Check out the increase in Senators' salaries in the past 5 years

[Carolab]

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senate_salaries.htm

2000 -- $141,300 per annum

2001 -- $145,100 per annum

2002 -- $150,000 per annum

2003 -- $154,700 per annum

2004 -- $158,100 per annum

2005 -- $162,100 per annum

VERSUS

1993 -- $133,600 per annum

1994 -- $133,600 per annum

1995 -- $133,600 per annum

1996 -- $133,600 per annum

1997 -- $133,600 per annum

1998 -- $136,700 per annum

1999 -- $136,700 per annum

***********
Note: Since the early 1980s, Senate leaders -- majority and minority leaders, and the president pro tempore -- have received higher salaries than other members. Currently, leaders earn $180,100 per year.

[Greeby]

1. Typical

:eyes:

[Erika]

2. And they've voted against raising the minimum wage for years?

The bastards.

[Digit]

3. President Carter said the US had the lowest minimum wage

President Carter said the US had the lowest minimum wage @ 5.15/hr of any of the developed nations.
Heard on Larry King live earlier this evening.

[expatriot]

4. I have no problems with this... in fact it should be much higher.

people say that it shouldn't be about the money but that is the same thing people say as an argument against raising teacher salaries.


A lot of people whose hearts would be in the right place and would be wonderfully talented teachers are not attracted to the profession because they know they would not be paid as well as if they went into another field. The same thing with elected officials, I think Senate salaries should be 500,000 with bonus raises dependent on the margin of victory in your re-election. maybe not the raises thing but some system like that.

[izzie]

5. I think teachers should get more and Congress less.

I think that Congress should get the ave. wage of the workers. I have changed my mind over the years on this just as I have with the draft. This is one time I really think our founders got it right. Citizen in Congress and army brings it all back to the people. Paying more did not keep crime out of Congress and a Professional army makes it to far from every day people.

[expatriot]

11. why don't we just hold a lottery and draw 100 social securiy numbers

and name them Senator, the fact is that being an elected official takes certain areas of expertise, or ideally it should... diplomacy, articulateness, public policy, etc.

[aquart]

6. If we paid senators less, we could pay teachers more.

It is outrageous to create them as a royal class apart from the rest of us with zero knowledge of our fears. Let them feel some of what we feel. They can't as long as they are insulated by money and percs and benefits.

You want to enshrine them as invincible gods? I don't.

I do think we should all run for Congress however. Seems foolish not to.

[expatriot]

9. a couple hundred thousand a year enshrines someone as a god?

Yes, I think there should be more prestige given to elected officials. Athletes are paid millions upon millions a year. CEO's even more. Public service should be competitive with the private economy.

They would have no more "knowledge of our fears" whether they made 100 or 500 thousand.

If you paid Senators only 80K, there would be a lot of very talented people who would opt out of a Senate run because they have a mortgage, a couple kids and couldn't afford to live on less.

also, the savings or expense of paying senators is MINISCULE in the overall budget. If you cut their salaries by 100K it would only save you five million dollars. If you increased their salaries by 400,000 dollars it would cost only 40 million, one tench of one percent of Bush's 80 billion Iraq appropriations.

[janedoe]

13. Excellent idea!

Paying teachers more may actually improve our educational system!

[mestup]

7. If they were doing the work of "the people," they'd deserve high salaries.

Instead, "working people" have to spend their free time on letter-writing and email campaigns to get these bastards to do their jobs!

[sam sarrha]

8. even if we dont have jobs any more.??

[mestup]

10. Did you miss this part? "If they were doing the work of the people"

[janedoe]

12. Perhaps it's about job performance...

but talking about their numerical worth makes it less personal.

:-)

If we liked what they were doing, that salary would be OK.

But, their salary may actually be $500,000 -- if you include all of the perks and "gifts." Perhaps a better comparrison to make is with a waiter than a teacher?

Waiters/waitresses receive undocumented income.
Many teachers buy supplies out of their own pockets that are not documented (or reimbursed).

[crispini]

21. You're kidding, right?

Those salaries are in line with those of some corporate vice presidents, officers, and mid to upper level management. In fact they are higher than some. Plus the perks are great -- I think that they get a generous retirement when they leave office, no minimum service necessary.

[Gelliebeans]

14. I wonder how many of us

have gotten raises every year? :eyes:

[WePurrsevere]

17. I have no problem with a raise now and then... HOWEVER

the annual raise should be NO more then they so "generously" :sarcsm: give those on Social Security (Disability or Retirement) and their salary should be no more then what the average American worker earns and there should be NO more "soft money".

Personally I'd love to see ALL of our reps try and live off of ONLY what those on Social Security or earning minimum wage get for just ONE year. Let them live like the REAL "common folks" and see how they like trying to feed their family, pay rent/mortgage, heat their homes in the North Country, etc.

As for money "buys" us quality reps... horse pucky... it sure hasn't yet from all I can see. All the money in the world doesn't buy you a heart, integrity or a conscience and not all REAL education and knowledge come from a piece of paper from Harvard, Yale, etc.

[Gelliebeans]

22. well said. n/t

[baron j]

15. And this isn't including "soft money".

[left is right]

16. maybe we should allow

each state to set the salaries of its senators and representatives and make it merit based

[ElectroPrincess]

18. I say they should flat-line at the 2000 rate ...

That would show that they UNDERSTAND what the Average American is struggling through.

No wonder I distrust MOST politicians. Not one do I idolize and I respect only a few. = Reality based support.

[Vinca]

19. I don't have a problem with them earning decent money IF

THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING FOR IT!!!!! They NEVER get to issues that directly affect us in a POSITIVE manner. Blame it on the pukes since they're the majority - they take away Medicaid, take away food stamps, take away, take away, take away. Unless you're a corporation and then they give, give, give. But you all know that - I'm wasting space writing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Not to mention their "expense accounts" and the lobbyist rewards.

I have never understood the public proclivity to lionize criminals..erh...politicians.

[jillan]

23. It's hard werk! That's why they need the tax breaks too.

lol -

actually, I think some of them deserve an even larger raise, such as Reid, Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Dorgan...

But people like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, deserve a major, major cut in pay.