Impoverished on Capitol Hill

For those of us who live in Washington, D.C., the debates in Congress that project themselves across the nation often have more than a little irony.

A current case in point is the furor over the proposed congressional pay hike. We have heard a virtual chorus of complaints and self-pity from members of Congress -- liberals and conservatives alike -- who say they are not making enough money. Members of Congress make $89,500 per year. Lucrative pension programs are added on to those salaries, plus speaking honorariums, as well as a vast array of congressional perks worth tens of thousands more -- free travel, free medical care, housing deductions, and Diners Club cards, for example.

The original proposal called for a 50 percent pay raise, elevating each member of Congress to $135,000 a year. The defense of the impoverished legislators is that the Washington area is expensive and the cost of maintaining two residences, for example, is prohibitive.

For many people around the country, including other residents of the District of Columbia, the arguments on behalf of the pay raise are a bitter pill to swallow. This same Congress refused to raise the minimum wage for the poorest of citizens. And, over the last eight years, Congress has been slashing and gutting the social programs that most benefit those on the bottom of American life.

The cost of living, especially housing, in the nation's capital and its suburbs is truly outrageous. But Washington, D.C., as has often been described in these pages, is a "tale of two cities." From the vantage point of those who inhabit the "other Washington," the idea of a pay raise for those who rule the "official Washington" is obscene. Has anyone suggested that District of Columbia welfare payments be raised 50 percent to help with the city's increasing cost of living?

BEYOND SUCH GROSS inequality lies an even deeper issue imbedded in the assumptions that would justify pay raises in the Congress. The most often-used argument on behalf of the salary increase (and the one used by George Bush in his support of the proposal) goes something like this: "If we are unwilling to offer our lawmakers significant compensation, we stand to lose our best people, who will go to the private sector where the rewards are much higher." That argument seems to sober the political commentators who never really challenge it, but instead seem to hope it won't be true.

But let's take a closer look. The fear is that potential members of Congress may opt for making more money in private business if the income from public service isn't high enough. Put simply, we would lose those who want to be rich.

What a tragedy that would be! Instead of the lawyers, corporate executives, and business entrepreneurs who must make the difficult choice between the current six-figure lifestyles of members of Congress and the even more lucrative rewards of the private sector, we might begin to see some other kinds of people taking their places -- perhaps some school teachers, social workers, union stewards, or small farmers. Those people are quite used to living at levels far below present congressional standards.

Without a pay raise for members of Congress, we are likely to discourage people who want to become wealthy. That's about the best argument I can think of against the salary hike.

The Congress is now run by rich people and those who would like to be. Of course, I should hasten to add that there are notable and noble exceptions. But after living here for almost 15 years, I have to say that there are, in fact, very, very few exceptions to that rule, regardless of political ideology. Wouldn't it be interesting to totally eliminate economic incentive from public service and see who we might get?

There is no member of Congress who can't afford plenty to eat, comfortable housing, convenient transportation, excellent health care, and a good education for their children. That's an awful lot more than many Americans, including their neighbors in the District, can now expect to enjoy.

The pay raise proposal failed not because most members decided they didn't need or deserve it, but because the fear of political fallout was too great. The whole discussion has given me an idea. Let's even further discourage those who want to become rich from entering public service. Let's propose a congressional pay cut. They really do deserve it. And so do we.

Jim Wallis is editor-in-chief of Sojourners.