Obama Gives Biden, Congress a Raise

[JimR-OCDS]

He issued an exec. order to end the pay freeze on federal employees
weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-orders-raise-biden-members-congress-federal-workers_692223.html

The pay freeze was due to expire today.

Jim

 

[Caldera]

No, the executive order he signed 2 years ago was set to expire Jan 1, 2013. He just signed another extending it through March.

From what I understand there were 2 orders issued last week. One for extending the pay freeze until March 27th, then another to lift the freeze w/ a 0.5% across the board pay increase after the 27th.

 

[Schism_hater]

Exactly. Somehow, government workers are entitled to raises, while the private sector workers continue to languish.

If “private sector workers continue to languish”, how is that Obama’s fault? Why don’t you look to the corporate CEOs who seized on the 2008-9 economic crash to freeze hiring, work their existing salaried employees 60-70 hour weeks, and cut or freeze wages/salaries. While most of America has been suffering, corporate profits have been through the roof.

 

[Schism_hater]

And that is not anywhere close to the average employee pay for GS, not anywhere close. They wouldn’t be in business if they paid their employees that much.

Uh, they (Goldman Sachs) would be if they made multiples of billions a year. Which, btw, they do.

 

[rlg94086]

If “private sector workers continue to languish”, how is that Obama’s fault? Why don’t you look to the corporate CEOs who seized on the 2008-9 economic crash to freeze hiring, work their existing salaried employees 60-70 hour weeks, and cut or freeze wages/salaries. While most of America has been suffering, corporate profits have been through the roof.

I didn’t blame Obama for the private sector, so I have no idea what you are talking about. I blame Obama and other politicians for spending more money than we have and giving pay raises in a down economy when we are running very high deficits…

 

[Bill_Martin]

The entire point of giving Congress a pay raise is to make them look bad to the general public. Most people will falsely assume that Congress voted themselves more money. Dirty politics at it’s best but not surprising.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The entire point of giving Congress a pay raise is to make them look bad to the general public. Most people will falsely assume that Congress voted themselves more money. Dirty politics at it’s best but not surprising.

Well back in 1989 when Congress voted in a law to give themselves automatic pay raises, it was dirty.

Jim

 

[Bill_Martin]

Well back in 1989 when Congress voted in a law to give themselves automatic pay raises, it was dirty.

Jim

Yes. And it was frozen until Obama’s EO to remove it just as we near the fiscal cliff and the House is controlled by Republicans. I would say that this administration is stooping pretty low, but I don’t think they need to stoop.

 

[zz912]

Uh, they (Goldman Sachs) would be if they made multiples of billions a year. Which, btw, they do.

Uh, no, they wouldn’t. GS employs about 32-35k people. If their avg pay for employees is $500k, then their payroll annually would be roughly $16 Billion. It isn’t.

 

[Bill_Martin]

House of Reps voted last night to extend the pay freeze. In this case, a vote of “Nay” means the candidate is voting himself more money. A vote of “Yea” means the candidate is voting to prevent himself from getting a raise.

Results from here: clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.aspx?day=20130101&today=20130102 (click on “votes” then Roll no 655)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 655
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

  H R 6726      2/3 YEA-AND-NAY      1-Jan-2013      6:54 PM
  QUESTION:  On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass
  BILL TITLE: To prevent the 2013 pay adjustment for Members of Congress and persons holding other offices or positions in the Federal Government from being made

Yeas	Nays	PRES	NV

Democratic 55 127 9
Republican 232 2 6
Independent
TOTALS 287 129 15

---- YEAS 287 —

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barber
Barletta
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
DeFazio
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luján
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy ¶
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson ¶
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

---- NAYS 129 —

Ackerman
Baca
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady ¶
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Curson (MI)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lynch
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Reyes
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth

---- NOT VOTING 15 —

Bartlett
Bono Mack
Burton (IN)
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Mack
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
Miller, George
Paul
Stark
Sutton
Woolsey

 

[Ridgerunner]

But Ridge, let’s be fair. Do you really think McCain would have said “We have a spending problem” in 2009 had he been elected President as the stock market was continuing to be battered? Don’t you think he would have had no problem getting unemployment benefits extended, tax credits, schools funded, and so forth in the midst of a banking crisis which started btw under Republican watch? The Republicans had no problem passing a permanent drug program at the cost of $600 billion, no taxes to pay for it, and that was during “good” times, so I could easily see them spending double that to stimulate the economy.

He said it before the 2008 election, so there’s no particular reason to think he would not have at least SAID it in 2009. Had he been elected, the stock market battering might not have been quite what it was. TARP was already in place.

But congress was, in 2009, overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats. McCain would have had to veto bill after bill. Maybe he would have. Maybe he wouldn’t have. We’ll never know.

 

[Ridgerunner]

While most of America has been suffering, corporate profits have been through the roof.

Wait until late 2013. You won’t be saying corporate profits are “through the roof” then. But you will definitely be saying a lot of America is suffering. Not “most”, then, anymore than it can rightly be said now. Even in the Depression, “Most” did not suffer.

 

[ProVobis]

He said it before the 2008 election, so there’s no particular reason to think he would not have at least SAID it in 2009. Had he been elected, the stock market battering might not have been quite what it was. TARP was already in place.

Or it could have been worse. But the fact that Bernanke already took the interest rates down to zero indicated an extremely weak economy and growing unemployment. Even if McCain had not enacted any new spending if he had won, the low government revenues would have still caused (if that’s a good word) the debt to soar.

We’re still at zero percent interest rates and will be for some time. There’s not much incentive not to find some way of stimulating the economy, no matter who’s in office.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That and Bernanke already took the interest rates down to zero where they’ve been ever since. That usually signifies an extremely weak economy. Even if McCain had not enacted any new spending if he had won, the low government revenues would have still caused (if that’s a good word) debt to soar.

One has to assume certain things in order to say that, and one might or might not be right to assume them.

One of the big gorillas sitting on the economy’s chest right now is the unwillingness of small businesses to hire, invest or borrow. Among those I know, that unwillingness is due to a fear of higher taxes, inflation and interest rates to follow it, concern about Obamacare’s costs and effects, serious concern about energy costs, very serious concerns about punitive regulation of business.

But for that, I don’t think the negative effects we have been seeing would have been the same. Small business people see Obama and the Democrats as implacably hostile to them, and had small business been more optimistic about the future, we might have long since been out of both this de facto recession and the desperate attempts by the Fed to substitute fiat money for earned money in the economy.

Had McCain been elected, would the effect have been the same? One has to doubt it, at least to a degree. He was not perceived as hostile to small business, and that might have made a great deal of difference, despite his shortcomings in other ways.