They Really Deserve a Raise

Less than five months after the House wilted under the heat of an organized pressure campaign and voted down higher pay for members of Congress and other federal officials, Speaker Thomas S. Foley is again saying that judicial and executive branch pay should be raised, preferably by action this year. He’s right, and it would be just as right to extend the prospect of higher pay to Congress as well, however politically unpalatable that idea might seem right now. The fact is that pay scales in all branches of government have fallen far behind what they ought to be. Worse, in the case of Congress, the present pay ceiling continues to provide an excuse for accepting outside fees, thus inescapably corrupting the legislative process.

A lot of people, to be sure, remain distinctly unimpressed by calls for higher federal pay. It’s not hard to see why. At $89,500 a year, a member of Congress, a federal district judge, a civilian secretary of one of the armed services or a deputy secretary in the Department of State, Defense or Treasury already earns far more than the great majority of people. Indeed, these salaries, like the $99,500 Cabinet officers are paid annually, puttheir recipients among the 4% or 5% best-paid Americans. People who have to get by on a lot less have every reason to wonder why certain well-paid public servants should be paid even more.

The best answer, at least for the judicial and executive branches, has to do with equity and pay competitiveness. Americans want high-quality public servants; that, we think, can be taken as a given. But quality is a marketable value.

There are, happily for the nation, a lot of talented and selfless people in the federalgovernment who are willing to work for less than they could earn elsewhere because they aregenuinely committed to public service. It’s one thing, though, to be prepared to work for less; it’s something else to be asked to accept a rate of pay that is effectively punitive.

A good lawyer invited to the federal bench is usually asked to give up an annual income three or more times greater than what he will earn as a judge. And a Cabinet officer or senior executive-branch official almost certainly could expect to earn four, six or even 10 times as much in the private sector. No one has ever suggested that government should pay such people what the private sector offers. But certainly, if talented people are to be drawn to and remain in federal service, they deserve to be paid 40% or 50% more than what they are offered now.

And Congress? The Senate and House are institutions where the idea that you get what you pay for almost certainly doesn’t apply, because as an institution Congress really doesn’t compete with the private sector. The real issue with Congress is that its members should be paid more primarily so they will no longer have an excuse for accepting money from special pleaders in the form of “honoraria,” speaking fees or phony book “royalties.” What’s needed, in short, is a congressional pay increase of, say, 40%, which is comparable to the Senate’s present limit on outside income, welded to a ban on accepting any fees or rewards for outside appearances, talks, publications or whatever. That provision ought to seriously weaken, even if it doesn’t wholly eliminate, the temptation to sell votes and influence for cash and other favors.

Yes, Congress should be held to a strict standard of legislative honesty even without the incentive of higher pay. The unpleasant fact is that we’re not likely to achieve the first without providing the second. In any event, Congress will probably be asked to reconsider the question of higher federal pay before the year is out. This time it ought to do the right thing and vote senior federal officials, members of Congress included, the pay boosts that are so long overdue.