Congress hasn’t exactly been doing its best as of late.It’s historically unproductive and chaotic, and those of us who cover the institution end up writing more about bills that won’t pass or needless drama than how our representatives are delivering for us.This week in particular is probably not the best time to suggest that these people deserve — well, maybe not deserve, but need — a hefty raise.But hear me out.The current salary for rank-and-file members of both the House and Senate is $174,000. That’s not nothing. In fact, it’s more than what over 80% of American households made in 2022.But being a member of Congress isn’t any old job.It’s an incredibly important and consequential position, one in which you’re basically always working, or could be called upon to work, even when you’re not in DC. The schedule changes pretty often. You’re likely traveling between DC and your home district twice a week. You need somewhere to sleep in both places, and some of your colleagues are doing it in their offices. The public also doesn’t think that highly of you, or anything that you came to Washington to advocate for.In short, as Republican Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona put it, the job is “miserable.” But Schweikert, a fiscal hawk, isn’t keen on endorsing any sort of pay raise.”I sort of wish we were paid according to our work product — right now we would pretty much be paid zero,” said Schweikert. “And the reality is, we’re still paid better than most Americans.”The public largely agrees with the Arizona congressman, and that’s perhaps the biggest impediment to changing compensation. A poll conducted by Business Insider in 2019 found that 55% of Americans would actually like to see a pay cut for Congress.But under the status quo, it’s mostly already rich people who are able and willing to withstand all of those demands.Experts have long argued that Congress needs a raise for the purposes of attracting — and perhaps more importantly, retaining — high-quality public servants, safeguarding against potential corruption, and broadening the pool of potential candidates beyond those who are already wealthy.”When you pay [lawmakers] enough, their incentives to go and be looking to get paid elsewhere diminish, and they become better public servants,” said Daniel Schuman, the director of governance at the POPVOX Foundation. “That’s just human nature.”Stunted salary growth and limited perksThe salaries for members of Congress haven’t budged in nearly 15 years. Since in 2009, lawmakers have affirmatively chosen to block annual cost-of-living adjustments designed to keep pace with inflation. The only surefire way to get a higher salary is to become the speaker of the House ($223,500) or become a majority or minority leader in either chamber ($193,400).This past year, House members did get some extra help, thanks to some last-minute changes made by Democrats before they lost the majority: House members can now seek reimbursement for expenses like food and lodging when they’re in DC. But that money comes from a fund that lawmakers also use for other expenses like staff pay, meaning they have to balance their own personal costs against the needs of the office. (In the Senate, you’re out of luck with reimbursements entirely.)And while lawmakers have access to a relatively good pension plan, it takes a while to earn it.”If you want a whole lot of rich people, and nobody else, this is the kind of system that you would set up,” said Schuman. “People say, ‘Well, it’s public service, and if you don’t like it, you shouldn’t do it.’ Well, then who’s going to do it? People you don’t want doing it.”‘The plaything of multimillionaires and billionaires’Last week, Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina made waves when he declared that members of Congress need to be paid more. But it’s easy for him to say — he’s retiring, and doesn’t have to answer to voters for that position.But he’s hardly the only lawmaker who thinks that, or who’s willing to say it.”You have quite a number of members of Congress that sleep in their offices,” said Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, who supports a raise. “In this day and age, it makes sense to have people that feel that they can serve, and still be able to sleep in a home at night.””Congress should not be the plaything of multimillionaires and billionaires who’ve already secured their fortunes and don’t care about earning a living,” said Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. “No one wants to waste taxpayer dollars, but Congress needs to be more realistic about what it takes to attract the top people to public service.”Historically, Democrats have been more willing to push for higher pay for members of Congress, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. “I know it’s kind of a contrarian position,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “If we want working-class people who don’t rely on independent wealth to represent people in Congress, we have to make it work.”But it’s not just AOC — in 2019, then-House Majority Steny Hoyer tried to enact a modest bump in the salary for members of Congress, only to have that halted in part by a revolt from Democrats who represent swing districts.Among them was Democratic Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan, who’s now retiring from Congress at the end of this year. At the time, he argued that it was wrong for Congress to raise its own salary while doing nothing about the federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25 since 2009.”Politically, it’s a very sensitive issue,” Kildee told me this week. “I do think there’s a good argument that the cost of living adjustment should apply [to lawmakers’ salaries].” Sen. Elizabeth Warren says raising salaries is about preventing Congress from becoming the “plaything of multimillionaires and billionaires.” Kent Nishimura/Getty Images And even as Democrats offer their support for raising lawmakers’ salaries, they’re quick to make clear that they’re not just concerned with their own bottom line.”I think in general, all the salaries should be raised around here,” said Rep. Maxwell Frost of Florida, who had well-publicized difficulties securing an apartment in DC due to his financial situation. “We should have a bigger budget so we can pay our staff even more.”The resistance to raising salariesThe arguments against raising salaries are fairly familiar, and can be summed up by some combination of “Congress sucks” or “you knew what you were getting into.””I think when we all ran for this position, we knew what the salary was,” said Sen. Deb Fischer of Nebraska, the top Republican on the Senate subcommittee that has jurisdiction over lawmakers’ salaries. “I’m not supportive of a raise.”Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio says he “strongly agrees” with the idea of paying congressional staffers more, arguing that staff are “always going to get poached by a lobbying firm, because we can’t possibly compete with their salary.”But he doesn’t extend that same logic to the lawmakers who oversee that staff, and suggested that it may be best if lawmakers have already built up some wealth through private sector experience. Republican Sen. JD Vance of Ohio and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California both oppose increasing lawmakers’ salaries. Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call via Getty Images; Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images “This is public service, you’re not going to make a lot of money serving in Congress,” said Vance. “If you’re going to serve in the United States Senate, you probably should accomplish something before you get here.”Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California — who in recent months has touted a “political reform plan” aimed at combatting corruption — said he would support establishing some form of free housing for members of Congress. “Maybe that would add to some of the camaraderie,” he said.But for now, he’s against raising salaries, despite the likely anti-corruption benefits that could bring.”People who make great contributions to America don’t do it for the money,” said Khanna. “I think we can attract talent without the finances.”But the risks incurred by the current salary level are not abstract. In 2022, former Republican Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi — a lawmaker who served for ten years and rose to become the chairman of a House committee — testified that he retired in part because he could no longer take care of his son, who has an intellectual disability.”I knew that if I stayed, I would not be able to take care of my son and my family,” Harper said at the time. “And so I had to at least have the opportunity to try to make more money [in the private sector.]”So, how much money should lawmakers get?Ask a member of Congress what they should be making instead of $174,000, and suddenly, they clam up a bit.”You know, I’m not sure,” said Ocasio-Cortez.”To be determined,” said Warren. “I’m open to hearing different ways to think through it.”If you were to account for inflation, a salary of $174,000 in 2009 is worth over $250,000 today. Federal district judges, who made the same amount of money as rank-and-file lawmakers in 2009, now earn $232,600. Former Rep. Gregg Harper of Mississippi stepped down in part because Congress didn’t pay enough. Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call via Getty Images In the private sector, meanwhile, the average chief executive salary in the Washington, DC metropolitan area in 2022 was $305,480, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”The [proper salary] is basically someplace where you don’t have an economic desire to go someplace else,” said Schuman, adding that “between $250,000 and $300,000 is probably about right.”For simplicity’s sake, let’s put the number at $274,000 — a $100,000 raise for members of Congress. And then, of course, lawmakers would need to stop blocking the annual cost-of-living adjustment, as they have since 2009.”They need to reset what the baseline number is, and then they need to leave it alone,” said Schuman.Is this proposal likely? No. Especially not right now, given the inability of the Republican-led House to pass any legislation that’s even slightly controversial, let alone as unpopular with the public as this. Nor is jacking up lawmakers’ salaries likely to be a panacea that solves every problem in a troubled institution.But if you’re angry about lawmakers trading stocks, or raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars off of their personal brands via book sales, it’s worth considering how providing Congress with a bigger salary might realign lawmakers incentives, at least a little bit.After all, as Schuman said, “you get what you pay for.”
We will be happy to hear your thoughts