Quantcast
MobileRJ | RSS Twitter Twitter FacebookFacebook E-mail Alerts
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion
Dec. 29, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Scraping by on $170,000

In November, a last-ditch effort to slide "cost-of-living" salary increases for federal judges into the auto bailout legislation failed in Congress. That means judges are the only federal workers who won't get some sort of pay raise in 2009.

This fact, coupled with what some argue is an inherently low pay scale, has again triggered warnings from members of the judiciary about a potential exodus of sitting judges seeking more lucrative opportunities in the private sector.

Most Popular Stories
  • LETTERS: With economists like these, who needs enemies?
  • LETTERS: Brace yourself for coming tax hikes
  • LETTERS: Nuclear power could be the answer for Nevada
  • EDITORIAL: Firemen's pensions past due for reform
  • EDITORIAL: Education 'consultants'
  • EDITORIAL: Internet sales taxes
  • LETTERS: So now you're in favor of regulation, eh?
  • FROM OUR READERS: In the dark about the new light bulbs
  • J.C. WATTS: Sonia Sotomayor and bootstraps
  • EDITORIAL: Hoe, hoe, hoe




    • And like similar warnings in the past, it's a crock.

    "Federal judges are currently under-compensated because Congress has repeatedly failed to adjust judicial salaries in response to inflation," argues James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

    Nonsense.

    Federal judges earn $169,300 a year. Judges on federal appeals courts make $179,500 annually. Their pay has increased 23 percent since 1999. They have lifetime tenure. They may retire at age 65 with full pay after only 15 years of service.

    The idea that these jurists need annual cost-of-living hikes to help them offset the rising costs of groceries is insulting to struggling taxpayers -- as even some former judges admit.

    "It's almost embarrassing to say you can't survive on $170,000 or $180,000, whatever it was that I was being paid," said Timothy Lewis, who resigned his seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999 at the age of 44 and is now in private practice. "That's not true, of course. But it just did not seem conducive to the lifestyle I was trying to provide for my children in private schools and college tuitions, which I'm paying now."

    Fine. But Mr. Lewis is the exception, not the rule. The Associated Press reports that in the past two years only seven federal judges younger than age 65 have quit. And if potential vacancies go unfilled, it's due to politics or congressional dithering, not a lack of eager candidates.

    "Existing judges could make more money if they retire, maybe three to four times their salary, and yet they don't retire in great numbers," Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, told The AP.

    Mr. Posner recently wrote a paper with Stephen Choi of New York University and G. Mitu Gulati of Duke on the wisdom of giving judges more money. They concluded that raising salaries as a retention tool might be a solution in search of a problem.

    "For many people, it's more rewarding and less stressful to be a judge," Mr. Posner said.

    Congressional committees in both the Senate and House last year approved hefty 29 percent raises for members of the federal judiciary, but the bills went nowhere. No doubt a similar effort will surface next year. Let's hope it's destined for a similar fate. Any increase should be far less extravagant.

    Federal judges do important work and deserve to earn a comfortable living. Occasional increases in base pay are certainly warranted. But supporters of higher salaries don't help their case complaining about missing a COLA increase during a recession or predicting a brain drain that never seems to materialize.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 17 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    joe wrote on January 05, 2009 09:23 AM: Well Steve, let's apply real-world, private sector compensation to the public servants. So that means secretaries and janitors that work for the gov't will be getting 2-3% pay increases instead of 7%? And they'll be responsible for their own retirement via 401K's instead of taxpayer funded pensions? And they won't be able to retire at 40 and live another 40-50 years at taxpayer expense? I'll vote for that.


    Steve wrote on December 30, 2008 03:27 AM: oh please - you can walk into practically any court room in Nevada and witness the day-to-day proceedings. As you have observed, the deals occur in the back room, just like they do in sports.


    Waitaminute wrote on December 29, 2008 10:37 PM: If these guys are only in it for the money then they need to find another line of work. They are public servants and shouldn't be looking to get rich off of the people they serve. But then again Congress tries the same thing so why not.


    oh please wrote on December 29, 2008 08:27 PM: Steve at least in sports you can witness the game. In court your not privy to the back room deals.

    If these judges don't like they pay then move on.


    Steve wrote on December 29, 2008 06:30 PM: I'm so sick of these RJ beatups but I guess they know how to stimulate their readership.

    The bottom line is: "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys".

    The same people that champion the high salaries in sport somehow think that people that spend 20+ years excelling in a highly competitive education and legal environment should be paid less than them.

    It is nothing but pure unmitigated jealousy and ignorance - and the RJ panders to it.


    John wrote on December 29, 2008 02:11 PM: Lets not forget that these attorneys Jack writes about that are making "50 times" more than a Judge are the same ones that run for and actively politic for these positions. Why? Because the real money is made as a result of the political and business contacts these guys make. It is networking at the highest level. Same reason politicans run for office, it is not for the salary or to put forth the will of the people but for the contacts these positions provide.


    Jack wrote on December 29, 2008 12:05 PM: All of this negativity toward Judges salaries is completely misplaced. A judge in an any appeal level court is going to make around 50 times less than thte attorneys arguing in front of her. In addition, she will have a caseload that exceeds an entry level attorney in a large city law firm.
    If people want to get excited and upset about pay raises, where were the complaints when both houses of our congress received their pay raises after 16 years of screwing up our economy, national security and education systems in this country.
    The lower paid congressmen and women make more than federal level judges!


    I can not believe it wrote on December 29, 2008 11:43 AM: For once, I agree with Helen.


    These Judges are free to leave wrote on December 29, 2008 11:40 AM: Nobody twisted their arms to take the jobs.

    Guaranteed salary for the rest of their lives not bad.

    The bigger question, why did Harry try to sneak this in on the auto bail out bill? One has nothing to do with the other.

    How many Nevada US Judges are Reid recommended appointments?


    helenweils wrote on December 29, 2008 10:41 AM: One of the biggest holes in the Constitution is giving these judges lifetime tenure with no chance of getting them off the bench. It would
    be in the interest of Taxpayers everywhere that the turnover be increased so that they "serve" for the right reasons. Cut the salary increases. We have enough omnipotent
    beings on the bench.


    Read All Comments