Should Congress Get A Pay Raise Next Year? I Say: No!!!

Congress should not get a pay raise until we, the people, say it should be so. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, it is an ethical issue.

Right now, the economy is such that workers are not getting very big raises and the cost-of-living has gone up for all of us. As such, Congress, should show some solidarity with the American people and not only refuse a pay raise but should also give up many of the costly perks they take for themselves (taxpayer funded health care, taxpayer funded retirement plan, taxpayer funded travel, etc.) while leaving Joe and Jane Average American to fend for themselves.

The following is a letter penned by Kristina Rasmussen of the National Taxpayer's Union. Please feel free to copy it and send it to everyone you know.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), I urge you to cosponsor bipartisan legislation (H.R. 5087 or H.R. 6417) that would prevent an automatic pay increase for Members of Congress in 2009. Rank-and-file Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of $169,300 (more than double the median household income of $78,978 for the Washington, D.C. metro area, including wealthy suburbs). This sum doesn't include taxpayer funds used for lavish pensions, health plans, and generous allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses. In light of mixed economic indicators, Congress should reject an automatic pay hike that would pad a sizeable Congressional compensation package. How did this auto-pilot pay raise system come about? As explained by Pete Sepp in the NTU Foundation Policy Paper "Congressional Perks: How the Trappings of Office Trap Taxpayers," it didn’t start out this way: According to Article I of the U.S. Constitution, compensation paid to Members of Congress "shall be ascertained by law." The Founding Fathers intended Congress to set its own pay through the appropriations process, on the supposition that Members would be guided by their own sense of honor. In fact, lawmakers lived without a yearly salary up until 1854, having contented themselves prior to that time with a per-diem system that paid a flat rate for each day Congress was in session. But thanks to a series of post-war measures, culminating in a 1989 "ethics" law, Members of Congress have sought to avoid accountability for salary hikes. Annual pay raises are now tied to the Labor Department’s Employment Cost Index: COLAs [Cost of Living Adjustments] now take effect once the TTHUD bill becomes law, although taxpayers would never be able to identify any language in the bill that appears to authorize these pay grabs. Members of Congress would need to specifically vote on, or insert, language blocking the raise if they do not want the increase to occur. Taxpayers are thus condemned to fight a bizarre annual battle over a COLA whose existence is only recognized when Congress opts to block it. Even though Members of Congress received automatic pay increases each year between 2000 and 2006, taxpayers were enthused to see the House reject a pay hike for 2007. Our members strongly believe this action should be repeated in 2008. We're counting on you to make a stand against automatic Congressional pay increases by cosponsoring H.R. 5087 (or H.R. 6417) and directing the resulting savings toward reducing the deficit. Sincerely, Kristina Rasmussen Director of Government Affairs

I know that Congress is going to accept the pay raise even though they don't deserve it. But we need to be aware that they are doing it and that they are screwing us in the process. We need to put pressure on them to act responsibly.

How can they criticize corporate executives for have golden parachutes when Congress has platinum parachutes?

To read more about H.R. 6417, click the following link:

To Prevent Members Of Congress From Receiving The Automatic Pay Adjustment Scheduled To Take Effect In 2009
Washington Watch

The last activity on this bill is that it was referred to committee, most likely to let it die.

You can access the original letter on-line here:

Stop Congress's Automatic Pay Hike
National Taxpayers Union
February 01, 2008

Nancy Pelosi Was Okay With Waterboarding Back In 2002 And Dems Concede Tax Increases

So, the Dems were okay with waterboarding as an interrogation technique back in 2002 but waited until 2007 to come out against it? Why? Due to the secretive cloak that the Dems use to surround their true agenda, we may never know. But Fox News has this:

Four top members of Congress, including now-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, got a close look at CIA overseas detention sites and interrogation techniques in September 2002 and offered no challenge to their legitimacy, according to a news article out Sunday. On the contrary, at least two lawmakers involved in the briefing that day questioned whether the CIA was pushing hard enough, even after hearing the details of the now widely criticized technique known as waterboarding, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post. "The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," one official is quoted saying. ... "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing," Porter Goss, a former CIA director and congressman who chaired the House intelligence panel at the time of the briefings, told The Post. "And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement."

Perhaps a member of Old Media will go back and ask Pelosi about her reaction during these briefings and then ask to reconcile that reaction to the fact that only one member of the Congressional delegation raised any objection at all: Democrat Jane Harman.

But then, that would require integrity on the part of the Dems and on Old Media.

Not likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Report: Top Members Of Congress Were OK With Waterboarding In 2002
FoxNews.com
December 9, 2007

---

And the Dems are quickly knuckling under as it has become apparent that the American people do not want higher taxes nor more government spending.

From the Associated Press:

Cracks are emerging in congressional Democrats' solidarity, as frustrated lawmakers concede their majority status is not enough to overcome Republican resistance on taxes, spending, Iraq and a host of other issues. The fissures, which became obvious this week, are undermining Democrats' hopes for several key achievements this year. They also point to a bruising 2008 election in which Democrats will say Republicans blocked prudent tax and spending plans to score political points on immigration and other hot-button issues. Republicans say they simply want to prevent higher taxes of any kind, even if the targets are not-so-sympathetic groups such as oil companies and hedge fund managers.

And the Dems also think we are stupid enough to buy their criticism. No nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity, but many have taxed themselves into poverty. Thus, no tax plan that includes higher taxes can ever be called "prudent." Too bad the Dem leadership just doesn't seem capable of grasping that.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Cry Uncle On Taxes, Spending
Charles Babington
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 7, 2007