Elected officials' salaries
Quote:
There are times when comparisons matter a lot. Just compare Congress and its self-voted forthcoming salary increase from $150,000 to $155,000 a year with the federal minimum of $5.15 per hour that Congress has frozen for years.
Since 1989, members of Congress have granted themselves a total of $60,500 in raises. This is much more than keeping up with inflation, in addition to their very generous pensions, health and life insurance, housing deduction and assorted perks. The federal minimum wage, by contrast, is lagging severely behind inflation. Had Congress kept the minimum wage at the same purchasing power as it was in 1968, it now would be $7.50 per hour.
Millions of Americans are working today for wages that buy far less livelihood than minimum wage workers bought in 1968. During this time the economy has doubled in real GDP per capita.
The failure of our economy to provide for working families is in part a failure of Congress, the White House and their surrender to business lobbyists whose prices certainly have not stagnated and whose executive compensation has soared.
The moral authority of Congress to govern reflects itself to many citizens by the way the legislators handle their pay. The Congress has been handling it very poorly. Thirty or even twenty years ago, Congressional Committees would hold public hearings and conduct public floor debates on increasing the legislators' pay. Members of the House and Senate used to have to stand up and vote one way or the other. There was intense talk radio and other media interest in this character examination.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0823-05.htm
Congress votes themselves more money
for doing nothing, and the teachers want more money to not teach. Which group is right?
We elect Congress to represent us. As representatives of "we, the people," they pass a law permitting themselves to grant raises -- to themselves. If we don't like it, then there should be a nationwide referendum to force them to include their pay raises on the ballot every national election year. That way, every presidential election, WE vote whether they deserve a raise for the 'fine' work they've done.
As for teachers, throwing more money at them isn't going to help. I've heard too many times in the past couple of decades, "pay us more so we can do a better job." In most other occupations, it's "do a better job and you'll get better pay." They're putting the cart before the horse.
Before I give them more money, I want to see that they're capable of doing the job. I'm not concinced public school teachers today know how to teach. Compare the results of a public school education with that of parochial schools, still taught mostly by UNpaid Nuns.
The public schools say the SAT test scores are rising again. They aren't rising. They're lowering the curve to meet the average. Grade the SATs and the other tests on the same curve used in, say, 1960 and see how well Dick and Jane fare.
Nope, don't pay the teachers a buck in raises until our kids can do at least as well as the kids from 40 yrs ago.
