TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/012389/01238900.051

Text File | 1992-09-23 | 7.2 KB | 140 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.