Congress gave out bonuses

Anyone have any thoughts on this? This kind of builds on the sequestration thread.
http://cnnradio.cnn.com/2013/03/08/congressional-bonuses-in-a-time-of-cuts/?hpt=hp_t2

I have a big problem with this quote:
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-FL, responded, "We have not had raises or bonuses in several years. The small compensation reflects an increased workload each person had to take on after our staff was downsized because of budgetary cuts."

Most companies across the US have experienced such hardships, that they've had to layoff staff, cut payroll, and pretty much all areas across the board, let alone even think of giving raises. These poor babies expect the population to feel bad because they claim they haven't had a raise or bonus in a few years. They should be thankful to have a steady paycheck, because a lot of people don't anymore.

And a problem with this one:
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA, wrote, “have a hard working, dedicated team… and I want to pay a salary that reflects their service.”

He said he only gives bonuses if there is “money left over” at the end of the year.


First, there shouldn't be any money left over. There's huge budget deficits, and with the sequestration issue, no way they should have all that 'extra' money.

Second, his 'hard working staff' is part of a group that hasn't been effective in any productive way.


Anyone else getting tired of these clowns? When the government forced banks to take TARP funds, any bonuses had to be approved by a government financial manager. How is it, that when the government can't balance their budget, can't agree on spending cuts, and feel the only way to increase revenue is to tax an already burdened middle class, they can decide to give themselves bonuses. That should have to be approved by a civilian vote IMO.
 
That's because we have to live under their decree, while supposedly, they live under ours.
Why was last years revenues/taxes the highest in history, and we cant keep up by a trillion in the hole each year?
Now I know, the big spender defenders will soon arrive and obscure simple things like, weve never given so much and yet been behind so far so fast.
Cuts aren't what some people are about, and all I wish on them is a wife or husband that cant help thems3elves from spending all the time, until they too are running red.


I have confidence in the people, not our leaders, and the people should always remember for the people, by the people as the main principal in their lives regarding government, regardless of what side they tilt towards.
Throw em out, now, and quit listening to them, they need to come to us with answers, not rhetoric
 
You are a Libertarian I presume?
 
I grasp everything.
Sometimes a liberal view is needed when a conservative just isn't broad enough.
Sometimes a conservative view is needed when it isn't tough enough, and mixing both libertarian and conservative together, and is why you see them in the same camp generally, and it scares the liberals is, they both want a smaller, better government.
The government that governs best, governs least.

But ngenerally, Im a conservative that looks around, and expects things from fellow elected conservatives, and sometimes others have better POVs
 
Totally agree! I think that any Congressional raises should be State level ballot initiatives. If the House Reps and Senators in a particular State were doing the work their constituents wanted, then they could directly vote to give them a raise; conversely, if the House Rep or Senator was not doing what the constituency wanted, they could vote down any raises. It would provide direct feedback from the Districts these clowns are supposed to represent.

 
Actually this might, and I say might with much skepticism.
You would have to do it on a national level, and where we now see congress not getting along, and nothing getting done, where our senate hasn't even proposed a budget in 4 years, it may help us track down the majorities failures as an example.

It would cut thru party line, putting more pressure on both ends and sides