Political & Elections

Cartera · Guru

Shared sacrifice - Should members of Congress take a pay cut?

Silvermoonlock · Veteran Member

As a municipal government employee who has had the 10% paycut for the last 2 years, I heartily endorse our elected officials to join me in sharing the sacrifice!

I do like that 1 day off every pay period though - biggrin

hope · Guru

"...be respectful of others."

I never attack people personally,and never have. I was a Democrat up until 2000, after all. aww

But I am blunt with dealing with people who have no problem bluntly stating that conservatives (now referred to as Tea Partiers, I guess, or right-wingers) are stupid, racist, bigoted, or homophobes.

It amuses me that conservatives have to choose their words so carefully when talking to liberals, whereas there doesn't seem to be the need for much reciprocity. I see this all the time on tv (other than Fox).

But that's another topic.

As for this one, I have no problem with the salaries Congress members receive, which strike me as being about on-the-mark, but I do not believe, esp. at this time, and with Obamacare, that they should be receiving any kind of health care perks.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I am referring to the plan that Representatives and US Senators have. (The following article formatted strange, btw.)

We all know that members of Congress work long hours. They pretty much know that going into their jobs, since they campaign for them and many of them are in there for a decade...or longer. Some stay for their whole careers, so there must be something about being a politician and elected legislator that they enjoy. Perhaps it's not the medical perks. Maybe it's the power? Or maybe it is the service aspect of the job.

This isn't about class warfare, either. There are people that earn far more than members of Congress, and far less. It's about - if you are going to tell us what our health care options are, then man up and say that they are good enough for you as a collective group, too.

It's folly to believe that the health care plans will be exactly the same when 2014 rolls around, and that employers will still be offering these the way they have for decades. Things are going to change. Wait and see. Already some employers have sounded the bell that they are going to opt to pay fines and drop coverage and many will not be providing the same generous benefits that they have in the past. And it's still 2+ years away from full implementation.

Who will be picking up that cost? The individual or family, will.

I hope it works. I really do.

Having run that juggernaut of less care for more cost over the last year with COBRA and a long protracted involvement trying to get private health insurance (and being turned down multiple times for minor, non-chronic health issues), I know that something must be done to provide people with health care to avoid a financially devastating life event if my someone in my family got sick or injured.

Still, it was not affordable.

So we will see what happens in 2014. I hope it doesn't suck.

Either way you cut it, though, Congress will not have to worry about their health plan when Obamacare is fully implemented.

Congress' own healthcare benefits: membership has its privileges

Lawmakers can choose among several plans and get special treatment at federal medical facilities. In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents.

August 02, 2009|Mark Z. Barabak and Faye Fiore

Too much, too fast, too expensive. Those are some of the objections lawmakers have voiced against the healthcare overhaul Democrats are attempting on Capitol Hill.

But many Americans think Congress is out of touch. How, they wonder, can lawmakers empathize with the underinsured or those lacking insurance when they receive a benefits package -- heavily subsidized by taxpayers -- that most of us can only envy?

Healthcare benefits: An article in Sunday's Section A about congressional healthcare benefits said that Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.) "has refused to accept federal healthcare benefits, making him the only member of Congress to do without." Other members have also declined federal healthcare benefits; Kagen is the only member to have no health insurance coverage whatsoever.

Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it. Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.

In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.

Generous plans are available in private industry. But the federal coverage far surpasses that enjoyed by 70 million Americans who are underinsured and at financial risk in the event of a major health crisis -- not to mention the estimated 46 million who have no medical insurance.

"For the average worker, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would probably look quite attractive," said Pete Sepp, a spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, a pinch-penny advocacy group.

Indeed, a question often surfaces: Why can't everyone enjoy the same benefits as members of Congress? The answer: The country probably couldn't afford it -- not without reforms to bring costs way, way down.

Given their choices, lawmakers can tailor coverage in a way most Americans cannot. If a child has asthma, for instance, a federal employee might opt for coverage that costs a little more but has a bigger doctor network and lower office-visit fees.

The plan most favored by federal workers is Blue Cross Blue Shield, which covers a family for about $1,030 a month. Taxpayers kick in $700, and employees pay the rest. Seeing a doctor costs $20. Generic prescriptions cost $10. Immunizations are free. There is no coverage limit.

Federal employees also enjoy a significant benefit denied the average American: There is no such thing as a preexisting condition, which keeps many sick people from obtaining insurance. Once hired, federal workers are eligible for coverage no matter their health, with no waiting period.

Voters sense a disconnect. A recent Gallup Poll found that about half of those surveyed said they have "a good understanding" of the issues involved in the healthcare debate. By contrast, respondents believe that fewer than three in 10 members of Congress share that understanding.

Lawmakers' ample benefits make a ripe target.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sponsored an amendment requiring members of Congress to forgo their current health coverage and enroll in any government plan they pass to compete with private insurers.

"Let's demonstrate leadership and confidence in the system," Coburn said before his amendment squeaked through the Senate Health Committee. A similar measure was defeated in the House.

A spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi demurred when asked if she would sign up for a government-run plan. The San Francisco Democrat joined President Obama in pushing unsuccessfully for passage of a healthcare bill before lawmakers headed home for their summer recess.

"The point is to give people a choice," said Pelosi's communications director, Brendan Daly. "If you like what you have now, you can keep it. If you don't like it, you'll have other choices that are available to you."

Virtually every president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has considered expanded or universal medical coverage. President Eisenhower, a famous cost-cutter, signed into law the legislation giving federal employees their generous benefits. His reasons were partly personal: His mother-in-law's illness required two years of medical care that took a steep financial and emotional toll on the president. Politically, the hope was to spur more private employers to follow the government's lead.

Obama, wielding his own prod, opened a recent news conference with a pointed reference to the disparity between lawmakers and those they serve.

"I have great health insurance and so does every member of Congress," Obama said, noting he also has a doctor standing by around the clock. "This debate is about the letters I read when I sit in the Oval Office every day, and the stories I hear at town hall meetings."

Antonia Ferrier, a spokeswoman for House Republican Leader John A. Boehner -- a leading opponent of Democrats' overhaul efforts -- said the Ohio congressman hears "the exact same concerns that Democrats hear" from constituents.

Cartera · Guru

One of my major gripes with the health care plan was that members of Congress weren't willing to take it, and would still keep their own insurance plan. Which is a pretty sweet insurance plan, I might add.

Some of the federal plans are good. Others are just fair to middlin' - depending on what you want to pay. My D is on her Dad's plan and he is a former federal employee so he gets the same choices as Congress. Her plan is good but not as good as plans that my friends have who work in large private companies. She has a $500 deductible and there are copays for everything now. The coverage was better when she was a baby.

I don't really have a problem with Congress' pay. Many of them could be doing things that pay a significant amount more so I consider the job as service. I only know the ones from my state but they work long hours.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Amended to add, be respectful of others.

Even when you think they are wrong.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Hope, you can post virtually anything you would like...as long as it's not porn or hate speech.

Our free servers don't like it very much and have told all admins their boards can be shut down if they violate the TOS.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I would love the mainstream media and the Tea Party and people on both sides of the political aisle to get behind this!

It may be chump change, but it's skin in the game. This counts for something!

In my job, I am working the same amount of time I worked a year ago, now performing the role of two people at two different locations. It's much more stressful to manage and I can't get my work done, adequately. Each week, I fall further behind and even though work with twice as many kids, I don't have enough time to get it all done or even go the extra mile. My responsibilities doubled. All without a pay increase, a pension or medical benefits. I am one of those pitiful non-salary, non-benefits workers who has no voice.

Only recently have I actually considered just quitting. I can't though. Two kids in college, another on the way to college in a year. I used to love my job, too.

I am tired of fiscally irresponsible yahoos complaining about how hard it is to live on their meager pay. If they are making close to $200K a year, plus lifetime medical and a retirement, it's hard for me to pull out the pity party!

Remember - it's not just the pay - it's the perks, too.

One of my major gripes with the health care plan was that members of Congress weren't willing to take it, and would still keep their own insurance plan. Which is a pretty sweet insurance plan, I might add.

I guess I can't blame them. I can only vote against them in the next election.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 16th of September 2011 09:46:14 PM

jazzy · Senior Member

This is a fascinating article --- just got the time to read it all the way through. Thanks for posting it, samurai.

The attempts from both Democrats and Republicans to get some kind of pay cut or increase in retirement age changes to share the sacrifice, and the total stonewalling on it by the people who benefit from inaction, is eye-opening to say the least. As a nation, we seem to be willing to sit by and watch vital services such as education and the post office take deep cuts and to allow infrastructure to crumble, but can't raise a collective voice to demand that Congress share in pay cuts or benefit reductions.

Maybe we're not talking about significant enough amounts of money to be saved, but there is still a symbolic attempt at shared sacrifice at stake.

You would think that with the anger out there among all walks of Americans and the historically low approval rating for the job that the representatives in Congress are doing for us that this sort of proposal would gain momentum that the leaders couldn't ignore.

What's missing?

Isn't this the kind of populist cause the Tea Party movement could throw it's weight behind?

If Fox News and MSNBC et al. were to join forces and push it --- it could probably happen.

soccerguy315 · Guru

most politicians don't work at all. All the real work is done by the relatively underpaid staff members, who then move into the lobbying industry to make big money based on their experience on the Hill.

the politicians just campaign and attack the other party.

hope · Guru

I love how we can post long excerpts and even entire articles on here! This is great!

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

How is he just getting by on $174k? WTF is wrong with these people? If you want to make your money last longer, quit having kids (he's up to 6) and sell your second house. Sorry, I really have an issue with big families lately. Long story.

Nice thought. Won't happen. I've found that most politicians don't work on Fridays- how could they POSSIBLY be bothered to work longer for less pay?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Hmm. Subtle response.

longprime · Guru

evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 16th of September 2011 08:06:17 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 16th of September 2011 08:06:50 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

http://www.ktvu.com/news/29207815/detail.html

By Ed Hornick, CNN

Posted: 11:20 am PDT September 16, 2011Updated: 4:25 pm PDT September 16, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- Should members of Congress cut their salaries or raise the age at which they can draw a congressional pension when many Americans are making personal sacrifices during the country's prolonged economic crisis?

Sen. Sherrod Brown thinks so.

In April, the Ohio Democrat introduced the Shared Retirement Sacrifice Act of 2011, which would require lawmakers to wait until the age of 66 to collect their pensions. Currently, lawmakers can retire as early as 50 with a full pension depending on how long they served.

"The reason I introduced my bill ... on this shared sacrifice in terms of retirement age is I hear lots of members of Congress, especially, particularly conservative members of Congress, say we should raise the retirement age for Social Security," Brown said on CNN's "American Morning."

Brown points to the fact that a member of Congress who gets elected at 35 and retires at 55 can draw a pretty good pension then while other Americans can't draw Social Security benefits until they reach 66.

"So, my thought there was that members of Congress should not be able to get their pension, no matter how many years of service they had; they should get no pension until any earlier than a Social Security beneficiary should get theirs," he said.

In 2009, there were 455 retired members of Congress drawing a federal pension based fully or in part on their congressional service in 2009, according to a Congressional Research Service report released in January.

Of that number, 275 were in office before 1984 and did not pay into Social Security nor can they collect benefits. They received an average yearly pension of $69,012 in 2009.

Amendments to the Social Security Act in 1983 required members of Congress to pay into Social Security after January 1, 1984. The other 180 retired members are covered by both the old and new pension plans and collected an annual pension of $40,140 in 2009.

Under both systems, members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service, according to the Congressional Research Service report. Members are eligible for a pension at 50 if they have 20 years under their belt, or at any age after completing 25 years of service, the report added.

Brown said it's important that lawmakers "sort of align as much as possible their lives with the people who we represent, so we understand things better and, you know, we still make more money than most people, of course."

"But, at least, we ought to share some of the sacrifice better than we do," he added.

On Thursday, a group of five taxpayer advocacy organizations sent a letter to the 12 members of the deficit-reduction super committee charged with a long-term debt reduction plan, calling for a 10% pay cut for members of Congress, which it said would save $100 million over 10 years.

"This action is especially important at a time when many Americans have seen their wages flatten out or decline, and a large number are unemployed," the groups wrote in a letter.

The five groups were Taxpayers Protection Alliance, National Taxpayers Union, Center for Fiscal Accountability, Our Generation and Americans for Tax Reform.

Brown acknowledges the challenges in getting such a bill passed.

"I don't think that members of Congress will vote to pass that. I don't think that probably will happen here any more than my idea to raise the retirement age for members of Congress will pass," he said.

During the showdown over a possible government shutdown earlier this year, the Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent that would withhold pay from Congress and the president if the shutdown occurred.

Members of Congress and the president fall under mandatory spending, meaning they would get their paychecks during a shutdown while federal workers who weren't considered mandatory would not.

Democratic Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Barbara Boxer of California introduced the bill in February, arguing that if a government shutdown occurs, politicians should "feel the pain," too.

On April 5, Boxer and Casey called on House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to pass a standalone bill in the House of Representatives that would do the same, but it failed to gain traction.

Other efforts at enacting pay cuts for Congress, which hasn't taken such action since the depths of the Great Depression in 1933, have failed to get out of committee.

Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Virginia, sponsored legislation in January that would cut members' pay by 10%, beginning in 2013. Griffith's legislation is awaiting action after being sent to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, also introduced a bill the same month that would end automatic salary adjustments for members of Congress. The bill was referred to the House Rules Committee, where it has yet to move.

So how much do members of Congress make?

According to Mark Tratos, deputy chief of staff in the Office of Secretary of the Senate, senators make $174,000 a year. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell both make $193,400.

Over in the House, representatives make $174,000 a year, and the speaker pulls in $223,500.

That may not be enough for one freshman tea party-backed Republican, who said he's finding it hard to get by on his salary.

Rep. Sean Duffy, R-Wisconsin, known for his stint on MTV's "The Real World," told a constituent at a town hall meeting in Amery, Wisconsin, in March that while he is making that high salary, he is "not living off the hog."

The constituent, who described his own money woes, asked Duffy if he were willing to take a pay cut. Duffy defended his salary, sharing his own money problems.

"I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you. With six kids. I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I generally use a minivan. ... I've got one paycheck. So I struggle to meet my bills right now," the lawmaker responded.

According to the Census Bureau, the median income for Wisconsin residents in 2009 was $49,994 -- well below Duffy's salary.

Duffy spokesman Daniel Son said in a statement to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that "our nation faces a real fiscal crisis and Congressman Duffy is committed to working with his colleagues in the House to face these challenges head on, not score cheap political points."

Lawmakers, however, do have expenses many average Americans don't such as maintaining a residence in their home district and affording a place to stay while in Washington, a city with hefty housing prices. Many, including Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, have found a way around that: sleeping in their Capitol Hill offices.

Others such as Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, share a house with other members of Congress.

CNN's Xuan Thai contributed to this report.

TEXT SIZE:

A A A

ktvu.com

The following are comments from our users. This is not content created by KTVU.com.
By posting your comments you agree to accept the Terms of Use