H.R.204 - Congressional Pay Cut Act

To provide for a 5 percent reduction in the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress. view all titles (3)

All Bill Titles

  • Popular: Congressional Pay Cut Act as introduced.
  • Official: To provide for a 5 percent reduction in the rates of basic pay for Members of Congress. as introduced.
  • Short: Congressional Pay Cut Act as introduced.

This Bill currently has no wiki content. If you would like to create a wiki entry for this bill, please Login, and then select the wiki tab to create it.

Comments Feed

  • RubberBoots 01/08/2011 2:25pm

    I would rather it be like a 40% reduction in pay butt that would just lead to more pay offs from corporations and foreign entities, Maybe we should just hang the ones that voted for the outsourcing bills and all would be happy.

  • Comm_reply
    suzieqs 01/08/2011 3:36pm

    I agree, but I also think they should include an increase in their share of their h/c premium costs, right now, they are only paying 25% of the total cost the taxpayers are paying the other 75%.

  • suzieqs 01/08/2011 3:39pm
    Link Reply
    + 14

    I’d like to challenge every congressman, senator to try and live on only $751.00 per month (that’s the lowest rate for a SS Disability recipient) and pay for their 20% in medical, and find an apartment w/o subsidization, and manage utilities, and groceries w/o food stamps, and then tell me that it can be done.

  • Comm_reply
    BenjaWiz 01/18/2011 12:55pm

    Right on! Sue congress is loaded with money and don’t need anymore lol.

  • Comm_reply
    Liberator 04/08/2011 3:04pm

    Suzie you are so correct! SSD and SSI payments are much too low. In the city I live in the fair market rent is $883/mo for a studio apartment (0 bedroom apartment). And in my ENTIRE state of New Jersey the lowest fair market rent (FMR) the federal Department of Housing & Urban Development reports is $739/mo for a studio apartment.

    Should all the disabled people who grew up and lived their whole lives in certain states be forced to relocate somewhere else like Wayne County, Kentucky where apparently the fair market rent is $331/mo? I don’t know what the government wants people to do. Certain people can’t move far from their family or specific medical facilities.

    $751.00 per month is much too low. $9,012 a year to live on is absurd.

  • telefriend 01/08/2011 6:26pm

    The fact that there’s only one cosponsor from the “smaller government” GOP is astounding. Especially with the recent attack against Rep. Giffords, every Congressperson should be swamped with calls that demand they cosponsor HR-204 to ensure Gabby Giffords’ excellent legislation! Please, call and leave a message.

  • Comm_reply
    kir 01/21/2011 12:38am

    Here’s the reason why there is only one republican cosponser. H.R.335 – “To provide for a 10 percent reduction in pay for Members of Congress.” That’s been in the works for a while.

  • Comm_reply
    fakk2 01/21/2011 3:34pm

    Kir, you just made me smile. I had no idea they had a second bill for this. Too bad they won’t make the bills cumulative for %15 reduction.

  • Comm_reply
    kir 01/24/2011 2:54pm

    Oh I wish it worked that way :p

  • tomwyng 01/09/2011 1:07am

    It would be interesting to know the estimated dollar amount this action would save. I suspect it is a relatively small amount in the “big picture”. That is ,however, how most people save money- a little at a time- and it all helps. Seems this bill would be good on the resume of a politician so maybe it will get out of committee.

  • Comm_reply
    tom989 04/22/2011 9:46am

    It most likely will be small and only a kind gesture in my opinion. I’m curious what their % increases have been over the past several years when most Americans were not receiving raises.

  • itwillwork 01/17/2011 5:15pm

    Congressional pay cut of 5%, they are lucky. I was “manipulated” by my agency to accept pay retention, I did out of stress, in 2007 Congress passed a bill cutting my salary increase and all pay “retentees” 50% each year. Now that I am ready to retire, Congress wants to redo my retirement. Congress have been driving me to the poorhouse.

    I am highly qualified and top producer in my office if not in the entire agency, (that is why I sleep well at night),(the field managements feels I am a threat and think I am a believable whistleblower, hence the “dislike”).

  • BenjaWiz 01/18/2011 12:52pm

    30-40% pay cut would be great 5%? come on.

  • JackCox 01/25/2011 1:26am

    It’s kind of Spooky this was sponsored by Rep. Giffords. But yes absolutely this should be passed, it’s nice to see she had the people on her mind though.

  • Nicklar 01/28/2011 9:55am

    While I agree that Representatives and Senators make far more money than is necessary, let it be remembered that they are perfectly within their Constitutional rights to raise their pay as they see fit according to Article 1, Section 6. The downside of raising their own salaries, of course, is a negative effect upon future reelection chances. I agree with tomwyng that this would be a good thing for a political resume. Thus, I think that it stands a good chance of not only getting out of committee, but also of passing both Chambers. 5% is a large enough amount to impress some people but a small enough amount not to severely diminish salaries to a point of discomfort for legislators. Naturally, as a citizen, I wish it were more, but that would not keep me from supporting the bill under discussion.

  • Mophatt 01/31/2011 1:37pm

    Here is my thought. Members of congress should be alotted an acceptable salary. what that is, I am not sure now. They have their healthcare and maybe not so many perks. But once they are out, they have to get a job, pay for healthcare and pay taxes just like the rest of us. I bet that would make them do everything in their power to make those things available when they get out. So, although I don’t think this is enough, I think the 5% is a good start.

  • Comm_reply
    NoirAngelique 11/23/2011 3:06pm

    They’re within their Constitutional rights? Really? They vote in a law that lets them pillage the taxpayers and then hold up that law as their shield against criticism. Please. The article that allows them to do this is criminal in itself. Hiding behind a law designed to give you the freedom to do whatever you want with SOMEONE ELSE’S MONEY is reprehensible. But then what else can you expect from a den of thieves? (Yes, there are a few exceptions. I don’t need both hands to count them on.)

  • SmilingAhab 01/31/2011 4:35pm

    So the heads of government, who aren’t paid more than 6 figures unless they supplement it with becoming salesmen and speakers, have to start slashing into their pay, but CEOs are making 7 and 8 digits over the counter and can’t be bothered to contribute a bit more to the country that made them? Oh wait, we’re giving them the country in the dim hope that they might deign to reinvest a few cents of it. Because that’s worked so well.

    Until the Fed and the banker cartel is abolished, the Glass-Steagall act or something keeping banks and investment firms seperate is reenacted, the tax code restructured and the defense budget gouged into, nothing’s going to change. More warships, more mountains of money placed on the altar of the Fed, more corporate fiefdoms and empires, more toothless, puffy bureaucracy. This bill is just more fluff to distract everyone from the real problems.

  • Comm_reply
    NoirAngelique 11/23/2011 3:12pm

    To answer your question: YES. One has NOTHING to do with the other. Your apples and dumptrucks comparison just isn’t working. Senators and Representatives are supposed to go to Washington, serve their term and GO HOME and back to whatever they were doing before they did the civic duty they BEGGED their constituents to do. They are NOT supposed to turn this into a CAREER OR a LIFETIME INCOME. 5% is a pathetic drop in income, especially from a group of people who do everything in their power to protect the elitists at the expense of the poorest and in the process are destroying the middle class. So YES, they should have a drop in their obscene incomes and it should be substantially MORE than 5%.

  • mmstahlecker 02/03/2011 7:06am

    The starting pay for a Congress member is $175,000. Outrageous! The Founders would be appalled that these people make enough to make it a career. The real money comes when former Congress members join the lobbying circuit. Former SD Senator Tom Daschle makes millions as a lobbyist. We need a bill that would prohibit former members from lobbying for at least 4 years.

  • mmitsuzono 09/15/2011 4:25pm

    The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year. Some members chose not to increase their pay.

    The median personal wealth for members of Congress grew to $911,510 in 2009, up from $785,515 in 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Nearly half of the members of Congress are millionaires.

  • Spam Comment

  • rctrail 04/10/2012 1:58am

    I am one of the few who oppose this bill. It would only increase the likelyhood of corruption among public officials.


Vote on This Bill

98% Users Support Bill

655 in favor / 12 opposed
 

Send Your Rep a Letter

about this bill Support Oppose Tracking
Track with MyOC

Top-Rated Comments