We pay them $174,000 per year – Letter to the Editor
5-9-12
The members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been working in Washington on 41 of the first 127 days of this year. They are planning to be in session half of the remaining weeks. How long would you keep your job if you worked like that? Even when they show up they fail to address the biggest problems facing the country. It would take a 50% tax increase in order to balance the so called budget yet they are avoiding the problem while the debt grows by 1200 billion dollars per year.
The real problem is you and I let them get away with it. They work for us and we pay them $174,000 per year to do it. Make a commitment to write or call your representative once a week and express your views. See how they respond and let that be your guide to voting this November.
Submitted by:
Irving B. Welchons III
Well, my hat is off at least to Democrat Jim Catron for responding to my suggestion that the congressional pay raise be tied to the minimum wage. He tends (like most politicians) to engage in distractive double-talk changing the subject by citing current constitutional and federal rules relating to congressional pay. He knows – as all politicians know – that there are ways to work around existing law to address a greater concern. For example, we could flip this suggestion – tie the minimum wage to congressional pay instead. Same net result.
Also his suggestive comment that minimum wages do not work. Quote: “There is disagreement on whether a minimum wage law is effective in attaining its goal.” Minimum wages will work if there is permanent and rigidly enforced Price Controls with stiff federal prison sentences for those businesses which violate them Sorry, Mr. Catron, as we say in the South, “that dog won’t hunt,”
At least you had the courage to discredit this good idea. We’re still yet to hear from a Republican and most likely will not.
The rest of the story:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/coverage.htm
The first country to enact a minimum wage was New Zealand in 1894.
Minimum wage laws have been evaluated on the criterion of reducing poverty. There is disagreement on whether a minimum wage law is effective in attaining its goal.
The rest of the story:
1. Members of Congress elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System. Members of Congress contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement pllan and pay 5.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. Members contribute one-third of the cost of health insurance with the government covering the other two-thirds.
2. Congressional pay in 1992 was $ 129,500 per year. (In 1907, members of congress were paid
$ 7,500 per year, the equivalent of $ 173,000 in 2010 dollars.)
3. Both houses of Congress voted not to raise salaries for 2010 and 2011.
4. Congress is required by Article I, Section 6, of the Constitution to determine its own pay.
It might help to check the history of minimum wage legislation. The “one-size fits all” approach ignores local cost of living conditions as well as availability of workers.
It would be an act of good faith for the Congress to follow the Constitution of the United States as amended by the 27th Amendment and return congressional salaries to the level that they were in 1992. “Cost of living” increases have increased the national debt. In addition, Congressmen and Senators could pay the premium for their health insurance as well as fund out of their salary their retirement. Members of Congress currently pay their portion of the social security contribution (tax).
These three acts would show good faith and help (by a very small amount) reduce the national debt.
In checking the posts to this original “Letter To The Editor” I notice that no one is even interested in debating my suggestion that all congressional pay increases be tied to the federal minimum wage laws.
This suggestion makes good common sense, but it also destroys the agenda of both Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats want to control us “politically” and the Republicans want to control us “economically.” Perhaps since most commenting are either a Democrat or a Republican, this is the reason why members of both major parties ignore it.
“As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?”
alexis_de_tocqueville
As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/alexis_de_tocqueville.html#wkKSegz0d8BKgT4Y.99
“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and **** ** ***,”
Christopher Hitchens
We search for evidence and learn that truth (evidence) has been a topic of discussion for thousands of years. Our understanding is the result of efforts to rationalize. “Reality” can be understood as how we perceive the world. [A pyschopath unders "his" reality.]
“Normal” pleople have differing views of reality. “These are the best of times and the worst of times” based on your perception which is directly related to your circumstances.
Increases in congressional salaries since 1992 have been justified as “cost of living” adjustments.
“A rose by any other name is still a rose.”
@Jim Catron,
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
READ THE ARTICLE! This is serious stuff. Please consider the evidence. All these process things are designed to confuse.
Each of us has our own reality. Our task is to share our vision to the point that it becomes the common reality – which means that we must be observant and able to clarify that which we perceive.
No man is an island. Truth for us is limited to that which we can perceive through our senses.
Our challenge is to expand our minds and to accept as truth that which is contrary to our experiences. This is almost impossible for us: to believe that which we can not perceive through our senses.
Congress has ignored the 27th Amendment: “No law, varying the compensdation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened. The amendment was ratified May 7, 1992.
The Congress could “roll-back” compensation to 1992.
Any member of Congress can opt out of the health insurance provided to Senators and Representatives.
The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 (Obama Care) was the result of partisanship. The answer to the problems with implementing the act is not to rescind the act, but to amend the act, addressing the issues which are problems. Rescinding Medicare would be devastating to hundreds of thousands. Closing health departments would likewise be devastating.
The solutions are proximate, not finite; the problems will continue to exist. Many of our health care problems are the result of who we are (genetics) and how we live (what we eat, the amount of exercise we get).
Those elected to offiice must be accountable to us, those who participate in the political process by voting and contacting our elected officials. The influence afforded through the Citizens decision must be addressed. In 2012 those running for Congress know the potential influence of the unidentified unnamed who can contribute large sums of money to promote their interests (which may or may not be the interests of the people living in their congressional district).
Jim Catron, Democrat
L.N………. please……..come on really!!!!!
IX: I am a Democrat, and I am for seriously cutting into Congressional arrogance. I think, for instance, that they should have exactly the same health care plan as they gave us. That is what the president wanted, so I fail to understand why people call what,we got “obamacare.”. He signed it, yes, but it was not what he wanted for us. It was just what he could get in thishorrible divisive atmosphere of hatred, hostility, and unwarranted accusation that infects almost every aspect of our national psyche and which is destroying my country.
Frank, Maybe you should contact congressman Crenshaw if you have issues with him. I have and I got an response the next day. Just saying.
I got it now I graduated from mchs
Thanks, StarKilLer, for finding merit in my suggestion dealing with Congressional pay. We won’t find any Democrats – including Mr. Catron – touching this with the proverbal “10 foot pole.” They don’t want a minimum wage sufficient to guarantee a real “living wage,” because then no one would need their vote-getting social programs. Gotta keep the peasants down you know.
And of course the Republicans don’t believe in any minimum wage period because they still hold to the doctrine of their forefathers of the Gilded Age that “the employee is only worth what the employer decides he is worth.”
Now you know why I use the moniker of “Independent Xpression.”
If I like to have my way and don’t want to listen to you, nothing will get done.
Gridlock helps no one. Team work gets things done. It is human nature to treat other people the way we think they treat us.
The Congress is required to do only one thing: pass an annual budget. The budget is the most important document; it identifies the priorities of the Congress.
Our national government would be easier to understand if it were a parliamentary system. A simple majority governs in a parliamentary system. The minority can not filibuster or otherwise block legislation.
@ Eddie…aw that hurts my feelings
.
@jj or jk:
Have another.
@Frank:
I agree. Mr. C. has, once again, thrown wet rag on an otherwise enjoyable “pile on”. He’s a good political leader, but Ceasar was better at public executions.
SOMEBODY TELL CARTON TO PUT IN LAMENS TERMS
Jim, you are so calm and reasonable and sane, so experienced in government, so rational….you need to stop interfering with all the fun.
peasant and eddie…congress critter. I like that one! I’m in the same boat as eddie – Ander Crenshaw represents me. Never seen him, never heard from him and don’t know anything about him. Probably too busy counting his money and arranging for off shore tax shelters to shine around a burg like Madison. Incumbents are rarely not re elected. Like being invited to play poker at a strangers home. Come to find out they know what all the cards are and if by some freak of chance you win something, they explain to you that you did not understand the rules. The house always wins. Some rich guy from Texas is evidently targeting incumbents – regardless of party – and working to get them booted out. And he is having some success. It seems like none of us trust these people, none of these people seem to be able to do anything sane or meaningful and they all get rich while they are in office. Almost like anyone that would want the job should be automatically disqualified from getting it.
Partisanship seems to matter most today. Civility is essential for the government established by the Founding Fathers to work. The Constitutional Convention was marked by consensus to the extent that the Articles of Confederation were not amended; rather, the replacement document was ratified by the terms in the new document. (The Articles could not have been amended because all 13 states would have had to agree; the Constitution would be effective when 9 states agreed.)
Partisanship has been most pointed in that the minority in the Senate (and the majority in the House after the 2010 mid-term elections) identified as a goal: ensuring that Mr. Obama would be a one-term president. Missing has been consensus on resolving the problems facing this nation.
With the consensus model decision-makers hear and understand every interest and everyone accepts the outcome. They don’t agree, but they agree to set disagreement aside so that an agreement may be reached. Everyone seeks an alternative that addresses all concerns and interests. Members seek a higher ground that surpasses preconcveived ideas of what the decision should be. There is group ownership of the decision. An example was the consensus reached by President Reagan and the Congress on Social Security in the 1980s.
The alternative might well be for the United States to change from a presidential system to a parliamentary system. There could well be advantages: the filibuster would no longer block legislative action, the majority would decide, and (this is a major advantage) elections could be called when the government wanted a vote of confidence (there would be a risk of having a vote of no confidence). The model cited is that of the United Kingdom.
“More of the same” but from a Democratic minority in the Senate would not help this nation to address significant issues including the national debt, immigration reform, health care, etc.
Statesmen, not lesser men and women seeking partisan advantage, is what this nation needs.
Discernment is essential. Those who serve as elected officials should seek God’s guidance. The Spirit of God can help to determine the common good of the nation.
LOL, I like that one and agree with you IX!
We need a constitutional amendment which sets congressional pay at no more than 7 times that of the federal minimum wage for a 40 hour week. (Why 7 times?) 7 is the Scriptural number of perfection and common sense tells us that living in Washington, DC on $7.25 an hour would be almost impossible. So lets be good citizens and give’em a break while they are “representing” us in Washington, but tie the congressional pay to the minimum wage. It’s only fair. I assure you if we had such a constitutional amendment, the minimum wage would go up (as it needs to) regularly and to an amount that provides a living wage for all working Americans.
Our congressman is Ander Crenshaw. I’m very pleased that he has been able to accomplish very little. (He is completely out of touch with our community.) How is it possible that we share a congressional district with Jacksonville? What’s the commonality between us and Jacksonville?
Hell, Just go to dinner with one here in a few days. Ask him if he is a member of ALEX. Our congress critter is owned hair, hide and guts by corporate interests. If your yearly salary is less than $500,000/yr and you vote for this turkey, you are as delusional as the peasant. Just for the record, the peasant is fighting a Baker act charge daily.. Boo!