Thursday, September 28th, 2006...6:40 am
He Didn’t Vote for a Pay Raise, But His Vote Did Raise His Pay
Gawd, I gotta take issue with an article written by a friend of mine.
This morning, the Arizona Daily Star ran a piece critical of Jim Pederson’s claim that Jon Kyl voted to raise his pay.
The article notes that Kyl voted to raise his pay once, as a house member in 1989. But then states:
The other pay-raise votes cited in the ad are misleading. Three of the votes aren’t for pay raises, but votes not to cancel an automatic cost-of-living raise. Kyl voted not to reject the raise, which is not the same as voting for a pay raise.
“…which is not the same as voting for a pay raise.” Did the votes result in raises in his pay? Well, yeah they did, didn’t they? How is that not a pay raise? Would he have allowed a similar system for the minimum wage?
The system of not voting for pay raises but instead voting not to cancel a pre-planned pay raise was established during Democratic control and was exactly the sort of legislative tomfoolery that the Republicans claimed that they were elected to stop. It exists entirely so that people like Kyl can give themselves raises but then can claim that “Au contraire, I never voted to give myself a raise.”
Nice try Jon. A little later I’ll talk about your claim that “I never voted to cut Social Security.”
2 Comments
September 28th, 2006 at 9:10 am
No wonder Jon Kyl can afford to write so many blank checks to the President. He’s raking it in with all the pay raises he’s given himself over the years!
Please excuse my mixed metaphors…
September 28th, 2006 at 10:56 am
How about following Harry Reid’s idea that the minimum wage go up every year (so that it doesn’t accumulate over a decade until conservatives are complaining about a proposed 25% jump in one year, just to catch up), and index it using the same index Congressional pay raises are indexed to?
Oh, yeah. It’s about the market. (Never mind that given the urgent need to address multiple societal problems, I’d be happy to serve in Congress for zero pay, the market doesn’t apply there– maybe that’s why they have such a wonderful socialist universal health care system that they pay nothing for, and a retirement system that is paid for with Social Security funds but is much better than Social Security.)