Overall, congressional payroll expenses have climbed much faster than the civilian federal work force costs that lawmakers are now clamoring to freeze. Many of the most vocal federal critics have overseen growth that rivals or outstrips the executive branch's, according to data from Legistorm, a website that tracks congressional salaries. For example:
• Firebrand Republican Michele Bachmann of Minnesota has for months pushed legislation to freeze what she calls "unconscionable" federal salaries. Meanwhile, her own payroll jumped 16 percent between 2007, when she came to Congress, and 2009.
• Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the Utah Republican set to chair the House subcommittee overseeing the federal work force, says Washington must "figure out how to do more with less." But the freshman lawmaker gave his own employees an average raise of about 9 percent this year.
• Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has long criticized federal pay, has overseen an average jump of 8 percent per year in his office employee costs between 2006, his first full year in the Senate, and 2009.
Not to be outdone, incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had his payroll go up by 81 percent since taking office in 2001 -- an average increase of 8 percent per year.
Of course, Representative Chaffetz thinks federal employees should suffer even more: Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Congress should pass a bill temporarily canceling General Schedule employees' step increases. Never mind that his employees must not factor into the federal budget or for some reason should be exempt from his crusade to penalize federal employees. If these Republican lawmakers are serious about reducing the federal deficit, which they are not, by reducing federal salaries, they should start with themselves (most Members of Congress are millionaires) and their staffs.
4 comments:
I think you are more concerned about the fact you live in a dual federal income household
Your post does smack a bit of protectionism. However, it also raises an absolutely valid critique of the hypocrisy of these Republicans.
Question: Do you think the President, along with Reid and Pelosi could have been quite so prolific in the lame duck without the gesture (a very real gesture in many cases) of freezing federal pay? I'm not certain it all could have been pulled off. If that is the case, then the bullshit freeze has probably served a greater good and we'll have to get over it.
But of course, I'm not a federal employee subject to the pay freeze.
In the interest of full disclosure, I do live in a household with 2 federal employees. Although it may sound protectionist, if we got the 1.9% cost of living allowance the House had considered in July, I would stand to see an increase of about $40 a paycheck after taxes. Not getting $40 won't kill me, although I would have immediately pumped it back into my local economy every 2 weeks. Maybe I'm reading too much Krugman, but those billions of dollars could have helped stimulate local economies and perhaps created jobs.
Do I think freezing federal pay helped make the lame duck so prolific? No. To get there, you have to think that Republicans are actually serious about the deficit and I maintain that they are not. The only thing they cared about was cutting taxes on millionaires, which does include the estate tax. They got concessions on those two measures - which I will point out is contrary to their stated goal of reducing the deficit. I don't think the "bullshit freeze" really had anything else to do with it except legislators from states with almost no federal employees could go back home and talk about how they stuck it to the big washington government and not mention how we still do important work with real effects on their constituents lives.
Dobber, I read it. How DARE you ask logical questions that make sense!!!
Frankly, I don't see anything "protectionist" it what you wrote. Per the Merriam Webster online dictionary, protectionist is:
: an advocate of government economic protection for domestic producers through restrictions on foreign competitors
We haven't protected our own people from American companies (which outsource jobs and have too much power and two many lobbyists) for a very long time. How are we protecting the country when when we cut wages to the very people who help serve us, in favor of tax cuts to extremely wealthy people who don't need the kind of help most others need?
How are we protecting our own people when millions can't find work, let alone minimum wage work, and too large a portion of the "stimulus" is simply tax cuts, without any investment into work programs?
Today, the senate is voting on a bill that would bring financial relief to the 9/11 first responders. This bill has been floating around congress for the pass nine years. Why have we not protected the very people who ran to protect us on that horrible day? Yet the majority of the republicans held that bill hostage until congress agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts, again for the extremely wealthy, go on for another two years.
Yes, the MO of most politicians is having enough money for the next election cycle, at the expense of their constituents. At the same time they cry for our people.
The stink of hypocrisy is too strong.
Post a Comment