(Charles Dharapak/AP)
A few lawmakers have suggested in recent months that despite a $174,000 annual salary, generous health care and pensions, and perks for things like travel and mail, being one of the elite 435 ain’t always what it’s cracked up to be. And when you calculate the hours they put in, the pay isn’t stellar either, they say.
The Florida Capital News reported last week on a speech Steve Southerland, a Republican representative, gave to a retirement community in Tallahassee in which he complained about some of the parts of his new job:
“He said his $174,000 salary is not so much, considering the hours a member of the House puts in, and that he had to sever ties with his family business in Panama City. Southerland also said there are no instant pensions or free health insurance, as some of his constituents often ask him about in Congress.
“‘And by the way, did I mention? They’re shooting at us. There is law-enforcement security in this room right now, and why is that?” Southerland told about 125 people in an auditorium at the Westminster Oaks retirement community. “If you think this job pays too much, with those kinds of risks and cutting me off from my family business, I’ll just tell you: This job don’t mean that much to me. I had a good life in Panama City.’
“…He added that ‘if you took the hours that I work and divided it into my pay,’ the $174,000 salary would not seem so high.”
Southerland, a freshman, ran a family funeral home business in Panama City and earned about $90,000 before joining Congress in January.
His sentiments were not unlike those expressed by Sean Duffy, a Republican representative from Wisconsin, when he said in March it was a “struggle” to pay his mortgage and student loans with his congressional salary. “At this point, I’m not living high on the hog,” Duffy, a father of six, said. (Compared to his colleagues, Duffy is one of the least wealthy members of Congress.)
At the height of the debate over a possible government shutdown last spring, Linda Sánchez, a Democratic representative from California, said during an MSNBC interview that she was living “paycheck to paycheck” on her congressional salary. And she wasn’t the only one. Renee Ellmers, a Republican representative from North Carolina, was asked if she would forgo her pay in the case of a shutdown. Ellmers declined, saying, “I need my paycheck.”
Are times really so tough that even members of Congress are struggling to get by? The numbers suggest otherwise. A recent analysis of congressional pay found that members of Congress earn about 3.4 times the salary of the average American worker. Using that standard, members of Congress are among the highest paid legislators in the developed world.
This talk probably won’t help Congress’ approval rating. The federal government is the worst-rated industry in the country, viewed favorably by only 17 percent of Americans, according to a new Gallup survey.
Category Archives: Uncategorized
Run Brown Run!
Let’s See, They Lie in the Media?
New letters bring scandal closer to Rupert Murdoch
Posted: 08/17/2011 04:31:37 AM MDT
Updated: 08/17/2011 04:31:37 AM MDT
LONDON—The taint of a hacking scandal is creeping closer to media baron Rupert Murdoch.
New documents published by U.K. lawmakers investigating Britain’s phone-hacking scandal apparently contradict claims made by the News Corp. chief’s former right-hand man and cast doubt on his son James Murdoch’s testimony before Parliament.
Among them is a letter claiming that illegal espionage was pervasive at Murdoch’s now-defunct News of the World tabloid.
Former Murdoch confidante Les Hinton said in 2009 that he’d seen no evidence that phone hacking had spread beyond a single rogue reporter at the tabloid. Yet Hinton is among those copied in on the explosive letter.
Three former lieutenants are also challenging assertions by James Murdoch that he wasn’t told the full facts about the scandal.
What Can “We” Do for You
Gerth Units?
Proud to Destroy the Country
Tea Party Audience Proudly Cheers The Downgrade Of America’s Credit Rating
As the Tea Party express rolled into Fond du Lac, Wisconsin to support six Republican candidates in Tuesday’s recall election, the main speaker of the evening, Florida talk show host Andrea Shea King, was determined to pin the blame for the credit rating downgrade on Democrats.
But after she told the audience that commentators were describing the downgrade of US debt to AA+ from AAA as the “tea party downgrade,” the audience cheered proudly that their right wing faction in Congress had caused it.
Here is the transcript
SHEA KING: This week—I wrote it down—they are blaming the credit downgrade on the tea party movement.
CROWD: Yeah! [Cheers, clapping]
SHEA KING: They are calling it “the tea party downgrade.” They are objectivizing [sic] us.
After all the denial from Republicans that they weren’t to blame, and that the downgrade was the fault of Democrats, it would seem that the constituents of the Tea Party disagree. They are ecstatic and proud that the Tea Party shot the hostage and damaged the full faith and credit of the United States. It proves without a shadow of a doubt, that Republicans are out to slit America’s throat. And just to make it crystal clear that tea partiers are pleased about this, here is the video of the event
True, But Not Really Funny
Was It Reported? You Be The Judge, (or the Steward)!
How Many Stops per Hour With This Trick?
Here Are the Proposed “Entitlement” Cuts
A Pivotal Moment in American History
With one week to go before an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the nation’s debt limit, the stakes are enormous. Some in Congress continue to press for steep cuts in programs for working families. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid remain in jeopardy. Funds for education, child care, nutrition, affordable housing, environmental protection and energy independence also are at stake. When Republican leaders talk about $3 trillion or $4 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years, with no new taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, please understand what they mean.
SOCIAL SECURITY — The average Social Security recipient who retires at age 65 would get $560 less a year at age 75, under a proposal to change the formula which determines cost-of-living adjustments. The same retiree would get $1,000 less a year at age 85 than under current law. Another provision pushed by House Republicans would require that Social Security always be solvent for 75 years, an avenue to even larger cuts in benefits. All of this would take place despite the fact that Social Security has not contributed one penny to the deficit and has a $2.6 trillion surplus. |