Document text
--> --> Lawmakers get sneaky pay raises Yakima Herald-Republic July 29 With everyone's eyes on the stock market at the end of last week, we almost missed a seemingly minor House vote. The 258-156 procedural vote as the House opened debate on a spending bill for the Treasury Department and related agencies really isn't about money - although if you're having trouble putting groceries on the table you might argue with that statement. Rather - once again, for the fourth straight year - it's about the sneaky way lawmakers have devised to give themselves raises. Congressional pay raises go into effect unless lawmakers vote to block them. Last week's House vote effectively prevents lawmakers from offering an amendment to kill their latest raise. So, effective Jan. 1, 2003, you can expect the annual pay for House members to go from the current $150,000 to $155,000. As we have argued the past three years, the money is really a side issue - although the raise for the 435 congressional representatives adds up to an additional $2.17 million. Here's what we said in December 2001 as this year's increase was due to take effect: Maybe one of these days members of Congress will pick up on the fact that this back-door, under-cover-of-darkness way of increasing their salaries is a public relations nightmare. Still, they did it again: They let their third pay increase in four years go through. Come next week, their pay will jump $4,900 a year, or 3.37 percent, to $150,000. It was $98,400 in 1990. Even those who support more money for lawmakers decry the procedure. Opponents just go ballistic. Think maybe it's time to change the procedure? They can look to the state of Washington and its citizen salary-setting commission for elected officials' pay as one model. Here's the way the congressional system works: Under a complex system approved in 1989, many congressional pay raises are automatic unless Congress acts to block them. And the debate on any blocking usually takes place in the dead of night. The value to members of Congress is obvious: They don't have to take a direct, yes-or-no vote on raising congressional pay. Here's how our state's system works: The salary commission was created by a constitutional amendment approved by voters in 1986. The panel began operation in 1987 and is responsible for setting the salaries of members of the Legislature, all state elected officials and judges. The broadly representative commission is required by law to base the salaries of the elected officials on realistic standards and to pay them according to the duties of their office. It replaces a system in which the Legislature had the same problem as Congress - taking head-on votes on salary increases for elected officials. By taking it out of the legislative arena and turning the process over to a broadly representative citizen panel, the state avoids the political pitfalls that continue to plague Congress. Some say Congress should forgo a raise at this point, as some private-sector leaders are doing in a time of national emergency and economic downturns. Actually, it doesn't even take a new law or salary-setting system for that. Any member can refuse a raise and return it to the treasury. Congress obviously needs a new system. Automatic increases unless members vote otherwise still put the legislative body in control of its own monetary destiny, and any merit to the raises is buried in opposition to the way they are achieved. Two things have changed in the eight months since that was written: 1) What we called "economic downturns" in December might now be called an economic crash. 2) The increased salary at issue is $155,000 instead of $150,000. All other elements of the under-cover-of-darkness approach to politics as usual remain the same. Egyptian Gazette, Cairo on U.S. attack of Iraq Although denying that military action against Iraq is imminent, both the U.S. and Britain are turning up the heat on the Arab country, reeling under more than a decade of inexorable sanctions. A few days ago, British Prime Minister Tony Blair renewed his unswerving backing for the anticipated assault, the declared aim of which is to oust President Saddam Hussein. Until new pretexts emerge, the recent debacle of talks between the U.N. and Iraq in Vienna seems to have come as windfall for pugnacious America. Both sides failed to reach an agreement on the return of international arms inspectors to Iraq. Further talks between Iraq and the U.N. may yield a way out, but only if the U.S. stops hurling threats and accusations at Iraq. Le Temps, Geneva, Switzerland on Lance Armstrong's victory in the Tour de France On Sunday in Paris, Lance Armstrong won his fourth consecutive Tour de France, without suffering and without struggling. A breathtaking victory, almost degrading for the other riders. It was an exceptional exploit that deserves worldwide recognition and limitless admiration. Unfortunately, times are difficult for sport and especially for cycling. Dragged through the mud for four years by its own competitors, the sport has built new walls around itself. Walls as high as the lies told about doping. Walls of doubt that are, today, hard to destroy. Armstrong's performance is not immune from this. Because of his difficult childhood, his recovery from testicular cancer, his return to competition stronger than before and stronger than the others, the American is the source of a myriad of discussions. His success seems too perfect to be true, his physical improvement too marked to be natural. He suffers from this, stressing over and over that he has no secret except hard work and a will - a result of his illness - not to do anything by half measures. In the past, Lance Armstrong would have been a model, a legend a hero. The public mistrust that he meets today tarnishes not only his image but, in a certain sense, the whole future of the sport. For it urgently needs to renew its legends. It cannot live forever on the glory of its past. If, at the end of his career, the American is left with nothing more than a passing mention in the annals of cycling, it will mean that doubts have taken a commanding lead over enthusiasm. Email your... Technical questions & comments to: WebMaster Daily Tidings editorial comments & questions to: Editor Visit our other Oregon Newspapers... | Albany Democrat-Herald | Ashland Daily Tidings | Corvallis Gazette-Times | | Lebanon Express | Newport News-Times | Springfield News | Cottage Grove Sentinel | Ashland Daily Tidings 1661 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 97520 Telephone 541-482-3456 © Copyright 2001 Lee Northwest Publishing