Congressional Pay

[tricky]

Merit Pay for Pols

Congress's reluctance to pass laws to help the American taxpayer is made more galling by how easily our congressmen pass laws to help themselves.
A case in point: Lawmakers recently approved a $5,000 pay raise, bumping their salaries to $155,000 effective January 2003. It will be the fourth straight year that congressional salaries have risen. Under a 1989 law, congressmen receive automatic cost-of-living salary increases unless they vote to reject them. As the latter is as likely as a humidity-free summer in Washington, D.C., the annual pay hike is a given.

This remunerative state of affairs satisfies no one except the political class. Some critics of congressional pay argue that our politicians are grossly overpaid; others complain that we pay our elected representatives too little to attract high-quality candidates. This debate is further constrained by the Constitution. The 27th Amendment permits Congress to alter the next Congress's salaries, but not its own.

Nevertheless, the most practical solution for improving political remuneration remains untapped. Congressmen should be paid according to their results, like their private-sector counterparts. Our politicians should be paid on the basis of how successful they are in leading their "corporation."

We must publicly acknowledge that incentives matter; they affect all aspects of our behavior. Why not introduce some monetary carrots and sticks for those who make a career out of spending other people's money?

As in private business, if the federal government pleases its "customers," i.e., taxpayers, then the management should be rewarded with bonuses. Conversely, if the government poorly serves its customers, then management should pay the price financially.

How would such a salary scheme work in practice? First, at the start of a new Congress a base-salary figure could be established for congressional pay. Second, a series of measurable factors — e.g., personal and corporate tax levels, the regulatory burden, and the nation's overall fiscal position — would be individually weighted, then totaled, producing a base figure of 100 for this new "political performance" index.

At the end of two years, the chosen measurable factors would be reassessed to determine which had risen or fallen and whether, collectively, the base figure was now, say, 110 (indicating a more expensive, lower quality of life for taxpayers and constituents) or, perhaps, 90 (indicating a less expensive, higher quality of life). Once the new total was published, salaries for the following Congress would be adjusted according to a sliding scale. If the new total were 110, then congressional salaries would be cut by ten percent.

Finally, politicians would be directly accountable in dollar terms for their fiscal stewardship, or lack thereof. All decisions to tax, to spend, to regulate, and to subsidize would take on added significance as (in most cases) congressmen would be adjusting their own pay scale according to the economic merit of their decision-making.

Unemployment couldn't be eliminated overnight by Congress authorizing ditch-digging on a mass scale, as such economic interventionism would have the correspondingly negative effect of raising government spending, requiring higher taxes and/or higher deficits to pay for it. As these elements would be factored into the annual political performance index formula, such superficial solutions would be self-defeating for those congressmen pushing for a quick fix.

Congressmen interested in raising their salaries would have to do something that is today considered quite radical: introduce cost-benefit analysis into government budgeting and regulating operations.

Taxpayers are increasingly cynical, distrustful both of the motives and efforts of their political representatives. The political climate, therefore, is ripe for such a radical proposal as an incentive-based salary scheme: a guarantee that taxpayers receive value for money.

Government decision-making today remains hostage to the tyranny of the organized minority, i.e., the myriad special-interest groups. As congressional campaigns get into full swing, all politicians will promise to give us value for our money. Isn't it time for them to put their money where their mouths are?

This article originally appeared in National Review Online on July 29, 2002.



http://www.cato.org/research/article...am-020729.html





here's another article related to this topic

Originally Posted by Real Term Limits

No part of the Republican Contract with America has generated more opposition within the GOP than term limits. Republican congressional candidates promised a vote on term limits, but now GOP politicians are proving reluctant to agree to relinquish power--which shows the need for term limits irrespective of the partisan composition of Congress.

One of the unconvincing arguments against term limits is that they would enhance the power of staffers and lobbyists, even though congressional aides already write most laws and lobbyists consistently oppose term-limit initiatives. A more serious threat to term limits comes from those who advocate a limit of six terms (12 years) in the House. Most states that have limited the terms of their representatives have approved limits of three terms (6 years) for good reasons. Shorter House limits would create more competitive elections. They would also reestablish a citizen legislature.

To effectively end politics as a lifetime sinecure, thereby making congressional service a leave of absence from a productive, private-sector career, requires that terms be short. A dozen years is a short career, but it is more than long enough for legislators to become more concerned about their relationships with each other--logrolling and the like--than about their relationships with constituents.

The nation's Founders strongly believed in rotation in office. They left term limits out of the Constitution because they did not foresee that politics would become a career for so many people. Short term limits would remedy that mistake. Nothing is more important today than reversing the pernicious rise of a professional political class.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-221es.html

[tricky]

Another link....

Cato Handbook for the 107th Congress, in regards to Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

You've yet to answer how you plan to attract qualified non filthy rich people to these jobs when the private sector would pay them much more than a congressional salary.

It is specious to suggest only greed would prevent a person making a million a year to quit in order to make 15% of that. You cannot make such a blanket statement and pass the giggle test. (Unless of course all acts of self-interest are considered acts of greed.)

So, considering people doing comparable work in the private sector make much more - how do you expect to attract people who are not filthy rich to these positions?

Or, is it that you prefer our government run by only the filthy rich?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

You've yet to answer how you plan to attract qualified non filthy rich people to these jobs when the private sector would pay them much more than a congressional salary.

It is specious to suggest only greed would prevent a person making a million a year to quit in order to make 15% of that. You cannot make such a blanket statement and pass the giggle test. (Unless of course all acts of self-interest are considered acts of greed.)

So, considering people doing comparable work in the private sector make much more - how do you expect to attract people who are not filthy rich to these positions?

Or, is it that you prefer our government run by only the filthy rich?

you didn't read any of that did you? i posted some very good information from the cato institute, yet you refuse to read it.


your loss

Originally Posted by tricky

you didn't read any of that did you? i posted some very good information from the cato institute, yet you refuse to read it.


your loss

man - your links and articles didn't have anything to do with addressing the issue that congressional pay is under market....

merit based pay is unworkable - setting up an objective scale would be impossible - besides - the article spoke in nothing but abstract notions rather than addressing my point - so now - address it....

how would you attract non filthy rich people to congressional positions?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

merit based pay is unworkable - setting up an objective scale would be impossible - now address my questions

there is no reason to pay them more, don't let them make a career as a politician, and they wont have to worry about losing 'millions of dollars from the private sector' as you put it. there is no reason why someone in age 35-55 can't take 4-6 years off, be paid 145k/yr, health benefits, and a retirement fund , and then return back to the private sector. Do you really think an employer is gonna say, 'oh wow, you were a senator, you're not qualified for this job, we cant hire you' ?

the second article is about term limits, and how it stops corruption. i, have no trust at all in these people who make it their life to a politician. founders didnot intend for it to be that way. how can these people stay in touch with reality, look at Tom DeLay. 20 years in washington, and he's one of the most corrupt officials there is. and just so i'm not being partisan, Kennedy from Mass has been there since 1962...43 YEARS?!?!

Originally Posted by tricky

there is no reason to pay them more,

Then you've restricted Congress to the filthy rich.

We have term limits.... they're called elections. To impose term limits from without is to deny the voters representation of their choice - that's entirely undemocratic.

If we had term limits.... other than people who don't need to work.... who can take off 2 years, 4, 6, 12 without amazingly serious repurcussions to their carer options..... you essentially force them in to work as lobbyists and consultants which doesn't acheive your stated objective of limiting career politicians. We need career poiticians for better or worse they know how to run the freakin' place.

Who in their right mind would say, "Hmmm I have the world's largest and most powerful nation on the planet - I want to be sure I don't let any of its guiding polticians get any more experience than X...." good grief man - I despise teddy Kennedy but its the fools of MA's right to keep electing the gin soak dude to the Senate every six years. The fact is he knows how the institution runs and even though I mostly hate every piece of legislation he's been involved with its assinine to deny that he's useful to the DNC in getting Bills moving on through committee and to vote.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

Then you've restricted Congress to the filthy rich.

We have term limits.... they're called elections. To impose term limits from without is to deny the voters representation of their choice - that's entirely undemocratic.

If we had term limits.... other than people who don't need to work.... who can take off 2 years, 4, 6, 12 without amazingly serious repurcussions to their carer options..... you essentially force them in to work as lobbyists and consultants which doesn't acheive your stated objective of limiting career politicians. We need career poiticians for better or worse they know how to run the freakin' place.

Who in their right mind would say, "Hmmm I have the world's largest and most powerful nation on the planet - I want to be sure I don't let any of its guiding polticians get any more experience than X...." good grief man - I despise teddy Kennedy but its the fools of MA's right to keep electing the gin soak dude to the Senate every six years. The fact is he knows how the institution runs and even though I mostly hate every piece of legislation he's been involved with its assinine to deny that he's useful to the DNC in getting Bills moving on through committee and to vote.

Please explain this, what will they lose out from if they serve 4-6 years ?

on the notion of 'more experience'

"We already have term limits; they're called elections. So why don't we just throw the bums out?" Instead, voters simultaneously cast their ballots for senior incumbents and for term limits. They do so for two primary reasons: seniority clout and barriers to entry. No district wants to unilaterally cede the power it has, and there may be no viable alternative on the ballot. All districts have to collectively agree to turn out their senior incumbents to solve the collective problem of unrepresentative legislators.
Term limits further important values of democratic equality and freedom. Term limits reduce inequalities in legislative power across districts and over time. More important, term limits make democratic choice far freer. Term limits solve a collective action problem and lessen the seniority penalty that makes it difficult for districts to oust ideologically unsatisfactory incumbents. And term limits reduce barriers to entry that discourage challengers and thus limit ballot options. Any furthering of those values furthers core democratic objectives.
-Cato Institute

Term Limits

Originally Posted by tricky

Please explain this, what will they lose out from if they serve 4-6 years ?

on the notion of 'more experience'
Term Limits

wanna make your own arguments? you can cite to authority if makes you feel better.


What job will give you 6 years off? How about 6 months to plan and run a campaign? If you lose you'll lose at work. I've seen it - woman - local - reduced her workload to be a wheel in the local Dem party. When it came time to decide if she was going to make partner that time off shot her in the foot and she was denied. Running for office and losing would have the same effect. (unless you don't need the income from the job - thus getting backl to the filthy rich politician problem) Surely those 6 years will result new and, imo, better skills. But, those skills are going to be in government - thus creating the career politician you spoke of.

As for Cato - they're advocating subverting the electoral process because of lazy voters and results they do not support - that is the equivalent of judicial acitivsm which they scream about. (They're wrong on this - generally I adore Cato's domestic policy arguments...but this one's off base. You don't fix democracy by ruining it)



lastly..... you keep ducking my question......here it is again...



How do you get qualified guy making 1 million a years to take a job for 15% of that (all the while subjecting him and his entire family to the scrutiny of the whole world for his troubles?)

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

lastly..... you keep ducking my question......here it is again...



How do you get qualified guy making 1 million a years to take a job for 15% of that (all the while subjecting him and his entire family to the scrutiny of the whole world for his troubles?)

There are qualified people not making 1 million a year out there. YOU are limiting this to the super rich by saying that it must be equivalent to 1 million a year. median salary is 42,000/yr.

According to the IRS, only 168,000 or .01% of the population make over 1 million. So therefore this Elite, that you so desire to put in charge, are also the 'filthy rich' that you dont want in charge? (Source Here)

I fail to see the logic of your arguement.

Originally Posted by tricky

There are qualified people not making 1 million a year out there. YOU are limiting this to the super rich by saying that it must be equivalent to 1 million a year. median salary is 42,000/yr.

According to the IRS, only 168,000 or .01% of the population make over 1 million. So therefore this Elite, that you so desire to put in charge, are also the 'filthy rich' that you dont want in charge? (Source Here)

I fail to see the logic of your arguement.

I am suggesting that very few people have the skills that would make them an effective political leader in Congress. (Not just intelligence and training in aspects of law and political science but strength of will and character. The ability to "work a room" - its a real skill when the room's full of world level dignitaries. Trust Bob from supply doing that? Your mechanic? This is not to disaparagre those occupations - they are fine good and resptactable jobs - but the issue here is one's skill set)

I'm saying that wages follow skills as a very good general statement.

I'm saying wage earners who make 42K are quite likely not as qualified to run our country as higher wage earners.

I'm saying highly compensated employees are much much more likely to have the capacity to be effective in the job of Congressman than low wage earners.

Now, given the fact that congress is overwhelming staffed with those who need no job eg the filthy rich (indeed they spend millions to get a job that pays 155K?) I again ask you.

How do you expect to get "qualified" people to take the job of congressman when they'd have to take a big cut in pay and expose their families to scrutiny by becoming a public figure?

[tricky]

You are asserting that only rich people are qualified. I don't know what else to say.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I've no idea where in that pdf nightmare yo ufound that number but it is a misleading number....

many live of the benefits of trusts and endowments and are able to report little to no income yet live very well indeed....

I'm sure there are other good examples but that's the only one the leaps immediately to mind

it's an excel file, cells b40-b47 are the most relevant, even if i am off by a few percentage points, you are still asserting that the top 1-3% of americans are competent to serve in a public office

Originally Posted by tricky

You are asserting that only rich people are qualified. I don't know what else to say.

Address the statements that lead me to that copnclusion rather than simply making a non-comment in an attempt to scoff at my conclusion...

which premise that I listed do you find objectionable and why?


here they are

1) I'm saying that wages follow skills as a very good general statement.

2) I'm saying wage earners who make 42K are quite likely not as qualified to run our country as higher wage earners.

3) I'm saying highly compensated employees are much much more likely to have the capacity to be effective in the job of Congressman than low wage earners.

Originally Posted by tricky

According to the IRS, only 168,000 or .01% of the population make over 1 million. So therefore this Elite, that you so desire to put in charge, are also the 'filthy rich' that you dont want in charge? (Source Here)

I've no idea where in that pdf nightmare yo ufound that number but it is a misleading number....

many live off the benefits of trusts and endowments and are able to report little to no income yet live very well indeed....

I'm sure there are other good examples but that's the only one the leaps immediately to mind....

but my general premis is that IRS tax returns is not the sole arbiter of who's rich....

for example.....

There were 500,000 new millionaires in 2003, bringing the total number of millionaires in the world to 7.7 million. (Source: World Wealth Report from Merrill Lynch & Cap Gemini). 2.6 million millionaires live in Europe; 2.5 million live in North America. There are 2.6 million millionaires in the rest of the world.

- source here

If the US has half of those and Canada and Mexico split the rest.... thats 1.25 American millionaires and I think I'm being incredibly generous there.


I'll let you or anybody else who wants to to go data diving and come up with numbers but there are a lot of rich people in the US even if only 168,000 tax filings reported adjusted gross income over 1m