Congressman Complains About Making $172,000 a Year

Millionaire GOP lawmaker Phil Gingrey laments his low salary.

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., announces his bid for the U.S. Senate at a press conference, Wednesday, March 27, 2013, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/David Goldman)  
National Journal
Alex Seitz-Wald
See more stories about...
Alex Seitz-Wald
Sept. 18, 2013, 1:38 p.m.

Woe is Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Phil Gin­grey of Geor­gia, who be­moaned in a closed-door meet­ing this morn­ing that he’s “stuck” mak­ing a paltry $172,000 a year in Con­gress. Nev­er mind that this is more than three times the na­tion­al av­er­age in­come, or that Gin­grey is worth $3 mil­lion. Mean­while, he’s run­ning for Sen­ate, where can only ex­pect a $2,000 raise.

Cap­it­ol Hill aides can go work for a lobby shop and make $500,000, the con­gress­man said, ac­cord­ing to Na­tion­al Re­view‘s Jonath­an Strong. “Mean­while I’m stuck here mak­ing $172,000 a year.”

The con­text of Gin­grey’s com­ments is a bit com­plic­ated, but some­how makes the story even less flat­ter­ing. By a quirk of par­tis­an pos­tur­ing and ad­min­is­trat­ive rul­ings, the biggest vic­tims of Obama­care may be mem­bers of Con­gress and their staffers, who — if some GOP law­makers have their way — will lose the sub­sid­ized health in­sur­ance they cur­rently en­joy, which op­er­ates like any oth­er em­ploy­er-provided in­sur­ance plan. 

Re­pub­lic­ans ad­ded an amend­ment to the Af­ford­able Care Act to force mem­bers of Con­gress and their aides off of the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s em­ploy­ee health plan and onto the newly cre­ated health in­sur­ance ex­changes. The ex­changes wer­en’t de­signed for this, and the un­usu­al situ­ation meant law­makers might lose the sub­sidies they use to help pay for their premi­ums. For­tu­nately for den­iz­ens of Cap­it­ol Hill, the Of­fice of Per­son­nel Man­age­ment (sort of the gov­ern­ment’s hu­man re­sources de­part­ment) ruled that the gov­ern­ment could con­tin­ue to provide the sub­sidy. Case closed?

Not ex­actly. The rul­ing promp­ted con­ser­vat­ive groups like Freedom­Works to claim that Con­gress was giv­ing it­self an ex­emp­tion from Obama­care. Gin­grey, along with Louisi­ana Re­pub­lic­an Dav­id Vit­ter in the Sen­ate, has led the charge on the “No Spe­cial Treat­ment for Con­gress Act,” which would end the sub­sidy.

And that brings us to the base­ment of the Cap­it­ol, where, per Strong, some less af­flu­ent law­makers chal­lenged Gin­grey on the bill. Rep. Joe Bar­ton of Texas, for in­stance, said the loss of the sub­sidy would cost him $12,000. “That’s a bur­den. And it’s a bur­den on our staff, too,” he re­portedly said.

Gin­grey was un­sym­path­et­ic, and had even less con­cern for those spoiled staffers, cit­ing their abil­ity to make bank on K Street while he wal­lows on $172,000. The ob­vi­ous re­join­der, which Demo­crats are sure to make, is that they’d be happy to re­lieve of him the bur­den of his job and meek salary and send him through the re­volving door to K Street.

Some of Gin­grey’s fel­low law­makers were “in­censed” by the re­mark, hence the leak to Strong, but the com­ment prob­ably won’t help the GOP’s prob­lems of be­ing per­ceived as a party ex­clus­ively for the wealthy.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4451) }}

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×