Democrats are planning to pull a bill that would have raised pay for members of Congress and their staffs, due to public hostility to the idea. Even in years when overall pay is rising, Congressional pay raises are politically volatile. Various ideas that have been floated to de-politicize the issue -- such as simply linking Congressional pay to DC-area cost-of-living, so it escalates (or falls) automatically, and Congress can ignore the issue.
Since hating politicians is the national pastime, it's tempting to just say "screw them," and freeze their pay, allowing it to erode with inflation over time. Why should those in charge of the national mess that is our political system be paid so much more than average Americans, anyway? I hate the idea of a dirt-bag like Mitch McConnell taking so much of my tax money, so I get where that sentiment is coming from. But, I think low Congressional pay could backfire.
In theory, we want a diverse set of politicians -- people from all different economic backgrounds. But, if you get to the point where Congressional pay barely even covers the cost of maintaining two homes (home district and DC), you'll have a situation where regular people are priced out of such jobs. Especially with student loans being so big these days, those who come from the working class and get the kind of elite education that's common to our political leaders need to get a pretty sizable paycheck just to cover expenses and live a decent lifestyle. If we let Congressional pay erode much, you'll wind up with a situation where it's just a rich-guy's hobby, rather than a public servant's career. Our Congress is already stacked with people from the aristocracy, and that'll just get worse the less those positions pay. And the same is true for Congressional staff positions -- they'll become the province just of those who come from rich families that can support them while they pay their dues for a future higher-level political position.
Having our political system even more heavily stacked with people from rich families would deprive our political debates of perspectives similar to those of most Americans. It would also encourage those in public service to think even more in terms of the "revolving door" -- putting in a few years of political "service" just to get the contacts that will land a high-six-figure position in the private sector, trading on that background. That makes politicians think of their key stakeholders not as the voters they'll need to appeal to in the future to keep their jobs, but rather industry execs they'll need to appeal to in order to get their huge payday once they pass through the revolving door.
So, here's an outside-the-box idea, at least for the Congress members themselves: how about means-tested incomes? Everyone would be made to share their total wealth information, and then incomes would be allocated based on need. If you're, say, a recent college grad with a big student loan bill and very little in the way of assets, you'd be paid a lot, in order to encourage people with such economic situations to go into public service (which is a hard sell if they've got the skills and education to be working towards big bucks in the private sector). If, on the other hand, you had tens of millions of dollars of family wealth (like Mitch McConnell), such that your Congressional salary is practically an afterthought for you, then maybe you wouldn't get a salary at all -- it would be treated as a kind of pro bono position, so that the same money could be allocated to where it will do more good.
Since hating politicians is the national pastime, it's tempting to just say "screw them," and freeze their pay, allowing it to erode with inflation over time. Why should those in charge of the national mess that is our political system be paid so much more than average Americans, anyway? I hate the idea of a dirt-bag like Mitch McConnell taking so much of my tax money, so I get where that sentiment is coming from. But, I think low Congressional pay could backfire.
In theory, we want a diverse set of politicians -- people from all different economic backgrounds. But, if you get to the point where Congressional pay barely even covers the cost of maintaining two homes (home district and DC), you'll have a situation where regular people are priced out of such jobs. Especially with student loans being so big these days, those who come from the working class and get the kind of elite education that's common to our political leaders need to get a pretty sizable paycheck just to cover expenses and live a decent lifestyle. If we let Congressional pay erode much, you'll wind up with a situation where it's just a rich-guy's hobby, rather than a public servant's career. Our Congress is already stacked with people from the aristocracy, and that'll just get worse the less those positions pay. And the same is true for Congressional staff positions -- they'll become the province just of those who come from rich families that can support them while they pay their dues for a future higher-level political position.
Having our political system even more heavily stacked with people from rich families would deprive our political debates of perspectives similar to those of most Americans. It would also encourage those in public service to think even more in terms of the "revolving door" -- putting in a few years of political "service" just to get the contacts that will land a high-six-figure position in the private sector, trading on that background. That makes politicians think of their key stakeholders not as the voters they'll need to appeal to in the future to keep their jobs, but rather industry execs they'll need to appeal to in order to get their huge payday once they pass through the revolving door.
So, here's an outside-the-box idea, at least for the Congress members themselves: how about means-tested incomes? Everyone would be made to share their total wealth information, and then incomes would be allocated based on need. If you're, say, a recent college grad with a big student loan bill and very little in the way of assets, you'd be paid a lot, in order to encourage people with such economic situations to go into public service (which is a hard sell if they've got the skills and education to be working towards big bucks in the private sector). If, on the other hand, you had tens of millions of dollars of family wealth (like Mitch McConnell), such that your Congressional salary is practically an afterthought for you, then maybe you wouldn't get a salary at all -- it would be treated as a kind of pro bono position, so that the same money could be allocated to where it will do more good.
