Yes, Chuck Hagel is a VERY wealthy man and can easily afford to do this ~ but I see it as an important and meaningful gesture ~ and would love to see others in cabinet or director positions make the same gesture ~ ~ Sooz

TPM LiveWire
Chuck Hagel To Return Portion Of Salary To Pentagon
Igor Bobic - 3:26 PM EDT, Tuesday April 2, 2013

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has decided to return a portion of his salary back to the Pentagon in an effort to show solidarity for those department employees facing 14-day furloughs as a consequence of automatic budget cuts known as sequestration, Politico reported Tuesday.

“The secretary plans to subject his pay to furlough levels even though he is not required to because he is a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed official in this department,” a spokesman explained.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/chuck-hagel-to-return-portion-of-salary-to

Yeah, good for him.

First, Hagel ~ next his deputy secretary ~ now Obama ~ I like the trend and think it speaks volumes on personal character ~ when do you think we'll see anyone responsible for the sequester chip in? ~ ~ Sooz

Obama to give up 5 percent of salary in wake of 'sequester' cuts
By Kristen Welker, White House Correspondent, NBC News

President Obama will return 5 percent of his salary to the U.S. Treasury when other federal workers are being furloughed as part of the mandatory budget cuts that took effect earlier this year, NBC News has confirmed.

The New York Times, which broke this story, adds:

The voluntary move would be retroactive to March 1 and apply through the rest of the calendar year, the official said. The White House came up with the 5 percent figure to approximate the level of automatic spending cuts to non-defense federal agencies that took effect that day.


http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17587947-obama-to-give-up-5-of-salary-in-wake-of-sequester-cuts?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=2

Two Dem senators, Mark Begich (D-AK) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), have joined this still exclusive "personal character" club ~ while all of these folks can afford to do this without measurable hardship, I still see it as a significant gesture ~ last couple of paragraphs below are ZINGERS ~ there are "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Republicans Go Silent After President Obama Gives Back 5% of His Salary
By: Sarah Jones Apr. 3rd, 2013

Oh, dear. President Obama is going to be writing the government a check every month for 5% of his salary as a show of unity with federal workers impacted by the Republican sequester. That’s $20,000 a year. If Republicans are so concerned about the deficit that they were willing to allow the sequester to kick in, surely they will step up to follow the President’s fiscal example.

CNN reported today:


According to the Constitution, the President’s salary can’t be changed during his/her term: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

But just in case anyone was wondering (like a few of the super outraged conservative sites), the Budget Control Act of 2011 contained an exemption that elected members of Congress (and the President, but that’s sort of redundant given the Constitution) won’t have their salary or pension reduced.

A check of John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul’s websites reveals not a single statement or mention of the president’s decision to return 5% of his pay. Apparently, these Republicans believe that their talk of budgetary belt tightening applies to you, not them.

In February of this year, Republicans happily proposed reducing the federal workforce through attrition to avoid sequestration this year. They didn’t ask for cuts to federal contractors. They asked for cuts to employees who have already sacrificed $103 billion in the name of deficit reduction since 2011, according to Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). They left for break after approving reduced funding for their committees, but not for themselves.

While Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made pretty PR by authoring an amendment for a fund to which Congress could choose to donate 20% of their pay , USA Today points out that it was part of a non-binding vote to the budget resolution, and thus does not have the force of law.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter already volunteered their salaries before the President did. So far, two Democratic Senators have also risen to the challenge: Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) stepped up to the plate and will be returning a portion of his salary, ”We need to be making responsible cuts wherever we can and there is no reason that members of Congress shouldn’t feel the pinch like everyone else.” And Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has also pledged to return a portion of her salary. Not a peep from a Republican yet.

Meanwhile, as the President shows solidarity with American workers, in the House, Eric Cantor (R-VA) is pushing a bill to gut rules governing overtime pay for the American workers.

It’s ironic that the people claiming to be so concerned about the deficit and so eager to cut pay for some people are unwilling thus far to step up to the plate and cut their own pay even by 1%. Tick tock Republicans. Put your money where your mouth is.

http://www.politicususa.com/game-on-republicans-follow-president-obamas-lead-repaying-5-pay.html

And the list grows ~ ~ I read somewhere that Tammy Duckworth is donating [I think] 5% to Veterans Affairs too ~ and there are now grumblings that "those people can afford more" ~ which is definitely true ... but misses the entire point ~ not surprisingly, the grumblings are coming from those who can also afford to voluntarily match the cut but are choosing NOT to do so ~ Sooz

Napolitano, Jack Lew To Give Away Portion Of Salary
Social facebook Share this story on Facebook
David Taintor - 8:10 AM EDT, Friday April 5, 2013

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will donate part of their salaries as budget sequestration continues, the Associated Press reported Thursday. President Obama, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry have offered to give up part of their income as well. From the Associated Press:



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/napolitano-jack-lew-to-give-away-portion-of

Blistering, well-deserved commentary coupled with some [to me] startling facts ~ bolding/emphasis below is mine ~ there are several "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Congress Claims They Are ‘Financially Struggling’, and Refuses to Give Back Salary
By: Sarah Jones - Apr. 8th, 2013

Members of Congress won’t follow President Obama’s lead by giving back 5% of their salary because it’s tough to manage a two-city life on $174,000.00, according to the analysis of David Hawkings of Roll Call.


Eight of the President’s cabinet are also donating back, and a handful of lawmakers followed suit (the non-binding voice vote for show in the Senate doesn’t count, but thank Lindsey Graham for the show). While Hawkings doesn’t have anyone on the record (as if their silence doesn’t speak volumes), this is hardly the first time we’ve heard members of congress bemoaning their salaries.

After talk of a Republican imposed government shutdown in 2011, Democratic Senator Joe Manchin encouraged others to follow his lead in donating his earnings back to the Treasury. The Daily Caller asked Congressional members if they would chip in: House Republican Renee Ellmers (N.C.) wasn’t having it, “I need my paycheck.” Other members were non-plussed from both sides of the aisle, though Republican Pete King (N.Y.) took a stand for salaries that American workers would applaud if only his party weren’t gunning for theirs, “I’m going to take it. I’ll be working. You shouldn’t play games with salaries.”

The Florida Capital News reported (courtesy of DCC, as FCN link is not working, second source PolitiFact) Republican Steve Southerland complaining to a Tallahassee retirement community in 2011:


Republican Sean Duffy of Wisconsin, who said it was a “struggle” to pay his mortgage and student loans with his congressional salary. “At this point, I’m not living high on the hog.”

Do tell.

While Democrats aren’t the folks pushing for the austerity measures or trying to kill the minimum wage for those people, it’s still a facepalm moment when they talk about how they can’t give up their paycheck. Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) told MSNBC last year, “I have to tell you, I live paycheck to paycheck, like most Americans. It’s very difficult for me to say, ‘Hey, I can give up my paycheck,’ because the reality is, I have financial obligations that I have to meet on a month-to-month basis that doesn’t make it possible for me.” Sanchez argued that she is not a millionaire like many in Congress. True enough. Neither are most Americans.

Congressional members make a $174,000 annual salary, but they also have very generous health care plans and pensions, not to mention the perks (travel, mail, etc.). According to a 2011 report by Taxpayers’ Protection Alliance and Our Generation, they make 3.4 times the salary of the average American worker, and their benefits bring the total package to $285,000. Members of Congress are among the top 5% pay tier in America. They are among the highest paid legislators in the world.

In December of 2011, Jason Easley pointed out that even though House Republicans are going to be in session for only 126 days in 2013, they are still demanding their full $174,000 salary. “House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has announced that the House will only be in session for 126 days in 2013. The schedule is a continuation of the two weeks off one week on the schedule that the Republicans implemented when they gained the majority after the 2010 election.” So, they want the same amount of money for less work, and their reduced schedule brings DC to a halt. This how we reward failure? Meanwhile, the wealth gap between congress and voters is growing.

The offer to return some money to the Treasury should have originated in the Republican-led House, the source of the “budget” concerns, the source of the sequester as the solution, and therefor the source of random cuts in pay to federal workers. Their alleged “concerns” are so extensive that Republicans were willing to gamble our credit rating and throw our economy to the wolves in order to get the cuts they say are necessary, regardless of the fact that non-partisan economists disagree.

Republican members of the House are directly responsible for the debt ceiling debacle that led to the sequester (another Republican idea, presented over the years as the holy grail of the budget by Paul Ryan and other Republicans). They advocated for these cuts. Obama didn’t want them, and even Speaker John Boehner has admitted that.

A check of House Republican leadership’s (John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan) websites revealed not a single statement or mention of the president’s decision to return 5% of his pay.

So the question becomes, if it’s good enough for federal employees and it’s good enough for the average American, why isn’t it good enough for members of congress?

I can think of no better way to burst the bubble of entitlement and privilege that protects our lawmakers from the realities of the rest of the country than to join in on the fun. Make do with less.

While embarrassed Republicans scoff away the President’s gesture as a “gimmick”, we should be asking why they aren’t following his lead, and walking their talk. The study concluded, “For example, a (Congressional) salary cut of $74,000 (which would bring their salary to $100,000) would save taxpayers $39 million per year and reassure Americans that sacrifices made during this economic downturn are being shared by everybody, especially Members of Congress.”

Before cutting the minimum wage, cutting federal employees’ salaries, taking food away from babies, getting rid of benefits for veterans and cutting seniors’ Social Security, lawmakers who are fear-mongering about the deficit and the debt should put an end to their own Congressional entitlement. They can start with their own salaries and benefits.

We are all making “sacrifices” in order to live within our reduced means. Shouldn’t they?

http://www.politicususa.com/congress-follow-obamas-lead-give-salaries-struggling.html

We are all making “sacrifices” in order to live within our reduced means. Shouldn’t they?

Abso-friggin-lutely! Will it happen? Nope.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) told MSNBC last year, “I have to tell you, I live paycheck to paycheck, like most Americans. It’s very difficult for me to say, ‘Hey, I can give up my paycheck,’ because the reality is, I have financial obligations that I have to meet on a month-to-month basis that doesn’t make it possible for me.”

Well yeah. Those expensive houses and cars can be a drain on a budget. I wonder how much you pay your nanny for your four kids? I have an idea, sweetie. Sell your house like millions of Americans have done or tried to do in this crap market. Even better, take a pay cut and find out how a large portion of the country feels as they are evicted when they have to choose between eating and paying their rent/morgage after they've been laid off and are trying to survive on unemployment.

A couple of more comments about/to Sanchez:

Try birth control and maybe you can live within your means honey. Don't be surprised if your comments anger someone enough to start digging into your personal life. Is your nanny legal?