House doesn't vote to not give itself pay raise
This morning, CNN is reporting that the House "voted" yesterday to include itself in the cost of living adjustment (COLA) increases it grants annually to civil servants and military personnel. Problem is, that's not exactly accurate, and their headline, "House votes to give itself pay raise," is entirely misleading.
In 1989, Congress changed the way it processes its own raises, lumping themselves in with civil servants and making their COLAs automatic unless they voted to do otherwise. It is a nearly impossible proposition for a politician to consider giving him or herself a raise without political fallout, so it was actually a positive move toward ensuring our leaders aren't stuck at circa 1975 compensation levels. Personally, I don't want the folks running my free world to be making less than I do.
I'm certainly not faulting CNN for reporting on the lack of a vote to withhold Congressional COLAs - that's within their rights and obligations - there is no excuse, however, for such a disingenuous headline.
UPDATE: As a few DA readers have pointed out, the House did cast a symbolic vote on the pay raises. CQToday details that "technically, the House voted on whether to order the previous question on a resolution, setting the rules for debating the fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury spending measure." Yes, it was just that straightforward.
Obviously, it was far from a straight up-or-down vote on pay raises, however, but has become something of a proxy vote for those members who wish to make a statement about voting against pay raises without actually endangering them in any way.
Only one Member chose to debate the issue: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who spoke out against the raise.
In 1989, Congress changed the way it processes its own raises, lumping themselves in with civil servants and making their COLAs automatic unless they voted to do otherwise. It is a nearly impossible proposition for a politician to consider giving him or herself a raise without political fallout, so it was actually a positive move toward ensuring our leaders aren't stuck at circa 1975 compensation levels. Personally, I don't want the folks running my free world to be making less than I do.
I'm certainly not faulting CNN for reporting on the lack of a vote to withhold Congressional COLAs - that's within their rights and obligations - there is no excuse, however, for such a disingenuous headline.
UPDATE: As a few DA readers have pointed out, the House did cast a symbolic vote on the pay raises. CQToday details that "technically, the House voted on whether to order the previous question on a resolution, setting the rules for debating the fiscal 2005 Transportation-Treasury spending measure." Yes, it was just that straightforward.
Obviously, it was far from a straight up-or-down vote on pay raises, however, but has become something of a proxy vote for those members who wish to make a statement about voting against pay raises without actually endangering them in any way.
Only one Member chose to debate the issue: Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), who spoke out against the raise.
<< Home