Should Members Of Congress Get An Increase In Pay?

Crooked scumbag Steny Hoyer-- who had an operative and mutual friend tell me he doesn't like being called a "crooked scumbag"-- was forced to withdraw, for now, his 18% congressional pay-raise plan. There's been a lively debate about the pros and cons of the pay raise. My bottom line is that $174,000 a year PLUS a very generous expense account (members' MRAs are over a million dollars a year now, although it can't be used for home rental) and full health insurance is more than enough-- in fact, too much, especially because their job evaluations by the American people are so dismal. 

This post by David Hawkings was published by Roll Call last year: Wealth of Congress: Richer Than Ever, but Mostly at the Very Top. "The people’s representatives," he wrote, "just keep getting richer, and doing so faster than the people represented. The cumulative net worth of senators and House members jumped by one-fifth in the two years before the start of this Congress, outperforming the typical American’s improved fortunes as well as the solid performance of investment markets during that time... [T]he median minimum net worth (meaning half are worth more, half less) of today’s senators and House members was $511,000 at the start of this Congress, an upward push of 16 percent over just two years-- and quintuple the median net worth of an American household, which the Federal Reserve pegged at $97,300 in 2016. The financial disparity between those who try to govern and those who are governed is almost certainly even greater than that."

The arguments in favor of the raise include practical considerations like how hard it is to buy a house in the DC area on that kind of money, how hard it is to maintain two households, one in DC and one back home, and how high the cost of living is in the DC area. Then others have a slightly more abstract argument, namely that to compete for the best people we have to be offering good money and that Congress should just be a playground for the wealthy. Let me bat these down one at a time:

1- Few members buy their own homes until they retire from Congress to become rich lobbyists; they rent.
2- Many members have roommates, usually other members of Congress. I have long thought Congress should build a large apartment building and let members rent subsidized apartments.
3-There are plenty of working class and middle class families who manage to survive within the area's high cost of living. We're elected representatives, not a House of Lords.
4- The "best people" aren't just in it for the money and in any case, $174,000 a year plus expenses and healthcare is very good compensation, especially for a non-executive job.
5- Congress already is a playground for the wealthy and I never heard a working class person sneer at the money congressional positions offer.
6- One more thing-- if, as some of the members claim, it's really all about their staff getting market value salaries, give the staff raises, not the members.

Last week, writing for Politico, Sarah Ferris and Heather Caygle reported that Hoyer is being roundly attacked for his proposal to raise congressional pay. Some of the reasons, though, were just typical cowardice from the careerists.

The No. 2 House Democrat is taking fire from across the caucus after trying to enact the salary bump, a move some vulnerable Democrats fretted would be politically disastrous and could even cost them their seats next year.

In the broader caucus, the majority of Democrats are on board with Hoyer, arguing that congressional salaries for lawmakers and staff have failed to keep pace with skyrocketing costs of housing in the Washington area, as well as back home. But many members are reluctant to speak up, privately complaining the attack ad basically writes itself. Hoyer is now waging war on multiple fronts-- an ugly public relations battle, a fraught fight with Republicans and fierce criticism within his own party, including some close allies-- in effort to give lawmakers a cost-of-living boost.

In a closed-door meeting Monday night, Hoyer fended off members of his own leadership team in a testy exchange. Rep. David Cicilline of Rhode Island, who leads the Democratic Caucus’ messaging arm, said he would vote against the pay hike on the floor. But Hoyer pushed back, telling Cicilline that his spot at the leadership table sometimes required taking tough votes, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversation.

...Other top Democrats sided with Hoyer in the meeting about ending the pay-freeze, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic Caucus chair [and always the most pathetic shill in the entire House]. And multiple lawmakers have approached Hoyer privately and thanked him for continuing to push the issue.

The perennially contentious issue is causing a split, pitting many battleground freshmen against longtime Democrats who say they’re fighting for fair pay for their staffs.

“I do not pay attention to the frontliners. Most of them are scared of their shadows. At some point you have to do what’s best for the institution,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana, who backed Hoyer over the pay issue in a recent meeting with GOP leaders. “I absolutely think there’s a majority of members who are for this idea.”

Hoyer remains defiant even after Democrats yanked a spending bill, typically considered the least contentious measure of all, because it would have forced a vote on the pay issue. Hoyer and other supporters argue that it’s not a pay increase but simply an adjustment to keep salaries in line with rising living costs after a decade of stagnant wages-- a position Hoyer has taken for decades.

The Maryland Democrat told reporters Tuesday that lawmakers would indeed vote on the $4,500 pay increase in the coming months, and insisted he can still make a truce with Republicans who object to the pay boost.

“Unlike some members, I’m pretty out front,” Hoyer told reporters Tuesday. “I think [a cost-of-living] adjustment is appropriate. Members have now seen 10 years of a freeze. We don’t want to have only rich people here.”

An aide to Hoyer said the majority leader will talk with Democrats and Republicans about the issue to see whether they'll address it in an appropriations bill or elsewhere.

But within the Democratic Caucus, a small group of lawmakers is publicly and privately fuming at Hoyer, arguing that he consulted Republican leaders but not his own caucus.

“I don’t think it was wise at this moment, that’s for sure,” said Rep. Dan Kildee, who represents the city of Flint, Mich., where the average annual income is about $26,000. Members of Congress earn $174,000. “When working Americans are not seeing their wages go up, I can’t imagine how we do this.”

“A lot of us think that it’s the wrong move and the wrong time," added Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah.. "I think people do expect to work together, but let’s work to solve health care and the rising cost of prescription drugs before we work together to give ourselves a raise."

McAdams, one of Democrats’ most vulnerable freshmen, expressed his opposition to Hoyer and introduced an amendment that would have blocked the increase.

Hoyer-- who often touts his ties to the party’s moderate members, including many in the historic freshman class-- has suddenly found himself at odds with many of the new Democratic members who helped deliver the majority.

Instead, he has won support from progressives, including freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)-- who tweeted in favor of the cost-of-living adjustment-- [proving not even the best members are right all the time] while hearing an earful from battleground Democrats like McAdams and Rep. Joe Cunningham (D-SC).

But not all swing-district Democrats are looking to avoid a floor fight on the issue.

“I don’t need the increase personally. But not everybody is in that position, and I want the country served by the best and brightest,” said Rep. Dean Phillips, a wealthy Minnesota businessman who ousted a GOP incumbent in 2018. “I think Mr. Hoyer is looking out for people, and that’s what we should be doing.”

A piece of crap like Phillips couldn't possibly understand that "the best and the brightest" doesn't usually ever coincide with the "greediest and most selfish." How about raising the minimum wage first, New Dem asshole? Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), co-chair of the Progressive Caucus noted that "The expenses that go along with this position are substantial. We have to be able to explain some of this, but in the end, we want to fight for every worker to get raises every year, that should be part of our platform."

Hoyer’s plan required buy-in from House Republican leaders-- an accord that he thought he had secured in a private meeting with House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA).

But the party leaders’ hold-hands-and-jump strategy backfired after the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s campaign arm, failed to follow directives from McCarthy not to attack Democrats on the issue.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, McCarthy would not publicly endorse the idea. But he didn’t rule it out, and his talking points closely matched Hoyer’s-- arguing that Congress shouldn’t be run by the rich and pointing out that the executive branch has been taking cost-of-living increases even as Congress froze its own pay.

“I do not want Congress, at the end of the day, to only be a place that millionaires serve. This should be a body of the people. And I think it’s something that should be looked at it,” McCarthy said.

Plus... imagine what Trump would have to say while he was vetoing the stupid bill anyway!

For Once Congressional Republicans Are Right And Obama Is Completely Wrong

Jeff Merkley

Obama is wrong often enough, but rarely does that coincide with the Republicans being right about the same issue. He may suck-- he does-- but they're even worse. He's always been a solid "D" or, at best, an occasional "C." The Republicans never rise beyond an "F." Never. Even when they stumble onto the right decision, it's always for the wrong reason. And that's what we're talking about today. Obama signed an Executive Order giving congressmembers a raise. A raise! Their salaries should be cut in half! The first sign I had of it was a tweet from progressive Oregon Senator Jeff Merkely:

"Congressional Pay Raise? Worst idea ever. Cut food stamps while boosting Senate salaries? No way!"

Fortunately, the Republicans agree that the idea of this lot getting a raise is obscene. Obama must be the most out-of-touch politician Inside-the-Beltway. These bums make $174,000, although the Speaker makes $223,500 and the 4 party leaders make $193,400 each-- have gigantically rich benefits packages and cushy retirement plans that no one else in America gets. On touch of that, most of them are corrupt and spend most of their energy feathering their own nests in countless schemes and scams.

GOP lawmakers are rushing to introduce legislation blocking a congressional pay increase authorized in a recent executive order signed by President Obama, as bipartisan backlash to the planned raise grows.

Reps. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) both came out with legislation opposing the executive order. Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) said in a release that he planned to introduce his own measure on Monday.

"I am introducing legislation to block Pres. Obama's exec order that gives Congress a pay raise. We need to cut spending not increase it," Bachmann tweeted on Monday afternoon.

Fitzpatrick's bill bars raises for his colleagues for 2013 and 2014. Jim Renacci is certainly one of the least deserving of anyone in Congress but he sure hit the nail on the head when he termed Obama's executive order "ridiculous" and "nothing short of irrational... Washington’s dysfunction doesn’t deserve a raise, it needs a hard dose of reality and I am happy to help supply it."

Several Republican senators are introducing similar legislation as well. Rob Portman (R-OH) is certainly an imbecile who bares more responsibility-- as Bush's Budget head-- for the nation's economic dysfunction. But he's another Republican that has figured out that public opinion would never back Obama on this one. "At a time when our country is facing record debt and trillion dollar deficits, the last thing Washington should do is reward itself with a pay increase. Until a long-term deficit reduction agreement is reached, we should not consider increasing the pay for Congress." How about never? And no COLAs.

How Would You Like A Congress With More Millionaires?

The rapidly escalating, well-planned income disparity between the rich and the rest of America hasn't been this bad since the 1920s. Anyone who thought we could have held off the impact by electing a weak, inexperienced, conservative Democrat instead of another Coolidge, Hoover, Harding type has been proven wrong. I'm guessing-- and cringing-- it's going to take a monster like Rick Perry to inspire voters to find a real solution... if democracy can survive 4 years of his brand of dangerous fascism.

A good day for me starts between 4 and 5 AM. 3 is too early-- and that's what time I woke yesterday... and for no apparent reason. I flipped on CNN and Ali Velshi, "the hairless prophet of doom"-- was doing some chit chat with a couple of babes about how congressional pay should be cut. What a target. Is congressional approval even still at double digits? And they make over $170,000 a year-- with perks, WAY over $170,000 a year. When one of the babes-- playing the brains of the trio-- brought up that then only millionaires, like extreme right plutocrats Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Darrell Issa (R-CA), could afford to be congressman, Velshi approved... vigorously.

The case for lowering congressional salaries-- and reducing perks-- sounds really good but how would you like to see a Congress made up of all millionaires... lots and lots and lots of Vern Buchanans, Jim Renaccis, Kenny Marchants, Gary Millers, Fred Uptons and Trent Franks? The last time Congress cuts it's pay was 1933-- think Great Depression-- and it went from $9,000 a year to $8,500 a year. Unlike today, their perks weren't quite as out of sync with normal peoples' then as they are now. Congressmembers then were somewhat more in the same boat as the rest of us. Maybe that helped spur them to action (i.e., the New Deal).

Now, nearly a century later, as the nation’s unemployment rate is 9.1 percent and a special congressional committee aims to reduce the deficit by $1.5 trillion during the next decade, there are a few murmurs that maybe Congress should take a pay cut.

In a letter Tuesday to the 12 members of the committee, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance urged a 10-percent cut in congressional salaries, which would save $100 million over 10 years.

"During a weak economic recovery with high unemployment and many Americans being forced to do with less, Congress should not continue to reward itself with extravagant salaries and benefits," wrote David Williams, president of the Washington-based, non-partisan organization.... Congress has given no indication that it is moving toward a pay cut, although last year lawmakers agreed to a two-year pay freeze.

...The salary is just part of the total compensation package. According to Williams, benefits for health care, pensions and sick leave boost the total value of the pay package for the average lawmaker to $285,000 a year.

Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste in Washington, said lawmakers “are certainly better compensated than the average wage earner in the United States,’’ even as he acknowledged that “we’re not going to balance the budget by cutting their salaries.’’

The average full-time worker in the nation receives $51,000 a year.

Defenders of the pay received by lawmakers point out that unlike most people, members of the House and Senate have to maintain two residences-- one in Washington and one in their district. To save money, some lawmakers sleep in their offices.

In addition to their pay freeze, lawmakers this year approved a measure to cut overall congressional expenses by 5 percent.

Other measures have been discussed, but not acted upon. In January, just before she was wounded in a shooting, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., introduced a bill co-sponsored by 18 other members that would have cut congressional salaries by 5 percent.

“We are living in tough economic times,” she said at the time. “Everyone is being forced to make sacrifices. Members of Congress can’t ask any American to cut back before we are willing to make some sacrifices of our own.’’

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, introduced bill last April that would require a lawmaker to wait until age 66 before receiving a pension-- the same age as Social Security. Currently, a member can retire as early as age 50 with a full pension, depending on how long they served.

I bet it isn't hard to guess why I put the video clip of Elizabeth Warren's first TV appearance after officially declaring her candidacy, right? She is, after all, the answer to the plutocrats who dominate of entire democracy. Did you like what she had to say? You can support her here.

Blue Dogs Bare Their Fangs Over Budget-- Fail

Jane's nemisis Jim Cooper prefers this photo to one of his mug

Yesterday afternoon David Obey presented the Omnibus Appropriations bill for the fiscal year ending September, 2009, H.R. 1105 and it passed 245-178, with 20 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with the Republicans while 16 Republicans crossed in the other direction, essentially canceling out the Blue Dog "show of force." All the Democrats voting "no," except Jackie Speier, were either Blue Dogs or fellow travelers, a lame gaggle of conservative grandstanders:

Melissa Bean (Blue Dog-IL)
Dennis Cardoza (Blue Dog-CA)
Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS)
Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Steve Driehaus (OH)
Gabby Giffords (Blue Dog-AZ)
Baron Hill (Blue Dog-IN)
Ron Kind (WI)
Frank Kratovil (Blue Dog-MD)
Jim Marshall (Blue Dog-GA)
Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT)
Walt Minnick (ID)
Harry Mitchell (Blue Dog-AZ)
Glenn Nye (Blue Dog-VA)
Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
John Tanner (TN)
Gene Taylor (Blue Dog-MS)

One of Congress' most reactionary kooks and reflexive obstructionists is Arizona wingnut Jeff Flake. But that doesn't mean that Flake is always wrong on everything. Yesterday he moved to help put a real end to corruption by abolishing lobbyists #1 tool, the earmark. Sure some earmarks are used for good things... absolutely. Proponents should bring them up in the House and have them voted on. On the other hand, billions of dollars in taxpayer funds are stolen and the entire political class is corrupted by lobbyists seeking earmarks for their clients. Flake's motion was worthy of support but it died when only 17 Democrats would get behind it. Among the ones who did-- going up against the smarmy Democratic leadership-- were many scummy Blue Dogs and some progressive good government types who care about the difference between right and wrong, such as Jerry McNerney (D-CA), Paul Hodes (D-NH), Dave Loebsack (D-IA), Larry Kissell (D-NC), and Jim Himes (D-CT) and with Peter Welch (D-VT), Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) abstaining.

Pathetically, Democrats are defending earmarks by pointing out Republicans-- who American voters already detest for being corrupt-- do it too. Yes, they do; and that's part of why they were kicked out of office. Disgracefully, Hoyer distributed a handout yesterday claiming “You can’t spell ‘earmark’ without an ‘R,’” which stated that 40% of the earmark dollars included in the omnibus spending bill were put there by Republicans.

As part of yesterday's proceeding Jim McGovern (D-MA) offered an amendment to freeze the congressional pay raise for 2010. It passed 393-25. Only 7 Democrats and 18 Republicans voted no.

Republicans, in an unusual move, mostly voted for the Democratic rule governing debate, because they didn’t want to be targeted by campaign ads that they voted in favor of raising their pay.

The rule on debate contained the amendment freezing 2010’s pay increase, and Republicans said Democrats trapped them into voting for the rule by attaching the pay-freezing measure.

“It was kind of a manipulative thing to do,” said a Republican aide. “It was unusual that we supported the rule, especially one on a bill that we have so many problems with, but because of what they did with the pay increase, they could have used that vote against us.”

...The Senate has not made a final decision on its 2010 salaries, though members of the upper chamber are not expected to get a raise next year.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has offered legislation that would stop lawmakers from getting an automatic pay increase in 2011.

The members voting against the amendment were mostly far right members of their respective caucuses, like Dan Boren, Walt Minnick, Collin Peterson and Gene Taylor among the Democrats and Paul Broun (R-GA), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Trent Franks (R-AZ), Jim Jordan (R-OH), Steve King (R-IA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO) Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Lynn Westmoreland and Don Young (R-AK) among the Repugs.

No Pay Increases For Members Of Congress Next Year

Last night we learned that it was Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) who inserted the very sensible amendment into the Stimulus Bill that should be popular with all but the most corrupt Big Business shills: forcing the crooked banksters to give back the "bonuses" they stole from the TARP money. Unfortunately, among the Conference Committee members there exist several of the most corrupt Big Business shills: Thad Cochran (R-MS), Max Baucus (D-MT), Jerry Lewis (R-CA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dave Camp (R-MI). And who knows how to look at Charlie Rangel (D-NY) these days? Anyway, I doubt anyone could get away with scratching that particular part of the bill. Voters are really pissed-off.

Possibly reacting (wisely) to that degree of pissed-offness, Nancy Pelosi announced yesterday that the House would be forgoing automatic cost of living raises next year. She suggested the Senate do likewise.

“I told our colleagues that because of the condition of our economy and the enormous crisis our country is in, the leadership will be instructing the Appropriations Committee not to include a COLA for next year in the Appropriations bill being put together for the fiscal year 2010,” Pelosi said.

Many Republicans agreed with Pelosi that this was the right move. Howard Coble (R-NC): "It would be a good message to send to the American populace and our constituents. This is not the time for us to get a pay raise.” The COLA would have added over $4,000 to the already fat paychecks ($174,000) of each member of the House. For members who take the really big bribes-- like California Congressman Jerry Lewis-- this doesn't matter at all but for the members who keep two residences, one in their district and one in DC, it's a burden... not a bad thing when they're considering the tough times the rest of the country is going through, primarily due to policies many of them-- the Republicans and Blue Dogs-- have advanced.

WHEN IT'S TIME FOR A CONGRESSIONAL PAY RAISE, THERE ARE NO DEMOCRATS OR REPUBLICANS-- JUST GREEDY INSIDER PIGS

Rahm, some guy, Steny and a somewhat disguised Blunt

I wonder how many Americans think Congress should get a $4,400 annual pay raise. Not me-- and judging by the low esteem with which all Americans of all political persuasions hold Congress, I feel safe to wager that almost as few Americans would vote for a pay increase as would claim to approve of Dick Cheney's role in the U.S. government for the last 7 years.

Last year there was no congressional pay raise because Democrats put their feet down and said until there was a rise in the minimum wage for American workers, they would vote against a pay raise. Yesterday Inside the Beltway power-mongers Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), two hideous K Street-walkers, worked together to make sure another million and a half dollars went into congressional salaries this year. Congressmen now make around $170,000 a year, quite a bit more than most Americans. How can they represent us?

On a 244-181 vote Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans alike killed a bid by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee Terry, R-Neb., to get a direct vote to block the cost of living allowance, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it. The Senate has not indicated when it will deal with a similar measure.

...The annual vote on the pay hike comes on an obscure procedural move-- instead of a direct up-or-down vote-- and Democratic and GOP leaders each delivered a majority of their members to shut off the move to block the pay hike

Hoyer and Blunt worked the floor together and Hoyer pressured Blunt to force more than a dozen Republicans  to switch their votes including one of the far right's biggest phonies, Mike Pence (R-IN), as well as creeps like Dan Burton (R-IN), Fred Upton (R-MI), Dave Camp (R-MI) and Vernon Ehlers (R-MI).