Lawmaker Pushes Congress to Take 5 Percent Pay Cut

[coyotes_geek]

CG: I applaud the effort, and give it a 0.00000001% chance of actually passing.

**********************

With approval ratings south of 20 percent, Congress isn't exactly acing its performance review -- and one congresswoman thinks it's time the American people started docking members' pay.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., last week introduced a bill to cut pay for members of Congress by 5 percent. She said it hasn't made her the most popular person in the House of Representatives, but it's starting to gain bipartisan support.

"I'll tell you, there is nothing like asking the people you work with to take a cut in pay and see the concern on their faces," Kirkpatrick told Fox News on Monday.

The first-term congresswoman said she's hopeful, given the enormous fiscal challenges facing the country, the measure can pass. She said she's already started handing over 5 percent of her pay every month -- or $870 -- to help chisel away at the national debt. The monthly payment would have been less, but Kirkpatrick is, according to her office, paying extra to make up for the two months of 2010 she missed.

"I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm leading by example and I hope my colleagues will join me," she said.

The current salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. Leaders earn more.

Kirkpatrick's office estimates the proposal, which if passed would take effect at the beginning of 2011, would save $4.66 million a year. Though it's slight compared with the $12.5 trillion debt, Kirkpatrick, who supported the $1 trillion health insurance overhaul, argued that it's hard to justify pay increases.

"The last time Congress took a cut in pay was 77 years ago. I don't know anyone who has not had a pay cut in 77 years," she said.

So far, 21 lawmakers -- Democrats and Republicans -- have signed on as co-sponsors. It's being considered by two House committees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/lawmaker-pushes-congress-percent-pay-cut/

[George Gervin's Afro]

CG: I applaud the effort, and give it a 0.00000001% chance of actually passing.

**********************

With approval ratings south of 20 percent, Congress isn't exactly acing its performance review -- and one congresswoman thinks it's time the American people started docking members' pay.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D-Ariz., last week introduced a bill to cut pay for members of Congress by 5 percent. She said it hasn't made her the most popular person in the House of Representatives, but it's starting to gain bipartisan support.

"I'll tell you, there is nothing like asking the people you work with to take a cut in pay and see the concern on their faces," Kirkpatrick told Fox News on Monday.

The first-term congresswoman said she's hopeful, given the enormous fiscal challenges facing the country, the measure can pass. She said she's already started handing over 5 percent of her pay every month -- or $870 -- to help chisel away at the national debt. The monthly payment would have been less, but Kirkpatrick is, according to her office, paying extra to make up for the two months of 2010 she missed.

"I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm leading by example and I hope my colleagues will join me," she said.

The current salary for a member of Congress is $174,000. Leaders earn more.

Kirkpatrick's office estimates the proposal, which if passed would take effect at the beginning of 2011, would save $4.66 million a year. Though it's slight compared with the $12.5 trillion debt, Kirkpatrick, who supported the $1 trillion health insurance overhaul, argued that it's hard to justify pay increases.

"The last time Congress took a cut in pay was 77 years ago. I don't know anyone who has not had a pay cut in 77 years," she said.

So far, 21 lawmakers -- Democrats and Republicans -- have signed on as co-sponsors. It's being considered by two House committees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/lawmaker-pushes-congress-percent-pay-cut/

This would be a PR move only....but it would be a positive one.

[spursncowboys]

This is great. Good idea although I would rather they got rid of their automatic pay raises.
I don't see this as some pr stunt since it is her money.

[ElNono]

CG: I applaud the effort, and give it a 0.00000001% chance of actually passing.

What's that cut going to save? A 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the GDP? :lol

Really, if this is what passes for cost cutting these days, then we're done.

[coyotes_geek]

What's that cut going to save? A 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the GDP? :lol

Really, if this is what passes for cost cutting these days, then we're done.

I 100% agree with you. Still, even the babiest of the baby steps in the right direction will get my full support. Especially when it involves some form of sacrifice from those responsible for the problem.

[Blake]

I have no problems with their salaries as is.

I have more of a problem with local city managers making $300+k.

[boutons_deux]

take a pay cut, or let all Americans sign up for Congress' health care and retirement plans.

[Winehole23]

take a pay cut, or let all Americans sign up for Congress' health care and retirement plans.Rush couldn't have said it any better himself.

[admiralsnackbar]

Man... gettin' them poor legislator boys comin' and goin' :lol

Limits on contact with lobbyists AND a pay-cut? How long until someone pulls a Sprewell?

[Spurminator]

This is just the kind of completely inconsequential stunt the public could really get behind.

[SouthernFried]

Taxes don't go up in large increments...it's always some "small increase."

I'll take small increments going in the opposite direction any day. But, as with the small increments upward...don't stop with one small increment downward. The income tax was just 1% at one time, it was incrementally increased.

Well, incrementally decreasing can be the way to get us back to some sanity.

I mean, it's only a itsy bitsy cut after all. No biggie.

[EVAY]

Agreed. So what if it is so small as to hardly matter? It could be seen as a statement of solidarity with the public in a time of 'belt-tightening' in lots of American homes across the nation. What could it hurt?

[Marcus Bryant]

How about no pay? After all, most of these characters are already wealthy in their own right, or cash in after they leave office anyways. Not to mention that Congress should be a part-time gig, perhaps meeting briefly ( a couple months) every two years.

A permanent legislature invites corruption and an expansion of the state.

[coyotes_geek]

I know I like to think that there's a link between Texas' relative success compared to the rest of the nation and the fact that our state legislature only meets for 90 days every other year.

[spursncowboys]

I know I like to think that there's a link between Texas' relative success compared to the rest of the nation and the fact that our state legislature only meets for 90 days every other year.

hell yeah. Texas isn't as jacked up because the state leg. doesn't have time to screw us.

[TDMVPDPOY]

why not just make middle management redundant? they do nothing anyway besides pushin papers down to local councils to fix their crap

[baseline bum]

Instead of a 5% paycut, what would really be better is a 5% cut in bribes they take.

[Wild Cobra]

This is great. Good idea although I would rather they got rid of their automatic pay raises.
I don't see this as some pr stunt since it is her money.
As a veteran, I always wanted to see their pay raised tied to what they give the military.

I don't see this as anything real. It will only hurt all of them for the majority's action. I would prefer something tied to spending bills that they vote for, based individually by vote, and outcome.

Many of these people have outside income sources that dwarf their government income. anyone really think this will affect them?

[Drachen]

It may not affect them, but it would set a precedent. First of all, it would add money back into government coffers (always a good thing, no matter how small). It would also allow them to go to different government agencies and say "find money to cut from your budget, trim the deadweight, look we even took a 5% cut, no one is above this." Political stunt or not, I am not so cynical as to not recognize a good thing when I see it.

[SouthernFried]

It may not affect them, but it would set a precedent. First of all, it would add money back into government coffers (always a good thing, no matter how small). It would also allow them to go to different government agencies and say "find money to cut from your budget, trim the deadweight, look we even took a 5% cut, no one is above this." Political stunt or not, I am not so cynical as to not recognize a good thing when I see it.

:toast


it would add money back into government coffers (always a good thing, no matter how small).

Well...'cept for this. Still, we're on the right track here...I think :)