Update, Jan. 3 1:24 p.m.: The U.S. House has voted to block the pay raise, according to the Washington Post.
Earlier:
Vice President Joe Biden will earn $231,900 a year. House Speaker John Boehner will get $224,500. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s pay will change to $194,400 annually.
Those figures, according to the Huffington Post, represent the salaries of some of America’s top politicians after a half-percent pay increase goes into effect for all members of Congress, the vice president and federal employees in March 2013. There are 2.8 million federal workers.
President Barack Obama signed an executive order removing the pay freeze on federal positions in the midst of the fiscal cliff negotiations. The act effectively raises the pay of federal government employees by a half-percent on March 27, as well as members of Congress and Vice President Joe Biden.
Federal workers' pay has been frozen at 2010 levels, which Obama supported to curb spending and lower the deficit. After his re-election, Obama promised to ease that.
While Congress and federal employees will get a bump in pay, many Americans will see their paychecks shrink this year. The payroll tax holiday was not included in the financial package passed by Congress passed late New Year’s night to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. The ending of the holiday means Americans who earn $50,000 will see their take-home pay shrink by about $1,000 a year, according to the Post.
While some say the time has come to give public workers a raise, others argue the country can ill afford spending the additional money.
One of the loudest voices of opposition comes from one of the order’s beneficiaries, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann. She’s already introduced legislation to rescind Obama’s order and the movement is starting to gain some support from others in Congress.
“This executive order was not requested by Congress and we should reject it,” Bachmann wrote in a statement.” We have a spending problem in our country and we should be looking for areas to cut spending. At a time when families across the country are cutting back we should not increase government spending and add to the debt burden by giving members of Congress a pay raise. We need to begin with ourselves and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.”
What do you think, Tampa Bay? Should Congress get a raise? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
the Postal service has been losing work due to e-mail, etc. Many Post Offices have closed due to this. How many management position can be eliminated? Who knows?
Email has eliminated a good amount of mail, but so has package shipping companies like Fedex, UPS, etc.. because customers trust those organizations to arrive one time. Part of the problem with government caps the amount of services the Postal Service can offer. But the ideal Postal Worker of yester-year no longer exists. The postal employee that most people assume is there, no longer exsists.
However, I suppose that it was part of a deal to get certain Congressmen to capitulate and vote for some bill (lousy as it may be) to postpone the "cliff." In Wash. DC, it's all in the art of the deal. Certainly not what's in the best interest of the Country.
Congress today should be subject to a pay decrease.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself/ As to the raises of congress, NO. ans they should never get a pension for life.
Even without those 75 years of heath benefits, they are an organizational nightmare. Though the 75 years was ridiculous. The whole organization and employees within need to be streamlined. Multiple business/process analyst have studied and done in house accessments. It is one of many Federal Government organizations that are bloated under their own weight. They are also not prepared for the future growth.
You have obviously had a bad experience or two with the postal service. The "Fat" in the organizations has little to do with the deserving middle class federal workers who have not had any cost of living adjustments in over 2 years. Yes we need to look at, reorganize and remove unnecessary programs/agencies that do the same job. I.E. FBI, CIA, ATF, Boarder Patrol, U.S. Marshals etc. In the past the our leaders vowed reform and cut the federal work force. They did not eliminate the need for those jobs to be done so they contracted out (at a higher cost) all those positions. Bottom line is the good federal employee is unfairly Lumped in with the slackers in Washington. Please try to remember that fact.
A bad experience or two doesn't explain all the data and business professionals that have do analysis over the federal organzations and seen that in most cases their are over bloated with both personality, regulations and compensation. As some one who has to deal with Federal Organizations as part of my professional life, I see it just about everyday. The Federal Government's business model is outdated. I am going to assume from your position you are someone close to you is a Federal Employee. And yes, many jobs by the Federal Government are needed, but many are not as well. As far as cost of living wages, yes a lot of industries (Fed, State, Local, and private) that have gone without those for the last 4 to 5 years. That is just life in a recession, so that is a poor agrument. As for the good federal employee being unfairly lumped, That is the point I will agree with. There are good federal employees and they are excellent. But that doesn't change the fact the need for organizational overhaul of most if not all the federal organizations. Because you are making the assumption that the slackers in the Federal Organizations are just in Washington.
I would argue that senate and house positions are vastly underpaid. The salaries for these “top politicians” pale in comparison to the top earners in the private sector, where actual performance is a much bigger factor. This is a major reason why politics attract mediocre talent at best-- those with the chops, leadership skills, and experience stick to the private sector where that can make serious money and avoid dealing with all the BS that comes with politics. Note that I said the positions are underpaid, not necessarily the current occupants. That said-- it is our fault these folks are not preforming, we voted them in, and thus we have nobody to blame but our selves. Lowering the pay for these positions will only further discourage our best and brightest from entering politics. Ultimate it comes down to our collective laziness. It is far easier to bitch and moan (and blog) about cutting politicians pay. It far more difficult to be an informed constituent, vote, and get involved.
35 States have filed a lawsuit against the Federal Government. Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. For too long, we've been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens have no idea members of Congress can retire with the same pay even after only ONE term! They specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Health-care Reform... in all its forms. We should not have an elite that's above the law! I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. This self-serving must stop! Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/studentloans.asp
That concept is Napoleanic Law, where you must prove that you are innocent, rather than our American standard, derived from English Law, where you must prove that someone is guilty. That English Law concept is what our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Constitution. But if Closet doesn't like Snopes, he or she can always try the two other excellent sources of de-bunking, or, as I like to call it, "removing the BS" from the discussion. Those other two are www.FactCheck.org, and www.Politifact.com. But www.snopes.com also gets into lesser matters than either FactCheck or PolitiFact cover, though I'd bet that matters relating to claims about student loans would probably be covered by at least one of the two.
The shift key is on the lower right and left, Fritzie. Besides, it may help you to think more clearly, if you take time to compose more rationally.