Congress Votes No on Pay Raise

Much has been said, and even more has been written, about the recent congressional attempt to award itself a 50% pay hike. With the forced rejection of the measure by both houses, the claim is being made that great talents in this nation will only seek employment in the private sector rather than an underpaid government job.

This claim may have some validity. Certainly the leaders of our nation deserve compensation commensurate with their responsibility--and no one doubts that running this country is an awesome and mind-boggling task.

However, if we are to compare government service to the private sector, then should we not also compare fiscal responsibility? The bottom line is this: A pay increase may be well deserved, but certainly not when our leaders preside over a financially imperiled institution--the United States--and fail to resolve this country’s financial mire year after year.

What if Lee Iacocca had given himself a bonus prior to bringing Chrysler back from the edge of bankruptcy? Or if Peter Ueberroth had received grandiose compensation for his work on behalf of the 1984 Olympics--before the games ended in financial and athletic triumph? In fact, Iacocca took a $1 salary during his corporation’s tough years and Ueberroth was only awarded a bonus after he proved the Los Angeles Olympic Games could be run like a solvent business.

So to those who feel our leaders deserve a pay increase--I say, great! Let it be commensurate with performance. Let’s give our leaders an incentive--a 75% pay increase--25% per year during three consecutive years of a surplus, after the elimination of the federal deficit!

PHIL LOBEL

Los Angeles