House members seek pay raise of $4,400 By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 53 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Despite low approval ratings and hard feelings from last year's elections, Democrats and Republicans in the House are reaching out for an approximately $4,400 pay raise that would increase their salaries to almost $170,000.

The cost-of-living raise endorsed Wednesday evening gets lawmakers back on track for automatic pay raises after a fight between the parties last year and again in January killed the pay increase due this year. That was the first interruption of the annual congressional pay boost in seven years.

The blowup came after Democrats last year fulfilled a campaign promise to deny themselves more pay until Congress raised the minimum wage. Delays in the minimum wage bill cost every lawmaker about $3,100 this year.

On a 244-181 vote Wednesday, Democrats and Republicans alike killed a bid by Reps. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Lee Terry, R-Neb., to get a direct vote to block the COLA, which is automatically awarded unless lawmakers vote to block it. The Senate has not indicated when it will deal with a similar measure.

As part of an ethics bill in 1989, Congress gave up its ability to accept pay for speeches and made annual cost-of-living pay increases automatic unless the lawmakers voted otherwise.

The annual vote on the pay hike comes on an obscure procedural move — instead of a direct up-or-down vote — and Democratic and GOP leaders each delivered a majority of their members to shut off the move to block the pay hike.

This year's vote was made ticklish by last year's battle. Republicans said Democrats broke a promise not to use the pay raise issue against GOP lawmakers in campaign ads and therefore were, generally speaking, more reluctant to supply votes.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., worked the floor during the vote to make sure there was relative balance between the warring parties in delivering votes. Working through Blunt, Hoyer forced more than a dozen Republicans to switch their votes in support of accepting the raise, including Reps. Mike Pence and Dan Burton of Indiana and Fred Upton, Dave Camp and Vernon Ehlers of Michigan.

Most members support the pay raise as a means of retaining experienced lawmakers and of making sure that Congress is not simply dominated by wealthy people. Many lawmakers maintain homes both in the expensive Washington housing market and back in their districts. On most days, they meet with lobbyists making far more than they do.

"Every member has some obligation to the institution for the compensation to, as much as possible, keep pace with inflation," Blunt told reporters Wednesday.

"I don't think this is the right time for members of Congress to be allowing the pay raise to go through without even an up-or-down vote," said Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. "We need to show the American people we are willing to make some sacrifices ... that we recognize there's a struggle for some in today's economy."

The exact figure for this year's cost of living adjustment has not been settled under a complicated formula that awards lawmakers a smaller pay raise than civil servants. But opponents of the congressional COLA estimated a pay increase this year of 2.7 percent, or $4,460.

Senators and representatives presently make $165,200 a year, with a handful of leaders such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., earning more.

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

This year, Vice President Dick Cheney, Pelosi and Chief Justice John Roberts receive $212,100. Associate justices receive $203,000. House and Senate party leaders get $183,500.

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

Funny how they always manage to reach an agreement on this one.

I honestly don't have any issue with them getting cost of living increases. I would have a problem if their raises were outstripping inflation.

I think they should raise the minimum wage every time they give themselves a pay raise.

I honestly don't have any issue with them getting cost of living increases. I would have a problem if their raises were outstripping inflation.

This is why they never get anything done. They really don't even have to do anything and people will think they deserve their cost of living increases.

DO YOUR GOD DAM JOB AND EARN A RAISE.

They should get a raise according to their performance, or at least what the polls reflect. They do work for US right?

This is why they never get anything done. They really don't even have to do anything and people will think they deserve their cost of living increases.

DO YOUR GOD DAM JOB AND EARN A RAISE.

They should get a raise according to their performance, or at least what the polls reflect. They do work for US right?

If they were paid for what they accomplish, they would not make minimum wage.

I honestly don't have any issue with them getting cost of living increases. I would have a problem if their raises were outstripping inflation.

Agreed.

Funny how they always manage to reach an agreement on this one.

When I first saw the title of this thread I knew that it was not going to be a debate. That last denial of pay last year was political theatre that wouldn't last until the smoke cleared. Congress continually gives themselves pay raises regardless of the conditions of the AVERAGE American. And it definately is a good assessment that they always agree on matters of paying themselves.

Over half of the Senate are millionaires, and most of the house is in the upper income ranges. These guys are not struggling for money. Boo Hoo!

I thought once the mighty Democrats were a majority, all this crap was supposed to stop?

Wha happened?

Over half of the Senate are millionaires, and most of the house is in the upper income ranges. These guys are not struggling for money. Boo Hoo!


The less you pay them, the more they HAVE to be independently wealthy. Frankly, $170K seems like underpay to me considering the importance of their positions.

The understanding of why we do not pay these people high salaries extends to the point of what public service is suppose to be. It is generally accepted that these positions do not pay high salaries to ensure lawmakers are not just doing it for the money, but instead to serve the people. I do agree it is a low salary, however their access to monies in their campaigns and PAC's allows them to conduct business without going into their personal money. No one in congress is hurting for money or is getting ready to file bankruptcy. Book deals, perks, lobbyist, and general corruption in this town has kept these guys in the upper incomes of our society.

Yeah, $170K a year would barely keep me supplied in Twinkies.

Bless their hearts.

;)
SMW

The less you pay them, the more they HAVE to be independently wealthy.

Exactly, although given the cost of running for office, ultimately you probably do need to be independently wealthy, unless you're running in a district that's hard-core for one party in particular.

Basically what it comes down to is that Americans hate anyone that makes more than they do.

Oh what I could do with even a fraction of that money.....

The less you pay them, the more they HAVE to be independently wealthy. Frankly, $170K seems like underpay to me considering the importance of their positions.

Don't kid yourself, they are already wealthy. $170K per year is OVERpay considering how much they actually get done and how much of the year they actually work. I agree their position is important but they sure don't treat it as important as it is.

Let's not forget, these people are in that job because they CHOSE to be. If I complained about my wages what would you tell me to do?

Before you answer let me do it for you, I have two options ask my boss for a raise, (and the last time I checked they worked for us), they should have to go by the polls of their job performance in order to get a raise. There is another option, if you don't like your wage and you can't get a raise, QUIT and get a different job. The way these guys work how could anyone else be any worse. Don't let the door hit you on the way out and don't forget to clean out your desk.

I'm so sick and tired of them whining about how little they make and i'm just as tired of people saying they deserve more. They don't deserve 1/2 the salary they get.

But by all means let's keep letting them vote for their own pay raises, all it means is more taxes and less performance, but apparently that's ok with you. You're why nothing gets done, you just hand them everything including your sympathy.

I think their raises should be put to the voters.

Let them earn their raises for a change.

.

I think their raises should be put to the voters.

It wouldn't matter how well they did, the voters would never vote them a pay raise. Unless maybe there was something in it for the voters as well.

It wouldn't matter how well they did, the voters would never vote them a pay raise. Unless maybe there was something in it for the voters as well.
We are not an unreasonable country of people. If they were doing a satisfactory job in the opinion of the majority voting block it would happen. Don't say it won't, because that's to say we are a selfish nation who can't see right from wrong. Even if our present situation would lead people to believe that.