View Full Version : Congress gives themselves a raise.
With economy in shambles, Congress gets a raise By Jordy Yager Posted: 12/17/08 05:41 PM [ET] A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.
Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/with-economy-in-shambles-congress-gets-a-raise-2008-12-17.html
However, at 2.8 percent, the automatic raise that lawmakers receive is only half as large as the 2009 cost of living adjustment of Social Security recipients.
It was automatic. They probably should've stopped it, but I hardly think Congress' time would've been best spent negotiating a provision into a bill to save $2.5 million.
EDIT - And so "Congress gives themselves a raise" is a rather misleading title.
It was automatic. They probably should've stopped it, but I hardly think Congress' time would've been best spent negotiating a provision into a bill to save $2.5 million.
EDIT - And so "Congress gives themselves a raise" is a rather misleading title.
They have the power to set their compensation level. My manager at work received a zero percent raise this year. I guess that he should have run for office, he would have gotten a better comp package.
nuclearjew
12-19-2008, 10:37 AM
It's all a hilarious joke. Nothing short of the guillotine is going to stop any of this shit.
freegood
12-19-2008, 10:37 AM
Maybe they're anticipating graft and kickback reforms Obama will want to push through. Call it the Ted Stephens Salary Compensation Act.
They have the power to set their compensation level. My manager at work received a zero percent raise this year. I guess that he should have run for office, he would have gotten a better comp package.
What part of automatic don't you get? Should they have stopped it? Sure. But they didn't GIVE it to themselves this time around.
On the larger scale I find the whole "Let's call it a cost of living increase to get around the 27th amendment" bit stupid, but that's a separate issue.
White Rhino
12-19-2008, 11:04 AM
Lets cut education and give congress a raise. Seems right. Let the rich get richer and the poor stay uneducated.
Morfin
12-19-2008, 11:04 AM
Stax. you're wrong. It is automatic merely because Congress made it automatic. They made it that way so that they could avoid "voting themselves a raise" every year or so. They do it so that they can get a raise without "voting" for it. So they are to blame for making it automatic.
They have the ability to say "no." They could have declined it, which sure would have earned major PR points since they are demanding the CEOs to take big cuts.
nuclearjew
12-19-2008, 11:13 AM
Lets cut education and give congress a raise. Seems right. Let the rich get richer and the poor stay uneducated.
Hey, $169,000 doesn't go very far these days!
BIG PIZZLE
12-19-2008, 11:21 AM
Do you guys recall the $700 BILLION blank check they have? $2.5 million aint shit.
Stax. you're wrong. It is automatic merely because Congress made it automatic. They made it that way so that they could avoid "voting themselves a raise" every year or so. They do it so that they can get a raise without "voting" for it. So they are to blame for making it automatic.
They have the ability to say "no." They could have declined it, which sure would have earned major PR points since they are demanding the CEOs to take big cuts.
Congress years ago did so, yes, but this Congress would have to do something actively to stop it. Should they have? Yes. But at the end of the day it's $2.5 million, and they were negotiating deals in the billions.
Morfin
12-19-2008, 11:41 AM
Symbolism, baby, symbolism. Do you think that the money the Big 3 CEOs spent on the private jets amounted to jack shit? Or that if they had flown commercial it would have made any difference?
Symbolism, baby, symbolism. Do you think that the money the Big 3 CEOs spent on the private jets amounted to jack shit? Or that if they had flown commercial it would have made any difference?
I suppose. Difference is the Big 3 CEOs were doing chicken shit like that RATHER THAN dealing with the issues facing their companies. Congress was dealing with the issues RATHER THAN chicken shit like this.
Da Raider
12-19-2008, 11:45 AM
Maybe they're anticipating graft and kickback reforms Obama will want to push through. Call it the Ted Stephens Salary Compensation Act.
except for the fact that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine and graft and kickbacks will continue as usual.
redsox39
12-19-2008, 11:52 AM
It's all a hilarious joke. Nothing short of the guillotine is going to stop any of this shit.
Sometimes, I am worried you are right...
I wonder how long, or how many it would take...
freegood
12-19-2008, 12:10 PM
except for the fact that Obama is a product of the Chicago political machine and graft and kickbacks will continue as usual.
Maybe not?...!.../!?!1!?! (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/10/us/politics/10chicago.html?pagewanted=1&hp)
Morfin
12-19-2008, 12:10 PM
If we're going to go the guillatine route, can we wait til Al Franken gets sworn in?
I suppose. Difference is the Big 3 CEOs were doing chicken shit like that RATHER THAN dealing with the issues facing their companies. Congress was dealing with the issues RATHER THAN chicken shit like this.
Bullshit. If congress was really "dealing with the issues" then they would fix Mcare, Mcaid and SS. Instead they routinely punt the problem down the road, just like they did with the auto bailout.