Freshman Democrat blasts leadership for not holding vote on salary cut

[The Northerner]

A politically vulnerable Democratic lawmaker blasted her party’s House leadership as she demanded a vote to cut the salaries of lawmakers by $8,700 next year.

In a letter sent Thursday afternoon, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) pressured Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) to hold a vote on her bill to cut congressional pay by five percent and save taxpayers $4.7 million next year before Congress breaks for its fall recess.

“For months, and despite multiple requests to move it forward, the bill has not seen any progress in the House,” said Kirkpatrick in the letter. “It seems that it is being swept under the rug.”

Kirkpatrick's letter comes in the wake of a Rasmussen poll released two weeks ago which found that 75 percent of the 1,000 people surveyed wanted lawmakers to reduce their salaries until the federal budget is balanced.

President Obama signed a bill in May halting Congress’ automatic cost of living increase for 2011 after it easily passed both the House and Senate last month. The base pay for a House member is $174,000, though leaders earn a higher salary.

The freshman Kirkpatrick is in the midst of a tough campaign against Republican nominee Paul Gosar for her state’s 1st District seat. She is top Republican target this cycle.

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/119329-freshman-dem-blasts-leadership-for-not-cutting-lawmakers-salaries

[Obamanaut]

1. With 44% of congresspeople being millionaires, why would anyone

entertain the idea they would want to cut their salaries, and maybe have to dig into their 'nest egg' to make ends meet. (That last part was sarcasm)

[Gman]

2. Arizona huh?

She's probably a blue dog, but has a teabagger opponent anyway.

Doesn't matter. Nothing will help her now.

[unblock]

3. i know my views on this topic are very unpopular, but i think their pay should be hiked, a LOT

not because they deserve it -- they don't -- but because SOMEone will own them, and it might as well be us.
pay them a lot, as part of a larger plan to publicly finance campaigns, with mechanisms (such as, perhaps matching funds to the opposition) to make private contributions prohibitive or pointless.

the idea is to be able to attract people who don't NEED to be millionaires to even consider a run, and make enough money so that they are less tempted to take bribes aka campaign contributions. remember that the vast majority of people capable of being a congresscritter are also capable of pulling down far greater compensation in the private sector. even though the current salaries and benes seem like a lot (and ARE a lot, compared to most americans) they are not a lot compared to the nearby temptations, and THAT is what really matters in terms of enlisting them and keeping them honest.

[onethatcares]

4. all that would do is give them a larger base salary

they'd still collect those pesky political action committee funds and the re-election funds and the other lobbying funds. ad in finitum and all that.

Have you ever seen the movie "The young Abe Lincoln"? Watch it sometime. Our nation has been one of business owning the politicos for a long time.

[unblock]

5. the idea is to do this as part of a package that clamps down on all that other stuff

though in practice it's really hard to prevent some form of legal bribery.


even if you banned private campaign contributions (probably not constitutional per se, hence my point in the earlier post about making them pointless instead) and even if you banned lobbying by ex-congresscritters, you still couldn't completely prevent someone from doing a business's bidding in congress and then getting a cushy job as ceo of that company.

but bigger pay and more limited options outside of congressional pay is a start.