TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/012389/01238900.051

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 7KB | 129 lines

NATION, Page 12

Are They Worth It?

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.