From today's Washington Post:
Separately, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment by Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) that would deny to any lawmaker a pay increase that he votes against but that eventually becomes law.
I have to assume that Inhofe's motivation is to force lawmakers to "put their money where their mouth is", but I doubt the law will have the intended effect of having fewer Nay votes on pay raise roll calls. Previously, if you were a Senator with a tight re-election coming up, your opponent could point out how much you make and the fact that the Senate voted for a pay raise "at a time when many Americans are losing their jobs" (or whatever the standard lit piece says). Under Inhofe's rules, you can proclaim from the rooftops how you've sacrificed your salary for the good of the people and how you actually do make less money than some of your colleagues. You'd have to be quite the cash-strapped Senator for those extra few thousand dollars per anum to register significantly on your utility curve.
Although, maybe with the other changes mentioned in the article (which dealt with lobbyist reforms), more Senators will be lining up on the welfare queue. Or not.
Leave a comment