08-26-2009, 06:55 PM
Talk about being hypocritical! Does anyone remember back in Feb. and March when both the house and senate members berated (and may I add rightfully so) CEO's from the large banking firms for giving out huge bonuses to employees. Their argument was. How can you give out bounes when your going broke? I think we need to ask our leaders the same question.
Do you believe our government used the same excuss the CEO's did. We need to give these bonuses to attract and retain employees.
The House projects a cost of 12.6 million dollars in 2009, while the Senate's version of the plan is projected to cost 4.7 million dollars.
"A month after they voted to punish some corporate executives for taking hefty bonus payouts, members of the House of Representatives quietly gave their own staffers a new potential bonus by making even their top-earning aides eligible for taxpayer dollars to repay their student loans.
The change, which took effect in May, means House employees earning up to $168,411, or the top level, are now eligible for government-funded subsidies to help pay down their student loans. "
"House officials defend the change as a job-related benefit necessary to keep the government competitive in the hiring market - the same argument corporate chieftains used to defend their own pay scales."
"The House program is expected to cost $12.6 million this fiscal year. As of August, it was making payments for 2,251 staffers. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the branch of the House that administers the program, is unable to estimate how many of those staffers are taking part under the new, higher-income limits, spokesman Jeff Ventura said.
Mr. Ventura said that, with members of the House up for election every two years, job security is uncertain and the student loan program helps attract talent. "
"The Senate income eligibility cap for its program is $146,500 this year, which is about $23,000 less than the maximum a staffer could make. The Senate caps lifetime payments at $40,000 - $20,000 less than the House.
A spokeswoman for the secretary of the Senate, who administers the program, said the program will cost $4.7 million this year. That's up from $1 million in 2002, when the program began, but down from 2003, the peak year, when the Senate spent $6.8 million. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...top-aides/
Do you believe our government used the same excuss the CEO's did. We need to give these bonuses to attract and retain employees.
The House projects a cost of 12.6 million dollars in 2009, while the Senate's version of the plan is projected to cost 4.7 million dollars.
"A month after they voted to punish some corporate executives for taking hefty bonus payouts, members of the House of Representatives quietly gave their own staffers a new potential bonus by making even their top-earning aides eligible for taxpayer dollars to repay their student loans.
The change, which took effect in May, means House employees earning up to $168,411, or the top level, are now eligible for government-funded subsidies to help pay down their student loans. "
"House officials defend the change as a job-related benefit necessary to keep the government competitive in the hiring market - the same argument corporate chieftains used to defend their own pay scales."
"The House program is expected to cost $12.6 million this fiscal year. As of August, it was making payments for 2,251 staffers. The Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, the branch of the House that administers the program, is unable to estimate how many of those staffers are taking part under the new, higher-income limits, spokesman Jeff Ventura said.
Mr. Ventura said that, with members of the House up for election every two years, job security is uncertain and the student loan program helps attract talent. "
"The Senate income eligibility cap for its program is $146,500 this year, which is about $23,000 less than the maximum a staffer could make. The Senate caps lifetime payments at $40,000 - $20,000 less than the House.
A spokeswoman for the secretary of the Senate, who administers the program, said the program will cost $4.7 million this year. That's up from $1 million in 2002, when the program began, but down from 2003, the peak year, when the Senate spent $6.8 million. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009...top-aides/