Go figure that the GOP-controlled Senate votes itself a FIFTH consecutive pay raise, for a fifth year of a diminishing economy, and a huge deficit to boot. The only person to vocally oppose the salary hike---which exceeded $160,000 per year per Senator, and $180,000 for the Speaker---was Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, who stands up every year to oppose the pay hike.
They don't need a pay raise for "cost of living", especially when they are taking in money from donations, kick-backs, etc. from special interests and other groups.
bitkahuna
10-25-03, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
They don't need a pay raise for "cost of living", especially when they are taking in money from donations, kick-backs, etc. from special interests and other groups.
Unless you believe they're total crooks, they can't spend that money on living expenses. Granted most Senators were financially independent before becoming Senators but those who aren't have a HUGE bill to foot between living in D.C. and having a residence in the state they represent. $160K a year isn't THAT great.
And guys, the raise was 2.2% I believe - no exactly monumental.
LB Lex
10-25-03, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by bitkahuna
And guys, the raise was 2.2% I believe - no exactly monumental.
You're right, it isn't a monumental pay-raise, but I don't think they should be getting increases when we are in a slow economy. Everyone has to give a little so that the economy can recover.
lex400sc
10-25-03, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by bitkahuna
Unless you believe they're total crooks, they can't spend that money on living expenses. Granted most Senators were financially independent before becoming Senators but those who aren't have a HUGE bill to foot between living in D.C. and having a residence in the state they represent. $160K a year isn't THAT great.
An incumbant or candidate that runs and loses, gets to keep all of his/her campaign dollars for his or her private personal use. There are also PACs used to dodge campaign funding caps, and the requirement of campaigning activities is very loosely defined. I can take in money from the casino lobby to buy myself fancy cars, nice suits, expensive dinners, a condo in the capital, an office in downtown, etc all in the name of campaigning and party building activities. It's similar to a business expense account, as long as you can make a thin justification, no one will argue. It certainly does make life easier for them.
$160,000 is a great pay for a United States Senator considering how much of the rest of their expenses are paid for by the government for being elected officials and federal politicians.
Originally posted by bitkahuna
And guys, the raise was 2.2% I believe - no exactly monumental.
You're right, not exactly monumental considering how many multi-millionaires there are in Congress, and the Senate especially. Then again, this also means it's not exactly NECCESSARY either! This is a bill the Senate passed that entitles them a $21,000 increase in salary over five years. It adds up as more wasted money when you multiply it by 100 Senators and figure that it is a permanent increase that will hit us every year indefinitely.
LB Lex
10-25-03, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by lex400sc
Go figure that the GOP-controlled Senate votes itself a FIFTH consecutive pay raise
All the blame can't be put on the GOP for passing this bill, half of the 60 who approved the raise were Democrats. And the Republicans outnumbered the Democrats in disapproving the bill, out of 34 "nays", 19 were Republicans.
1. These are public positions. The people in these positions are supposedly there for our benefit, not for monetary gains. I am not saying they should work for free which leads me to
2. 160k is not chump change. I think that is way too much. Just my IMO. Feel free to disagree.
3. What other industry can the people involved get together and say "Hey! I think we need a raise, how about it guys?" This raise has no relation with the state of the economy where many don't have jobs, and where there are people not getting cost-of-living raises or even pay-cuts. Even worse, these increases has no relation to merit. Although we voted these people into office, (public outcry aside) we don't have a say in the raise decision.
I wish in my previous jobs that my colleagues and I can just decide that we are worthy of a raise (no matter what the amount) and we should get it.
2Lexus430s
10-26-03, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by 93LexoGS300
All the blame can't be put on the GOP for passing this bill, half of the 60 who approved the raise were Democrats. And the Republicans outnumbered the Democrats in disapproving the bill, out of 34 "nays", 19 were Republicans.
Originally posted by lex400sc
Go figure that the GOP-controlled Senate votes itself a FIFTH consecutive pay raise, for a fifth year of a diminishing economy, and a huge deficit to boot. The only person to vocally oppose the salary hike---which exceeded $160,000 per year per Senator, and $180,000 for the Speaker---was Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat from Wisconsin, who stands up every year to oppose the pay hike.