Remember, it’s just a ‘purchasing power adjustment’

November 23, 2005

Just a month ago, it looked like lawmakers were making a welcome gesture about their salaries. On a 92-6 vote, the Senate agreed to forgo the annual cost-of-living increase to their salary, and lawmakers said all the right things about doing their part to save a little extra money in the federal budget.

That was last month. Last week, according to Roll Call, lawmakers saw their pay raise may a startling comeback.

Friday’s passage of the $65.9 billion Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development conference report included a provision that earmarked some $2 million for Members’ annual pay hike.

Despite near-unanimous Senate support to forgo the fiscal 2006 cost of living adjustment, the conference report included House language that gives Members an additional $3,100 beginning next January, bringing pay for rank-and-file lawmakers to $165,200 from the current $162,100. Members of the elected leadership are paid slightly more.

Truth be told, we’re not talking about a lot of money. With today’s fiscal outlook, the savings associated with congressional salaries aren’t even a rounding error.

There is, however, a symbolic significance. Lawmakers emphasized a sense of “sacrifice” when they cut funding on food stamps, low-income health care, and child care assistance. But when it comes to a personal sacrifice from members of Congress, they’re still quietly giving themselves a raise.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who, along with Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah) helps lead the drive to freeze congressional salaries, hopes to make this a political issue in the future.

“People will find it hard to understand that Members of Congress will be getting a substantial pay raise at a time of enormous budget deficits and mounting debt, a costly, open-ended war in Iraq, and growing expenses for hurricane relief,” he said in a statement.

And what’s the flip side? According to Tom DeLay, lawmakers aren’t boosting their own pay. “It’s not a pay raise,” DeLay said. “It’s an adjustment so that they’re not losing their purchasing power.”

If only Congress looked at the minimum wage the same way.

Come on now, give Congress a break.

They don’t get paid enough. Since they don’t get paid enough they have to rely on less obvious and less honest ways of getting money and goods to live on.

Is it really possible to own or rent a decent place in DC and maintain a home in their district on $165,000 a year? So, EVERY Congressman is either very rich like Corzine or abuses the system by taking cash and gifts from whatever sources they can find.

Let’s take President Bush as an example. Yes, I know he was a Congressman a long time ago but the idea is the same.

Bush’s son was basically given a significant portion of the Texas Rangers because someone wanted to be nice to the Vice? President, his father. Bush’s son made a ton of money from that. Now, is it 41’s fault that someone legally made his son very rich in order to find favor with 41?

Or let’s take Clinton as another example. He was the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and he couldn’t afford a house in the New York suburbs. I don’t know how close he came to violating the rules by having a friend guarantee his mortgage.

My father actually turned down a job in the Treasury department offered by the Treasury Secretary himself because ‘you can’t pay me enough to move to Washington.’ My father was in his late 50’s at the time and couldn’t afford the pay cut since he wouldn’t have enough time to make the money back after he left the government. So, instead, my father’s old assistant, who was in his 40’s took the job. He left the Treasury after 5 years and rejoined his old firm in the DC office and made a fortune using his government connections.

Why can’t we pay people enough money so they can actually live on their current salary

  • Is it really possible to own or rent a decent place in DC and maintain a home in their district on $165,000 a year? So, EVERY Congressman is either very rich like Corzine or abuses the system by taking cash and gifts from whatever sources they can find.

    That’s a total bullshit excuse. I live in DC and I agree that DC is pretty expensive for people of modest or middle income, but $165k is not modest and DC is not NYC. $165,000/year can certainly buy a decent condo in a nice neighborhood. It’s not hard to find a similar apartment for $1500-2000/month. If a congressman can’t find a legal way to make it in DC using their connections and influence and whatnot, then they have no business being a politician.

    Also, I don’t know all the details, but I’m pretty sure congresspeople have expense accounts, housing allowances and whatnot. They might not be considered rich but why does being a congressman imply they should be living the high-life in some swanky mansion in Georgetown?

  • That’s a total bullshit excuse.

    I’m with ZoeKentucky. I don’t live in DC, but these guys should be able to live on $162,100 a year. If they want a raise, they should earn a raise.

    And CB’s point about voting to kill the raise only for it to reappear adds insult to injury.

  • Don’t forget that our dear leaders also get all of their healthcare premiums paid for by us, the taxpayer. Oh yes, and they get a real nice pension at the end of their service. How much do they pay in for any of that?? NOTHING. We’re the ones paying for that too.

    So if you take in the fact that they don’t pay out for healthcare or retirement savings, I’d say $162k a year is a pretty nice sum.

  • I for one will be happy to take the burdensome expenses off the hands of my Rep. Jim Ramstad (R). Poor guy. I have an idea. What if they lived where they could afford it? I understand D.C. has plenty of working poor. If they can live on $6/hr and find housing then someone making $162K should be able to afford it. They might actually have to face the people they are governing on thier way to work! I have no sympathy for people who get paid so much, get such good benefits, and have so much time off. I think the congress should live like average Americans. No gated communities at home and no townhouses in Georgetown.

  • OK, let me throw in a label: Elite.
    Now, $162k/year is not very much for someone who is from an elite background.
    I think that we can label all of our House and Senate members as elite.
    So, can someone from an elite background, or who has ascended and lived in the elite world for a while (e.g. an ex-exterminator) really relate to the rest of us?
    The examples are infinite, but my concern is giving my 8 year old son a fair opportunity in our country.

  • http://www.hollandcpasearch.com/survey.htm

    just a quick search of salaries shows that a Congressman earns significantly less than a Big 4 partner in a CPA firm and less than partners in regional firms.

    http://www.collegejournal.com/salarydata/law/
    Entry level salaries at big law firms are $86k to $114K. ENTRY level positions.

    Now, I think we would probably be better off with a bunch of CPA’s than the people in Congress but maybe we would have better Congressmen if we paid them more.

    Now, I realize that people posting here have valid points about how middle class people actually live in DC on a lot less. My point is that Congressmen should be the cream of the crop and they shouldn’t have to rely on getting ‘paid’ off the books.

    I remember reading someplace that the average return on investments made by Congressmen is far above the average because one way they get paid is by having people ‘allow’ them to invest in things that normal people don’t get the chance to invest it. It is basically legalized bribery.

    Do you think Hillary would have made the money in cattle futures if she weren’t well connected? Do you think W would have made his fortune on the Rangers if he weren’t well connected? Lamar Alexander made a fortune from investments that are substantially similar to legalized bribes.

    The current system allows these things to take place. It stinks and it is wrong. However, there is ZERO chance of changing things if we don’t pay our top government officials a lot more money.

  • I don’t have a problem with Congressional
    pay raises, but don’t you think they should
    do the same for people at minimum wage?
    It’s bad enough that the minimum wage
    is not a living wage. It’s criminal that it
    doesn’t even keep pace with inflation.

    And who the hell is it who decides that
    all these low paid workers are somehow
    beneath us, that their work is not
    deserving of a living wage? How can
    this happen in this country?

  • Neil,

    The entry level CPA or attorney at the nation’s biggest firms have demonstrated they have the intelligence, good judgement, maturity and talent to pull down that kind of salary.

    The evidence suggests that the majority of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, lacks most of these attributes. Why reward mediocrity?

    Elected public service should be an altruistic endeavor, not the opportunity to enrich yourself at the expense of the nation. If Congressmen can’t make ends meet on their generous salary and benefits, then they should pursue another career.

  • The problem is mantaining two homes, especially if their home district is in an expensive part of the country. The solution is easy. Let Members stay at home and work from their district office.

    They can can vote electronically and conduct videoconference hearings. If they do have to fly up to the District (say, for their swearing in or for a meeting with the president), let them expense their hotel room and meals at the government employee per diem rate.

    There are two objections to this. One, it would be much harder for lobbyists to bend the ear of a congressman if he’s back in Topeka full time. Second, a lot of Congressmen would resent having to live back in their small hometown when they’re already big shots in DC.

  • Bottom line is that they all knew what the salary range was when they took the job. If they cannot make ends meet than they should look for a new job. That is what Reagan told the air traffic controllers in 1981!

  • Gridlock,

    I am not going to defend this vote, but you are dead wrong about both Member health care and pensions.

    Members do not get free health insurance; they can join plans offered by the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) in the same way as any other Federal worker or retiree. At the present time, the employee premium covers approximately 28% of the cost of the most popular plan (offered by Blue Cross); the Government pays the rest. In addition, Members now also can pay an annual fee to receive services from the Office of the Attending Physician.

    With regard to pensions, in 1983 a law was enacted that all Members of Congress, regardless of the year in which they were elected, must participate in Social Security. Grafted onto that is a small defined benefit plan for which there is a payroll deduction (matched by the Government), and the ability to participate in the same Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) in which other federal employees can invest. It is similar to a 401(k) Plan.

    Even before the 1983 law, Members did not get free pensions. They had 8% of their salary withheld for this purpose.

  • Bottom line is that they all knew what the salary range was when they took the job. If they cannot make ends meet than they should look for a new job. That is what Reagan told the air traffic controllers in 1981!

    That is my point exactly. Congressmen know that they can make a ton of money beside their salary if the suck up to the right people.

    Vice President Bush didn’t know for sure that having his son make a fortune on the Texas Rangers was part of his salary but he KNEW that there would be many people willing to do him favors that would help make him and his family rich.

    Close the loopholes and give them a reasonable salary.

  • Congressmen don’t deserve their pay raise because they are too chickenshit to admit that they want/need it. If this money is so necessary and right, why did they need to eliminate the raise only to insert it into another bill? Obviously they are not representing my interests, they are only representing their own while trying to trick me into thinking they are representing mine. I understand the need for a good Congressional salary (didn’t Washington struggle with money because of all the state dinners he had to pay for?). You do not gain sympathy from me when you go about the raise in such a sneaky way.

    That is my point exactly. Congressmen know that they can make a ton of money beside their salary if the suck up to the right people.

    And increase in salary would lower these enticements how? Are so many Congressmen taking money to “just get by”? If the salary was increased, that just means more money from both us and the Congressmens’ shadow (or not so shadow) benefactors (unless you’re suggesting such a raise that any outside enticements would be stupid compared to losing the sweet Congressional salary).

    I think we should fix campaign finance rules before we start a major upgrade of the Congressional pay rate. That would be my first step in reducing the extent to which Congressmen are beholden to moneyed interests.

  • I think that we should have a very significant pay increase for Congress coupled with serious disclosures on the types of investments made by Congressmen and serious disclosures on all of the cash and perks received by them.

    If you could make $400,000 in your home district or working for a beltway bandit and only $160,000 as a Congressman then you will have a serious incentive to live as well as you think you deserve to. The rules allowing Congressman to invest in things or to receive serious perks are too lax.

    No one has mentioned my point that the Clinton’s, the sitting PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, could not afford too buy a house without a co-signer. Don’t you think that is a serious conflict of interest? Yeah, I know you can argue that Clinton really could get the loan because his income potential was so great AFTER he no longer had any power. Isn’t that absurd? You don’t earn much money when you are the most powerful person in the world but you can make a fortune when you have no power at all. How many people in the company where you work get paid a ton of money but don’t have any power? In the real world, people with power are the people who earn the big bucks. Why should Congress be different?

  • Neil,

    That dog don’t hunt. The offices in discussion here are public service positions. Let me state that a different way, our elected offcials are supposed to serve the public. Public office is not a hog trough, the idea is giving back, not taking from.

    If money is the primary objective then staying in the private sector should be the obvious choice. Otherwise you take the position with all that it does and doesn’t offer.

    By your line of reasoning soldiers should get $160,000 plus per year since they must maintain 2 places of residence. And as this thought is coming off the old keyboard here I don’ t think that is unreasonable considering what they are subjected to.

  • In addition to their bloated salary, they have almost no expenses. If you factor in the health care, retirement, and other services that are provided to them (mail, food, blow, hookers, etc.), their actual income would be much higher.

    I think several people here are onto something. Link minimum wage to Congressional wages. You can’t raise the later without raising the former. Great idea.

  • I realize this discussion is getting a little old but no one seems to be adressing my main points.

    1) If you pay people more then you get a higher quality group of people applying for the job.

    2) If you allow people to earn money under the table then they will earn the money under the table.

    I would much rather have a better quality group of Congressmen AND have less under the table ways of them getting compensation

    PS – I think it would be a fantastic idea to link Congressional pay with the minimum wage

    • Comments are closed.