280
Republicans Look to Give Themselves a Pay Raise After Securing Benefit Cuts for the Poor
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
280 points (97.9% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7193 readers
1020 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We need to pay people in Congress enough to live comfortably in their district and to have a place in DC. If we don't, the only people that can afford to be in Congress are rich already...which is generally what we have now.
But we do provide them enough to be comfortable. They get six figs and I think a bunch of comps, so they're doing pretty well.
I do agree that they need to be comfortable, but their income shouldn't rely on whatever the previous Congress decided to pass, it should rely on how well the average person is doing. So I think we should tie Congressional salaries to the median household income. If the median household income goes up, their income should go up, which would hopefully encourage them to pass laws that benefit the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy.
I make about what a congress critter makes and live in the DC suburbs in a transitioning neighborhood in a house slightly below median value (probably about 500k). It is comfortable but tight with a kid and wife who makes 57k - less than our nanny but thankfully we only pay half of her salary. We save for retirement but nothing for her college until she's out of daycare. I can't imagine doing all that, AND trying to have a second home, even in a cheap district, and going to functions and charity events and needing to pay for a sitter plus weekend care. Plus a congressperson isn't going to live in a cheap area like we do, or plan on public school, and private is even more than childcare in the area. With all the incidentals I'd have to do speaking gigs just to make ends meet, and that leads to close relationships with industry groups, aka lobbyists, and whoops there I am in exactly the same situation we find most lawmakers in.
Look, common dreams is a rag, so everyone should always take anything from it with a barrel of salt. And like often, in this case, it is dead wrong - congress should make significantly more money. Not passing legislation to help poor people is a separate issue, and somehow relating them is actually the opposite of the real relationship. Not helping the poor is exactly the type of thing independently wealthy congress critters do because they don't know what it's like to struggle. They don't need the salary in the first place.
I just checked, and apparently I make a bit more than the average congressional representative, when adjusted for cost of living (I make less on paper, so my salary is somewhat comparable). I'm able to save almost half of my income while having three kids and only one income. Granted, my housing probably costs a lot less because I bought before our local housing market exploded (our house is ~$500k as well), but that difference isn't a big part how much I save.
I do it by being relatively frugal. I drive older, reliable cars, I buy mid-tier clothes and groceries, I don't frequently eat out, etc. Essentially, I live like someone that makes about what the average household does, with the exception of owning instead of renting.
That's more-or-less what I expect from a Congressional representative. They should have enough that they don't need to worry about money, but not so much that they take the job because of the income.
Having their compensation tied to median compensation is more about optics than anything else. I think they should make more than the median to reduce the attractiveness of corruption, but as you rightly said, few representatives are in that position. So I'm thinking representatives should make something like 2x the median household income adjusted for cost of living, which sort of reads like we're paying the representative's spouse (if any) to not have to work so they can help the representative do their job (i e. arrange for meals, care of children, etc). Salaries would also not need to be adjusted, they would merely track national median income, so we'd eliminate a lot of the noise around salary adjustments.
So I see two benefits:
They currently make just under two times median income (93k in the DMV, median national would be way too low at 70k), but the financial demands on the job are too high. They don't really have the luxury of driving old cars and wearing old clothes like you and me. Nor, frankly, do I think we should ask that of them. The job should be an honor and be paid as such. I do like the idea of tying it to median income if only for the incentive to keep a strong middle class though, haha. I'd probably peg it at 3x though. That's still way less than any K Street lobbyist or mid tier lawyer, and we have to remember that if we want the best and brightest we're competing against people who go make that at their entry level job at McKinsey, not someone who is trying to become a politician because they want to make money.
My main goal here is to highlight that they are first and foremost public servants. Maybe that means representatives should be paid by their states, or maybe it means their income should be directly tied to median income as I suggested. But my main priority is to remind Congressional representatives that they represent their constituents, not their ideological or selfish priorities.
It should be high enough that they're comfortable and can focus on serving their constituents, but not so high that they feel even more entitled to special treatment.
Perhaps as a middle ground we can have:
That way the income would only be used for personal needs. I think the current setup is pretty similar to that, so the main change would be how their income keeps up with inflation.
Comfortably? Nah. They should live in barracks just like the military. Public Service requires public servants.