Should We Cut Congressional Salaries?

Every once in a while I see the same idea making the rounds on Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere. The idea is that we should cut salaries for politicians so that the money can be spent on other, presumably more worthwhile, needs – like military salaries and social security benefits, for example.

The most recent picture is this one …

The figures in this image are not accurate, AND they trivialize the issue.

While I understand the sentiment, I can’t “pass it on.”

Most importantly, it’s not accurate.

None of these salaries are “for life.” The Presidential pension as of 2008 was about $191,300, and the average congressional pension in 2007 was $53,000. The President’s salary is $400,000, not $450,000. The President does receive another $169,000 in other cash benefits (most of it nontaxable) and a place to live. No doubt, a pretty sweet deal, but the figure tossed about is inaccurate.

These are not outrageous compensation packages.

I know the numbers are large when compared to the salaries of average Americans, but these compensation packages pale in comparison to what executives earn in the private sector. YES, YES, YES, I realize that the President and members of Congress earn their living from our taxes. I understand that. Anyone paying attention to public policy over the last few decades, though, must realize that companies “competing” in our “free market” are subsidized by our tax dollars too.

Cutting the salaries won’t solve the problem.

Many proponents of this idea like to mention that Congress has done this once before. This is true. Given the economic circumstances in 1933, this was probably a good idea, but I am not sure it was what people think it was. In 2012 dollars, Congress cut salaries from $151,000 to $143,000, a cut of about five percent (5%). If Congress members took the same cut today, their salaries would drop to $164,000. This would save $5,350,000 – an extra $60 per year for each soldier deployed in Afghanistan. If we split this up for all military personnel, we get $4 per year for each person on active duty. If we include reservists, each can have an additional $1.75 per year.

I know I didn’t count pensions in this number, but it seems obvious, at least to me, that we are getting nowhere with this logic.

I think we do an injustice to the idea if we trivialize the numbers like this. Anyone who puts her life on the line every day to protect our freedom deserves more than $38,000 a year. No question about it. But we are not going to find the money in salaries.

So, what is the solution?

Perhaps we don’t need 1,400,000+ active duty personnel. If we stationed troops in fewer places we might be able to pay the ones we have fairly. Perhaps we should look more closely at the huge staffs our politicians have.

Maybe we do something about the hidden taxes. Policy in this country is made based on secret deals made behind closed doors. Somebody is paying for that. We like to complain about lobbyists, but we pay for that. We buy the products that support the profit margins of these corporations and they use those profits to pay lobbyists. Or worse, they pay more than they can afford, then fail miserably, and ask for our tax money to bail them out. Eliminate the connection between wealth and influence in our government and we might be on to something.