I just like this story for the last name of the politician really. LR vernacular already applied!
http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/04/04/jim-moran-congress-underpaid/
I live in his district and have seen him in town. If I ever see him again, I’d have a hard time not saying anything. I’ll be gentle though.
I dare him to say to the unemployed and under-employed that he’s under paid. You can survive in this area on that salary. May not be easy, but plenty do it.
6 Likes
I recall reading an article a while back explaining that the house of reps get a ‘vehicle stipend’ to help them lease a vehicle while in Washington. The budget is so inflated that most of them lease luxury vehicles and in reality it makes no financial sense.
What a ‘MORAN’
.
1 Like
What a ‘MORAN’
One can only pray that the rest of his family feels the same way. If so, then we may all finally bask in the glow of bandana guy’s prophetic genius when he wrote, “Get a BRAIN! MORANS.”
I believe $174,000 in itself is far below what is appropriate for the position. But in a cynical world where it’s popular to denigrate the position, I can see where his point will fall on deaf ears.
24 Likes
I dare him to say to the unemployed and under-employed that he’s under paid. You can survive in this area on that salary. May not be easy, but plenty do it.
That there are unemployed and underemployed is irrelevant to whether a congressional representative’s salary is appropriate. As is the fact that people can survive for less.
I guess my point is that if all we were talking about is a $174,000, I would readily agree that congressional representatives are underpaid. But there’s more to it than simply $174,000. In addition to the perks of office, including certain expense reimbursements that cover what most of us have to pay for with our salaries, there’s the additioinal income that can be raised or earned, both during and after office.
I’m willing to bet that Moran after his retiring from office will be able to cash in on his “service” and earn far more that $174,000.
4 Likes
oops I stand corrected. Post deleted…
2 Likes
I believe $174,000 in itself is far below what is appropriate for the position. But in a cynical world where it’s popular to denigrate the position, I can see where his point will fall on deaf ears.
The biggest travesty is they continue to collect $174k every year, FOR LIFE, even if they only serve one term.
Except that that’s not true.
The key provision: no member of Congress is eligible for any pension unless he or she has served in Congress for at least five years. (Senators serve six-year terms; House members must seek reelection every two years.)
To collect, a congressman or senator must be age 62, or be at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or be any age with 25 years of service.
Under the most recent pension program, adopted in 1984, the size of a pension is based on the highest three years of a member’s salary, the number of years of service and a multiplier, which is 1.7 percent for the first 20 years of service and 1.0 percent for subsequent years.
Here’s an example, using a typical 25-year rank-and-file member who retired this year. The pension would be the sum of two calculations. First, multiply $172,443 times 20 years times 0.017. Then, multiply $172,443 times 5 years times 0.01 and add that number to the first calculation. The total: about $67,250 per year.
A three-term congressman (or one-term senator) who has now reached retirement age would be eligible for an annual pension of $17,588 for six years of work. That’s generous, but not close to full pay.
Federal law prevents members of Congress from getting full-pay retirement when they leave office. The report says, “By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.”
Under the formula, it would take 67 years of service to hit that limit
I believe $174,000 in itself is far below what is appropriate for the position. But in a cynical world where it’s popular to denigrate the position, I can see where his point will fall on deaf ears.
The biggest travesty is they continue to collect $174k every year, FOR LIFE, even if they only serve one term.
Um. NO!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension
You need to server 5 years to be vested, so one term in the house doesn’t even qualify you for a pension let along what you are saying. They get the same retirement as any other federal employee.
From the Wikipedia article:
The amount of retirement income Members of Congress receive from taxpayers is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. For example, a member elected before 1984 and thus qualifying under the CSRS plan, who worked for 22 years and who had a top three-year average salary of $154,267 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,847 per year. A member elected after 1984 would have been enrolled under the FERS plan, and their pension payment under similar conditions ($154,267 top three-year average salary, but with only 20 years of service, rather than the 22 in the CSRS example) would be $52,451.
In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000.
Just one question: If our Congress critters are so underpaid, why are so many millionaires after a few years in office? According to both the New York Times and NPR, more than half of all sitting Congressmen and women are millionaires.
8 Likes
Just one question: If our Congress critters are so underpaid, why are so many millionaires after a few years in office? According to both the New York Times and NPR, more than half of all sitting Congressmen and women are millionaires.
I don’t even really care I have written the entire system off. Getting mad about the system any more does zero good. Not one of them cares about fixing anything. I just liked the name ‘Moran’ when I read the article headline I had to do a double check that I hadn’t clicked on my ST link!
“That there are unemployed and underemployed is irrelevant to whether a congressional representative’s salary is appropriate.”
Respectfully, I disagree. Our tax dollars pay his salary and one of his jobs should be to create jobs and improve our economy. That’s not happening. People are hurting. Our college kids cannot get jobs and they’re the future of this country.
Cost of living is one of the reasons Moran believes members of Congress deserve a higher salary. Again, they can live comfortably on $174,000.
The person picking up my trash adds more value to my life than Mr. Moran. The trash collector is not getting $174,000. Why is Moran’s job more important than this person providing a valuable service?
“I’m willing to bet that Moran after his retiring from office will be able to cash in on his “service” and earn far more that $174,000.”
Agreed. So his compensation happens after he leaves office. One of the benefits of the job.
3 Likes
Fair points. But with regard to elected officials, I thinks there’s some merit to separating the pay from whether they’re actually good at the job their elected to to. I also think what they’re elected to do depends on the electorate.
It’s a $174k job. If the electorate thinks an official isn’t cutting it, they’re free to vote them out of office.
(I get paid a hell of a lot more than what is necesssary to get by, or even live comfortably. I also strongly believe I’m underpaid.)
2 Likes
Thank you for your comments.
I think most people believe they’re underpaid and deserve more.
“It’s a $174k job. If the electorate thinks an official isn’t cutting it, they’re free to vote them out of office.”
Good point.
Have a great weekend. I can’t wait.
Someone isn’t properly taking advantage of his position apparently.
I live in his district and have seen him in town. If I ever see him again, I’d have a hard time not saying anything. I’ll be gentle though.
I dare him to say to the unemployed and under-employed that he’s under paid. You can survive in this area on that salary. May not be easy, but plenty do it.
When you do see him, please remind him about his NET WORTH. Oh, and his golden parachute when he does retire from congress.
Just one question: If our Congress critters are so underpaid, why are so many millionaires after a few years in office? According to both the New York Times and NPR, more than half of all sitting Congressmen and women are millionaires.
What do you mean “after a few years?” Most are millionaires before they come into office, or become millionaires after they leave office and become lobbyists or other influence peddlers. I’d be wary of any that actually becomes a millionaire while in Congress, and I believe that’s relatively rare.
I’m with Shearer on this one, though. The pay isn’t reflective of the quality of person you want in the job, and therefore won’t attract the best people. But I also get that it’s impossible from a PR perspective to request more money while in the position - inherent conflict of interest. In my local city politics there’s an independent group that “recommends” pay levels for city council members after studying the “market.” That kind of makes sense. I think there should be something similar for Congress.
6 Likes
Regardless of the merits of his argument, raising the issue personally in this political climate is monumentally stupid.
Incidentally, a lot of people think that congress is full of morons, but in reality it is full of Morans.
I’ll see your Jim and raise you a Jerry.
Fuck, you guys had better not google what Australian politicians are entitled to after they leave parliament…you might want to shoot someone!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/nice-perks-if-you-can-get-yourself-elected-20090704-d8jk.html
It really is criminal…