Does Congress Deserve a Pay Raise? Some People Are Asking
The average rank and file Member of Congress makes 193% more than the average American in annual income. Yet, clearly, Congress is in a state of dysfunction while earning those six-figure salaries.
DeBellis | a CLMI at Learn4Life feature
The average rank-and-file Member of the United States Congress brings home a salary of $174,000 annually. For a Member of the Senate or House, it has remained $174,000 since 2009. For leaders of those chambers, salaries are markedly more, with the House Speaker making $223,500 and the Senate Majority Leader earning $193,400.
That’s compared to an average annual salary of $59,428 and an average median household income of $74,580 - hence, an average rank and file Member of Congress makes 193 percent more than the average American in annual income. Yet, clearly, Congress is in a state of dysfunction while earning those six-figure salaries. The House chamber (currently led by Republicans), can’t and refuses to pass an annual federal budget, thereby leading to the potential of a government shutdown once again in the foreseeable future and it won’t pass bills on basic issues such as national security and the border. The Senate chamber (currently led by Democrats) is barely passing legislation on all of the above and much more. And while both chambers are challenged by slim partisan majorities and the influence of one particular presidential candidate facing criminal indictments, shouldn’t they be managing political crisis better than that while earning so much?
Still, retiring Republican Representative Patrick HcHenry argues Congressional salaries are not enough. Since then, many other Members of Congress have come out in support of McHenry’s statement. Clips of his statements have circulated on social media, causing the reopening of an old discussion: “How much should we pay our politicians … and should politics be a lifelong career?”
In Support of Congress Receiving a Pay Raise
As of 2009, the average Congressperson (for both chambers of Congress) earns $174,000 annually for their job. Members of Congress also enjoy a number of expenses - from security to travel and lodging - covered by either the Treasury or a variety of political and private interests depending on what’s deemed ethical and legal.
Advocates for the Congressional pay raise argue that, because of inflation, the current salary is no longer fitting. In addition, since 2009, many other employees of the federal government have since seen pay raises - in December, President Biden signed off on the largest pay increase for federal workers in 40 years. Meanwhile, many have suggested that it may be insensitive for Congress to give themselves a pay raise to adjust for inflation without addressing the federal minimum wage, as well.
Many supporters argue that Congress is a full-time commitment. There is a possibility that if a Congressperson has to work a second job it might interfere with their Congressional duties. In addition, it may not even be feasible for a Congressperson to work a second job due to the fact that members of Congress are both constantly traveling and expected to always be available to contact. Members sit on committees and consider legislation that’s either highly sensitive or requires a top secret security clearance to review. Working a second job outside of Congress could pose conflicts of interest or national security risks.
Furthermore, many advocates suggest that raising the pay for Congress may entice more low-resource or working class individuals to run for these offices as opposed to independently wealthy individuals. Another argument can be made that by paying the staff of Congress greater wages there may be more resistance to the influence of lobbyists. As such, it can be argued that by raising the wages of Congresspeople and their staff the potential for corruption is lowered. In theory, this could result in a Congress that’s more aligned with the will of the people.
In Opposition of Congress Receiving a Pay Raise
McHenry argues that the average Congressman is not wealthy and is living by their salary. But is that altogether true? The average age of a Congressperson is 58 years - Forbes reports that the median net worth for Americans aged 55-64 years of age is $213,150. The median net worth of Congress, according to Open Secrets, is slightly over $1 million….
More than half of those in Congress are millionaires, data from lawmakers’ most recent personal financial disclosures shows. The median net worth of members of Congress who filed disclosures last year is just over $1 million.
Much of the wealth in Congress is concentrated at the top. The top 10 percent of wealthiest lawmakers have three times more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. While some lawmakers are still paying off student loans, others are paying off their third or fourth mortgage. The group of wealthiest members includes career politicians who boosted their portfolios over decades in Congress and recently elected lawmakers.
These two statistics suggest that most Members of Congress are unlikely to face the same financial struggles that the average American does. As such, under current economic conditions for many Americans struggling with living costs, it may come across as rather tone deaf for Congress to give themselves a pay raise.
In addition, while supporters argue that a higher paycheck may convince more qualified individuals to run for Congress, there is actually data to suggest that by raising wages for career politicians less qualified individuals may feel encouraged to run for office. As the Chicago Booth Review reported in 2014, “If You Want Better Politicians, Pay Them Less”, findings of a study conducted by Professor Emir Kamenica …
[F]ind that a salary increase led to politicians with less education. Doubling [a politician’s] salary decreased by 15% the chance that [a politician] had attended a college ranked in the top 500 in the world. The researchers equate graduates of lower-ranked colleges with lower-quality legislators.
This may be due to the fact that candidates with higher levels and quality of education have more options when it comes to high-paying jobs in comparison to candidates with lower levels and quality of education. Kamenica also finds that those “lower-quality legislators” are on average more influenced by money. The study discovers that by increasing the wages of these legislators there was no noticeable effect on the amount of effort put into their job.
Another study, “Can salaries and re-election prevent political corruption?” conducted by Bernandino Benito, Maria-Dolores Guillamon, Ana-Maria Rios, and Francisco Bastida, also suggests that higher wages for politicians does not decrease corruption. They note that factors such as income inequality and education level may impact the corruption of elected officials, thereby concluding ….
On the one hand, higher wages may motivate politicians and/or attract more quality citizens into politics so that they improve their performance. However, not all politicians respond in the same way to the same incentives. Actually, some politicians, despite earning high wages, are corrupt for lack of principles. In this sense, the fight against corruption based exclusively on setting high wages may be ineffective to deter this and also it can be very costly to the budget of a municipality, especially in time of crisis.
McHenry’s statements implying many members of Congress may struggle financially causes one to ponder a question beyond Congressional wages: “Was American politics ever supposed to be a lifelong career?” While it is important to note that, typically speaking, term limits on the federal level of government are restricted to the Executive Branch, many of the Founders never envisioned politics as a lifelong career. When observing the negative impacts of British career politicians, many American Founders were strong advocates of a rotating office in order to prevent corruption. While this can be seen in the works of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, one of the best examples can be seen when George Washington voluntarily stepped down from power as he felt it was important as a lever against corruption. This may suggest that instead of evaluating whether or not Congress should get a raise, we should instead turn our attention to the plausibility of term limits.
Should Congress Receive a Pay Raise?
Objectively speaking, there is no “yes or no” answer to this question. It might make sense to raise their wages in order to ensure a full-time commitment to the role, especially considering that other employees of the federal government recently received generous pay raises. In addition, supporters argue that a pay raise may attract more qualified legislators and reduce corruption. Yet, as shown, there are studies that suggest the exact opposite. Furthermore, it is important to note that the median net worth for Congress is already around five times that of an American aged 55-64 years old. It may also be insensitive for Congress to adjust their wages for inflation while neglecting the federal minimum wage. There is also an argument that since American politics was never intended as a lifelong career, we shouldn’t treat Congress as such. Additionally, it would be foolish to ignore how many Americans, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, have become increasingly distrustful of government institutions. That requires immediate work considering the immediate dangers (see January 6, 2021) it poses. Perhaps Members of Congress should be asking themselves: “Given the current economic and political state of America, does it really make sense to give myself a raise?” The answer seems fairly obvious.
ANDY DEBELLIS is a Fellow with the Civic Literacy and Media Influence Institute at Learn4Life