In most industries, compensation is tied to good performance. But when you run the federal government, some swamp dwellers in Congress think that just showing up (sometimes) entitles you to regular increases.
A bipartisan push to give Congress a salary increase to match inflation failed this week, collapsing due to political backlash. The deal, negotiated between House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., would have boosted annual salaries by just under $5,000, supposedly accounting for inflation, given that they have not received an increase in the last decade.
But with congressmen already earning $175,000 a year, and Congress’s performance dismal as always, giving them even a dime more is both unnecessary and unwarranted.
Don’t tell that to freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., who may only have been on the job for about six months, but already feels entitled to a cost-of-living increase. She’s been on the warpath advocating for the proposed increase, saying that $4,500 is “like not even a raise.” There’s truth to this, in that it’s really just matching inflation. Not increasing pay is essentially a small pay cut. But that’s fine. Maybe an annual inflation-induced pay cut will finally push Congress to start doing its job.
Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez and her cohorts argue that raising congressional salaries is the only way to ensure that everyone — not just millionaires — can afford to run for office.
I am with @AOC on this. If you don’t want only millionaires to be in Congress, you have to treat it like a real job–and you have to treat members like professionals. https://t.co/CGCzl6Te4u
— Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) June 11, 2019
Yet inflation aside, the current $175,000 congressional salary is already more than enough. For reference, the average American family earns an annual income of $57,652. That means that our congressional representatives are currently paid over three times the average income of the families they represent. It’s true that most congressmen have to maintain two residences, one in D.C. and one in their home state, but with an income in the 96th percentile, they can manage just fine, even if they’re not millionaires.
Additionally, even if cost of living increases are reasonable enough in financial terms, Congress just doesn’t deserve even a penny more. After all, only 20% of Americans approve of our federal legislators’ job performance. That’s an absolutely dismal approval rating, the equivalent of an F- from their constituents. And it’s not hard to see why it’s so low — just turn on C-SPAN or open a newspaper to see the grandstanding and gridlock that Congress puts before serving the people.
Still, Ocasio-Cortez and company argue that giving Congress a cost-of-living increase — and potentially even more — is the only way to prevent “dark money” influence and other corrupt behavior by legislators.
What this does is punish members who rely on a straight salary, and reward those who rely on money loopholes and other forms of self-dealing.
For example, it incentivizes the horrible kinds of legislative looting we saw in the GOP tax scam bill.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 11, 2019
This is just so stupid. You get what you pay for and if you cut the pay of public servants for a decade you get bribery and corruption. https://t.co/qWOfT3knQy
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) June 11, 2019
But this argument stretches credulity. Are we really supposed to believe that the only thing preventing our representatives from not engaging in corruption is a $4,500 cost of living increase? Besides, if we have to bribe our representatives not to exploit their power, maybe the real problem is who we’ve elected into office in the first place.
In reality, the people who deserve cost of living salary increases are congressional staffers, not their famous and often-wealthy bosses. The thousands of people working on Capitol Hill are entrusted with the day-to-day business of running the federal government, but the average staffer earns a starting salary of just $49,000 — not a lot to live on in an expensive city like Washington, D.C. So, if we’re going to give someone on Capitol Hill a salary boost, that’s where we should start.
