It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should Members of Congress Take Pay Cuts to Help with the Deficit ?

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
They could all be more like Ron Paul, which doesn't accept congressional pension and returns whatever money he can from his congressional account.




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


I think all public servants should have their pay set at the national average.

That is only FAIR.

Comparing Private Sector and Government Worker Salaries
reason.org...


Are Public Sector Workers Overcompensated?

Several analyses of average wages and benefits in the public and private sectors reveal that state and local government workers earn more than private sector workers.

According to the most recent Employer Costs for Employee Compensation survey from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of December 2009, state and local government employees earned total compensation of $39.60 an hour, compared to $27.42 an hour for private industry workers-a difference of over 44 percent. This includes 35 percent higher wages and nearly 69 percent greater benefits.


I bet we could balance the budget a lot easier if these GREEDY GOVERNMENT UNION EMPLOYEES would get fair compensation.

just look at the disparity between the "servants" and the people paying for them.

Wisconsin one of 41 states where public workers earn more
www.usatoday.com...



Wisconsin is one of 41 states where public employees earn higher average pay and benefits than private workers in the same state, a USA TODAY analysis finds. Still, the compensation of Wisconsin's government workers ranks below the national average for non-federal public employees and has increased only slightly since 2000.


Public V. Private Sector: Who's Compensated More?
www.npr.org...



The answer depends on who you ask. Each side of this debate trots out statistics showing that public sector workers get paid more or less than others, depending on who did the survey and the methodology. Finding accurate, unbiased data is not easy. That said, there are some surprises in this fight. Total compensation for government workers has actually risen more slowly in the two states seeing the biggest fight: Ohio and Wisconsin.By some measures, private workers may have done better the last decade — but few have those juicy pensions.


Pathetic how much they have to manipulate the facts to make the private sector look better compensated than the public sector.

Soooo tired of this. . . . .
edit on 18-9-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   
Yes, If they have to cut jobs and cut spending across the board then they should cut their pay first....or at least freeze raises.....It wouldnt make a significant impact but Leaders should lead from the front.


edit on 18-9-2011 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-9-2011 by swimmer15 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I don't care about their salaries from the government as much as I
care about their payoffs from the corporations. Hell yes they need
a cut in pay.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
I think the figure is around $80,000/yr.

But, they also have the best medical insurance available. Paid for by taxpayer money. I have to pay a portion of mine.

The also get a free office, a budget for staffers and aides, free mail, and many other perks.

AND, the biggest bite in the butt......They don't pay taxes. Yep, tax exempt. Not one nickel.

It should not only be pay cuts, but have them pay for their own health insurance, and pay income taxes just like the rest of us.......Rant over, ok, so onto facts. It appears I am off a bit:


Rank-and-File Members: The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.



Senate Leadership Majority Party Leader - $193,400 Minority Party Leader - $193,400 House Leadership Speaker of the House - $223,500 Majority Leader - $193,400 Minority Leader - $193,400 A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.


And this:


Benefits Paid to Members of Congress You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth. Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, they were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986. Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation. Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS. As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes. Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension. The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.


Nothing about income tax, JUST Social Security. Hmm, Anyone? (bold text mine.)

SOURCE.

Here's a nice perk too:



Despite their self-avowed “abject poverty,” Congressmen can fly around in government luxury jets from a fleet of 24 jets our government keeps for them and other government personnel. They’re getting plenty of flack for appropriating an additional half a billion dollars to replace four of those planes during the recession. The people are rightly upset at them. The fiscal year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Department Appropriations bill included Congress' 2.2 percent pay raise, along with a 4.1 percent raise for federal workers and military personnel.

Another SOURCE.

Really?



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by userid1
 


Well, in a way your right..question wasn't what the problem was, or how to fix it, question was, should Congress take a pay cut?? sure, sure they should..but..it won't help anything. You don't just have congress that makes the big bucks. But..even if the whole government took a pay cut, the answer is...in the long run..it won't help in the big scheme of things. However, going along with this line of questioning, "should so and so take a pay cut" thereby finding out where their hearts and minds lay..and who is morally good and who is not...

You know..heres the thing..I come from a Christian background....and I know..no one can ever really reconcile the thoughts of religion and politics going hand in hand. I get that...I respect it. However, I'm a huge bible reader, and whenever something financial coinciding with political pops up..I can't help but remember the story of Nehemiah.

Lets filter out the God stuff for a moment and the fact that a lot on here believe the bible was simply a made up story, and has not historical truth or helps in it what so ever. The story of Nehemiah, in all honesty when you readit, is exactly what our government should be..in this moment. Not after we are out of crisis. But in this exact moment of time, of what we have going on..for your question about Congress???? what you want is a bunch of "Nehemiahs"

Nehemiah, was this Israelite who grew up in Babylon. When Israel was taken captive by Babylon...they came and took everyone and all their belongings. Now, Israel was free, and was allowed to return to its original land. The temple was destroyed, there were no places, homes, for the people to go to. Nehemiah was placed in charge of rebuilding the land and the people. In the time surrounding this...a group of individuals realized they could capitalize on the poor, and the bad economy, and they basically turned around..loaned out resources to the people, who in turn placed their land down as collateral. When they couldn't pay up...these individuals of course...collected up the land and then turned around and charged their own people rent...to rent the very land they just lost. This also went on down the food chain. So..what did Nehemiah do? well....he systematically went all through the area...paid off the everyone's debt, and then told them...no longer borrow. He did however, keep continue to charge the Tax..but...he and those in the government with him????? did not take pay..at all. Even what they were entitled to...He made himself and those in government with him...live simply on the barest necessities, until the economy was up to where it needed to be.

So...your question is..Should Congress take a pay cut? Yes..but not just Congress. What you want in office...any office....down to the smallest Mayor ....Right now...is a Nehemiah. That can only come with who we elect into that office. Thats the great thing about politicians....they are elected....we chose who gets to be in there. So, great..that might not be your question. But the fact is..without knowing exactly whats needed..then your question has no point. Thats not a shot against you, I promise I promise I promise. But think about it..your question is..Should Congress take a pay cut? Yes...will they? NO...so how do we get people into government to do the just moral right thing? we elect the individuals who will do so.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Absolutely!

They should take a 50% pay cut and they should forfeit all medial insurance and should have to pay for their own. Especially the TEA Party congressmen and women who seek to overturn Obamacare yet for some strange reason have no problem with their own government run health care.

In fact all government jobs should be minimum wage jobs. Police and the military included.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Absolutely. And that should be a message for anyone seeking re-election.

Cut your pay or take the highway.

Symbolic or not, they should only get the median wage of the American People. Take away the wage and the perks, only people who really wanted to be there would.

And there is not many average or poor people that have ever gone there. To much money to get elected and travel around spouting off at the mouth.

Those that have been there 3 terms or more like it. Why go back to a real job.

That is not to say there are not a few good people there that have been there a while, but the bad outweigh the good.

Set the pay at the average the American people make. Maybe then they would think more about us.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


"Should Members of Congress Take Pay Cuts to Help with the Deficit ?"

if they really wanted to help America they would hold a news conference tomorrow. they could admit they aren't worthy of their posts, apologize for what they've done, grab the name placards off their desks and never be seen or heard from again.

filling the empty positions with people that have scruples, morals and values would go a long way in helping with the deficit.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't stop there. Members of congress should have their outrageous pensions and their lucrative salaries permanently reduced. Their benefits should be slashed and their healthcare program should be in line with the majority of Americans.

How can we expect our members of congress to work for the people of this country when they're salaries and benefits exceed the average American. Maybe if we didn't allow them to make a life long career out of being a congressman or senator, we would have people who were sincerely interested in the average American instead of the corporate elite who are stuffing politician's pockets for favors.


The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.



Senate Leadership Majority Party Leader - $193,400 Minority Party Leader - $193,400 House Leadership Speaker of the House - $223,500 Majority Leader - $193,400 Minority Leader - $193,400



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Absolutely and I hate to say it but I can't subsidize their health care any more either. They are going to have to get that privately and no longer have it provided by their employer....me.
I just don't have the cash.
And it looks like I am going to have to work a few extra years and put off my well deserved retirement. I guess congress doesn't think it is well deserved, yet they're the ones taking vacations every 3 months where I remember not getting one in 3 years.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeRpeons
reply to post by elevatedone
 


Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't stop there. Members of congress should have their outrageous pensions and their lucrative salaries permanently reduced. Their benefits should be slashed and their healthcare program should be in line with the majority of Americans.

How can we expect our members of congress to work for the people of this country when they're salaries and benefits exceed the average American. Maybe if we didn't allow them to make a life long career out of being a congressman or senator, we would have people who were sincerely interested in the average American instead of the corporate elite who are stuffing politician's pockets for favors.


The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.



Senate Leadership Majority Party Leader - $193,400 Minority Party Leader - $193,400 House Leadership Speaker of the House - $223,500 Majority Leader - $193,400 Minority Leader - $193,400





This is the truth. This is where people should be storming into and demanding action.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


No, wouldn't do any good! What would do some good would be for them to refuse to take money and favors from lobbyists. Ouch, now that would hurt there wallets.

Also, two (2) terms in office is not enough to earn or deserve a retirement.

Have we all lost our minds? Or are we just drowning in so much detail and minutiae that we no longer can see the obvious? These questions need answers from them, but more importantly from us. Are we that dim?

Edit; I have not read the rest of the thread nor will I. This is such a no brainer... Congress does not make big bucks over the table, it is the under the table and backroom deals that make their fortunes.

Should Congress take a pay cut? No, ineffectual and silly. A "gesture" at this point would only be a massive insult to all of us.
edit on 19-9-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:31 AM
link   
I believe that the people in congress should earn what would be the average that the people in their congressional district earn. That way they would be more focused on doing the correct thing for the country, rather than trying to get away with as much as possible and be forced to deal with the real issues that face many people these days.

That and it should be for all levels of government. I for one would like to see those who would govern me try to make it on what I make and the health benefits I have and try to live for a month and then see what laws they would pass.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
People in positions of power should make min. wage. Mayors, senators,presidents, etc. Most can afford to live comfortable lives anyways. Give them benifits but minimum wage is their pay. Maybe even pay based off performance but how would you do that?



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
They should've taken that cut a long time ago. However, taking that pay cut today would be the equivalent to having an impact on the deficit just as much as a pebble thrown at a Russian BMP-3 during a full fledged invasion. Not going to get anywhere but into of huge pile of # regardless.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


You know, if they didnt have private planes to fly them around, it would just give them an excuse to take even longer to get anything done


I say MORE PLANES!!!!
edit on 19-9-2011 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
They need to at LEAST make it so they dont get pensions the rest of their life, being a politician shouldnt be a career.

It is a double edged sword with the pay rate though, the lower the salary, the higher chance of bribery/corruption, problem is, they already make stacks AND take bribes



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Whether or not it will make an actual difference in the budget or not, these politicians need a pay cut. Instead, they keep voting through pay raises for themselves. It doesn't make sense. Ask any American, "Do you think today's politicians are doing a good job?" NO! Look at approval ratings, left and right, dismal. It's a sad state of affairs. At my job, if I'm not doing good work, do I get a pay raise? NO!


Politicians don't deserve any extra perks than average Americans get. Especially considering the fact they can come to a stalemate and put our country on hold for weeks at a time.

Symbolic or not, effective or not, it needs to happen. Cut that pay.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by elevatedone
 


They will not do it, why? because our "for the people elected officials" live in a bubble world where they are completely detach from the main street hard worker, they think that they live in word completely separated from the rest of the tax payer and voters and they don't have to dirty themselves or lower themselves to our level.

They are all a joke to this nation and to those that elect them. Pity.




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join