed to be a service, not a career.

Oh I do like your thinking, sir...

First of, I do not know for sure: But, perhaps he's talking about the "automatic" pay raise congress used to get each year? The one where no vote was needed - they just got it, unless it was voted down, by congress.

Is it possible (again, I don't know) that it was cancelled (the automatic pay raise) a few years ago?

If it was cancelled, or postponed, I'm all for it. I'm also all for congress to NOT get a pay raise. They should get a pay cut - they are part time employees anyway. They get a pay cut each year until the budget is balanced, and they stay at the same pay until the debt is paid off.

Wait - our debt will NEVER be paid off.

I know people who have been promoted, and who, because of pay cuts, are still trying to get back to what they made in 2009.

dude is stupid for saying anything like this.

they don't need a raise, they need a deduction.

We get one every year where I work, usually about 2.5%.

I've never gotten a COL increase. I've gotten merit increases but that's different. Some years (namely the 2 after the recession) I got nothing. Other years I was able to get 15% or more increase. I feel *very* lucky to be in that situation because most people I've talked to about this since 2008 are lucky to get 3%.

The only places I've heard about COL increases is social security and Congress. This Hoyer guy is full of it equating private sector. People are lucky to get a merit increase that doesn't just suck away due to inflation...

Now these are thugs.

$174k per year and all the money they can steal for influence peddling..

Just say no to raises.

ALso, can someone explain why it's perfectly OK for term limits for the President, but we have members of congress with 30 or 40 years in office.

Explain it to me please..

nothing to explain. they're idiots, jokes, etc.

the only government employees that need pay raises is our military.

What if we took a different approach? What if we paid them more, a lot more?

The average salary in the NBA is $5.2 million, MLB $3.2, NFL $1.9... I won't even get into what the top music acts or actors make... all for our entertainment.. yet the people that run our country, the people that make the most important decisions that can determine the fate of our economy, our lives... we expect them to do it on a salary that is just a little more than a district manager for Wal-mart.

We talk about the exclusivity of being one of the 400 best basketball players in the world or one of the 1600 best football players or one of the 32 best coaches in a sport... We have 535 congressmen and senators in the entire country and they make less than most dentists.

What if we paid them $3 million a year? Would that remove the incentive to be for sale to big corporations? Would that remove the incentive to actually need a luxurious vacation paid for in exchange for a favor?

I fully understand that the position is SUPPOSED TO BE one about serving your country, your community, it's not SUPPOSED TO BE about the money... but the times they are a changing.. are we really attracting the best and the brightest for $174K a year plus the benefits? Do we want people running for congress because of the pay?

Just questions to ask... it's easy to vilify this guy for being a D-B for asking for more money when he is part of a group with about a 15% approval rating.... but really, is he wrong? Should we consider a different way to structure this to get better more accountable people in there?

i see what you're saying.

FYI side note: Taylor Swift made 6 million in one year just off people streaming her music on that music app Spotify.

anyway, you have a good idea.

but mine is opposite.

i would cut their salary to around 50k a year, and set restrictions, such as:

one six year term.

can't own a business. The reason i say this is because Dick Cheney owned that contracting company, and made a CRAP TON of money when we went to Afghan and Iraq. that's a complete conflict of interest and shouldn't even had been allowed. Of course he wanted to go to war, he would be able to buy a county after that.

right now, at their current salary they have so many incentives, it only makes sense to sell themselves to corporations.

but if they aren't making any money, and they're only gonna be there for six years, maybe they'll be more inclined to vote on policies that affect their daily living more.

cause right now, the stuff they are passing through as bills, doesn't actually affect their quality of life. they get paid six figures plus benefits for life.

That's a good point, but if we are going to pay then an exorbitant salary, then they must definitely agree to term limits. Otherwise we just end up we're we are, but with a higher payroll.

If you got $3 million why not peddle some votes and get $6 million? I don't think paying them enough to retire on every year would do it. When you're making millions a year, keeping up with the Jones' gets alot harder

*Maybe* if you said okay while you're making $3 million you can't earn from outside sources, but that needs to be forever. Because otherwise I'd just make a backroom deal that didn't kick in until my term limit expired.

I made the same kinda post nearly 3 years ago. Got laughed at. LOL

My theory was that if we paid them enough, then they wouldn't allow themselves to be bought.

I think I was wrong about that.

Now, if you pay them more, say a million a year, then put regulations in place with laws that have penalties with teeth. If they take money from a lobby group or if they peddle influence etc... also heavy penalties for those offering to bribe congress.

I mean, jail time, fines, never allowed to hold public office again kinda penalties..

I think all campaigns donations should be strictly limited with low caps on self, individual and corporate donations.

It should be possible for Joe the plumber to try to run if he can find the people to support him.

Rich people don't become rich by saying, "Well, I think I'm getting paid enough to not want more money."

Money don't make itself.

That's why I have a printing press in my basement.

Where do you live?

They do - they get paid almost nothing compared to the responsibilities and power that they yield.

If you produce a position that pays almost nothing - but that gives you a great deal of power and prestige, then only people who thirst after power and prestige will try to get that position.

If you produce a position that pays a lot, competent people who want lots of money will also try to get that position. Those are the type of people you want.

If I were in charge I would do the following:

1.) Vastly increase the pay for sitting members of congress/president/supreme court. Not the 10% raise people are talking about, I'm thinking:

$5M/year for House of Reps.
$10M/year for Senators
$100M/year for the president

Make these positions commensurate with being a CEO of a major company. In total this still costs the US almost nothing -- $32B/year, which is peanuts compared to what better decisions from Congress are worth.

In exchange I'd set up the following rule:

1.) Non-Compete Agreements for Congresspeople and spouses. Neither can work for a major employer during the term of the congressperson, or for up to 5 years after their term has ended.

Actually, I'd go even farther, and force all former congresspeople to work a government job for 5-10 years after their terms our up. You keep their knowledge in house, and let them work on whatever policy area interested them most during their terms. They will get paid some reasonable rate for this, but the real paycheck comes up front.

I can see that... with 1/3 of them up for re-election every 2 years? We can't have a wholesale changeover every 6 years, it has to be staggered...

The problem with the $50K salary is that you are now excluding a significant number of people from being able to run and actually making it easier for the wealthy, who don't need the money in the first place, to get into this office.

I'm a pretty smart guy, I make a decent living, I have money put away, I couldn't live on $50K/year for 6 years.. I would have to drain my savings and retirement just to maintain a reasonable lifestyle, let alone the lifestyle of a congressman...


Problem is in enforcing something like this.. it's too easy for these guys to put the company in the wifes name or come up with some work around... but I agree with you in theory... just not sure how to enact or enforce it.


And maybe they won't spend 2/3 of their time in office campaigning for the next election...

The biggest challenge to any of this is quite simple, the only people who can neuter congress... is congress. And it goes against every grain of their human nature to take less, to give up power, to give up financial security, etc...

Nbn

That line of thinking should apply to educators as well if you consider their "responsibilities" and the "power" they yield over young lives. Additionally, most educators are honest!