http://thehill.com/homenews...cut-pay-of-lawmakers

quote Soon-to-be Speaker John Boehner (Ohio) is being pressed by taxpayer groups to slash the salaries of House lawmakers. Cutting member pay would show voters the new GOP majority in the House is going to lead by example in their efforts to rein in spending and start with their own wallets, say officials with three prominent taxpayer advocacy groups in Washington, D.C. “There has to be a visible gesture that people can immediately relate to,” said Pete Sepp, the executive vice president of the conservative National Taxpayers Union. “And cutting pay would be one of the best symbols, because unlike virtually anything else the federal government does, when Congress spends money on its own salaries and benefits, people can make a direct comparison to their own situation,” Sepp said. The last three House Speakers swept into the leadership role with the issuance of symbolic gestures, which typically correlates to the campaign platform that delivered them to power, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. “[The symbolic moves] create images that build the party’s reputation and say, ‘This is what Republican rule means and these are things we stand for,’” Binder said. “These are symbolic things that a Speaker would want to do to set a tone or a message. Boehner is slated to receive a $30,100 pay increase next year when he becomes Speaker of the House. His annual salary will be $223,500. The base pay for House and Senate lawmakers is $174,000, while majority and minority leaders each make $193,400 per year. Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, said that no decision has been made to slash members' salaries, but pointed to the promises the GOP made in its "Pledge to America" in September. "The Pledge to America calls for cutting Congress' budget, but no specific decisions have been made about how that will be done at this time," said Steel. Republicans gained about five dozen House seats Tuesday largely by running campaigns based on promises to scale back government spending, reform how the House operates and increase jobs for Americans. “It’s pretty clear that the American people want a smaller, less costly, more accountable government here in Washington,” Boehner said to reporters the day after Election Day. Tom Schatz, the president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that by cutting the paychecks of members, Boehner would send the right message to voters. Schatz explained that Republican lawmakers coming into Congress for their first term would likely support the move. “[A salary cut] would at least indicate some greater level of understanding of the suffering that people have been subject to during this recession,” said Schatz. “A lot of the new members, in particular, are coming in with a mindset of cutting spending wherever they think it’s reasonable, and I think starting with their own pay makes sense. They haven’t had that salary in the first place, so members on both sides would just consider it the starting point.” Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, said he supports members taking a pay cut, but when he spoke with Republican leadership aides recently, they were not quick to jump on the idea. However, Norquist said, Republicans might want to unveil the pay cut in a ceremonial fashion and not have their limelight stolen. “I heard the rumor — and this may be true, but they just aren’t ‘fessing up to it,” he said. Norquist added, “I talked to people around Boehner and they didn’t say, ‘No we’d never do that.’ They just weren’t saying ‘Yes.’ And if I were them, I would not tell me if they had some plan to do it because they want to announce it themselves.” Members of Congress froze their salary in 2011 and did so this year as well, as they have on six other occasions since the law requiring lawmakers to vote against a cost-of-living increase was created in 1990, according to the Congressional Research Service. But the last time members of Congress took an actual pay cut was in the midst of the Great Depression on April 1, 1933. And with more than 450,000 Americans experiencing joblessness, according to the Department of Labor’s latest numbers released Thursday, voters are going to be looking to Republicans for signals and symbols of actual change on Capitol Hill, Sepp said. “The Republicans have set the bar very high for their re-ascendency to power, and that means they need to come up with a direct symbol to the public that’s just as strong,” said Sepp. “When you think back to the last time when Congressional salaries were reduced in the early 1930s, the parallel becomes even stronger,” said Sepp. “If you wanted to make a big splash and say, ‘We’re doing something that Congress hasn’t contemplated since the days of the Great Depression.’ Well, this is the exact thing to do.” Sepp said it would be “political suicide” to oppose a pay cut if proposed by Boehner, who as Speaker could easily bring a measure outlining the salary slash to the floor. And Democrats would be compelled to support such a bill, he said, especially because Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.) sponsored a measure in this Congress that would have cut member salary by 5 percent. The legislation received 34, mostly Democratic, co-sponsors. After taking back the House for Democrats, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — a staunch environmental advocate from San Francisco — banned smoking from the Capitol halls and established the chamber’s environmentally friendly “Green the Capitol” program, which included compostable cutlery and a carbon offset program. And former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), following the wave election of 1994 in which the GOP took the House using the campaign platform of smaller government, pushed to privatize the chamber’s internal services, like the barbershop, and do away with its ice delivery service in an effort to show voters that Republicans wanted to shrink the role of government and its egregiousness. Similarly, former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was known in the House as a behind-the-scenes dealmaker and a former wrestling coach who was a high school teacher. As his first move as the leader of the chamber in 1999, Hastert responded to the increasingly vocal concerns of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle and eased a ban on gifts they were allowed to receive. Since Republicans took over in 1995, members had not been allowed to accept even minor gifts such as t-shirts. Under Hastert’s change, lawmakers could receive gifts of up to $100 from one person or company in a year.

They should also get rid of their automatic pay raises, let them vote to raise it when they need it.

Memo to the Next Congress: Americans Want to Cut Government, Not Defense
http://blog.heritage.org/20...ernment-not-defense/

quote Ask the average American about the strength of our nation’s defense, and the answer may surprise you. According to a poll earlier this year, Americans are now more likely to believe the U.S. national defense is “not strong enough.” Intuitively, many Americans support the government in spending what is necessary for a strong defense — and that includes missile defense. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. This week, The Hill came out with another poll. In what should be a strong signal to the 112th Congress, most Americans do not want policymakers to cut defense to pay down the deficit. The midterm election poll found “six in ten Republicans and 53 percent of independents said they would not accept cuts to defense and homeland security spending.” Providing a strong national defense is the priority responsibility of the federal government and our nation’s elected leaders. Providing for the common defense is the only mandatory function of the federal government. Keeping America safe is not a Republican, Independent, or Democrat issue; it’s an American issue. Just this summer, a bipartisan blue-ribbon commission chaired by former Clinton Secretary of Defense Bill Perry and former Bush National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley agreed. Their report outlines the urgent investment needs in defense to maintain our national strength and military superiority, and the stark consequences of inaction. Even in today’s tightening fiscal environment, the panel highlights the fact that defense is actually under-funded. Specifically, the Commission found that the Pentagon can “achieve cost savings on acquisition and overhead [reforms], but substantial additional resources will be required to modernize the force.” It’s the government’s foremost job to keep America safe. Most Americans agree. The only question is whether Washington is listening.

Also, what is needed is staffing reduction. I'd like to see just how much it cost for each elected official spends for all his support staff and offices, office expenses, travel and other perks. Like industry, they need to have a reduction in their workforce. As for raises, where do the employees get to vote for their own salary. Any salary or salary increase should be determined by the employer (taxpayers) and voted on by those employers.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: Also, what is needed is staffing reduction. I'd like to see just how much it cost for each elected official spends for all his support staff and offices, office expenses, travel and other perks. Like industry, they need to have a reduction in their workforce. As for raises, where do the employees get to vote for their own salary. Any salary or salary increase should be determined by the employer (taxpayers) and voted on by those employers.

Of cousre every person you cut off the staff ends up on unemployment since the private sector sux. All actions have reactions.

And 99 weeks later they are on their own.

That's a nice symbolic action, but how much are we saving here? A few million a year? We're spending about a million dollars a minute on interest for our national debt. C'mon now, lets focus on some real problems!

quote Originally posted by avengador1: And 99 weeks later they are on their own.

Ya, screw the bastards.. serves them right for working for the government !

( that was sarcasm, in case anyone misses it )

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Ya, screw the bastards.. serves them right for working for the government ! ( that was sarcasm, in case anyone misses it )

Lot of that going around, lately.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: That's a nice symbolic action, but how much are we saving here? A few million a year? We're spending about a million dollars a minute on interest for our national debt. C'mon now, lets focus on some real problems!

I tend to agree. Although I don't think our elected officials should be getting richer while they are in office, most of them seem to leave and do very well. Now, I would be impressed if they would cut out the automatic pay raises and that pension they get. I support term limits, there should not be any career politicians.

Ron

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: That's a nice symbolic action, but how much are we saving here? A few million a year? We're spending about a million dollars a minute on interest for our national debt. C'mon now, lets focus on some real problems!

A long journey begins with one small step. We have to start somewhere. This is as good a place as any. No one said it was easy. The key is to continue the journey and not stop after the first step.

Jim

Symbolic--yes, but it should happen, or at least a freeze on salary and benefit increases.

A million $ a minute on the debt service huh? Hope our grandkids and their kids all have really really good paying jobs.
(No, I'm not being sarcastic--they'll need to gross as much as possible to pay this behemoth off)

If they really want a symbolic cut that will have an impact, instead of cutting salary, end their pension. Let them get Social Security and whatever they have invested like most everyone else.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: That's a nice symbolic action, but how much are we saving here? A few million a year? We're spending about a million dollars a minute on interest for our national debt. C'mon now, lets focus on some real problems!

You have to start somewhere. At least they're putting their money where their mouths are. I like it, a good start.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: You have to start somewhere. At least they're putting their money where their mouths are. I like it, a good start.

Yes, watch the ounces and the pounds will take care of themselves. I really get tired of people saying small cuts won't help because the problem is so big. That is the kind of the attitude that gets people in trouble, or keeps them from getting out.

Next thing they have to correct.
From a Newsmax email I received.

quote Feds Shell Out $1 Billion to Dead People The federal government has paid out well over $1 billion to 250,000 deceased individuals over the past decade — and can’t figure out how to fix the problem, according to a new report from Sen. Tom Coburn. “Washington paid for dead people’s prescriptions and wheelchairs, subsidized their farms, helped pay their rent, and even chipped in for their heating and air conditioning bills,” the Oklahoma Republican’s report says. Among the disclosures, based on a review of government audits and reports by the Government Accountability Office, inspectors general, and Congress: ● The Social Security Administration sent $18 million in stimulus funds to 71,688 dead people, and $40.3 million in questionable benefit payments to 1,760 deceased individuals. ● The Department of Agriculture sent $1.1 billion in farming subsidies to dead farmers. ● The Department of Health and Human Services sent $3.9 million to 11,000 dead people to help pay heating and cooling costs. ● Medicare paid up to $92 million in claims for medical supplies prescribed by dead doctors and $8.2 million for medical supplies prescribed for dead patients. In some cases, the payments went to dormant bank accounts, while in others they landed in the pockets of living people who are “defrauding the system by collecting benefits meant for a now-deceased relative,” according to Coburn’s report. The detected waste “is likely only a small picture of a much larger problem,” the report notes. In June, the Obama administration announced new steps to avert payments to the deceased. Federal agencies are now required to check their payees against the Social Security Administration’s Death Master File. “But SSA admits its records are fraught with errors,” the report states. “It is extremely expensive and may even be impossible to determine if a person is alive or dead, particularly if the person died many years ago.” Coburn concludes: “At this point in our nation’s history, it is of the utmost importance that every tax dollar spent by the government be put to good use. This means spending within our means on the living, not outside our means on the dead.”

If Boehner waives his $30K bonus until Congress can deliver a Balanced budget, the cost to him personally will be negligable, but the ad value it will have amongst the voters will be priceless.

The monies they receive are nothing. Raise them,lower them or even remove them.

Makes no difference and if you don't understand why then you don't even have a glimpse of what is really going on.

All the people see is the pretty wrapping paper.

quote Originally posted by avengador1: For them, Michelle Obama would create a new $400 million entitlement.

[/QUOTE]

If you don't have access to a vehicle, then start walking, take the kids, they need the exercise!

Frankly, I am tired of paying for people living in an urban environment. Take the money and relocate each welfare recipient to a small town, have the unemployment agency find them a job and have the housing department find them a home. Once the run down urban area is empty, then get the wrecking ball out and take it down to an empty field, plant some trees and life is better.

Earmarks should be eliminated next.
Here is an update on plans to pass the Republican earmark ban in the Senate.

First, the number of senators who have publicly pledged to support the ban has grown to 14. Here's the current list of cosponsors. You will be pleased to know that all five of the SCF-backed candidates have taken a bold, public stand as they promised.

Jim DeMint (R-SC)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Mike Lee (R-UT)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Second, Senator Tom Coburn has written an important piece for National Review Online outlining the myths and facts about earmarks.
http://www.nationalreview.c...ities-sen-tom-coburn

quote Earmark Myths and Realities November 10, 2010 By Sen. Tom Coburn As Senate Republicans prepare to vote on an earmark moratorium, I would encourage my colleagues to consider four myths and four realities of the debate. Myths of the earmark debate: 1. Eliminating earmarks does not actually save any money This argument has serious logical inconsistencies. The fact is earmarks do spend real money. If they didn't spend money, why defend them? Stopping an activity that spends money does result in less spending. It's that simple. For instance, Congress spent $16.1 billion on pork in Fiscal Year 2010. If Congress does not do earmarks in 2011, we could save $16.1 billion. In no way is Congress locked into to shifting that $16.1 billion to other programs unless it wants to. 2. Earmarks represent a very tiny portion of the federal budget and eliminating them would do little to reduce the deficit It's true that earmarks themselves represent a tiny portion of the budget, but a small rudder can help steer a big ship, which is why I've long described earmarks as the gateway drug to spending addiction in Washington. No one can deny that earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback have been used to push through extremely costly and onerous bills. Plus, senators know that as the number of earmarks has exploded so has overall spending. In the past decade, the size of government has doubled while Congress approved more than 90,000 earmarks. Earmarks were rare until recently. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed a spending bill because it contained 121 earmarks. Eliminating earmarks will not balance the budget overnight, but it is an important step toward getting spending under control. 3. Earmarking is about whose discretion it is to make spending decisions. Do elected members of Congress decide how taxes are spent, or do unelected bureaucrats and Obama administration officials? It's true that this is a debate about discretion, but some in Congress are confused about discretion among whom. This is not a struggle between the executive branch and Congress but between the American people and Washington. Do the American people have the right to spend their own money and keep local decisions at the local level or does the federal government know best? Earmarks are a Washington-knows-best solution. An earmark ban would tell the American people that Congress gets it. After all, it's their money, not ours. An earmark moratorium would not result in Congress giving up one iota of its spending power. In any event, Republicans should be fighting over how to cut government spending, not how to divide it up. 4. The Constitution gives Congress the responsibility and authority to earmark Nowhere does the Constitution give Congress the authority to do earmarks. The concept of earmarking appears nowhere in the enumerated powers or anywhere else in the Constitution. The so-called "constitutional" argument earmarks is from the same school of constitutional interpretation that led Elena Kagan to admit that Congress had the authority to tell the American people to eat their fruits and vegetables every day. That school, which says Congress can do whatever it wants, gave us an expansive Commerce Clause, Obamacare, and a widespread belief among members of Congress that the "power of the purse" is the power to pork. Earmark defenders are fond of quoting Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law." They also refer to James Madison's power of the purse commentary in Federalist 58. Madison said the "power of the purse may, in fact, be the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people." Yet, earmark proponents ignore the rest of the Constitution and our founders' clear intent to limit the power of Congress. If the founders wanted Congress to earmark funds to specific recipients, micromanage American society, and ride roughshod over state and local government they would have given Congress that authority in the enumerated powers. They clearly did not. Our founders anticipated earmark-style power grabs from Congress and spoke against such excess for the ages. James Madison, the father of the Constitution said, "With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, spoke directly against federally-funded local projects. "[I]t will be the source of eternal scramble among the members, who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get the most who are the meanest." Jefferson understood that earmarks and coercion would go hand in hand. Also, if earmarks were a noble constitutional tradition, how did we thrive for 200 years without an earmark favor factory in Congress? Finally, for those worried about ceding constitutional authority to the executive branch, I would respectfully remind them that the president has zero authority to spend money outside of the authority Congress gives him. The way to hold the executive branch accountable is to spend less and conduct more aggressive oversight. Earmarks are a convoluted way for Congress to try to regain authority they have already ceded to the executive branch through bad legislation. The fact is there is nothing an earmark can do that can't be done more equitably and openly through a competitive grant process. Beyond these myths, I would encourage members to consider the following realities. 1. Earmarks are a major distraction Again, earmarks not only do nothing to hold the executive branch accountable - by out-porking the president - but take Congress' focus away from the massive amount of waste and inefficiency within federal agencies. In typical years, the number of earmark requests outnumbers oversight hearings held by the Appropriations Committee by a factor of 1,000 to 1. Instead of processing tens of thousands of earmark requests the Senate should increase the number of oversight hearings from a few dozen to hundreds. The amount of time and attention that is devoted to the earmark chase is a scandal waiting to be exposed. 2. This debate is over among the American people and the House GOP If any policy mandate can be derived from the election it is to spend less money. Eliminating earmarks is the first step on that path. The House GOP has accepted that mandate. The Senate GOP now has to decide whether to ignore not only the American people but their colleagues in the House. The last thing Senate Republicans should be doing is legislative gymnastics to get around the House GOP earmark ban. 3. Earmarking is bad policy In recent years the conventional wisdom that earmarks create jobs has been turned on its head. The Obama administration's stimulus bill itself, which is arguably a collection of earmarks approved by Congress, proves this point. Neither Obama's stimulus nor Republican stimulus - GOP earmarks - is very effective at creating jobs. Harvard University conducted an extensive study this year of how earmarks impact states. The researchers expected to find that earmarks drive economic growth but found the opposite. "It was an enormous surprise, at least to us, to learn that the average firm in the chairman's state did not benefit at all from the unanticipated increase in spending," said Joshua Coval, one of the study's authors. The study found that as earmarks increase capital investment and expenditures by private businesses decrease, by 15 percent specifically. In other words, federal pork crowds out private investment and slows job growth. Earmarks are an odd GOP infatuation with failed Keynesian economics that hurts local economies. Earmarks also crowd out funding for higher-priority items. Transportation earmarks are a good example. Pork projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and bike paths divert funds from higher priority projects according to a 2007 Department of Transportation inspector general report. Thousands of bridges continue to be in disrepair across America in part because Congress has taken its eye off the ball and indulged in parochial spending. 4. Earmarking is bad politics If the Senate GOP wants to send a signal that they don't get it and are not listening they can reject an earmark moratorium. For Republicans, earmarks are the ultimate mixed message. We'll never be trusted to be the party of less spending while we're rationalizing more spending through earmarks. The long process of restoring fiscal sanity in Washington begins with saying no to pork.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: If you don't have access to a vehicle, then start walking, take the kids, they need the exercise! Frankly, I am tired of paying for people living in an urban environment. Take the money and relocate each welfare recipient to a small town, have the unemployment agency find them a job and have the housing department find them a home. Once the run down urban area is empty, then get the wrecking ball out and take it down to an empty field, plant some trees and life is better.

'

Wow, that actually is one of the more productive ideas I have heard of on this matter. Good brain!