Leading by Example

[bd]

Already the Democrats are attempting to show the "conservatives" what actual fiscal responsibility and ethics truly are.

Democrats Will Try to Block Pay Raise

By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 7, 2006; 5:48 PM



WASHINGTON -- Members of Congress are in line for a $3,300 pay raise effective Jan. 1 unless they block it, and Democrats said Thursday they intend to try.

Officials said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party's leaders, had notified Republicans they will try to add the anti-pay-raise provision to a bill that provides funds for most government agencies through Feb. 15.

Congress must pass the funding bill before it adjourns for the year, and the target for that is Friday.

Democrats won control of Congress in last month's elections after a campaign in which they frequently criticized majority Republicans for taking pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage.

"It is unconscionable that members of congress would get yet another pay raise while the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour for the last 10 years. Senator Reid intends to do all he can to ensure that Congress won't get a raise until working families do," said his spokesman, Jim Manley.

Democrats have made legislation to increase the minimum wage one of their priorities for the new Congress that convenes in January.

Under federal law, lawmakers, like many federal employees, receive a cost of living increase on each Jan. 1. The increase for 2007 is pegged at 2 percent, and would put the salary for rank-and-file lawmakers at $168,500.

The maneuvering is often intense around the politically sensitive issue of pay raises, and this year has been no different.

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, sought this summer to block the increase from taking effect as part of debate on legislation to provide funds for the Transportation Department.

"I do not think that it is appropriate to let this bill go through without an up or down vote on whether or not Congress should have an increase in its own pay," he said at the time.

But by a 249-167 procedural vote, the House decided not to allow the vote Matheson wanted.

The pay raise would also apply to the vice president _ who is president of the Senate _ congressional leaders and Supreme Court justices.

President Bush's salary of $400,000 is unaffected.

© 2006 The Associated Press

It's only a small gesture in the face of the astronomical debt our country has been shackeld with in the last 6 years - but it's a great start.

bd

[sjp2452]

Just one question: have you ever even read the arguments against the minimum wage hike?

I was all in favor of raising the min wage and didn't understand why people would be against it...until I read the economic arguments against it. Just a thought--you might want to get the other side of the story.

I hope congress doesn't take a pay raise. That'd be a nice gesture for sure.

As for the debt...I recall posting the question several times, but never getting an answer. Economy already sliding into recession, terrorist attack on our economic infrastructure and a war on terror declared.

How are you NOT going to go into debt while doing what needs to be done? This is why a lot of people carry credit cards--for emergencies.

Ours was quite a big one, no?

[tomk]

Originally Posted by sjp2452

Just one question: have you ever even read the arguments against the minimum wage hike?

I was all in favor of raising the min wage and didn't understand why people would be against it...until I read the economic arguments against it. Just a thought--you might want to get the other side of the story.

Part of the other side of the story can be seen in the states that have independently increased the minimum wage above the Federal one - something like 17 states - about 1/3 of all the states. Don't know about all those states, but here in Florida we heard all doomsday "it'll increase unemployment because businesses won't be able to afford it" stories and it just didn't happened.

I hope congress doesn't take a pay raise. That'd be a nice gesture for sure.

Agree ...

As for the debt...I recall posting the question several times, but never getting an answer. Economy already sliding into recession, terrorist attack on our economic infrastructure and a war on terror declared.

How are you NOT going to go into debt while doing what needs to be done? This is why a lot of people carry credit cards--for emergencies.

Unfortunately, if we think of credit as being our unlimited "Emergency Fund", everything becomes an emergency. Sometimes I just have to decide that, no matter how important I think something is, I can't afford it. I'm also not really big on pouring money into hopeless causes ...

Ours was quite a big one, no?

[Son of Norway]

It would have to be a pretty hefty hike in the minimum wage to be considered a raise. $5.15 had a lot more value in 1996 than it does now. Assuming an average inflation rate of 3% over the last 10 years, adjusting the minimum wage to $6.92 would restore the value that $5.15 had 10 years ago. In todays terms, $5.15 from 1996 has a value of $3.80.

[Blackwater]

Voting themselves a pay raise is ridiculous, whether dem or republican.
Bet the dems won't stop it. A jesture is nothing more than trying to win political points.
If they pass it with a republican majority and if the dems ARE truly serious, they'd immediately start legislation after being sworn in next year to take reduce it to the current level or more.
I'll lay good money on that not happening. Any takers oh ye of the democratic faithful?

And this goes to the heart of the issue. There is concerted effort by both parties to play the politcal field/divide amongst Americans and this way they can always blame "partisan politics" for NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE.
Alot of people here and across the country buy it hook and sinker too. There is no difference bewteeen the two, they're all out for themselves. It's naive to think think different.

Like almost every other American (except for welfare recipients and politicos), pay raises are preformance based.
Not only shoudn't they get a raise, they should be placed on a performance improvement plan.

[cucamelsmd15]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Like almost every other American (except for welfare recipients and politicos), pay raises are preformance based.

In that case, 99% of our government officials should be working for free, if it was performance based that is

[sjp2452]

Originally Posted by tomk

Unfortunately, if we think of credit as being our unlimited "Emergency Fund", everything becomes an emergency. Sometimes I just have to decide that, no matter how important I think something is, I can't afford it. I'm also not really big on pouring money into hopeless causes ...

I never said anything about unlimited...but if you think we shouldn't have ever allowed ourselves to go into debt following 9/11, which "ball" would you have chosen to drop? Keep taxes up and let the economy collapse, or bench the military and keep crying to the UN to do something?

Save the economy by any means necessary, and destroy the enemy that is still threatening us by any means necessary. I don't see how you can call either one of those 'optional.'

[beardman2]

Kudos to them IF it happens. However it looks like just a ploy to raise the minimum wage. Which I argue is against the constitution.

[one-eyed-fatman]

We should pass a law that requires our government to not make more than 5.50 an hour.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by bd

Already the Democrats are attempting to show the "conservatives" what actual fiscal responsibility and ethics truly are.

It's only a small gesture in the face of the astronomical debt our country has been shackeld with in the last 6 years - but it's a great start.

bd

Republicans Block Congressional Pay Hike

Jan 30 1:37 PM US/Eastern
By ANDREW TAYLOR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- When Democrats blasted Republicans last fall for taking annual congressional pay raises while blocking numerous attempts to raise the minimum wage, it was an effective campaign tactic. Democrats vowed not to accept the annual cost-of-living hike until Congress increases the minimum wage.


But Republicans angered over the political attacks are unwilling to allow Democrats to reinstate the so-called members' COLA, forcing Democratic leaders to scuttle the 1.7 percent pay hike for the entire year.
"There will be no COLA adjustment," said a disappointed Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the House's No. 2 Democrat, on Tuesday.

Hoyer has for years played a central role in finessing the ticklish issue of lawmakers' pay, working cozily with GOP leaders to make sure an annual pay-related vote went smoothly.

Lawmakers' pay will be frozen at $165,200 for this year in the dispute, in which Democrats violated a yearslong understanding that the competing parties would not use the pay raise issue in campaign ads.

Under the annual COLA, lawmakers automatically get a pay hike unless Congress votes to block it. Hoyer and GOP leaders such as Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., made sure to smooth over any potential obstacles to the pay hike.

Typically, the annual vote on the pay hike came on an obscure procedural move _ instead of a direct up-or-down vote _ and the Democratic and GOP whips each delivered a roughly equal number of votes to shut off any move to block the pay hike.

Blunt said Democrats broke the agreement last year after the pay raise-related vote had already taken place. In a 263-152 vote in June, the House blocked a bid by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, to force an up- or-down vote on the pay raise.

"The agreement always was that the parties would not use the COLA issue in the campaign," Blunt said. "It was as formal as anything not signed is."
Under the congressional pay raise law enacted in 1989, lawmakers won a big pay raise in exchange for giving up honoraria for personal gain. The COLA was born as part of the reforms, but it also had the political benefit of freeing lawmakers from having to vote on pay hikes.

The issue is ripe because a GOP-drafted stopgap spending bill carrying language delaying the pay hike expires Feb. 15 _ and lawmakers would automatically start receiving their raises the following day.

A huge spending bill for the current budget year is moving through the House on Wednesday, and Democrats tried in recent days to reach agreement with Republicans on language to delay the pay raise a few more weeks or months to provide more time for the minimum wage bill to advance into law.

Republicans said no.

"The DCCC ran their own ads attacking (GOP) members on this," Blunt said. "Because of that their members are going to suffer in terms of not being able to have a COLA."

Members were originally due to begin receiving a 1.7 percent, or $2,800, annual increase Jan. 1. They had already lost about $320 with the delay to Feb. 16.

Senate GOP Whip Trent Lott, R-Miss., pressed for congressional pay hikes since his days as a member of the House Republican leadership. Lott expressed disappointment at the news, noting there's no shortage of wealthy lawmakers _ such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Sen. Edward Kennedy _ using the pay raise issue as a political sword. "It's very easy for the multimillionaires ... to demagogue this issue," Lott said.

-------------------------------------------

oh bd....you thought it would be the DEMOCRATS who would block the pay raise? Look how that turned out....

Will you praise the Republicans for blocking the pay raise just like you were praising the Democrats for supposedly wanting to block it???

Will you be fair?? I doubt it...

Frank