Democratic 2nd Congressional District candidate Harry Teague is attacking Republican opponent Steve Pearce for taking $46,000 in pay raises during his six years in Congress. Pearce is accusing Teague of taking $38,000 in pay raises in his two years in Congress.
Teague is spinning the facts with his claim by leaving out the context, so his attack is deceptive. Pearce is flat-out lying with his claim.
Let’s take these one at a time:
Teague’s claim
Teague’s claim about Pearce was made in this TV ad:
Pearce, the ad’s narrator claims, “had no problem helping himself. Pearce took more than $46,000 in congressional pay raises.”
The number is accurate. The Teague campaign provided this chart to show the pay raises Congress implemented for its members while Pearce was there:
| FY | Pay | Increase |
| 2003 | $154,700 | 0 |
| 2004 | $158,100 | $3,400 |
| 2005 | $162,100 | $7,400 |
| 2006 | $165,200 | $10,500 |
| 2007 | $165,200 | $10,500 |
| 2008 | $169,300 | $14,600 |
| Total | $46,400 |
So Pearce Pearce’s annual pay increased $14,600 between his first and last year in Congress, and cumulatively he took $46,400 in increased pay during those six years.
But Teague’s campaign claims Pearce “had no problem” taking the pay increases. That’s a deceptive statement. Pearce opposed and voted against every congressional pay raise during his tenure, but most years he was in the minority and the raises happened anyway.
Steve Pearce, left, and Harry Teague (Photos by Heath Haussamen)
Pearce’s claim
Pearce, meanwhile, has claimed in media including a mailer and a robocall that Teague has taken $38,000 in pay raises during his two years in Congress.
“In Congress, Teague decided to look after himself just like the other New Mexico politicians he is allied with by taking a $38,000 pay raise,” the mailer states.
Not true. Congressional pay hasn’t increased while Teague has been in office. In fact, Teague put out a news release the day he was sworn in stating that he had signed on as a co-sponsor to legislation that would eliminate the congressional pay raised scheduled to take effect this year. That legislation passed, and the raise was canceled.
Teague said he would have donated his raise back to the U.S. treasury had it been approved.
The Pearce campaign’s math is based on Teague’s math. Even though Teague didn’t take office until 2009, the Pearce campaign used 2003 as the baseline salary and went from there to today. The Teague campaign used 2003 because that was the first year Pearce was in office.
Teague’s salary is about $19,000 per year higher than the congressional salary was in 2003. Multiply that by the two years Teague has been in Congress, and you get $38,000.
Pearce campaign spokesman Jason Heffley said using the same math Teague used is fair because Teague’s attack is deceptive.
“They can’t have it both ways. (Teague and Pearce) both opposed, or they both took,” Heffley said. “They chose to attack for taking, so by Teague math, he took $38,000 in pay raises.”
The bottom line
Don’t buy anyone’s spin. Pearce opposed pay raises but they were passed anyway. Teague’s statement that Pearce took “more than $46,000” in pay raises is true, but it leaves out the context. Teague’s claim that Pearce “had no problem” taking increased pay is false.
Teague and the majority of his colleagues opposed pay raises, so there hasn’t been an increase while Teague has been in Congress. Pearce’s claim that Teague took “a $38,000 pay raise” simply isn’t true.