Congress pay raise

[Crapshoot]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

Ah yes - good to know that the politicians are taken care of.

[SackAttack]

I've always felt that giving any legislative body control over its own pay is a monkeys-running-the-zoo situation. I mean, hell, I don't get to dictate /my/ pay raises, why should they get to dictate theirs?

[mgadfly]

I think it is fine. It is expensive to maintain two homes (1 in your district, another in D.C. area) travel back and forth and all the other related costs of being a representative. Not that I think they are getting a bad deal or anything.

I do like the automatic adjustment for cost of living as it continues to allow people without an independent means of wealth to act as legislators. If the salary couldn't pay the above costs, and didn't adjust with the cost of living, eventually the only people who could afford to take the job are those who have the money to afford it. (Which in my opinion, we already have a heavy bias toward rich people representing us since they are usually able to leverage more political power in getting elected in the first place).

Plus, 2%, chump change.

[QuikSand]

Very good response, mgadfly.

I think pay for elected officials is a vastly overrated "issue" in public policy.

[Huckleberry]

536 (including VP) x $4,000 = $2,144,000

Budget Deficit for 2004 = ~ $440,000,000,000

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I think it is fine. It is expensive to maintain two homes (1 in your district, another in D.C. area) travel back and forth and all the other related costs of being a representative. Not that I think they are getting a bad deal or anything.

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Congress' travel tab already picked up by the government? I can understand the residence argument, but beyond that, if travel is paid for, what significant expenses do they have outside of the basics? Never mind the fact that the cost of living is not equal. A 'home in your district' in Alabama isn't going to be remotely as expensive as one in California.

Oh, hey, for that matter - does Congress pay taxes? Because if not, that's a fairly hefty chunk of change they're getting each year that their constituents don't.

They have costs, yes, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for those costs, but my quibble lies in the definition of 'fair compensation' that ought to be used.

[ScottVib]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Congress' travel tab already picked up by the government? I can understand the residence argument, but beyond that, if travel is paid for, what significant expenses do they have outside of the basics? Never mind the fact that the cost of living is not equal. A 'home in your district' in Alabama isn't going to be remotely as expensive as one in California.

Oh, hey, for that matter - does Congress pay taxes? Because if not, that's a fairly hefty chunk of change they're getting each year that their constituents don't.

They have costs, yes, and they deserve to be fairly compensated for those costs, but my quibble lies in the definition of 'fair compensation' that ought to be used.

Yes, elected officials (Congress and the President) do pay income tax on their salaries.

[Tekneek]

Oh, so there *IS* some bipartisan work going on in D.C. after all!