2006-08-28 03:06:45 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Isn't that like charging a fox with care of the henhouse?
2006-08-28 03:11:28 · update #1
I think it shows a callous disregard...nay, contempt for the citizenry.
2006-08-28 03:18:11 · update #2
populace = noun
populous = adjective
2006-08-28 03:23:23 · update #3
Because the constitution says so. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, it supercedes ANYTHING else that might be applied to the laws of our country. It does put limits onto the congress regarding when it takes effect, after the next election, so that they are giving those who follow after them a pay raise. If you wanted to get that changed you would need to work toward an amendment to the constitution, which means that you would need to become a congressman and try to convince all your coworkers to give up the ability to control their pay.
This has been part of the Constitution since it was first written. They put in the part about it taking effect during the next congress so that any vote for a pay raise would be an act of kindness to the next person who filled that seat instead of an act of greed. The president does have a say, a pay raise must be passed in the form of a bill that the president must sign for it to take effect, so if congress voted to pass a totally and completely outrageous bill that would raise the salary by an unprecedented amount, the president could exercise his veto and send it back to congress.
2006-08-28 03:20:06 · answer #1 · answered by nathanael_beal 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that federal lawmakers salaries should be directly tied to the GDP and federal debt. The higher the ratio of federal debt to GDP, the lower their pay. At present, they should be paying us, not the other way around.
One error, though. Not all states are that way. Our state Constitution here in NH sets the pay rate for our state reps. Article 15 of our state Constitution states that all members receive $200 per year. That means that the people who do run do it out of a sense of patriotism and not as a career.
2006-08-28 10:14:47 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They shouldn't be. At least the governor of each state and the president should have say-so in this matter. The Office of the Budget should also get involved, since even a cost-of-living raise means much more to them than it does to the average working stiff.
2006-08-28 10:15:21 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They're not, at least technically.
All pay raises go into effect during the NEXT congress, but since so many incumbents win, it is pretty much giving themselves a raise.
2006-08-28 10:13:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they can be. They play by very different rules and most of the public doesn't know it. They're health care is different, there savings plan, they don't even have to abide by minimum wage laws
2006-08-28 10:12:56 · answer #5 · answered by JoeP 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they make the laws. If it were left up to the populous, law makers would be in a voluntary position with no compensation.
2006-08-28 10:19:38 · answer #6 · answered by Hockey, Guns & Beer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they are the Law Makers-
2006-08-28 10:27:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not? Wouldn't you like to be in charge of your payment?
2006-08-28 10:08:53 · answer #8 · answered by Golgo-13 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, that's a real trip isn't it.'
2006-08-28 10:12:07 · answer #9 · answered by Bluealt 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'CAUSE THEY HAVE THE GUNS!!!!
2006-08-28 10:08:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋