Symbolism counts for a great deal in Washington.
Back in November, for example, members of Congress roasted automakers’ CEOs for traveling to the nation’s capital in private jets to seek a bailout for their industry.
“Those types of symbolic things, they really matter, they set a tone,” said U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican.
So what sort of “tone” should Roskam and other members of the Senate and House of Representatives set when it comes to their own pay?
At the very least, Congress should hold an up-or-down vote on whether the members will insist on receiving the $4,700-a-year raise they are otherwise automatically scheduled to receive this year
.
The 2.8 percent increase would raise their salary to $174,000 annually, placing them near the top 5 percent of all wage earners in the country. Office perks, gold-plated health care and pensions sweeten the deal beyond the salary, benefits that outstrip those received by many private workers.
A vote on the raise — which for now is not scheduled to occur — would show which members of Congress are on record in favor of the higher pay. And which members think it’s time to forgo the added money.
A decision to give up some of or the entire raise would be a welcome symbolic action as the country suffers through a lean economy.
Tens of millions of American taxpayers who supply the salaries for Congress are facing some of their worst financial problems in decades.
Businesses are laying off workers, freezing employee wages or reducing benefits.
Whether or not members of Congress accept their raises this year, out of fairness they should approve prudent and overdue pay increases for federal judges.
Unfortunately, Congress has petulantly refused to award annual cost-of-living raises to the judges. The federal judiciary’s independence must be protected, and salaries at least somewhat comparable to private attorneys can help insure their independence.
Many members of Congress will claim any vote on their own pay raise would be merely symbolic. But this is an appropriate year for shared sacrifice and tangible evidence of a new kind of leadership in Washington.
After all, many other Americans are being forced to give up a lot more to try to survive tough economic times.
Delicious
Digg
I happen to like it here
I look in vain for that wond'rous land where all politicians have square teeth and open smiles and political campaigns are funded by bake sales. Should I find it, I'll move, and send a postcard to Midwest Voices to tell you all about it.
Seriously--I figured out almost forty years ago that a sensible, serious-minded person could, if they wanted to, be POATT-P1ssed Off All the Time. just by keeping their eyes open and seeing all the crapola going on around them. I observed that that was useful ONLY IF IT HELPED YOU IN SOLVING THE PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD. If it leads to paralysis, you're only contributing to the health and wealth of the bad guys.
In other words, the first question is, do you see the problem, but the second question is, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
Edith: Well, you must enjoy smelling the stench!!!!
!!!
Please refer me to a time in
Please refer me to a time in our history when people could go to Congress without serious financial support from either their own coffers or from contributors who of course expected something from their money. The only difference is that in the past there were no regulations and no paper trails. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was hardly a documentary.
If you're a student of history (and if you're not, you're missing something) you know that the shenanigans of the past, particularly those of the nineteenth century, frequently fall into the "you can't make this up" category. I like the present, frankly; somebody breaks wind in Washington and it's immediately broadcast around the world with video clips on YouTube.
Edith: Again I say the only ones in Congress now are the ones..
with the dollars or those without the dollars but are supported by corporations and special interest groups who tell their candidates which way is up. In any scenario the people are coming up short.
Certainly
But note the country started out restricting political decision-making to white male property owners, most of considerable means. The problems engendered by THAT structure resulted in the Civil War.
I simply believe that if we want a representative government of some sort, we should look throughout the population for the best and brightest, rather than narrow the gate to those who can pursue politics as a leisure activity. I don't identify any time in our history where corruption, backroom dealing and extreme partisanship were eliminated by good will and selflessness, even during World War Two.
Edith: If you want to sell your soul, then have at it - many...
have done so and continue to do so every day of the week resulting in the problems we have today.
Le rechercez du temps perdu, or something
I remember only that he used to be a crackerjack Ag Sec for Kansas, which doesn't pay a bunch. Why can't a sly stud like myself **** their way into riches>?
Brownback married for money, "edith"
Sam (the Sham) married the Stauffer Publications fortune. It's what financed his congressional and Senate campaigns and provided the seed money for his presidential run.
Stauffer money is the tap root for Brownback's gubernatorial ambitions and is only reason to be Governor is so he can add "executive experience" to his Iowa stump speeches in 2012.
Cynicism is cheap, and sterile
Sam Graves and Brownback are idiots, but are they rich? That strange person Jenkins who beat Boyda, she's rich? Dennis Moore is rich? We've got fewer millionaires in office around here than in many venues, I think. Why make it impossible for anyone without inherited wealth to go to Congress? The way you display displeasure with your elected officials is to VOTE THEM OUT.
Wake up and smell the roses, Edith.....
Only the rich right now are in Congress or those who are bankrolled by the rich or big corporations. If you think the common man is in Washington, D.C. protecting your interests then you need to get new glasses and hearing aid.
Absolutely, gardner
Let's make it so that only the rich can be Congressmen. Let's pay them two bucks over minimum wage with no health benefits, so that the only people who can afford to go to Washington came to the table rich enough to do anything they want. Let's set it up so they can be fired any time their popularity drops below 50%, so that instead of doing the right thing they'll ALWAYS do what will get them the most votes.
Need to start thinking before you post or you'll end up like KCGrunt.
I cannot for the life of me see where these buzzards....
are working for me. I will be voting for a new guy or girl on the block - the old cronies are only padding their nest at my expense - very big expense. They need to have their pension plan eliminated and replaced with a shaky 401K plan, they need to have a cheap HMO for health coverage with co-pays up the gut and only certain doctors they can see with a nice high premium and that coverage eliminated when they retire, they need to see a salary cut until the deficit is eliminated, they need to know their their job could be eliminated any day of the week and on and on - this is what the people are facing every day now - they need to be walking in the shoes of the average citizen.
Pay them $500,000 a year
We should pay them a half million a year. Maybe the people of the 6th Congressional District might think twice before giving a dolt like Sam Graves a cool million per term. And (I'm not that good at math) the whole package would probably cost less than a taxpayer-funded management retreat for AIG.
Oh, there will still be hacks and idiots elected. But not even William Jefferson could be bought off for a cool (heh-heh) $95 grand if it put his half-a-million salary in jeopardy. And Ted Stevens could've actually paid for that Barca-Lounger that he's "borrowed" from a constituent for the past ten years.
With Five Hundred Large at stake, maybe even Rod Blogojevich might opt to be honest. (Okay, bad example. But a lot of other people might.)
Look: We're in a society that pays Sylvester Stallone $20 million dollars for being an actor, where a third-baseman who hits .248 gets a $24.8 million dollar contract for playing a game, where CEOs fly Gulfstreams into Washington to plead poverty.
All the "original intent" advocates should be on board for the half-a-million-a-year congressional pay grade. Okay, so it's a bit steeper than 1789's $6 per diem. But that was pretty good money in those days; you didn't have to tip the valet $5 bucks to get your car back. Figure in inflation. The half-a-mil-a-year works out, I think. (And with this I'm using the Benjamin Franklin half-a-shilling per whore basis for projecting congressional salaries. It seems relevant.)
I really hope Congress raises their pay to $500,000 dollars a year as their first act. Yeah, it will upset a lot of yahoos in the sticks. But it will almost guarantee that we'll achieve, in 2010, what just about everyone says every election cycle: "Throw 'em all out!"
And then we'll be faced with people who either would be running for the money or for whom it's finally worth it to leave successful careers to represent the nation's best interests.