Retiring GOP Lawmaker: $174,000 Isn't Enough Money for Us(businessinsider.com)
businessinsider.com
Retiring GOP Lawmaker: $174,000 Isn't Enough Money for Us
https://www.businessinsider.com/patrick-mchenry-lawmaker-pay-not-enough-money-congress-2024-1
52 comments
With today's technology, Congressmen should not be in Washington DC. Their only office needs to be in their home district that they represent. Set their pay based on a multiple of median income in their district. This should solve the pay issue and will get them focused on their constituents instead of special interest.
The deal seems obvious: parcel a pay raise for the Congress with anti-corruption measures. Perhaps even a revolving-door cool-down period (together with paid gardening leave).
These are senior decision makers. Going to Congress shouldn't mean not being able to build wealth by simply doing your job.
These are senior decision makers. Going to Congress shouldn't mean not being able to build wealth by simply doing your job.
Serving in Congress doesn't have to be a lifetime career either. We need to make lobbying illegal. There should be a mandatory retirement age for federal officials. Think about it. Why are pilots forced to retire from commercial service, but Diane Feinstein can be rolled around Capitol Hill like everything is fine? Federal officials should only be able to invest in blind trusts, instead of using their insider knowledge to publicly trade, see Mr. Pelosi.
> We need to make lobbying illegal
This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition.
Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.
This doesn't work in a democracy. If you're talking about paid lobbying, that can be done, but it largely serves to enfranchise the wealthy: when you donate to the EFF or ACLU and they lobby the Congress, they're paid lobbyists. If you can make in-person trips to D.C. with meetings set up, or better yet, have elected fly out to meet you, you don't want paid lobbyists--they're competition.
Your other suggestions have legs. But "ban lobbying" means electeds aren't allowed to talk to anyone, which is obviously stupid.
^^^ this 100%. One person's activist is another person's lobbyist. Lobbying is an efficient way to bring up issues to your elected representatives.
Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade.
Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.
Also, the pay for lobbyists (and also staffers) is kinda bleh tbh factoring YoE. A new grad SWE or PM can make more than a lobbyist who grinded as a staffer for a decade.
Going from $30k to $150k is nice, but doing that after earning $30k for 10 years and then earning $150k in a city where CoL is higher than SF sucks.
Far easier solution, elect some representatives that have actual moral fibre, backbone and enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for and won't sell out their neighbours (and themselves) for a steak dinner.
> enought of a brain to understand what they are voting for
You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources.
In a day an elected might see a bill on restaurant staffing, closing a tax loophole only applicable to skyscrapers, an infrastructure project in Alaska, a military concern in Southeast Asia and a humanitarian plea from the Middle East. There is no moral fibre in pretending you can work each of those out from first principles; that’s simply hubris.
Banning lobbying effectively says that member must refuse to meet with—while weighing those measures—the head of a restaurant union, the representative of the Alaskan community proximate to the project, anyone who has written a book or done research on the foreign areas of question, perhaps, by some peoples’ definitions, even the DoD. They must decide in a vacuum. That’s not only unreasonable, it’s a one-way road to groupthink.
You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources.
In a day an elected might see a bill on restaurant staffing, closing a tax loophole only applicable to skyscrapers, an infrastructure project in Alaska, a military concern in Southeast Asia and a humanitarian plea from the Middle East. There is no moral fibre in pretending you can work each of those out from first principles; that’s simply hubris.
Banning lobbying effectively says that member must refuse to meet with—while weighing those measures—the head of a restaurant union, the representative of the Alaskan community proximate to the project, anyone who has written a book or done research on the foreign areas of question, perhaps, by some peoples’ definitions, even the DoD. They must decide in a vacuum. That’s not only unreasonable, it’s a one-way road to groupthink.
A principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same.
> You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources.
I would love to see more of this - as far as I can tell there is almost none of it going on. I am pro listening to all the voices, anti selecting based on the biggest donation. Between "vested interests" and voting along party lines I doubt many legislators could tell you what the subject of the bill they voted on 5 minutes ago was.
> You know what smart people do? Ask questions. Use their resources.
I would love to see more of this - as far as I can tell there is almost none of it going on. I am pro listening to all the voices, anti selecting based on the biggest donation. Between "vested interests" and voting along party lines I doubt many legislators could tell you what the subject of the bill they voted on 5 minutes ago was.
> principled person can eat the free steak dinner, listen to their pitch and tell them no all the same
They would be in breach of the rules by accepting the free steak dinner [1]. I'm not saying there aren't electeds who are dumb enough to succumb to this. But they're low-hanging fruit for ambitious prosecutors.
[1] https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts
They would be in breach of the rules by accepting the free steak dinner [1]. I'm not saying there aren't electeds who are dumb enough to succumb to this. But they're low-hanging fruit for ambitious prosecutors.
[1] https://ethics.house.gov/house-ethics-manual/gifts
You can't actually sell yourself for that steak dinner. Accepting a fancy meal does count as a bribe.
There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts.
Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules.
If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
There are certain cases where you are allowed and not allowed to accept gifts.
Just go to the House Ethics website to get the rules.
If you mess around, you will get a knock on your door from the DoJ as plenty of sitting and past members are now learning.
Great. Vote for one the next time. Guess who chooses the representatives?
I did.
It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
It turns out everyone else voted for a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption that they themselves observed first hand (and placed the envelope in their pocket) for the past 15 terms, this time they are going to bring real change.
> a 16 term a candidate who promised for the 16th time that they would make illegal the kind of corruption
Out of curiosity, who was this? Corruption rarely ranks as a material issue in most races. If the bread-and-butter issues aren't in play, it's usually a culture/dignity contest.
Out of curiosity, who was this? Corruption rarely ranks as a material issue in most races. If the bread-and-butter issues aren't in play, it's usually a culture/dignity contest.
Not to mention that businesses lobbying Congress is not actually a bad thing ipso facto. It's the volume of speech- excuse me, money involved.
For the amount of power Congresspeople command, $174k is definitely meager pay.
That’s why the position tends to attract already wealthy people seeking prestige and power or normal individuals who use it as a stepping stone to million-dollar book deals or cushy jobs in the private sector.
That’s why the position tends to attract already wealthy people seeking prestige and power or normal individuals who use it as a stepping stone to million-dollar book deals or cushy jobs in the private sector.
I've heard it said that paying public servants well is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for avoiding corruption (this was as applied to Singapore). You don't want people trading power for money, and when you consider how much economic damage a corrupt person in a position of power can do, paying them well is really cheap.
Of course, it is best to couple the good pay with severe penalties for abusing power.
Of course, it is best to couple the good pay with severe penalties for abusing power.
The power is its own kind of payment. It's a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do.
> a lot of money relative to the amount of actual work they do
Anyone who believes this does not understand how power works and is maintained.
Anyone who believes this does not understand how power works and is maintained.
That may be their salary, but their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall.
Not while in office for most of them. Those that do already had those opportunities. They don't get the good payday until they retire and do lobbying or consulting.
> Not while in the office for most of them.
I was prepared to dispute this, but now I'm not certain. According to capitoltrades.com, a site that tracks US politician stock trades, 213 politicians made trades within the last 3 years. Assuming those are senators and congress members, then it's fair to say that most aren't making trades.
That said, the GP comment that asserted "their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall" isn't incorrect. 213 politicians take advantage of their elected positions to profit from the stock market.
I was prepared to dispute this, but now I'm not certain. According to capitoltrades.com, a site that tracks US politician stock trades, 213 politicians made trades within the last 3 years. Assuming those are senators and congress members, then it's fair to say that most aren't making trades.
That said, the GP comment that asserted "their power and insider knowledge makes them a lot more than that overall" isn't incorrect. 213 politicians take advantage of their elected positions to profit from the stock market.
Tie congress’s pay to the minimum wage (e.g 7 x minimum wage). If they can’t afford to live imagine the large portion of society working making a tiny fraction of what they do.
Congress should also have the same medical insurance that someone on Medicare or Medicaid does. If the coverage isn’t adequate for a senator then it isn’t adequate for a poor or aged person either.
Could someone help explain why a minimum wage exists? I would be hard-pressed to find a job paying less than $15 an hour these days, which is double the minimum wage. Seems like the free market is doing its job?
My understanding is that it is an attempt to balance power between very low skill laborers who have virtually no bargaining power and the businesses that employ them and could attempt to push wages down even farther.
Imagine a small town where people basically either work for the coal mine or the Walmart. The coal mine can't employ everyone, so for everyone else they have to work at Walmart and at whatever terms Walmart dictates. Minimum wage provides a floor on how bad the terms Walmart offers are.
It's also intended to prevent having people who work but can't afford to live (their labor being effectively subsidized by the state in the form of welfare). There's a lively discourse around whether it's effective at that.
You are correct that in some economic circumstances and some levels of minimum wage, prevailing wages will be higher. I think one could argue that if prevailing wages rise above minimum wage, it's a signal that low skill laborers have some level of bargaining power through high demand or unions.
Some states do have a minimum wage around $15/hr, though. Anecdotally, I'm seeing the same as you near me. The prevailing minimum wage seems to be between $15 and $20 an hour; that's what the chain restaurants and groceries around me are offering.
That will likely crash at some point as market conditions change (maybe robots take over, maybe age demographics change, who knows) and minimum wage should be there to be a stopgap on how far those wages can fall.
Imagine a small town where people basically either work for the coal mine or the Walmart. The coal mine can't employ everyone, so for everyone else they have to work at Walmart and at whatever terms Walmart dictates. Minimum wage provides a floor on how bad the terms Walmart offers are.
It's also intended to prevent having people who work but can't afford to live (their labor being effectively subsidized by the state in the form of welfare). There's a lively discourse around whether it's effective at that.
You are correct that in some economic circumstances and some levels of minimum wage, prevailing wages will be higher. I think one could argue that if prevailing wages rise above minimum wage, it's a signal that low skill laborers have some level of bargaining power through high demand or unions.
Some states do have a minimum wage around $15/hr, though. Anecdotally, I'm seeing the same as you near me. The prevailing minimum wage seems to be between $15 and $20 an hour; that's what the chain restaurants and groceries around me are offering.
That will likely crash at some point as market conditions change (maybe robots take over, maybe age demographics change, who knows) and minimum wage should be there to be a stopgap on how far those wages can fall.
Given your small town example, it makes it seem like if we are going to have a minimum wage, it should be legislated lower than the Federal Government. As you said, states are moving past the federal minimum wage already, and it is seemingly successful.
It makes some degree of sense for the federal government to have a minimum wage because they have welfare programs. I don't think it's desirable to allow companies to pay wages low enough that the employees qualify for federal welfare.
> As you said, states are moving past the federal minimum wage already, and it is seemingly successful.
Sure, that's basically the current system. The federal government sets an absolute minimum wage, states can set a higher (but now lower) minimum wage, and in some circumstances, cities can set a minimum wage higher than the state.
It works well in concept. I don't think we're great at adjusting the federal minimum wage for states that don't set their own, but that's more a reflection of stagnation in the political system as a whole than an indictment of the minimum wage system.
> As you said, states are moving past the federal minimum wage already, and it is seemingly successful.
Sure, that's basically the current system. The federal government sets an absolute minimum wage, states can set a higher (but now lower) minimum wage, and in some circumstances, cities can set a minimum wage higher than the state.
It works well in concept. I don't think we're great at adjusting the federal minimum wage for states that don't set their own, but that's more a reflection of stagnation in the political system as a whole than an indictment of the minimum wage system.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/minimum-wage/2022/home.htm
> In 2022, 78.7 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.6 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 141,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 882,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.3 percent of all hourly paid workers, little changed from 2021. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
It has gotten significantly better, but it's still easy to forget about the other 1%.
> In 2022, 78.7 million workers age 16 and older in the United States were paid at hourly rates, representing 55.6 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 141,000 workers earned exactly the prevailing federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 882,000 workers had wages below the federal minimum. Together, these 1.0 million workers with wages at or below the federal minimum made up 1.3 percent of all hourly paid workers, little changed from 2021. This remains well below the percentage of 13.4 recorded in 1979, when data were first collected on a regular basis. (See table 10.)
It has gotten significantly better, but it's still easy to forget about the other 1%.
I would really like to understand what these jobs actually are. How many of these people are taken advantage of due to their immigration status?
If no job was paying less than a living wage it wouldn’t harm anything to guarantee you get a living wage via the minimum wage either.
[deleted]
> these days
Sure, these kind of regulations feel unnecessary at times of high level of employment. But sooner or later there will be another economic downturn and a lot of people out of work.
Sure, these kind of regulations feel unnecessary at times of high level of employment. But sooner or later there will be another economic downturn and a lot of people out of work.
I mean, I kind of agree. It's not that much money especially if you have to bounce around between your home city and DC. But at the same time, I wish government compensation was tied to measurable targets like the health of the economy, etc. There isn't really any incentive for people in government to do anything other than campaign for reelection and coast.
I remember someone explaining in the before times how this was a real fault line between the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. For most of the Conservatives, working as an MP was a cut in pay vs their opportunities; while for many members in Labour, MP was the best paid job and pension they'd had. While in government, the perqs of power and the chance at cabinet will be enough to balance, but once out of power, sitting in opposition had no appeal. As a result, the Cameron had a terrible time finding talent in his first term after 10 years of opposition had thinned the ranks.
The US Senate seems to always have been a playground for the rich, but the House shows a bit of this. AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos). The more stable Rs are busy making money and having happy lives.
The US Senate seems to always have been a playground for the rich, but the House shows a bit of this. AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos). The more stable Rs are busy making money and having happy lives.
> AOC now has the best paid job of her life, and seems to thrive. While the Rs in the House are dominated by grievance (Boebert) and grift (Santos)
AOC and Taylor-Greene are living their best lives in Congress. (Unlike Boebert, they're popular with their voters.) Closer to the centre you find cross-sector competence that is better remunerated in the private sector.
AOC and Taylor-Greene are living their best lives in Congress. (Unlike Boebert, they're popular with their voters.) Closer to the centre you find cross-sector competence that is better remunerated in the private sector.
Can't remember where I saw this now but IIRC in an interview AOC said she doesn't really enjoy serving in Congress all that much and wasn't sure how long she'd be doing it for. Could always just be saying that for effect, of course, but I'd imagine both AOC and MTG could quit tomorrow, get jobs as on-air analysts on cable news networks and make significantly more money (and probably have a better quality of life).
> I'd imagine both AOC and MTG could quit tomorrow, get jobs as on-air analysts on cable news networks and make significantly more money
Fair enough, this is totally correct.
Fair enough, this is totally correct.
The hours suck, there's a lot of politicking (unsurprising), and if you're a junior member in either party you gotta pay your dues which takes forever. And there's a bit of unofficial hazing (eg. the freshman get the crappy offices with no AC, which is hell in DC during summer)
Those who stick around either really believe in their cause, have a strong following back home, and/or have invested heavily in living in DC by buying a house or have family ties (eg. Pelosi)
Those who stick around either really believe in their cause, have a strong following back home, and/or have invested heavily in living in DC by buying a house or have family ties (eg. Pelosi)
When you take into account the charisma, contacts and drive it takes to become a member of Congress, someone like that is going to have a lot more opportunities that make more than $174k and involve a lot less hassle.
Plus throw in having to maintain two places to live. If you come from an area with high real estate values, that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary.
Plus throw in having to maintain two places to live. If you come from an area with high real estate values, that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary.
> that and your place in DC are going to take a big bite out of that salary
Many freshman lawmakers live together in D.C. From what I've heard, it's both fun and productive, with the stories I've heard reminescent of start-ups' garage days.
Many freshman lawmakers live together in D.C. From what I've heard, it's both fun and productive, with the stories I've heard reminescent of start-ups' garage days.
[deleted]
I was about to comment that I basically agree with this, that since Congresspeople have to maintain both home state and DC residences that they should be reimbursed for the extra expense of needing to be in DC.
However, then I found an article that said this already happened for this year: https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living...
So, basically, House members already got a raise of $34k this year. The fact this wasn't even mentioned in this businessinsider article makes me think Patrick McHenry should STFU.
However, then I found an article that said this already happened for this year: https://www.closeup.org/a-new-rule-results-in-cost-of-living...
So, basically, House members already got a raise of $34k this year. The fact this wasn't even mentioned in this businessinsider article makes me think Patrick McHenry should STFU.
$34k after tax (which Congress members pay) becomes around $20k after tax, which does help a bit, but still makes it very expensive to maintain a 2nd residence in a city where Studios go for $2300-2500/mo and there isn't any rent control.
Is the $34k considered taxable income? Reimbursement for bussiness travel is generally not taxed. I'm not sure how this applies to rent when work requires a second residence; but it doesn't seem that crazy for those to be tax deductable as way. Especially when the people writing the laws are also the potential tax payers.
Housing stipends are a fringe benefit. They're taxable as income.
Sounds like they need to move to cheaper places and commute in like normal DMVers do.
The hours on the Hill are insane. Starting work around 7-9am and finishing up by 8-9pm was fairly common. As such, you want to be close to work.
It's essentially PM type hours without PM type pay.
You easily earn more and work less hours as a GS 12-14 with much less stress (GS-15 sucks though because you start dealing with SES and Political Appointees)
It's essentially PM type hours without PM type pay.
You easily earn more and work less hours as a GS 12-14 with much less stress (GS-15 sucks though because you start dealing with SES and Political Appointees)
In no sane world is >$150k bad pay in any city in the USA.
Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so. Maybe over time it will reduce the division between members when you’re forced to live with them and realize that they’re humans too.
Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation, they shouldn’t be rewarded with more money.
If I only shipped two features over two years at my job I’d be rightly fired. Certain members of Congress think that you can literally object to everything and grind things to halt then have the audacity to call this “government.”
Force them to do their job and maybe they can discuss an additional raise (they already got one this year).
Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so. Maybe over time it will reduce the division between members when you’re forced to live with them and realize that they’re humans too.
Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation, they shouldn’t be rewarded with more money.
If I only shipped two features over two years at my job I’d be rightly fired. Certain members of Congress think that you can literally object to everything and grind things to halt then have the audacity to call this “government.”
Force them to do their job and maybe they can discuss an additional raise (they already got one this year).
> In no sane world is >$150k bad pay in any city in the USA
It's not bad on average, but it skews hiring towards the wealthy, as those without wealth (self made or generational) cannot build the wealth needed to afford a high CoL city like DC.
Working 10-15 years on $30k as a staffer to end up making $150k at most as a lobbyist or maybe $174k as a House Rep while still having to pay off undergraduate and graduate school debt (and that too from private or private adjacent programs as where you studied does matter on the hill) means you have barely any savings to afford buying property or renting in most of the DMV.
> Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so
They used to but stopped by the 90s for liability reasons.
> Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation
How do you define "meaningful"? It's the politics and PM equivalent of "Lines of Code"
The rate of enacted and passed legislation has largely remained constant since the 1970s [0].
Most legislation and work done on the Hill doesn't come up on CNN/Fox/MSNBC/NewsNation/Twitter/TikTok/FB because it's topics that are mind numbing to most people who aren't nerds.
[0] - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
It's not bad on average, but it skews hiring towards the wealthy, as those without wealth (self made or generational) cannot build the wealth needed to afford a high CoL city like DC.
Working 10-15 years on $30k as a staffer to end up making $150k at most as a lobbyist or maybe $174k as a House Rep while still having to pay off undergraduate and graduate school debt (and that too from private or private adjacent programs as where you studied does matter on the hill) means you have barely any savings to afford buying property or renting in most of the DMV.
> Maybe Congress should build some dormitories and allow members to board with each other if they choose so
They used to but stopped by the 90s for liability reasons.
> Congress barely passes any meaningful legislation
How do you define "meaningful"? It's the politics and PM equivalent of "Lines of Code"
The rate of enacted and passed legislation has largely remained constant since the 1970s [0].
Most legislation and work done on the Hill doesn't come up on CNN/Fox/MSNBC/NewsNation/Twitter/TikTok/FB because it's topics that are mind numbing to most people who aren't nerds.
[0] - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
How? $170k is at least upper middle class income.