The simple, and therefore common, refrain among casual observers of American politics is that Congress has done such a poor job and is held in such low public esteem that federal lawmakers and their staffs should not be rewarded with pay raises. After all, why should the already out-of-touch aristocratic class make more than the average Americans whom they represent? Certainly, their taxpayer-funded salaries shouldn’t be wholly divorced from representatives’ performance in office. The more demagogic of those who maintain this point of view might even suggest that members of Congress and their staff deserve a pay cut — if only so they might experience a measure of the pain their constituents are feeling.
This line of thinking invites a natural corollary that seems forever out of reach of Congress’s critics. If so many of its members are already wealthy, might that be because campaign-finance reforms have compelled the two parties to recruit candidates who can fund their own campaigns? If they are as out of touch as their accusers claim, might that be because Congress is an unattractive career path for talented professionals who would be far better compensated in the private sector? If Congress is hopelessly dysfunctional, could that be a byproduct of the institution’s failure to attract and retain talent? If the legislature is repelling civic-minded public servants and skilled professionals, ceding the field to ladder-climbers, incompetents, and aspiring celebrities, is that because this is the condition into which we voted ourselves?
John McCormack at the Dispatch recently sat down with outgoing Representative Patrick McHenry, who made that very case. “You especially need staff to be able to go toe-to-toe with the people they’re regulating or overseeing in the executive branch, which means you need to get the highest quality folks,” said the one-time provisional speaker of the House. “You can’t have the executive branch and the judicial branch on a higher pay scale than Congress. That is absurd, and really stupid for Congress to disadvantage ourselves in this game of checks and balances.”
McCormack notes that congressional salaries have been stagnant since 2009. If congressional pay had kept pace with inflation, members of Congress would be making $76,000 more per annum than they are at present (rank-and-file members make $174,000 per year). Even with the supplementals provided to members to cover, for example, travel expenses, it’s a struggle for members who are expected to maintain two residences — at least one of which must be located in one of the country’s costliest cities.
The whole interview is worth reading, but McHenry’s articulation of the pay-scale imbalance as a factor contributing to regulatory capture, malfeasance like insider-trading scandals, and the general lack of talent among America’s foremost public officials is difficult to argue against. The institution just isn’t going to entice America’s best and brightest to forgo a lucrative career for the privilege of sleeping on his or her couch in the Rayburn building basement. Notoriety, influence, prestige, and, of course, access to power must suffice for compensation. And those rare civil servants who do shoulder the financial hardships associated with public service often succumb to what David Brooks called “status–income disequilibrium” as they attempt to maintain an arm’s-length relationship with America’s most well-heeled citizens. Eventually, the temptation to join their ranks becomes irresistible.
Congressional staffers have it far worse than the representatives they serve. “Median House staffer pay increased to $72,200 last year, up from $59,600 the year before,” Roll Call reported last March. Some staffers make more, often based on longevity and performance, but many make less. That explains why the turnover rate among staffers is measured in months — imposing an artificial ceiling on the institutional memory that legislative-services professionals can acquire before they’re either poached or just move on.
It is far too easy to demagogue this issue. But raising the congressional pay scale across the board is not an act of fiscal profligacy. America’s debt crisis is driven by its popular entitlement programs and the interest on its debt. The strain those obligations place on the Treasury is measured in the trillions — a strain that puts a congressional pay hike measured in the millions in perspective. Nor would such a reform constitute a reward for bad behavior. Rather, it would be an investment in the acquisition and retention of talent that might actually perform as voters expect they should.
I don’t expect that McHenry’s admonition will change many minds. But he’s correct insofar as Americans have committed themselves to a course that is not working. If only there were a word that described doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.