Do we get what we pay for?

I tend to believe that members of Congress shouldn’t give themselves pay raises until they start doing a better job, but conservative economist Thomas Sowell has considered the quality of today’s lawmakers and has come to the opposite conclusion.

I don’t make a million dollars a year but I think every member of Congress should be paid at least that much. It’s not because those turkeys in Washington deserve it. It’s because we deserve a lot better people than we have in Congress.

The cost of paying every member of Congress a million dollars a year is absolutely trivial compared to the vast amounts of the taxpayers’ money wasted by cheap politicians doing things to get themselves re-elected. You could pay every member of Congress a million dollars a year for a century for less money than it costs to run the Department of Agriculture for one year.

There is no point complaining about the ineptness, deception or corruption of government while refusing to do anything to change the incentives and constraints which lead to ineptness, deception and corruption.

I suppose there’s a hint of a point in there somewhere. Sowell believes the best and brightest avoid public service in Congress in part because they can’t afford to live on $165,200 congressional salary. That’s certainly possible.

I’m hardly convinced, though, that the quality of lawmakers would improve if their salaries grew by a factor of six. For one thing, members of Congress already spend an inordinate amount of their time raising money so that they can keep their jobs. If their annual salary was $1 million, the desperation with which these politicians would approach fundraising would be almost comical because they’d do almost anything to keep their jobs. The same thing goes for ethical, above-board campaigning. If these guys embrace character assassination for a temp job that pays $165,200, what would they do for the same position if it pays $1 million?

For that matter, a massive pay raise would seem to undermine the notion that political service should appeal to the most honorable among us. Sowell talks about “incentives” in a system that rewards politicians with mere power. But what would Congress look like if candidates were driven by desire for power and a million dollars a year?

As to ending corruption–since when did making a million, or even more, have any effect on that? Ask the CEO’s, indicted and/or convicted, when enough becomes enough. Make more, want more. And, by the way, it’s hard enough for them to relate to the average American as it is.

  • This is the same kind of argument people use for higher teacher salaries, and I buy it in that case. However, I think that people attracted to teaching but turned off because they have a masters degree and $40,000 in student loans and have a potential starting salary of around $30,000 are quite different than those who are attracted to politics. Don’t most politicians enter politics for the power not the money? Even if that’s not why they enter, isn’t that why they stay?

  • Much (not all, of course–see Cunningham, Duke) of this corruption seems to be related to campaign finance, not what’s in their own pockets. Correct me if I’m wrong, but how would paying these guys any amount of money affect they way they raise campaign cash? Moreover, isn’t this an argument for public financing of federal campaigns?

  • I think Sowell makes a good point. A million seems a bit generous, but, still, it is a temporary job, with great power and responsibility. If the people want the politicians to work for the People, then they need to consider paying the politicians amounts more competitive with the amounts available from lobbyists.

    That Congressional salaries are a cap on salaries in Federal service compounds the problem of attracting effective leaders and professionals to the Civil Service.

    A huge salary, in isolation, is not going to “fix” the problem, of course.

    Ultimately, the crux of corruption in the current system is the fundraising necessary to buy advertising. We need to place an in-kind tax on broadcasters and cable companies, to provide substantial amounts of advertising time, which can be allocated at low rates to the parties and candidates. When the threshold for a viable candidacy is low, the pressure to raise funds will not lead Congress persons to spend all of their time fundraising.

    Media Reform is critical to the survival of the Republic.

  • I don’t think it’s an outrageous idea, but to implement it right now would seem to be rewarding some of the worst corruption in Washington in a lifetime.

    Certainly elected officials who have been on the take and/or convicted of a crime should not get any more salaries, should lose all perks including any pension. Outta there wearing only the clothes they were wearing when they came in.

    And “keeping one’s job” is not exactly a desirable aim for an elected official. Our system is healthier when job turnover is frequent. So perhaps seniority should be reversed. The longer you’re there, the fewer the perks, the fewer the committee assignments, the fewer the chairmanships, etc.

    And three respected newspaper reporters should be present at all “Conference Committee” meetings and decision-making. But that’s another issue…!

  • How about providing free housing and transportation for members of Congress so they would not have to spend their entire salary maintaining two homes and traveling home to their families and districts?

    It’s not impossible to maintain two homes and take the train to NJ on $165K. But it would not be as easy to put money away. Free housing and subsidized transportation on public transportation and airlines between the district and DC would go a long way to making serving in Congress more affordable for working folks.

  • Public financing of federal campaigns would do a much better job. Free housing and transportation would also be a better partial solution. But the best and brightest may still tend to hesitate when it comes to a run for public office because of the degeneration of political discourse when running for office. Not that the Dems have done their share, but the GOP has done a dandy job bringing this discourse down to the lowest common denominator, willing to tell lies and gross distortions about anyone who might run against them. Why would anyone in their right mind run and subject him or herself to such things.

  • Public financing of campaigns is only part of the solution,although access to the voting public shouldn’t have to depend on raising millions ala the NJ governor,or NYC mayor. How can you get qualified, interested, committed,moral candidates.? Serving the public interest shouldn’t entail the need for money first and have a pot of gold at the end.
    Salary is one part of what Congres gets paid,there is the retirement package (SocSec IOUs total $1.7 trillion;gov’t worker IOUs total $650 billion and military pension IOUs are over $350 billion),don’t they keep unspent campaign funds? and the travel program seems pretty nice too. Oh and no postage stamps.

  • It seems to me from my history classes in college many years ago that one of the major objectives of the liberal reform movement in 19th century England was to secure a salary for members of Parliament. Until that time one had to at least come from the landed gentry or have some other form of independent (i.e., unearned) income in order to be afford serving. A salary was meant to free people of ordinary means to participate in running the nation. Consider, what major corporation would pay its CEO a paltry $164K a year? and yet certainly the head of a Congressional committee wields many times the amount of power and influence of a CEO. Certainly the fundraising corrupts, but the sense of independence that comes from a substantial income would free many of our representatives from subservience to their donors, especially after they had served a couple of terms.

  • congressman know what athletes know: the salary is secondary to the far more lucrative endorsement deals.

  • “congressman know what athletes know: the salary is secondary to the far more lucrative endorsement deals.”

    and the groupies…

  • “a massive pay raise would seem to undermine the notion that political service should appeal to the most honorable among us”

    Carptetbagger’s quote in the last paragraph speaks volumes. This is something that I have been harping on for quite some time. We should be reinforcing the notion that elected office is a position of service, and politicians should be seeking office for altruistic reasons. A throwback to; ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

    Some days I think that the biggest problem we face as a society is no more complex than our willingness to embrace style over substance.

  • “I tend to believe that members of Congress shouldn’t give themselves pay raises until they start doing a better job, but conservative economist Thomas Sowell has considered the quality of today’s lawmakers and has come to the opposite conclusion.”

    I agree with Sowell, but would put the emphasis more on public funding of campaigns (optionally hiking up broadcaster’s fees for spectrum access to finance it). Cost might run ~$3 billion, but that’s chump change compared to the ~$2 trillion federal budget.

    $1 million for salary. might be a bit much, but newly minted Harvard MBAs and first-tier law school grads can easily pull down $150K, and being a member of the US congress is more challenging than any job I care to think of. $300K sounds about right.

  • I don’t know what is more depressing, that a toad like Sowell would propose this or that there is a slight ring of merit in today’s world.

    Let’s address this two ways, first, let’s examine the highest paid individuals in US society. Are they more competent than the average minimum wage employee?

    Are they more altruistic than the average minimum wage employee?

    If Sowell were, in fact, an economist instead of a sack of shit with a degree, the answer to both these questions would appear to be “no”. The top 2% of the population are both less charitable (in terms of percentage of total worth) and dramatically less productive than the hard working girl who scrubs out the toilets in my office each day.

    If we took, say, jury duty and military service as the standards, the top 35% of the country in terms of wealth wouldn’t even be a statistical blip.

    Now, lets examine the current members of congress. How many have net worths that place them in the top 10% of the country?

    How many have close ties to industry and the folks making big salaries?

    Seems like, once again, Sowell has his head up his arse…

    Seriously, think about it this way – how many Harvard grads are probably involved with convoluted schemes to screw over, say, the elderly and municipal fund holders? On the other hand, how much does a fireman get paid to run into a burning building to save your hide – or a soldier get paid to shoot at you.

    In other words, the Harvard grads and MBAs already have tremendous power – and are well represented in Congress. We need more people who are willing to sacrifice their own ambitions for others.

    -jjf

    P.S. To be fair, I despise Sowell for his personal crusade to create artificial labels for the PDD spectrum. When you right a book that includes quotes from parents who told their small children they stopped loving them when developmental pediatricians assigned a label “autism” to them, but started loving them again when some other label was assigned, I don’t think you have special children, I think you have parents who are too emotionally crippled and stupid to reproduce.

    The fact that these labels come at the expense of others – for nothing other than an emotional crutch for a few, leads me to believe that altruism and a sense of public service are completely alien to Sowell’s rat turd sized brain.

  • I think the idea is ridiculous. $160K is a damn good salary, even for professionals in many fields. Ask yourself how much the average teacher, professor, scientist, computer programmer, reporter, or military officer makes and most would be happy to get a bump up to that pay level. Its better than most doctors and lawyers make. The argument only works if you think people like Donald Trump, Ross Perot and Ken Lay should be running the government.

    The fact is many of our Reps and Senators are already independantly wealthy. They do the job for the power not the money. The additional perks they give themselves come in the form of tax and regulatory law changes and offers to work as lobbyists when they leave government, not in increased salary. Dick Cheney made more from Bush’s tax cut than he makes in annual salary

  • He of course missed the obvious: the public should pay for election campaigns and we should ban donations.

    Michael: Congressmen / Senators, at minimum, have to maintain two houses; one in their district and one in the capital (an expensive housing market.) They also, for example, have significant wardrobe expenses; they may well also have entertainment and commuting expenses that may or may not be paid for by the public.

    Finally, if you want to attract talented people from other jobs, it is pretty easy to make more money elsewhere if you are smarted, educated, and ambitious.

    earl

  • I know this is old news but I have been affected by the low wages paid to top people in Washington.

    My father worked for Don Reagan and was asked by him to come to Washington and work for him. My father replied that he couldn’t afford to work in Washington. He was 60 and had two kids in college and couldn’t afford the pay cut. His age stopped him from getting rich after he left working for Treasury. So, his younger assistant took the job, left the government in 1985 and took a job in private industry paying far more than would have made if he stayed where he was. So, my father’s assistant took a pay cut for 5 years and then made a fortune for the last 15 or 20 years of his working career.

    Why should people like Bob Livingston retire from Congress because of a sex scandal and make 10 times more on K Street than he ever made in Congress?

  • Why should…

    Wow, where to begin? Can’t afford the pay cut, fine – don’t serve. I hate to point out the obvious, but the father was invited to Washington because of a personal connection. Not because he was the singularly most qualified person in the country.

    Six figures is a good salary. If you are nearing retirement age and have a lifestyle that cannot be maintained on a salary in the top 6% or so of the country, then chances are the country will be better off if you stay home.

    Think about it, if you are absurdly wealthy the salary is not a problem. If you are an average citizen with a true desire to serve others the salary is generous. Those of us with big salaries who are still essentially living paycheck to paycheck would feel a pinch – but really, isn’t the ‘pinch’ itself a pretty good indication that we wouldn’t make the best public servants?

    Why the turd weasels get still more money when they leave government is really another subject. No one should go to K Street to make a fortune. Lobbying as it currently exists is built to corrupt. Allowing ex public servants and law makers to participant is both stupid and obscene.

    -jjf

  • Comments are closed.