Speaking of what people deserve, I found the editors’ of the Washington Post’s umbrage over Congressional pay bordered on the unhinged:
Limits on lawmakers’ pay affect congressional staffers who are not allowed to make more than members, which, in turn, puts Congress at a clear disadvantage in competing for talent. Others who support a raise, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), point to the effects of pay and financial pressures on those who serve. “I do not want Congress, at the end of the day,†said Mr. McCarthy, “to be a place where only millionaires serve.â€
Presently, Congress includes members who never earned more than $40,000 a year in their lives before getting elected to Congress and those who earned millions. I’m not as concerned about Congress being a place where millionaires serve as I am about the many Congressmen who became millionaires as a consequence of what is euphemistically called “serving”. The evidence that more pay would attract more talent is nonexistent. The sole talent required to be elected to Congress is a talent at getting votes. Is that really worth paying for?
How about this for a proposal for Congressional pay. Total income for a member of Congress should be limited to three times the median income of his or her district. At least that would align incentives in the right direction. Those earning more than that would have the balance taxed away; those earning less would have their incomes topped off.
While I’m on the subject, why is the federal government the only major organization in the United States that doesn’t do its business by teleconferencing? Being able to remain in their home districts would certainly take the pressure to maintain two residences away.
