Congress Ought To Rescind Its 2009 Pay Raise

David O. Selznick, on actors and actresses

As the economy caves in at an ever faster rate, our elected officials are cashing in, their pay raise, that is.

************Click “Read More” (below right), for more, plus video —————–>>>>

*********************READ MORE BELOW THIS LINE *************

It seems small, a 2.8 percent increase in pay this year, equal to about $4,700, but at a full salary of $174,000 could we be overpaying just a bit? And these days national politicos of all persuasions seem particularly unglued by the specter of overpayments everywhere. My gosh, those unions! That gets Republicans into a raging hurly burly. And those Wall Street and Big 3 executives and Roland Burris – that gets my beloved Democrats equally undone.

But, yet, they are strangely silent about their own salaries.

I’m wondering. Perhaps our elected reps don’t realize they just got a raise. They’ve been pretty busy lately, looking under every desk and in every closet for union folks and welfare queens and those pesky Wall Street fat cats. I’m thinking they’ve just not been informed their pay check got fatter. Let’s help out and let them know!

Seriously, Though. As movie mogul David Selznick said of actors and actresses, “If they will only do their job that is all that they are being overpaid for.” Sound familiar? Members of Congress currently make an annual salary of nearly $175,000, more than double the median household income for the Washington, D.C. metro area. This doesn’t include taxpayer funding of very generous “platinum parachutes” (pensions), health plans, allowances for travel, staff, and office expenses, including franking privileges (free mailings).

Also, most voters hold Congress in particularly low esteem these days, somewhere between roadkill and Nazis. Not too good a recommendation for a pay raise. So, you’d think salt-of-the-earth Congressfolks would be looking for ways to pump up their standing, at least to overtake roadkill. We know how they feel about the nasty bail out “symbolism” that the loan package for the Big 3 brought with it. Isn’t it time for Congress to aim its always wagging fingers at itself and vote to say no to their automatic (not voted upon) 2009 pay raise. Doing so should have been its first article of business – and priceless good p.r. – on the first day of the just convened 111th Congress. And it should have been done quickly with no debate. Somehow they neglected this, or forgot. Yes, I’m certain, they forgot. Let’s remind them.

Foxes 535, Chickens 0. The 535 members of Congress cannot with a straight face blame anyone but themselves. Our Constitution provides that the fox guard its own chicken house; they set their own salaries. “The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States.” U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6. Clause 1. It’s that simple, and has rarely been challenged, and when challenged, the courts have stepped aside in deference to the legislative branch.

A February 2008 Congressional Research Service report, Salaries of Members of Congress: A List of Payable Rates and Effective Dates, 1789-2008, provides a summary of the historical and legislative background:

Prior to 1969, Congress [determined its own pay] by enacting stand-alone legislation. . . By 1968, they had risen to $30,000. Stand-alone legislation may still be used to raise Member pay, as it was most recently in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, but two other methods — including an automatic annual adjustment procedure and a commission process — are now also available. Under the annual adjustment procedure, Members [received] a 2.8% adjustment in January 2009.

Note that their pay raises (what they strategically and craftily call “cost of living adjustments” (COLA)) are now granted without an affirmative vote of either chamber. Indeed, to their credit, they have from time to time refused their own pay raise, as recently as 2007. They generally, however, just let the COLA take effect on the down low, as they’ve done this year. Is it reversible? Sure is. But, remember, they forgot.

(For more background and history about the pay raise issue, see my prior article.)

Never Go Begging. One question I’ve begged thus far, and an important one: Do we want a system whereby MCs are paid a minimal salary, and where they have to cover their own office expenses, etc.? I think it’s a relatively easy “No.” Unless we want all our MCs to come from substantial wealth, or, on the other hand, to have even more incentive to play the “pay to play” game, we are best served by a relatively well paid Congressional class. They presently receive about $170,000 per year, with substantial other benefits.

These days, during a deflationary spiral that’s a high salary, a bit too high for a public service job in the midst of the Lesser Depression. The suffering of the increasingly unemployed American public screams for Congress to make an effort to share their burden. I’d think $120,000 would be enough to both compensate handsomely and provide incentive to honesty, particularly considering the exceptional benefits they receive.

“With foxes we must play the fox.” Thomas Fuller, English Clergyman (1608-1661). So what to do? There are a few legislative proposals in the hopper in the 111th Congress that would prevent the COLA taking effect next year (2010), but nothing thus far to revoke this year’s raise. All House pay raise resolutions are referred to the House Administration Committee and Senate proposals generally to the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. As of this date I found no Senate proposals, but you can view a synopsis of the House proposals introduced in the new Congress at the Committee on House Administration (as of this writing, see H.R. 156, H.R. 201, H.R. 215, and H.R. 282. Especially see H.R. 215; it includes some of the “recorded vote” transparency sought by my proposed Amendment below. Did they read this blog? Yeah, right . . .)

This little pay raise dog and pony show goes on year after year with pretty much the same proposals. They go to committee. They die in committee. A long term solution is needed. I propose a new constitutional amendment that repeals the 27th Amendment (the Congressional pay raise amendment), – see my previous posting for information on this Amendment – and replaces it with a stronger one, making the pay raise “dance” visible to the American public and enshrining it as an Amendment.

Tally Ho! I know my proposal needs work, and as the chart shows, its passage by Congress and ratification by the states is longer than a long shot, but it’s a start. For example, the proposed role of the OPM, an executive branch agent, is replete with separation of powers and comity issues, inviting principled objections from all sides. At least, the proposal does bring more “sunshine” to the process and, as a Constitutional Amendment, makes it difficult for Congress to finagle it via legislation. Under this Amendment, the pay raise process would become a feature of national discourse, not an aside hidden by automatic procedures. It would gain the attention of the public, particularly, I believe, due to the requirement of a recorded vote for pay raises – that would prevent your Congressional delegation hiding within “voice vote” invisibility.

So join the “Proud Four Percenters” of the chart accompanying this article (click on the chart for a larger view). The, tell your MCs you want to support “something else,” like a Congressional Pay Amendment. Yes, there are huge challenges for this Congress to address, and for Congresses to come, but let’s try to get this particular proposal on the table. Should you want to contact your Representative or Senators regarding this issue, their contact e-mails, etc. may be found at the official House site and the official Senate site. As we’ve often seen, the only pressure that can be brought to bear is the good old-fashioned politics of yelling.

Please follow and like us: