RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,136106,00.html

But remember folks...Bush supports the troops more than the Dems...blahhhh!

Wow. I doubt the politicians ever vote against their pay raises. Gotta buy little Timmy and the Twins a nice university to chill in!

RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,136106,00.html

To costly? Competitive salary? What a joke. As a Guard assistant recruiter I try to focus on the benefits of being in the military, rather than the pay. The reason being every time a prospect wants to know how much their annual income is going to be, and I inform them of what it is, they are no longer intrested. Most of the people I talk to are in college. Some have full time jobs already. They look at it this way. Why should they risk their life for less than 30,000 dollars a year, when they can already do better without a college degree in the civilian world? I guess it makes sense. The fact of the matter is that the military pay is antiquated when compared to inflation, and the cost of living in some places in the U.S., and abroad. The increase is not only long overdue, from the opinion of everyone I have spoke to in the military, it is not enough. Especially when we find ourselves in the current situation of world affairs. Mostly not my opinion, I didn't join because of the pay, however I believe most think that the pay increase is what is going to help most military families keep the bills paid, and food on the table while they are on active duty. Especially with the annual increase in fuel, that seems to be arriving earlier and earlier every year with an increase in national price as well. Here is my solution to help the government deal with the cost. Go just one year without Congress giving themselves another annual pay increase, and cut back on their vacation time as well. What is it? Two months a year almost where they are not in session? Wish we all had as much time off as our Congress does. Or better yet, just get out of Iraq, and let the Iraqis take care of their own country, and you just saved billions annually.

HERE WE GO AGAIN THE PRESIDENT CAN ASK CONGRESS FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR FIGHTING "HIS" WAR BUT HE CAN"T SUPPORT A "MEAGER" 3.5% RAISE FOR THOSE BRAVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING THEIR POST TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE.I REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO ME,WHAT IN THE "HELL"IS GOING ON????THE AVERAGE PERSON DOES NOT KNOW THAT A CONGRESSMAN SERVES ONE TERM OR SEVERAL HE WILL RECIEVE A "HEFTY" RETIREMENT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE SO I FEEL THAT THESE PEOPLE DONT CARE WHAT WE THINK OF THEM SO IT BEHOVES ALL OF US TO "REALLY" PICK THE PEOPLE WHO WE THINK SHOULD REPRESENT US.GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by pltou812:
RE: http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,136106,00.html

To costly? Competitive salary? What a joke. As a Guard assistant recruiter I try to focus on the benefits of being in the military, rather than the pay. The reason being every time a prospect wants to know how much their annual income is going to be, and I inform them of what it is, they are no longer intrested. Most of the people I talk to are in college. Some have full time jobs already. They look at it this way. Why should they risk their life for less than 30,000 dollars a year, when they can already do better without a college degree in the civilian world? I guess it makes sense. The fact of the matter is that the military pay is antiquated when compared to inflation, and the cost of living in some places in the U.S., and abroad. The increase is not only long overdue, from the opinion of everyone I have spoke to in the military, it is not enough. Especially when we find ourselves in the current situation of world affairs. Mostly not my opinion, I didn't join because of the pay, however I believe most think that the pay increase is what is going to help most military families keep the bills paid, and food on the table while they are on active duty. Especially with the annual increase in fuel, that seems to be arriving earlier and earlier every year with an increase in national price as well. Here is my solution to help the government deal with the cost. Go just one year without Congress giving themselves another annual pay increase, and cut back on their vacation time as well. What is it? Two months a year almost where they are not in session? Wish we all had as much time off as our Congress does. Or better yet, just get out of Iraq, and let the Iraqis take care of their own country, and you just saved billions annually.

First, I gotta tell you you can't tell some kid that his "annual" Guard salary is for a year's work...you gotta look at it like a month and a half of work. From that point of view it's not bad.

Second, all I gotta say about funding, Congress, the CiC, Iraq, etc is this: They complained the extra 1/2% would cost 265 million a year. That is about the cost of two day's worth of OIF.

This is off topic, but I really fail to see what our 60 billion a year on Iraq is buying us. I like to think we could cut bait, leave the entire middle east to it's own devices, and spend that 60 billion on upgrading the military (including pay/benefits), securing our borders and pulling us off the *** of oil.

I'm always in support of increased benefits for our military. However, don't forget that the additional .5% proposed by the Democrats was an attempt to spice up the Emergency Funding bill to not only make it appear that the Democrats support our military, but to make Bush look bad for vetoing it. They were safe, in knowing he was going to veto it, to include an additional increase. Have the Democrats really demonstrated their concern for the military? Politics is politics.

I just "love" the terms used by this administration...... "unnecessary pay raise", "disappointed" that congress didn't raise Tricare fees for retiree's. In the middle of a friggin "unnecessary" War where untold thousands will need that Tricare when they retire, anyone who still respects this man deserves not to get that "unnecessary" pay raise.

Tony
Retired Chief, disgusted with the repubs and dems.

If either party wants to do a great service to the military, how about a Bill that makes military pay exempt from Federal and State taxes?

Show me a politician that will truely represent the citizens rather than their own interest

quote:

Originally posted by 7101814:
HERE WE GO AGAIN THE PRESIDENT CAN ASK CONGRESS FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR FIGHTING "HIS" WAR BUT HE CAN"T SUPPORT A "MEAGER" 3.5% RAISE FOR THOSE BRAVE AMERICANS WHO ARE STANDING THEIR POST TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE.I REALLY DONT UNDERSTAND CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN IT TO ME,WHAT IN THE "HELL"IS GOING ON????THE AVERAGE PERSON DOES NOT KNOW THAT A CONGRESSMAN SERVES ONE TERM OR SEVERAL HE WILL RECIEVE A "HEFTY" RETIREMENT FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE SO I FEEL THAT THESE PEOPLE DONT CARE WHAT WE THINK OF THEM SO IT BEHOVES ALL OF US TO "REALLY" PICK THE PEOPLE WHO WE THINK SHOULD REPRESENT US.GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!

Did you really expect anything different, we had to give all those hard working top officals at the VA there cut first which left us with about lets see now, "NOTHING" maybe the military should go on strike what could they do? worst thing fire them, The Goverment always throws a tantrum if they do not get what they want. What does a HOOKER go for these days.

Actually, it is a myth about Congress voting itself huge pay raises.

http://www.conginst.org/congressional_myths/payraises.html

How are Congressional pay raises determined?

E-mails often circulate complaining about Congress "voting themselves a raise" and calling for a crackdown on steadily increasing salaries. While it is true that Congress is constitutionally empowered to vote at any time on deciding its own salary, there are other means by which the annual amounts are determined.

Currently, a law is in force that links annual adjustments in Congressional pay to increases in the pay of General Schedule (GS) Federal employees. The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 provided for yearly increases for cost-of-living adjustments based on private-sector wage patterns, but the law also greatly restricted other forms of potential income for Members. Members may not receive a percent increase greater than those received by other Federal employees. The currently scheduled increase for 2005 is 2.5%, although Congress is limited to receiving raises that match only basic GS pay. Federal employees typically receive a combination of basic and locality raises that combine to reflect the yearly salary increase. If the total GS increase is more than 2.5%, Congress only receives the basic increase even if that is less than 2.5%. The pay adjustment is automatic, unless Congress specifically votes against it.

Also is the myth of them recieving huge retirement pensions. Their salaries may seem huge to some, but for the responsibilities they have, they are actually underpaid.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

Salaries and Benefits of U.S. Congress Members

Related Resources
• Presidential Pay and Benefits

• Senate Agenda

• House Agenda

• Current Political Profile of Congress

• Legislative Process

• The Constitution

• The Federalist Papers

• Books About Congress and Government

• Books About the Constitution

• Books About U.S. Presidents





From Other Guides
• U.S. Law
• U.S. Politics
• Conservatives
• Women's Issues
• Civil Liberties
• Race Relations
• Disability Issues
• Consumer Advocacy
• Political Humor





Elsewhere on the Web
• Congressional Pay Rates from 1789 - 2000

• U.S. Senate

• U.S. House of Representatives

• Thomas Legislative Information System




About Poll
Members of Congress are paid:
Fairly
Too Much
Not Enough
Undecided


Current Results


Congress: Rank-and-File Members' Salary
The current salary (2006) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year.

Members are free to turn down pay increase and some choose to do so.


In a complex system of calculations, administered by the Office of Personnel Management, congressional pay rates also affect the salaries for federal judges and other senior government executives.


During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.


From 1789 to 1815, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1815, when they were paid $1,500 per year.
Congress: Leadership Members' Salary (110th Congress)
Leaders of the House and Senate are paid a higher salary than rank-and-file members.

Senate Leadership
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500
House Leadership
Speaker of the House - $212,100
Majority Leader - $183,500
Minority Leader - $183,500

A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it.

NOTE: H.J.Res. 20, the Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution for FY2007, as passed by the House on January 31, 2007, would deny a pay adjustment in 2007 to the Speaker of the House, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and Senate, and the Senators and Representatives. Senate consideration of the resolution is pending.

Congress: Benefits

You may have read that Members of Congress do not pay into Social Security. Well, that's a myth.

Prior to 1984, neither Members of Congress nor any other federal civil service employee paid Social Security taxes. Of course, the were also not eligible to receive Social Security benefits. Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986.

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.

As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

The amount of a Congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

OK, now lets get to the Medical and S.S bennies they get. How much will you receive when you retire? I worked 38 years for a Co a good one I still have to pay into medical and I can not get SS because retired to young, my pention is $1200. a month. No comparison to what the Gov gets.

quote:

Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.

Interesting, in that I have never even heard of such a sweet deal in the "civilian world", and after only 5 years? Wow, Poor guys... and FREE medical care to boot, after 1 DAY on the job, for LIFE !!!

quote:

The House bill also would restore $200 million in health care spending that Defense officials sought to remove through unspecified “efficiency wedges” imposed on service medical budgets.

TRICARE Retail Drugs “Fair Pricing” – The administration “strongly opposes” a provision in the House bill to require drug manufacturers to give the Defense Department the same price discounts on drugs dispensed through the TRICARE retail network that they provide to base pharmacies, the TRICARE mail order pharmacy and VA clinics and hospitals.

Now why would the administration be against a fair and equal opportunity to bid for fair and equal deals on drugs?

Maybe because it is a GOOD Idea?

The administration says fee increases are needed to sustain a high-quality health care benefit “by largely capturing the inflation increases that have occurred since cost sharing was first established in 1996.” Blocking any such initiatives this year will add $1.86 billion to military health costs in 2008 and more than $19 billion through 2013


OHH YEAHHH!!! THEN MAY BE POLITICIANS SHOULD LIVE THE LIVE OF THE COMMON CITIZEN OR SERVICE MAN IN ORDER TO FEEL WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE PAYED AND LIVE WITH SUCH LOW SALARIES.

AZZ HOLES

If you ever run for office let me know I will vote for you just to have an ear at the door.

jwr6, your point is well taken. I was referring to the pay scale for active duty. Most people want to know what the pay would be like if they were placed on active duty, or if they were AGR. I've tried on so many occassions to tell them how AGR positions often have a salary which differs from active duty regular army, and that you would have to apply for these positions if they were in the Guard. The big turn off is when they see the pay scale for the rank structure from E-1 thru E-5 for active duty. Most people I have talked to try to see what their income would be in relation to a full time deployment,in other words if they were to be federalized, (which right now most seem to feel would be inevitable). In some cases I would say it is not the war that is keeping so many from enlisting, rather than the pay that they believe they are going to make if they had to serve full time. I don't think anyone can complain about dril pay.

quote:

Originally posted by jkeller47:
OK, now lets get to the Medical and S.S bennies they get. How much will you receive when you retire? I worked 38 years for a Co a good one I still have to pay into medical and I can not get SS because retired to young, my pention is $1200. a month. No comparison to what the Gov gets.

If you plan it out right with a good 401k and prudent savings, you can get a decent retirement. Right now, if I retire at age 65, I will be able to retire at close to my current salary. If you look at the average pensions of 32k a year based on a 165k salary, that is pretty low compared to anything you can get in the private sector.

quote:

Originally posted by Weatherguesser:


Interesting, in that I have never even heard of such a sweet deal in the "civilian world", and after only 5 years? Wow, Poor guys... and FREE medical care to boot, after 1 DAY on the job, for LIFE !!!

Weather, I was eligible for a pension from EDS after working only 5 years for the company. It isn't much and neither is the one for Congress. You are assuming they get a full pension after only five years and they do not. That is a myth.