Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
The sheer brass this takes:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday that she opposes a cut in congressional pay because it would diminish the dignity of lawmakers' jobs.
"I don't think we should do it; I think we should respect the work we do," Pelosi told reporters in the Capitol. "I think it's necessary for us to have the dignity of the job that we have rewarded."
Look, our side goes a little nuts with this stuff sometimes. You're not going to be able to finance a nanosecond of the federal government's operations with the money you save through legislative pay cuts. But then, that's not really the point.
The point is that "the dignity of the job" is ostensibly in serving the American people -- which means that when we all wake up from decades worth of orgiastic spending, the people wearing the little lapel pins ought to be the first to volunteer themselves for a haircut, if only to prove that the District of Columbia isn't a consequence-free zone.
Pelosi was quick to point out that her family's wealth means it wouldn't be a big deal for her to take the hit, but that many other lawmakers are the breadwinners in their family. Fine, but misleading. We're never going to cut salaries to the point where U.S. senators are living off of Ramen noodles and Easy Mac. And everyone knows that the financial calculation that goes into serving in Congress usually has more to do with cashing in once you leave than growing rich on Capitol Hill.
On a related note, I attended a meeting earlier this week with a reporter formerly stationed in Asia. She noted how Singapore pays its elected officials relatively lavish salaries in order to, amongst other things, insulate them from the temptation of corruption (here's a brief rundown from Stephen Dubner at the Freakonomics blog).
I'll admit that my first reaction was skepticism. Corruption is always going to provide the prospect of more money. I'm not sure if there's any salary sufficient to extinguish the instinct towards avarice. Of course, the advocates for higher pay also argue that it will attract a higher caliber of talent to these positions. What do you think?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (15)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jul '10
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
This will go over well at military bases.
May '11
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."--Karl Marx, a Progressive.
We have a "progressive" income tax. Why not a "progressive" pay scale for Congress. The richer you are, the less you get. For the super rich, you have to pay to be a member of Congress. That would be truly dignified.
Sep '12
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
I wonder if anyone has tallied the numbers as to whether or not this is the case for higher pay reducing corruption. I wouldn't be opposed to significantly increasing the pay of every member of Congress -- just to see what happens.
Jul '12
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
OK, Senik -- most chilling headline EVER.
I think you're right on the mark; it's impossible to give people so much money they won't be tempted to take more. Sometimes the biggest thieves are felled by the pettiest larceny.
Anyway, it's unlikely we could pay more than the really smart operators (not your truly) would make in the private sector.
Dec '10
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
For a number of years I worked and sometimes lived in third world countries. You do not want to give people power without pay. They will use their power to get paid by other means. As someone who has been shaken down many times by relatively powerless traffic cops I assure you don't want to incentivize someone as powerful and creative as a Congressmen.
That said, there are no natural limits to either corruption or greed so we cannot depend on pay, by itself, to block corruption. Paying chump-change would guarantee that only the rich and those who intend to cash-in by selling their temporary influence would run for Congress. And fools who think that nothing bad would happen for only paying Congressmen chump-change would richly deserve every bit of corruption they brought on themselves.
That said, I not mind paying the sort of income that you might pay to, say, someone who in the commercial world would have major responsibility to shareholders and a board of directors. (I'm being deliberately vague here, I know that this is a fairly loose standard.) That is because, in my view, Congressmen have an equivalent level of responsibility.
Jul '11
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
Most people who run for Congress, and especially the Senate, are usually well-off. They can afford to take 2/4/6 year breaks from earnings, to translate their federal earnings into larger earnings. Just ask Harry Reid, who has become quite wealthy while serving in Congress, for some reason.
Pelosi. She has transmorgified into a caricature of the politician she purports not to be, but truly is, in every way possible. She now deigns to take offense at potentially getting a pay cut, while constantly calling for more spending that we can't afford for things we don't need, just so she can sell that good "work" back to her constituents who will inevitably vote the facially-damaged harpy back into the one place that will have her: The US Congress.
Ghastly. That thing is simply ghastly. And I'm not talking about her looks.
Aug '10
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
Nancy Pelosi is the poster child for Term Limits.
Jan '11
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
I agree with John Hendrix and some others that they aren't paid all that much (heretical, I know).
I've tried to think of incentive structures or possible bonus structures but find they subject to the same problems. I've considered states owning the homes of the representatives & staffs that are vacated after their terms end (or with staffs, when they leave). States actually setting & paying the salaries of the reps. & staffs. I like the idea of reinforcing the notion that they represent the states.
Instead of pork, perhaps any savings from budget cuts could then be directed to their states or districts - setting up a virtuous cycle. Budget targets or a % of cuts would fund their salaries/bonuses for them & their staffs.
I've considered parties or interest groups being able to give bonuses (not campaign contributions) to those reps they consider most effective (Susan Collins-not so much, Ryan, Paul, Cruz - healthy bonuses.
All these schemes have their flaws but I'm open to some system/s that would lead to better outcomes.
Jul '11
Re: Nancy Pelosi's Hand Across Your Face
I hadn't thought of this. They could be paid on a merits-based system - the more budget cutting you reduce, the higher your salary.
Think of how many people would run for office then - people who are interested in a) reducing the budget deficits, and debt, and b) people who are interested in getting paid marginally more for doing a better job. I'd be putting in OT for that gig. Where do I sign up?
WI Con: I've tried to think of incentive structures or possible bonus structures but find they subject to the same problems. I've considered states owning the homes of the representatives & staffs that are vacated after their terms end (or with staffs, when they leave). States actually setting & paying the salaries of the reps. & staffs. I like the idea of reinforcing the notion that they represent the states.
Instead of pork, perhaps any savings from budget cuts could then be directed to their states or districts - setting up a virtuous cycle. Budget targets or a % of cuts would fund their salaries/bonuses for them & their staffs.