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
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.