Another January, another Congressional pay raise
Jeff Jacoby, January 5, 2004,
©2003 Boston Globe
A happy
new year?
For US senators and representatives, it certainly is: As of Jan. 1, their
salary is $158,100 -- the highest ever and an increase of $3,400 over the
amount they collected last year.
Congress is notorious for procrastination, and the tally of
unfinished business on Capitol Hill is a long one. But no one can accuse
the legislative branch of dragging its heels when it comes to congressional
pay. Appropriations bills may gather dust, judicial nominations may
languish, but members of Congress are johnny-on-the-spot
when it comes to their own salaries. The most recent raise is only the
latest in an ongoing series:
On Jan. 1, 2003, they took a raise of $4,700.
On Jan. 1, 2002, they took a raise of $4,900.
On Jan. 1, 2001, they took a raise of $3,800.
On Jan. 1, 2000, they took a raise of $4,600.
On Jan. 1, 1998, they took a raise of $3,100.
That comes to six raises totaling $24,500 since January
1998. And why does Congress feel it deserves them? Ah, well, that's
hard to say. Congress isn't talking.
Few Americans have the power to award themselves a bigger
paycheck at will; fewer still can do so and charge it to the public
treasury. The Constitution grants members of Congress the privilege of
paying themselves with taxpayers' money, but with that privilege comes a moral obligation to operate in the sunshine.
Or so it used to be understood. Once upon a time, senators and
representatives knew that before they could raise their salaries, they had to
hold hearings and take a vote. Those votes could be politically
uncomfortable, and the public's reaction had to be taken into account.
Not surprisingly, Congress tended to go long stretches between pay raises, and
lawmakers knew better than to hike their pay during a recession. (On a
few occasions, they even reduced their pay.)
But Congress has changed the rules. Under the system
now in place, House and Senate members automatically get a pay raise every
year. The only way *not* to get the raise is to pass an amendment
blocking it, and parliamentary hurdles make that difficult to accomplish.
Upshot: a congressional paycheck that grows by thousands of dollars a year --
with no hearings, no debate, no media coverage, no public explanations.
Above all, no embarrassing votes -- not unless some spoilsport with more
integrity than avarice insists on offering a blocking amendment.
One of the very few such spoilsports is Senator Russell
Feingold, a liberal Wisconsin Democrat who for several years has introduced an
amendment to stop the pay raise, and each time has seen his amendment tabled --
i.e., killed without being debated and voted on -- by a lopsided Senate
majority.
"I object to the process," he said during a phone
conversation last week. "This automatic, stealth pay-raise system is
absolutely wrong. Especially now, when we're running the biggest deficits
in US history, when so many people are out of work -- I find it startling that
Congress would feel comfortable voting itself a pay raise."
And what kind of reaction does he get from his colleagues
when he offers his amendment?
"It's not my most popular moment," Feingold concedes.
"I get the coldest stares." Some senators try to reason with
him. "They tell me about their kids' tuition. Or they say,
'Don't you think you're worth more money?' " He
tells them that if they think they deserve an increase, they should be willing
to vote for one.
Feingold puts his own money where his mouth is, refusing any
increase in pay during each six-year senatorial term. Though he is
perhaps the least affluent member of the Senate, he has returned more than
$50,000 to the Treasury over the past 11 years. Meanwhile,
multimillionaire senators like Ted Kennedy, Jon Corzine,
and Majority Leader Bill Frist vote to table
Feingold's amendment and preserve the annual stealth pay raise.
Some members of Congress claim they are underpaid; even at
$158,100, they say, the salary of a federal lawmaker is well below what many
people in the private sector make.
Maybe it is. But that doesn't stop hundreds of willing
candidates -- including every incumbent senator and representative -- from
running for Congress at the existing salary. Every member of Congress is
free to walk away from Capitol Hill to earn more money in the private
sector. Yet virtually all of them choose to run for re-election.
Maybe that's because most of them wouldn't be able to do better in a
private-sector job. Maybe it's because the power and influence that come
with holding federal office more than make up for any loss of income. Or
maybe it's because the perks of office are so comfortable: In addition to their
salary, members of Congress get (among other benefits) large staffs, free
office space in their district and in Washington, numerous round trips home
each year, free foreign travel, largely unlimited free postage, use of the
lavish congressional gyms, and a pension far more lucrative than almost any
private-sector plan.
So yes, by all means, wish your senators and congressman a
happy new year. As usual, they're having one.