Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
Pantagraph EditorialFriday, June 23, 2006 12:46 AM CDT
Comments Comments (14) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
New rule needed: No vote, no pay raise
By the Pantagraph Editorial Board
Advertisement

Does your U.S. senator or representative deserve a pay increase? Don't bother answering.

Your vote doesn't count.

And you can't count their votes. You see, that's one up-down vote they skip. But they get their raises anyway.

Oh, we forgot. "This is not a pay raise," former Majority Leader Tom DeLay insisted years ago, "this is about an inflation adjustment."

There are probably plenty of workers who would take a $3,300 "inflation adjustment" and be happy to call it a pay increase.

If House or Senate votes have to do with pay raises, they are usually procedural matters not direct votes on increases. That happened this month.

U.S. Rep. Jerry Weller, Republican representative in the 11th Congressional District, voted with the majority in a 249-167 vote to not allow an up-down vote on the $3,300 increase. Reps. Ray LaHood, R-18th, and Tim Johnson, R-15th, cast their ballots for an up-down vote.

It only takes the House or Senate to ensure raises for both.

The latest result: Effective Jan. 1, 2007, the base salaries for representatives and senators will increase $3,300 a year to $168,500. The majority and minority leaders in each chamber will get $187,200. And for the top spots, the speaker of the House and the vice president/Senate president will get $217,300.

The merits of those salaries could be debated at length, but we doubt there would be much debate over the distasteful way these salary increases come about.

A "complicated formula" - in other words, it's none of our business - is used by an independent review board that determines what the annual COLA should be for various federal jobs, including the military.

And since passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, those COLAs are automatic unless they are voted down in the House or Senate.

It seems like an oxymoron to call that "ethics reform," but the COLAs are supposed to make up for the loss of outside speaking fees prohibited in the 1989 law.

U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, tried to put a halt to the automatic increases last year and again this year. No one spoke in favor of the pay hike; but they didn't reject it.

Senators agreed with Matheson last year, but their action proved to be a publicity stunt. They voted 92-6 to deny the automatic increases. But the Senate action was dropped when representatives of each chamber met to hammer out a compromise.

The Senate hasn't had a procedural vote on the COLAs since 2003. That year and in the two previous years, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois voted to allow the automatic increases, according to Roll Call Reports.

Unless they are ashamed of what they make for what they do, members of Congress should have a public vote on any pay increases. They may be criticized by some for taking pay increases, but that's part of the job when you represent the public. We want lawmakers with guts enough to vote their convictions.

Video stories
Most commented stories
Community calendar
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 14 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Leland wrote on Jun 23, 2006 9:04 PM:

" Most ballots, if not all, list the incumbent. I almost always vote for the challenger, unless I know them to be worse than the incumbent. "

To Mark Joyce wrote on Jun 23, 2006 6:34 PM:

" $400 billion, that's easy! They'll just give the most wealthy another huge tax cut then borrow $1 trillion from the Chinese! "

Voting Booth Action wrote on Jun 23, 2006 5:59 PM:

" One way deal with these good old boys that are fat from getting elected to any office is to not put give them other chance to fool the voters. VOTE out those who don't deserve our trust. Mark their names down on paper and paste it to your wall so at election time they become history!!!! "

Concerned wrote on Jun 23, 2006 4:02 PM:

" The republicans continue to vote down minimum wage increases ... why don't they tie that to COLAs? "

Mark Joyce wrote on Jun 23, 2006 2:39 PM:

" TO: No Pay for Treason. What is treasonous is sending those good people of ours over there in the first place! Maybe you (and the GOP) should stop painting Democrats as weak and want to cut and run. The Iraqi's have their government and we got Zarkawi. It's time to go now. I don't think we have another 400 billion to spare do you? "

vote wrote on Jun 23, 2006 2:35 PM:

" lets vote on pay raises while at the voting booth...raise only every 4 years if we say so. "

Tim wrote on Jun 23, 2006 1:16 PM:

" Not only did they increase their pay but they voted down increases the min wage even though the wage would still be below the poverty line...It's not a market issue, there are plenty of people willing to take the job at far lower rates...This is one of the most shameful things I've ever heard...Congrats to Feingold for pledging to give to charity any pay increases unless the min wage is increased as well... "

The Happy Cynic wrote on Jun 23, 2006 11:17 AM:

" Acutally, it looks like he's going to get his pay raise either way, doesn't it? Finally, a political point we can ALL agree on! "

~~~ wrote on Jun 23, 2006 11:13 AM:

" A raise for what? "

To the Happy Cynic wrote on Jun 23, 2006 9:19 AM:

" No, actually Durbin could have his pay raise if he'd speak the truth. "

The Happy Cynic wrote on Jun 23, 2006 8:31 AM:

" Speaking the truth is now treason?!? Wow, what a faltering empire we live in. "

No Pay for Treason wrote on Jun 23, 2006 7:11 AM:

" Actually Sen Dubin shouldn't get a paycheck at all after his treasonous comments about the US and its service people fighting the War on Terror. "

feelgood wrote on Jun 23, 2006 6:00 AM:

" Yes, I believe they've given themselves raises in nearly each of the last ten years. And, in the usual surreptitious way. The "complicated formula" which determines these raises and also so many other things which go on in Washington ARE all "none of our business". Well, look on the bright side: at least publication of this "complicated formula" isn't being denied for "reasons of national security" as is just about everything else. It's simply "none of our business": a refreshing dose of honesty from our elected bag men and women. "

ethics hahaha wrote on Jun 23, 2006 5:43 AM:

" Recently I placed a call to Dennis Hastert's office inquireing into why he was spending time on a " sweetheart " land sale which benifited his cushy wallet to the tune of $ 2 million dollars plus. This guy is a fat cat in a sea of fat cats and " inside traders " who instead of working on the peoples problems spend their time thinking about how they can fleece the American public ! "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy