Is Congressional Self-Respect Delusional?

There has been a pay freeze for federal workers in effect for more than two years. Today the U.S. House of Representatives voted to extend it for another nine months. But with fierce opposition from congressional Democrats and the president, the bill has little chance of passing the Senate or becoming law.  And if Congress doesn't come up with some way to head off sequestration, the set of automatic spending cuts that will take effect at the end of this month if lawmakers don't come up with a more tailored plan, money for pay raises for government employees will be what Mark Twain once said men would be without women: "Scarce, Sir, mighty scarce."

From time to time legislators are asked about their own salaries, which are widely viewed as generous.  The Congress has never been shy about raising its own pay.  Two decades ago we amended the U.S. Constitution so any pay raise enacted by Congress could not take effect until after the next biennial election.  Interestingly, the federal courts have held that cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) to congressional salaries do not violate this amendment, although the Supreme Court has never ruled on that point.

Yesterday House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked whether congressional pay should be frozen.  "I don't think we should do it," she said.  "I think we should respect the work we do."

Self-respect, and respect for the value of one's work, are good things.  But most of us don't have the power to set our own compensation.  Sure, we can negotiate for raises, and we can always leave one job for another to get a better deal.  But our ability to do those things is heavily dependent on the job market - and on our record of job performance.

Last month public opinion polling pegged congressional approval at 13.9%.

Can you imagine going to your boss and asking for a raise if your job performance was worthy of a 13.9% approval rating?

If all that happened was that you were laughed out of the office, as opposed to being tossed out onto the street or marched down a plank at the point of a sword, you would count yourself fortunate.


It has long been a truism that people have a low opinion of Congress but a much more favorable view, typically, of the individual Member of Congress who represents their district.  I'm not sure about the numbers, and over the course of my adult life I've had a few U.S. Representatives for my district I would have liked to fire personally.  But it so happens I like the congressman I have now.  If I were to speak to him directly, as I do from time to time - most recently during a chance encounter when we had both just arrived at Reagan National Airport - and he asked me if I thought he deserved a raise, I think I'd probably say he was doing a good job but I'd have to check the numbers and see if there was any money available.

Here's an even scarier view of the debt

Ay, there's the rub.  Is there money available?  How can anyone ask that with a straight face, with the national debt now exceeding $16.5 trillion?

We all have families to support, bills to pay, obligations to feed, clothe, and shelter our dependents.  Members of Congress - not including Rep. Pelosi, whose husband is a wealthy real estate developer - struggle with the same kinds of obligations.  The current salary is $174,000, and there are expense allowances and other perks.  Oh, and don't forget that COLA.

Do you get a COLA in your job?  I don't.  I will freely admit that doctors generally earn more than Members of Congress, but we also have a lot more education than most of them.  We don't get a COLA. In inflation-adjusted dollars, I earn only slightly more than I did at the beginning of my career.  Seniority, experience, and accumulated knowledge and skill don't amount to anything when doctors' pay is determined.  What the government pays for physicians' services provided to the beneficiaries of federal programs like Medicare hasn't kept pace with inflation in many years.  It has often been reduced rather than increased.  That means that, in what economists call constant dollars, our earnings have been on a steady decline.

This is not to say that I begrudge our Senators and Representatives a decent living. Certainly not.  But raises?  Once more, with feeling, and for emphasis, what should determine whether folks get raises is first, are they doing a good job, second, are economic conditions consistent with rising incomes, and third, does the employer have the money to spend on this?

We already know what we think about their job performance.
We know the state of the economy, and we know family incomes are falling, not rising.

And we are the employer of our elected representatives.  Do you have the money to pay them more?  I know my answer.