To provide for a 5 percent reduction in the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress.

You would think Republicans would be alllllllll over this right? WRONG. Find the Republican co-sponsor! He's hiding along with Waldo!

Sponsor: Representative Gabrielle Giffords D-AZ

Co-Sponsors
Rep. Jason Altmire [D, PA-4]
Rep. John Barrow [D, GA-12]
Rep. Leonard Boswell [D, IA-3]
Rep. Russ Carnahan [D, MO-3]
Rep. Jim Costa [D, CA-20]
Rep. Mark Critz [D, PA-12]
Rep. Peter DeFazio [D, OR-4]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D, IN-2]
Rep. Colleen Hanabusa [D, HI-1]
Rep. Larry Kissell [D, NC-8]
Rep. David Loebsack [D, IA-2]
Rep. William Owens [D, NY-23]
Rep. Ronald Paul [R, TX-14]
Rep. Kurt Schrader [D, OR-5]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D, NC-11]
Rep. Adam Smith [D, WA-9]
Rep. Jackie Speier [D, CA-12]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D, MA-5]

Glad to see Mark Critz on this list. I have high hopes for this man. I was very pleased by the email he sent me not too long ago. I have to email him again on some things. He's a very transparent leader and we need more guys like him leading the way.

The only thing non partisan in Washington is GREED. You can't go wrong questioning the integrity of our elected officials. These two parties are opposite sides of the same coin. Great post GTS

This should have been HR2 or HR3, it should have been co-sponsored by every republican, it should have called for a 10% cut instead of a 5% cut, it should have called for significant cuts in benefits too, and it should have required the budget to be balanced before any congressional raises could take effect.

The republicans are blowing their mandate a lot faster that they did last time. So far, their only utility is to gridlock the wretched excesses of the Reid/Pelosi/Obama crowd.

(02-28-2011 06:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republicans are blowing their mandate a lot faster that they did last time. So far, their only utility is to gridlock the wretched excesses of the Reid/Pelosi/Obama crowd.

One could argue this is all they have been attempting to do since 2006. It has truly become the party of no ideas....surprising really for how much they hate Hollywood

There you go, Ron.

Definitely disappointing.

Disappointing as a symbolic gesture... but really meaningless to the problem.

You think most/ANY of these people LIVE off of their government pay? Most of them would do it for free, at least as far as their w-2 is concerned.

Imagine the moral authority one could speak to if their speech began with "I took a 10% paycut."

(02-28-2011 03:53 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Imagine the moral authority one could speak to if their speech began with "I took a 10% paycut."

Exactly. It would set the right tone that "we're shrinking government!"

I realize this is a very crumb of the pie. 5% x 174000 x 435 = $3.78M

Still, every million dollar counts, right?

PS Note for future posts: look at the reaction of all the "neocons" who have read this.

Again, this is a smoke screen. It is but a fraction of a fraction of a percent towards our national debt.

(02-28-2011 04:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Again, this is a smoke screen. It is but a fraction of a fraction of a percent towards our national debt.

My point as well... but I think you'd agree that it sets the right tone.

I'd be more impressed if they all took 10% off of their W-2. Most of the people in leadership positions make a multiple of their salaries for speeches and books etc etc. To be fair... SOME (I know McCain did and think Obama did) give their book proceeds to charities... but I think you know what I mean.

It wouldn't mean much for multi-millionare congressman to take a 5% cut on his Congressional pay of what, 175k, when he reported $1mm+ in earnings last year.

I'd rather see them take a 5% cut in their total budget... and if they want to keep their staff pay at the current levels, to cut elsewhere in their budgets... including their personal income or office-paid perks. THIS is the sort of decision making they need to be doing... not window dressing and pandering to the crowds/

Hey Torch... a million here a million there... pretty soon you're talking about REAL money, eh??

(02-28-2011 04:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Again, this is a smoke screen. It is but a fraction of a fraction of a percent towards our national debt.

Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien. Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good.

(02-28-2011 05:04 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Hey Torch... a million here a million there... pretty soon you're talking about REAL money, eh??

Material impact or not (and I'm quite certain it's not), this has symbolic value. Republicans should have run on this as a plank in their platform last fall, then done it day one.

(02-28-2011 05:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-28-2011 04:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Again, this is a smoke screen. It is but a fraction of a fraction of a percent towards our national debt.

Dans ses écrits, un sàge Italien. Dit que le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

We cannot let perfect be the enemy of good.

You can when it is used to hide the more serious sins

This is extremely disappointing. I know it is not much, but saying you want to cut the deficit and other programs and then not be willing to take a pay cut says volumes.

Everyone of these people is a millionaire. What is $15k to them? One night out on the town?

Ridiculous.....

What I would like to see enacted is a constitutional amendment that makes members of Congress personally responsible for the annual deficit-Kentucky has a law like this on the books for County Clerks and Sheriffs, so that their offices are practically never run at a deficit. Throw the President and Vice President under the bus too by assigning them a share of the deficit equal to a member of Congress. Give Congress the power to require similar accountibility of executive department heads (IRS, Census Bureau, TSA, etc.)

They could do what the Continental Airlines Board of Directors did.... and open the books fully, say, here, this is where our money goes, this is what we need to do our jobs, we aren't going to take any raises till we are out of this, and Oh, btw. here's a 25%+ pay cut for us. We don't need anymore than living expenses... and those aren't much. (put them in Anacostia. )