Evening star., 1953-12-26
Ruise for Congress and Judiciory

N0iSS W. SSnSaSSS viz S00t$t0ty
According to The Star Of December
16 former Representative Ramspeck
said that members of Congress should
be paid $4,000 (for Six-month year,
because it is utterly impossible to save
any money from their $12 .500"-plus
a tax-free expense allowance of $500,
free transportation and rent-free, ex-
pensively furnished Office, to say nothing
of extras from radio, television, etc.
My heart bleeds for our underpaid and
overworked legislators. However, men,
bers of the British Parliament would
be more than glad to change places
with them.
Mr.. RamSpeck thus suggests that,
like the labor unioniStS and the farm
ers, the taxpayers should provide the
Congressman with security" and sup
port him in the style to which he is
unaccustomed, with a neSt-egg in the
bank. A far cry from the good old
days" when it was considered an honor
and a privilege to serve ones country
in the Congress of the United States
and monetary reward was secondary.
One who is willing to barter his pride
and independence for security" should
to tax-conScious Representative Daw-
son. Republican, of Utah. who believes
that Congressman can survive on their
present emoluments, although they
couldn't live fancy or go to many
cocktail parties"
When and if our Congressman at
tains the soft cushion Of security" he
will one day wake up to the fact that
he is unable to break the chains which
bind him to it.
Old Reactionary.
I was shocked at the testimony Of
Representatives Hoffman and Burdick
against increa sing congressional
salaries. The purchasing power of con-
gressional salaries today is less than
half what it was in 1889. The case for
an increase to at least $25, 1000 would
seem so obvious that it needs no dem
onstration.
can think of only three reasons
why Congressman would vote against
an increase to $4,000. First, he might
think that his contribution to the coun-
try isn't worth that much and he would
be ashamed to take money that he didn't
earn. Second, he might be afraid that
$25,O0O would attract men of greater
ability and he might wind up out of
a job. Third, he might have such a low
opinion of his constituency that he
might fear they won't be able to see the
desirability of raising congressional sal
aries.
For whichever of these reasons
Congressman votes against raising his
salary to at least $25, 900, such a vote
should be considered a good reason for
not electing him next time.
Webb S. Fiser.
If the President is sincere in his
various talks about reducing the budget
for the coming year, he will turn a deaf
ear to the pleas of judges and members
OF Congress for increases in salary.
The statement made by a District
judge the other day to the effect that
he could not live on $4,000 a year;
that he had to withdraw from his saw
ings to help meet his living expenses,
was pathetic, to say the least If this
judge cannot live on his salary, he
should resign. There are at least two
thousand attorneys in Washington fully
capable to fill his job, and any one of
whom would be glad to take his place
for one-half of his salary.
AS to members of Congress, they
should be put on per diem basis of j.,
say, about $40 day, and when they
do not answer when the roll is called,
they should be docked
w. M. Fray.
While the Republicans are attempt
ing to balance the budget by laying off
hundreds of Government employees, an
other group is campaigning for a sub
stantial pay raise for Government en-
ployes and members of Congress.
This should bring repercussions from
I all sides. The farmer has suffered a
great decline in income, real estate is
at standStill, industry is suffering
from lack of a buyers market, etc.
Surely imitation has hit every American,
not select group or groups.
Wholesale layoffs of Government en-
ployes are continuing in spite of recent
assurances to the contrary. In his cam
paign promises, President Eisenhower,
who pledged support of loyal career
employees, did not take into considera-
ton the veterans preference act which
now gives every veteran-regardleSS of
efficiency, length of military service.
whether in peace or war-absolute re-
tention rights over any civilian employe.
Apparently no constructive program
has been considered in the reduction
in-force policy. For example, there has
been no attempt to modify the present
retirement law which would lower the
age of forced retirement. Surely the
policy of letting older employees above
81 with 80 years or more of service
continue ito hold their jobs while
younger employees. many of whom are
raising families, are laid off, does not
make for sound economy. Lowering the
age of forced retirement from 70 to 81
could do much to guarantee greater
number of families a living, and less
competition on the outside for those
seeking employment.
It is no wonder the present admins