Friday, June 1, 2007 Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings Dear Mr. Mullings: An article listing assets of the current presidential candidates showed earned income for those who were senators and representatives of something like $165,200. Is that the basic salary for a senator and representative, or is there some other reason the earned income was listed as that exact amount for so many of them? If the former, it seems strange that a senator and a representative would get the same amount. Patrick Williamsburg, VA Members of the House and Senate make the same amount ($162,500) on the theory that they have to work the same number of days but, more importantly, it is not bloody likely that the Members of one Chamber would vote for an appropriations bill calling for Members of the other Chamber to make more. Members of the leadership make more than backbenchers. Minority and Majority Leaders in the House and Senate make $183,500 each. The Speaker of the House makes $212,100. To complete the discussion, according to the Washington Post the President's salary is $400,000; the VP makes 186,300. Cabinet Secretaries make $183,500. George Washington's salary was $25,000 in 1789. In 2007 dollars, according to our friends at Wikipedia, that would be about $530,000. Dear Mr. Mullings: There are municipalities here in the Philadelphia area that levy a wage tax on folks working in the municipality whether or not the worker lives in the municipality. For some reason, it took until my long-in-tooth 38th year of life to be struck by the thought that these taxed workers do not have the right to vote for representation in those municipalities. I suppose the argument could be made that a worker could get a job in another municipality, but isn�t that whole thought process completely against the foundation of the American Revolution ideal of �No Taxation Without Representation�? Should I start raising a stink or is this a pretty established thing? Pete Wayne, PA This is a very well established thing, but feel free to raise a stink anyway. This is generally called a "commuter tax" and has to do with the notion that you might live in your tony, white-picket-fenced, big-lawned, cul-de-sacced house in the suburbs, but you make your money in the city and are provided with streets, police and fire protection, water and sewer services and all the rest and you should pay for it. If memory serves Philadelphia was the first taxing authority to figure out that visiting baseball, football, and basketball players were no different than Harry-the-Accountant and started taxing the income of professional athletes on a per-day basis. It is worthy of note - given the previous question and answer - that the District of Columbia is forbidden by federal law from taxing commuters; many of the Members of the House and Senate knocking down the $162,500 live in Virginia or Maryland and would not want to be taxed by DC. To be fair to the city government, the federal government pays a hefty sum every year to make up for what the Members and their staffs would be paying if they were paying which they are not because the payment comes out of the general fund which is funded out of federal income tax revenues. Thus you are paying the commuter tax in Washington, DC, so Members of the House and Senate - and I - don't have to. Thank you. Dear Mr. Mullings: What is the origin of the name for the 'Secret Decoder Page'? (Or why is the Secret Decoder Page called the Secret Decoder Pager.) If you use my question on the Dear Mr. Mullings page, I will become a paid subscriber. Kirk Elkton, MD In the 20's and onward the Little Orphan Annie radio program was sponsored by Ovaltine. As those of us who have watched "A Christmas Story" more than 127 times remembers, Ralphie saved up enough labels and received his decoder in the mail. Throughout the Orphan Annie/Ovaltine run the "Secret Decoder Ring" was actually a badge with a wheel which one turned based upon the coded message delivered by the announcer. Mullings has had a "Secret Decoder Ring" page since the earliest days of it being an internet-based column. In the early days, when I was running GOPAC, I used the SDR to explain obscure references to the staff which had an average age of about 27 and so didn't understand things like "Mr. Peabody and the Wayback Machine." After 9/11 I included a copy of a WWI or WWII poster every day which I think I did not restart after I got back from Iraq. At some point I started the Catchy Caption and the Mullfoto of the Day features and soon - maybe this month - I will be starting a blog which will be updated whenever I think I have something clever, funny, or interesting to say. So, pay attention and ... pay up. Last one Dear Mr. Mullings: Two questions on the same topic: 1. Does anyone seriously believe the current misbegotten primary system works at all well in selecting presidential candidates? 2. Won't it become irredeemably worse as states keep shouldering their way in front of each other to be earlier and earlier in this process? John Lancaster, PA 1. No 2. Yes Texas has recently decided to stick with its March 4, 2008 date. I talked with someone from the Republican Party of Texas who told me that, in spite of a bipartisan effort to join the Feb 5 �ber Tuesday parade, a number of state senators felt that there is a high probablity that no one will come out of the January/February rush and Texas could be the deciding state. We will all be smarter about this in about one year. See you next week. Rich Got a question? Get an answer. Send an e-mail to Dear Mr. Mullings                                     Click here to return to the Secret Decoder Ring page Copyright © 2007 Barrington Worldwide, LLC