Sensenbrenner Opposes Pay Hike for Federal Judges
Washington, DC,
Dec 14, 2007 -
Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) voted against increasing salaries for federal judges this week during consideration in the House Judiciary Committee of the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act. The proposal, which passed the Committee by a vote of 28 to 5, increases federal judges’ pay by approximately $53,000 a year. However, this legislation does not follow the PAYGO rules established by the Democratic leadership at the beginning of the year, because it does not include any offsets to replace the government’s funds that will be siphoned to pay for these raises. In other words, passage of this bill will inevitably lead to a new tax, or a raise in existing taxes, in order to provide an even higher salary for federal judges.
The following statement reflects Congressman Sensenbrenner’s opposition to this legislation:
“Federal judges are admirable men and women who serve the public in an honorable way. Nonetheless, I cannot in good conscience support a bill that will charge taxpayers around $750,000,000 over 10 years, so that District Court judges, who currently make $165,200 a year, can get a $53,000 annual pay increase. And that’s just the minimum -- Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court justices make more, with the Chief Justice making $212,100 a year; under this legislation, his raise would be almost $68,000!
“The rewards of service on the federal bench involve more than simply a decent salary. They include job security through a lifetime appointment. They include the ability to significantly contribute to the good of society; and they include the ability to make rulings on issues that affect the entire nation. As a person intimately involved in the legal profession, both as a lawyer and as the former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I know that there are no shortages of lawyers willing to accept the pay scale offered to a member of the Federal judiciary.
“Moreover, this bill would break the link of comparability that presently exists in the salaries among the three branches of government. If Congress passes this bill, then the message it would send is that one branch’s responsibility and time spent is worth more than another co-equal branch. Surely this is not what Madison and Hamilton had in mind?
“Supporters of this bill will have to justify their support, and answer to their constituents. I could not ask my constituents, living on strict budgets and struggling to make ends meet, to shoulder the burden of such a raise. As a result, I voted ‘NO’ for this bill.”
###
|
text size 
