Increase In Pay
By bestboy19
@bestboy19 (5478)
United States
7 responses
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
22 Mar 09
I still stand by Mike Huckabee's plan. Congress gets no automatic pay raises and for each year that they FAIL to balance the budget, they receive a 2% pay cut. I bet they've find a way to balance the budget pretty darn fast if they actually had something at stake.
2 people like this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
23 Mar 09
That sounds like a good idea. I also like term limits.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
22 Mar 09
I liked Huckabee before the primaries, but I liked McCain more. Now I am thinking Huck may actually be a good man for 2012.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
23 Mar 09
We all need to remember, come next election, exactly what the congress has not done for us and what they have done to us.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Mar 09
Hello Bestboy19,
There is no question that every Congressional member should have voted to reject their cost of living (C.O.L.) raise.
In fact, I believe that Pelosi & Reid should be subjected to the same salary cap as AIG's Liddy and others. $1 per year. Though unlike the banking cartel exec's, there should be no: bonuses, stock options, or other revenue streams. Oh wait, our elected get "no bid contract deals" for their immediate family members and friends (Diane Feinstein (D-CA.) is the queen of "No Bid Contracts" for her husband -- see last source cited below), where kickbacks are returned to them as "campaign contributions". Grrr!!! Sorry, I digress.
Anyway, what is not being discussed is the fact that every elected official has the authority to refuse those raises individually!
"Individual members are free to refuse their pay increases, and some choose to do so."
[i]For the fifth year in a row, lawmakers voted not to reject their automatic "cost of living" raise that will increase the annual salary of members by $3,400 to a total of $158,103 per year.
In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic raises, unless lawmakers specifically voted to reject it. Which Congress did, until 2000.
"[/i]
"Congress Votes Itself a Pay Raise - Salary will jump by $3,400 a year in 2004"
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm
I would urge all to read the short 2004 article that the above quote comes from. It is an almost identical scenario to today -- with people outraged over Congress taking raises that it did not deserve. As the article points out, they vote to accept the automatic COL with predictable consistency. What's interesting though is that the Congress DID VOTE TO REJECT THE AUTOMATIC C.O.L. FROM 1989-2000!
What We The People ought to be doing is inundating the Congressional switchboard and demanding that our individual reps refuse the pay hike! They seem to like the limelight as they watch private entrepreneurs writhe under their "investigatory panels". Let's see how they like being under the spotlight for taking taxpayer monies that they do not deserve!
Phone Number (Congressional Switchboard): 202-224-3121
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm
"Liddy: some 'distasteful' bonuses will be returned"
Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 18, 2009 03:04 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/03/frank_not_optim.html
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/us_world/AIG-Bonuses.html
"Feinstein resigned from the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after serving six years, during which time her husband's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp. indicated a conflict of interest. I consider Sen. ... As a Vietnam veteran and a member of Veterans For Peace, I must take issue with the letter..."
www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/10/opinion/letters/4_9_0717_26_02.txt
"Dianne Feinstein's resignation from a military expenditure subcommittee that approved ..... that she funneled billions of taxpayer dollars to her husband's companies"
sfppc.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
22 Mar 09
I suspect that you're right -- that most people don't know that in many instances the bonuses were in lieu of a straight salary. So, this appears to be a veiled attempt to return to the pre-Reagan days of the top federal tax bracket of 90%. Notice the identical income cap in this new punitive tax law and the goals outlined during the election??? 250k -- isn't that how Obama defined "rich"?
'Course, it's still difficult to muster any real sympathy for those AIG exec's. Since that move to contract the $1 salary and the bonuses as some other sort of 'ancillary' compensation benefit, is none other than a scheme to avoid or limit the amount of taxes owed. For example: Someone earning 500k/yr is subject to the highest tax bracket. Though, if he or she takes a $1 salary and the other $499,999.00 in stock options, then they're either:
1. Tax deferred by holding the stock -- no penalty until stock is sold.
2. or by incremental rolling into tax deferred shelters.
3. or by selling the stock at a fair market value, to be taxed only at the '08 Cap. gains rate of 15%, which is less than 50% of the tax level of the current highest income tax bracket.
So, this is really one 'team' of tax cheats beating up on another team of 'tax cheats' for besting them at their own game! The irony is almost more than I can bear. Two teams beating the he11 out of each other, all the while whipping the taxpayer with a bloody fury -- with bright, shiny smiles & a well rehearsed mantra of "We feel your pain". 
As far as this AIG thing goes, Congress is putting a blindfold on the American people, spinning them 'till dizzy, then setting them free with a big stick. That pinata never had a chance!
As far as this AIG thing goes, Congress is putting a blindfold on the American people, spinning them 'till dizzy, then setting them free with a big stick. That pinata never had a chance!1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
22 Mar 09
"So, this is really one 'team' of tax cheats beating up on another team of 'tax cheats' for besting them at their own game"
I love this! may I have you perrmission to use it at a later date? It's a perfect one line explanation of everything.
2 people like this
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
22 Mar 09
Too many people just think the AIG bonuses came on top of their regular salary. They have no clue what's going on, but shoot off their mouths anyway.
Congress hasn't earned its keep in a very long time as far as I'm concerned.
2 people like this
@ram_cv (16513)
• India
22 Mar 09
Fantastic question. I do not think anybody deserves a rise at this moment in time. Especially the financial system guys, the regulators overseeing or the government which allowed the mess to happen. So given this background, I think the people have to come together and make as much noise of these rises as much as the Senate has made out of corporate bonuses!!
Cheers!
Ram
1 person likes this
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
22 Mar 09
Not only do they not deserve a pay raise, they should receive across the board pay cuts for the less than stellar job they've been doing. I've never had to write, email and call so many government officials, so many times in my life!
2 people like this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
23 Mar 09
I agree that a pay cut is what they deserve.
1 person likes this
@AngryKittyMSV (4317)
• United States
22 Mar 09
Hell no I don't think they deserve raises, they barely even work part time!
1 person likes this
