Are Our Representatives Underpaid?
Since compensation is probably one of the most talked about topics on this site, what do you guys think about compensation levels for elected representatives? The quote "X is payed more than the president! Outrageous!" is often thrown around but the value that most presidents and other representatives can create can be much more than their salary.
I originally thought there were two main bodies of thought:
- They should be paid just a bit above what's enough to cover their basic living expenses, perhaps just a few multiples above the average citizen. Being an elected representative is a civic duty and people shouldn't be in it for the money.
- They should be paid about what someone of their experience level would make in the private sector or elsewhere. We wouldn't want exceptional individuals to not lead because they could make more elsewhere.
I came across this article on Salon proposing that Congress members should get paid even more than their current ~174,000$ annual salary. The basic idea is that by paying them much more, they don't have to worry about 'exit opps' and are less swayed by private donations.
So here’s the case for giving members of Congress million-dollar salaries: Fewer members would quit to get rich in the private sector as bankers or lobbyists. And in a world where campaign finance regulations are constantly getting gutted by the courts, paying members a fortune and letting them fund their own campaigns is basically halfway to public financing of elections. Everyone loves it when a billionaire candidate like Michael Bloomberg promises to be “above politics” because he can fund his own election, so why not let members of Congress do the same?
This is then a third option:
- Pay them handsomely to reduce corrupt behavior and to make sure they're focused on the public good. Although some degree of corruption will inevitably exist, diminishing its reward can lead to a better societal outcome if representatives are less swayed by money.
Compensation for non-profit organizations is always a tricky matter, but I thought the third argument interestingly had some merit to it. Ideally I think everybody should be payed close to what they are worth, but that's always going to be a fantasy, especially in politics.
What do you guys think about how much representatives should be payed? If only stock options on social welfare existed, huh...
Source:
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/07/pay_congress_more_seriously_the_case_fo…
I tend to gravitate toward the first school of thought that people shouldn't pursue political careers for the money. As for the argument that increasing Congressional salaries to $1 million (or whatever amount) is tantamount to public financing of elections - how do you ensure that our politicians spend that salary on their campaigns as an alternative to private financing? Do you institutionalize that somehow?
I don't have numbers in front of me, but my hunch is that most elected officials are fairly well off to begin with and could probably finance their campaigns on their own, but many don't do that. Would increasing their Congressional salaries change that?
Finally, the argument that they don't need to seek "exit opps" is a double edged sword in my mind - yes, they can devote more time to governance and less time to campaigning, but do you really WANT career politicians? I feel like it's hard to remove incumbents that are entrenched in the political machine unless they voluntarily choose to leave.
Maybe their pay should be based on performance metrics... I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anywhere near $1M if that happened.
If we are to pay them what they're "worth" - then they shouldn't be making a dime based on what they've done for the most part.
While there's obviously no objective way to measure this, I would guess that most top finance professionals work both harder and smarter than most politicians. The work is a fair deal more complicated and requires more smarts from what I understand. So it really isn't super unfair that politicians make less.
I'm having trouble thinking of a more overpaid group of people to be honest. Most of their "work" is campaigning and wooing wealthy donors for their next term. They waste millions and millions of dollars every year for political theater. The person making my Baconator at Wendy's deserves to make a lot more then they do.
In a perfect world, the pay for elected representatives should be enough to offer them a decent life, but one that is relatively modest. Working as an elected representative should be 100% about service to the American public and should be seen as an honorable duty to their country rather than a way to make a living. Also, many representatives are wealthy before they become public servants, as their previous success and wealth affords them the opportunity to run a successful campaign.
The argument for increasing public official compensation as a means of reducing corruption is a very interesting solution, but I think many officials will always crave more wealth/power/influence and even a significant increase in compensation will likely not prevent many from ignoring their fiduciary duties. The voting record for officials will show that a significant amount of representatives ignore the majority opinion of their constituent base and have always acted in their own personal or party interests. Even if paying them handsomely does result in some reduced corruption among political figures, I doubt it will be worth the increased cost to the American public.
Just like how bankers are supposed to be 100% focused on facilitating fair transactions and no needless M&A, deals, etc. and fair comp based on long-term betterment of society/companies, amirite?
You need to take into account post-term pensions. For example, according to the first hit that came up on google (http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/pensionFARQ.html), as ex-President, GW Bush gets the same salary as a current Cabinet member.
If you are a member of congress or the senate and are unable to figure out how to get in on deals with wealthy and powerful people in your district you probably shouldn't be in congress in the first place. Harry Reid is a master at this. He has increased his net worth almost 1000% since taking office.
Also, until 2012, Congress wasn't held to the same insider trading rules that the rest of us are. They could sell stock in medical companies the day before announcing an investigation into those same medical companies knowing that the value of those shares would likely drop. (Sidebar: I would have shorted those same stocks after selling them to double up on my gains!)
Then they passed the STOCK Act to curb all of that, and then a year later another bill was passed that gutted most of that law.
So...I'm in favor of paying these guys nothing. Fend for yourselves.
If you pay congress members nothing, then only wealthy people can be congress members. Not that this isn't the case already, but your proposed solution certainly isn't going to help.
I didn't propose a solution. I just said I don't think we should pay congress. I think @"Addinator" is on the right track with limiting the ability to to make trades while in office and implement term limits. That would be a good start, but a full on solution will need to take into account many different things.
Are you really naive enough to think that everyone in congress isn't wealthy? And if they aren't wealthy when they start, they're wealthy when their term is over and 10 lobbying offers land on their desks.
Stop trying to do IBD for "exit opps", run for congress.
I think they should have a system that ties their pay to term limits. If they have a salary that is substantially higher they can only have one term, or two. Something like that. People rant and rave about how we are becoming an aristocracy with all of these rich people yet ignore the fact that many senators are in districts that A. They will never lose B. have been in for 30 years C. If the population shifts, they will simply change the district lines to hold onto their majority. Talk about an aristocracy. Yes I know they 'get elected' or something like that but i'm speaking about those guys where elections are formalities. I personally think term limits are vastly more important than anything else.
You know what would also be fun? If you are elected to office you are barred from individual trading. All your accounts are either put with a manager who you are barred from contacting or some type of index fund trust mechanism. Whatever, just lock it all up.
Even worse are these godforsaken huge bills that they put together in congress. They need to introduce page limits and force every one of these guys to fully read the legislation before they vote. Attach freaking eye scanners to the pages to ensure they actually read everything. It is criminal that these guys vote on a bill and aren't fully disclosed as to what is in it and what all of the ramifications are. Maybe I don't give them enough credit, but having a 22 year old read through and give you the 'highlights and talking points' is enough to sicken me when I look at how much money they throw away on an hourly basis.
The problem is that to some extent there is an allure to being able to bring a billionaire business man to his knees with the swipe of a pen and a piece of ill timed legislation. Many of these guys are already rich to even be able to run for office so the power interests them more than any money would, so I doubt that you could 'buy' many of them off. Limit how long they can swing it around and you will curb more than any amount of salary could.
The endless tweaking of a system that never worked. Can we just vacate the position entirely?
Election laws dictate how much candidates can spend on their own election. You could pay them all 10MM a year and they would still take donations for their elections. Elections are too expensive to be financed by someone on their own even if they are extremely wealthy. They only way to get money out of elections is for the congress to create and get a law passed that says there is a set amount given to the candidates at each level of the race and will be solely provided by the government. However given the fact that, that will kill exit ops for congress people it is unlikely to happen. The pay they receive while in office is paltry compared to what they make while in office. The exemptions they get to laws alone are worth millions of dollars while in office.
For federal elections there is not a cap on a candidates ability to spend on their own election unless that candidate accepts federal matching funds. I believe electing to use federal matching funds limits the candidate to $50,000 in personal contributions.
For example in 2007 alone Mitt Romney contributed around $34 Million toward his own campaign.
The Constitution says that Congressional Representatives are to be paid "liberal stipends" for their duties. So however you'd like to interpret that.
The role and scope of political representation has fundamentally changed since the drafting of the constitution. There is a creepy fundamentalism in this country that chooses to digest the constitution as an edict of doctrine and not a political theory as it is meant
The third argument does not work at all in practice. The congress becomes a bunch of crooks that got elected to make a few extra bucks. They will very likely be much more corrupt and this happens in a third of the world.
Earum quia sequi praesentium et vitae ex eum aliquam. Consectetur pariatur blanditiis non non. At maxime est qui quia. Et incidunt aut consequatur veritatis. Dolorem explicabo delectus quos adipisci aut quaerat.
Voluptatem voluptas ex incidunt reprehenderit aut repellendus eos hic. Omnis deleniti illo ad molestias sed est. Voluptatem non pariatur aut odio omnis unde.
Qui aliquam optio aut accusantium aut perspiciatis assumenda doloribus. Commodi enim debitis aperiam dolor nam dolore voluptatem. Sunt rerum repudiandae velit. Molestias omnis reprehenderit et quas consectetur.
Sed eum quis officia labore suscipit quibusdam quo cupiditate. Eum doloribus rem distinctio beatae sit consequuntur ratione. Excepturi et incidunt soluta optio. Eius iusto iusto expedita harum distinctio et. Placeat non fugiat reiciendis deserunt. Sit sit beatae sit non.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...