As a new Congress is sworn in Friday, this might seem like a bad time to talk about raising federal lawmakers’ pay. A government funding package failed last month, throwing Washington into a frantic effort to keep the government open, in part because it included a small pay increase for members of Congress.
Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, posted falsely that the provision meant members would get a 40 percent pay increase — more than 10 times the reality. His post has 34 million views. Following his lead, President-elect Donald Trump wrote that “this is not a good time for Congress to be asking for pay increases.”
Front-line members joined the chorus: Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-Washington) said a pay boost, “any way you slice it,” would be “bananas.”
Actually, it would be smart.
Members of the House and Senate haven’t received any bump to their $174,000 annual salary since 2009, and that’s bad for the country. The 27th Amendment stipulates that lawmakers may not raise their own pay — just that of future Congresses. Friday’s new Congress should do so for the next.
The arguments against boosting Congress’s pay seem overwhelming. Gallup’s latest polling shows just 17 percent of Americans approve of the job the legislative branch is doing. Members already make far more than the median national income.
“If members can’t get by on our already generous salaries and benefits, they should find another line of work,” said Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine).
Actually, that’s the danger. Writing the nation’s laws is not an average job. Serving in Congress is a privilege — but one that should be attractive not only to politics fanatics, the independently wealthy, go-for-broke ideologues or those open to supplementing their official salaries by leveraging their positions for personal gain.
The majority of members, especially those with postgraduate degrees in medicine or law, could make vastly more in the private sector than they do now.
Many highly qualified people — particularly talented young Americans — forgo public service for the same reason. Moreover, everyday people don’t need to maintain two residences, as most members do, including in D.C., one of the most expensive places in the country in which to live.
Relatively low pay also makes it harder for competent members who don’t come from money to devote their entire career to public service.
Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-North Carolina), who just retired from the House after 10 terms at age 49, shows why. In an interview with the Dispatch after he announced he wouldn’t seek reelection, Mr. McHenry explained that most members actually live on their House salary.
“The very wealthy few end up dominating the news because of their personal stock trades, when most of us don’t have wealth,” he said. “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.”
After chairing the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. McHenry will probably be able to pull in several million a year in his post-congressional life as a lobbyist or head of a trade association. Yet he is the sort of thoughtful, seasoned lawmaker that both parties need more of in the House. He was even interim speaker after GOP rebels took down Kevin McCarthy (R-California) last year, until Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) won the election to replace him.
Other countries, such as Singapore, pay significantly more to their civil servants than the United States does — both to attract talent and to discourage corruption. Tellingly, the top pay allowed for a House staffer is $212,100, and for a Senate staffer, $221,900, meaning that senior staff members occasionally earn more than their bosses.
