As House leaders on Capitol Hill discuss giving themselves another
cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, citizen advocacy groups accuse
Congress of being greedy and out of touch with the average American
family.
The salary increase, which will automatically pass unless it is
brought to the House floor for a vote, will give House members an
additional $4,600 by the end of the year. This increase, which would be
the sixth COLA increase for House members in 10 years, would boost
congressional salaries to $141,300, not including generous pensions,
perks and other benefits.
"Greed has aggressively overtaken this Congress," said consumer
advocate Ralph Nader. "House leaders have abandoned self-restraint, and
are shamelessly trying to pack their wallets with the people's tax
dollars without even discussing it with the voters back home. Congress
is quickly eroding its moral authority to govern."
Among the House leaders encouraging passage of the pay raise are
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Minority Leader Richard
Gephardt, D-Mo. Hastert, in support of the pay raise, said that House
members need to be able to support their families.
This plea by Hastert is seen by some to be a weak excuse for a pay
increase. For example, Gary Ruskin, director of the Congressional
Accountability Project, pointed out that the average American worker,
who also has a family and a life to live, has not been nearly as
fortunate as congressional members in regards to their salaries and
COLAs. In 1997, Ruskin said that the median income for full-time,
year-round male workers was $35,248. Adjusting for inflation, this is
lower than the median income in 1970 which was $35,691.
WorldNetDaily asked John Feehery, Hastert's chief of staff, if he
thought it fair that Congress can give itself pay raises annually when
the average American worker isn't so lucky. Feehery, however, refused to
respond to the question.
"This is obviously a controversial issue," said Feehery.
"Members of Congress have voted themselves such luxurious salaries
that they sympathize with the economic status of corporate and wealthy
elite and forget about regular folks," Ruskin said. "That has concrete
legislative implications. Any congressional pay raise would make the
problem worse. Hastert and Gephardt should raise the minimum wage, not
the congressional salary."
Skeptics, such as Steve Dasbach, the national director of the
Libertarian Party, say that this proposed salary increase is proof that
Democrats and Republicans can work together on at least some issues.
"This bi-partisan salary heist proves that Republicans and Democrats
are perfectly capable of working together -- as long as they personally
benefit from the deal," Dasbach said. "Americans are getting tired of
politicians' claims that they are just 'serving' the public, when
they're really just serving themselves."
It's not just salary increases, though, that Congress is trying to
give itself. They're looking for tax breaks as well.
A proposal by the House Administration Committee Chairman, Bill
Thomas, R-Calif., would give House members $125 per diem, or per
day, tax free. Over the year, this would amount to more than $20,000 for
House members. This proposal, not needing a House vote, can be passed by
committee alone.
"The Republicans and Democrats in Congress want to reward themselves
for (their) accomplishments by granting themselves a $20,000 tax-free
pay raise," said Russell Verney, chairman of the Reform Party.
Thomas, however defended his proposal by saying that, in state
legislatures, it is common practice to provide members with a per diem
while they are in session at the State Capitol. Many House members who
were once part of state legislatures have asked Thomas to consider a per
diem for House Members as well.
"Many House members who are veterans of state legislatures have asked
me, as Chairman of the House Administration Committee, why the U.S.
House of Representatives does not have a provision similar to those in
state legislatures," said Thomas. "It is a good question, which is why
members of both parties have discussed this."
Thomas went on to say that this question could only be answered by a
bi-partisan leadership initiative. The House Administration Committee,
which was appointed by the speaker and the minority leader, would be
responsive to the leadership.
Ruskin, thinks, however, that this concern for fellow congressmen is
a slap in the face to the millions of taxpayers in this country.
"Chairman Bill Thomas is the poster boy for greed and arrogance in
Congress," Ruskin said. "As a phony conservative, he has no respect for
the taxpayers."
Paul Jacobs, national director of U.S. Term Limits, said that this is
just another scheme by Congress to give themselves more money and
believes that if the pay isn't good enough to make them happy in the
workplace, there are plenty of others who would be willing to fill their
shoes.
"If they aren't happy with their jobs, there are plenty of good
citizens willing to serve in their place," Jacobs said.
Nader said that with a federal debt that is more than $5.6 trillion
dollars, there is something fundamentally wrong with Congress
authorizing themselves a pay raise.
"House members are wrong to enrich themselves from taxpayer funds,
but especially wrong when our country is so deep in debt," Nader said.
"While the Congress is diverting attention to the federal deficit, its
leaders are furtively ballooning the congressional deficit, making a
mockery out of the principle that frugality begins at home."
Although many in Congress are discussing pay raises for themselves,
some House Members think that automatic annual congressional pay raises
should be eliminated. H.R. 590, a bill sponsored by Rep. Phil English,
R-Pa., would do just that. English is also sponsoring a related bill,
H.R. 589, that would reduce the special tax deduction for living
expenses of members of Congress from $3,000 to $1.