TIME: Almanac 1990s

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ TIME: Almanac 1990s / Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso / time / 012389 / 01238900.051 < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1994-03-25 | 8KB | 153 lines

<text id=89TT0249> <title> Jan. 23, 1989: Are They Worth It? </title> <history> TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1989 Jan. 23, 1989 Barbara Bush:The Silver Fox </history> <article> <source>Time Magazine</source> <hdr> NATION, Page 12 Are They Worth It? </hdr><body> Congress may give itself a whopping raise by ducking a vote -- and blaming it on a commission The most talked about subject in Washington last week was not the Bush transition, the budget deficit or the woes of Mayor Marion Barry, but one that is close to the heart of every bureaucrat -- and every American: pay raises. A salary-review board has proposed hefty pay hikes for 3,000 top Government officials, including Cabinet officers, federal judges and the 535 members of the House and Senate. The whole pay package -- including a 51% raise, to an annual $135,000, for members of Congress -- will cost $300 million in its first year. Even as the Bush Administration begins its uphill struggle to slash the deficit, the new pay raises will go into effect without serious congressional scrutiny or a meaningful vote. Many of those in the capital who are talking about the pay hike favor it, as do students of government who contend that too manLy of the most talented men and women pick private industry over public service because of the siren song of much higher pay. But for many Americans "out there" who already feel that life inside the Washington Beltway is a world vastly different from their own, the prospect of such big raises right at budget-cutting time is cause for concern, derision, even anger. At their current salary of $89,500 a year, Congressmen already make more than most American wage earners. The pay raise, nonetheless, is nearly certain to be adopted without a real debate. Unwilling to risk the wrath of their constituents by arguing publicly for salary hikes, lawmakers in 1967 devised a means of getting more money while ducking the blame. They established a Commission on Executive, Legislative and Judicial Salaries to review federal pay scales every four years. In December the commission suggested that top Government salaries be made more competitive. Accordingly, the President's pay would leap from $200,000 to $350,000 in 1993; Cabinet Secretaries' from $99,500 to $155,000; and most federal judges' from $89,500 to $135,000. President Reagan included those recommendations in the 1990-fiscal-year budget he submitted to Congress last week, thereby initiating a process by which the proposed pay hikes will become effective Feb. 8 -- unless they are rejected by both houses. When last faced with the opportunity to turn thumbs down on a salary hike, the Senate in 1987 voted 88-6 against a $12,100 increase -- fully confident that the House would save the day. After Representatives denounced the raises in furious speeches, the House also rejected pay raises in a voice vote. There was only one hitch: the debate took place after the 30-day waiting period had expired and the raises had already gone into effect. A similar charade is now taking place against the opposition of only a handful of legislators. New Hampshire Republican Senator Gordon Humphrey has called for an early Senate vote, followed by "public pressure on the House to hold a vote before the deadline." In the House, Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri has demanded that Speaker Jim Wright require a vote on the raises before the waiting period expires. "If we lack the courage to face an issue as clear cut as that of lining our own pockets," Petri asked, "how can we expect the public to have confidence in us on more complicated issues?" Petri's question will go unanswered: Wright has not even scheduled a debate on the issue. The recommendations by the commission do have a catch, sort of. In exchange for the pay increase, it urges Congress to ban the lucrative speaking fees doled out by companies and lobbies interested in making friends on Capitol Hill. House members are allowed to pocket up to $26,850 in honorariums annually; Senators can keep $35,800. Last year Representatives took in an average of $12,000 in honorariums; for Senators, the median was $23,000. Skeptics warn that once the pay raise goes into effect, the pressure on Congress to do away with honorariums will inevitably tail off. Apart from drying up a source of ethically questionable payments, the most convincing rationale for raising government pay is that better salaries will attract highly qualified people to government service. But while that logic may apply to the top-notch executives needed for senior posts in Cabinet departments and lawyers skilled enough to adorn the federal bench, it has little to do with Congress. Despite the alleged financial hardships of congressional service, vacant House and Senate seats never go begging. And few incumbents ever retire because of financial straits. While some younger Congressmen with growing families find it hard to maintain homes in both high-priced Washington and their home states, many others are not pinched. At least 1 out of every 3 Senators is a millionaire. Although many newly elected lawmakers arrive relatively impecunious, those who remain in office long enough often become wealthy. Critics like Ralph Nader point out that congressional expenses are one of the fastest-growing areas in the federal budget. "Congressional pay is 48% higher than it was in 1980, and now they say they deserve more," charges the consumer advocate. "Our power elite wants to be an economic elite as well." In a report last year, Nader noted that in 1988 Congress spent $1.97 billion just to keep itself going, $220 million more than the previous year. Most of the expenditures are devoted to genuine legislative needs. Each House member, for example, receives $411,099 to hire aides as well as a sum ranging from $105,000 to $360,000 to rent office space in his district. A minimum of $67,000 is provided for office, telephones and travel back and forth between Washington and home base. Senators receive larger allocations in these categories. In addition, members of both houses have the privilege of sending unlimited free "franked" mail to their constituents (at a total cost of $113 million in 1988) and the use of recording studios located in the Capitol to prepare spots for broadcast to the folks back home. But Congress has also granted its members a package of fringe benefits cushy enough to provoke the envy of all but the best compensated private executives. Plenty of the perks go well beyond generous pensions and insurance: cheap haircuts in subsidized House and Senate hair salons; free entry to a members-only gymnasium; special license tags permitting ticket-free parking anyplace in Washington except in front of fire hydrants, fire stations and loading docks; at-home access to long-distance telephone lines over which the member or his family can call without charge. In a society that rewards good work with hard cash, Congress may deserve a raise. The great majority of Congressmen are dedicated public servants who face awesome responsibilities as they attempt to steer the U.S. through a difficult and uncertain time. But at the very least, the public deserves a forthright debate on the matter before its representatives give themselves a big raise. Instead they are slipping it through the back door. </body></article> </text>