It Helps No One for Members of Congress Not to Get Paid During a Shutdown

It’s a stunt. And it says a lot about our current Congress.

John Zangas, a furloughed worker, protests the government shutdown on Capitol Hill on October 2, 2013 in Washington, DC. 
National Journal
Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Oct. 3, 2013, 2 a.m.

Mem­bers of Con­gress will get paid $174,000 this year. But at least 100 mem­bers of Con­gress from both parties have pro­posed to re­fuse or give away their pay dur­ing the gov­ern­ment shut­down in solid­ar­ity with fur­loughed fed­er­al work­ers.

Many of these state­ments are from mem­bers who are pledging to donate their salary dur­ing this term to char­ity, which of course no one would com­plain about. But some mem­bers are try­ing dif­fer­ent routes. Rep. Rick No­lan, D-Minn., in­tro­duced a bill Tues­day that would re­quire mem­bers of Con­gress to have their salary with­held dur­ing a shut­down. House Eth­ics Com­mit­tee Chair­man Mike Con­away, R-Texas, sent a let­ter to the chief ad­min­is­trat­ive of­ficer ask­ing for his pay to be with­held for the dur­a­tion of the shut­down.

These high-pro­file dona­tions and pay re­quests have cre­ated a not-in­sub­stan­tial amount of pos­it­ive buzz for mem­bers of Con­gress dur­ing a time when al­most everything be­ing said about them is neg­at­ive. But this isn’t only a PR stunt. It’s also a mo­ment that high­lights how re­moved mem­bers of Con­gress are from the real­ity of most of Amer­ica. 

Most Amer­ic­ans can’t just de­mand to have their pay docked or with­held, or eas­ily part with an un­known amount of their salary. Be­cause most Amer­ic­ans aren’t nearly as wealthy as mem­bers of Con­gress.

The me­di­an net worth of mem­bers of Con­gress was $966,001 in 2011, ac­cord­ing to an ana­lys­is by Open­Secrets.org. That’s an es­tim­ated av­er­age of $856,009 for House mem­bers and $2,531,528 for sen­at­ors. The same ana­lys­is found that more than 48 per­cent of Con­gress has an es­tim­ated net worth of more than $1 mil­lion.

Let’s look at the flip side: In 2010, a Fed­er­al Re­serve sur­vey found that the av­er­age fam­ily net worth was $77,300, down 40 per­cent from the be­gin­ning of the re­ces­sion in 2007. The av­er­age fed­er­al em­ploy­ee had a salary of $78,500 as of this year. Over­all me­di­an house­hold in­come in 2012 was $51,017.

So, yeah, dock­ing the nearly $7,000 con­gres­sion­al gross pay of a two-week shut­down (if it goes that long) sounds rough for most Amer­ic­ans. But for a large num­ber of mem­bers of Con­gress, that $7,000 — which is nearly 14 per­cent of the an­nu­al me­di­an house­hold in­come — means al­most noth­ing. That pay would mean even less if it was just kept in the mighty cof­fers of the U.S. gov­ern­ment.

There’s noth­ing in­her­ently wrong with mem­bers of Con­gress be­ing wealth­i­er than av­er­age Amer­ic­ans. But for most mem­bers — in­clud­ing people like Rep. Mi­chael Mc­Caul, R-Texas., with an es­tim­ated net worth of up to half-a-bil­lion dol­lars — donat­ing your shut­down salary to a char­ity doesn’t really mean much skin off your back. Rep. Dar­rell Issa, R-Cal­if., who joins Mc­Caul as one of the top two wealth­i­est mem­bers of Con­gress, says he already donates his en­tire con­gres­sion­al salary to char­ity.

Un­doubtedly, gen­er­os­ity is something Amer­ic­ans would like to see from their rep­res­ent­at­ives. But if a stand­ard for work­ing in Con­gress means that you should be com­fort­able for­go­ing an as-yet-un­known peri­od of pay, then there’s not much of a hope that Con­gress could be­come more eco­nom­ic­ally rep­res­ent­at­ive of the rest of the coun­try. 

Mem­bers of Con­gress’ re­li­ance on out­side in­come can also have ad­verse ef­fects on polit­ics and policy. It shouldn’t be the case that, for real money, mem­bers need to look past Con­gress and through the re­volving-door to plush lob­by­ing gigs, as count­less former mem­bers of Con­gress have done.

Oh, and one oth­er thing. Chan­ging the way Con­gress is paid mid-ses­sion is un­con­sti­tu­tion­al.

Here’s the 27th Amend­ment:

No law, vary­ing the com­pens­a­tion for the ser­vices of the Sen­at­ors and Rep­res­ent­at­ives, shall take ef­fect, un­til an elec­tion of Rep­res­ent­at­ives shall have in­ter­vened.

There has not been an “elec­tion of Rep­res­ent­at­ives” in the last week. And un­less this shut­down goes on for long enough, there won’t be. And really, if the shut­down went that long, con­gres­sion­al pay would be the least of any­one’s wor­ries.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×