The per annum salary of the House of Representatives is $174,000. The median household salary of Mississippi is $43,567, with the median household income of Holmes County, Mississippi being $21,375, the poorest area in the nation. That’s %12 of the salary for the current representative of the same area. In an effort to ensure an incentive structure for bettering the lives of the constituency, I propose representatives live at the level of their constituency. This will also ensure that the nation stay in the hands of the citizenry that truly wish to increase the prosperity of their districts, and will disincentivize a permanent governing class. This will not be a “capped” or fixed salary, and will rise and lower quarterly with the median salary of the district.
This is definitely one of my main concerns.
My area’s Median household income is 37000$ annually. My representatives earn 4.7 times more than the people they represent. And this is similar across the country, to include Mississippi apparently! However, when we should also look at areas where the median household income is greater than the 174k annually. Given that there are areas in which that is the case, the representative officials’ salaries should not exceed the already planned 174k.
Additionally, this would apply to all elected representatives. Governors, Senators, House Representatives, and anyone who is an elected representative this would apply to them as well.
My suggestion is that there should be two data points in determining the representative’s salary.
#1 - Find the Median income of each district, add 15% (they are putting themselves out there afterall).
#2 - If that number does not exceed 174000$ annually, then that is their salary. If it does exceed 174000$ annually then their salary is 174000$ annually.
Additionally, the Serviceman’s Civil Relief Act (2003) allows for the limiting of interest of service members while deployed. A similar act should be applied to representatives, which would be an overall benefit while in office. This would help alleviate the financial burden while in office. Afterall, some representatives live in high-cost areas of living and a significant drop in salary may negatively affect their financial situation. And while I understand that there may be pushback against this concept of what I am proposing I would implore you to think about 2nd and 3rd order effects. For instance, if someone in my area is taking a break from their 100k a year job in order to become a representative in order to exact a positive change and they were making ends meet then and now they have 42.5k a year they may become delinquent in their debt. Which makes them a soft target for exploitation and bribes. Both of which are antithetical to what we are trying to accomplish here.
Therefore, the reduction and/or elimination of interest on their debt would also provide a way for them to, in the above listed scenario, combat any undo negative influence from a financial perspective.
Lastly, I agree that this is not a cap, but rather a floating number. And that increasing one’s constituent’s salaries would thusly increase theirs. Although, I don’t’ think quarterly would be the right answer but re-evaluate the median income (and representative) salary during Tax Season, since that is a good point of review anyways. Additionally, this would give the IRS a positive function within the American zeitgeist as they would be the ones who would be conducting the math in which salaries were determined.
Salary should be as a volunteer, or they are not doing it as a public servant. They do need help, travel, etc., per diem, but NO personal gain.
Darren,
Your 2nd and 3rd effect arguments were brought up to me after I initially wrote my suggestion. I tend to agree with you in them.
The median income of DC right now is $101,000 per annum, which is a problem of its own. Yet I still feel this is too much of an incentive to become laxed in their ambitions to better the state of their constituency.
The idea of a servicemember civil relief act-style allotment, perhaps one that provides housing and a pause on all debts in particular (though not an elimination of one as this would open congress to be a den of wretches) is of particular interest to me.
Regarding the suggestion of their median income having a 15% increase, I would be open to that idea, were they to further advance themselves through their memberships into committees and/or merit.
For example-Take for instance one junior representative joins the small business committee and obtains results through a subcommittee investigation, or successfully pushes a bill proposed by the constituency through the committee. They get a 15% raise. These raises can even be stacked, if they’re so successful. And this is in no way a comprehensive bracket of reasons for raises while in office, just an example.
On the contrary of that example, if they are censured/reprimanded, they are docked in their pay, or returned to their base median income of their district. If they’ve successfully raised the median income of their district, then this will not injure them too much. A check in this matter, I believe, would disinsentivize violative actions and better hold them accountable to their constituency.
Regarding the idea of taking bribes and being exploited, or corruption in general, I have a much more broad idea for such government corruption that I haven’t quite been able to put into words yet. It may be another proposal I write at some point.
Richard,
As a matter of human nature, it is highly unlikely that any person would take a job as a public servant as a volunteer for an extended period of time. While Congress is a place of public service, these are not people who are taking a vacation to go help hurricane victims and the going back to their lives. Congress is a full time job, and to not be paid for a full time job is not conducive to a free nation. Public service is primarily about incentive structure, not charity. Additionally, the removal of salary removes all meritocracy within governmental structures, which is a key ingredient of all successful nations.
While I agree that one should not go into government merely for the purposes of enriching themselves, I cannot overlook the simple fact of human nature.
I actually have similar thoughts on this…
Lets take my area’s 37k annual household income, since I used it in the above example, and add the 15% which makes my representative’s salary 42.5k annually. Now, that’s their base. No more, but once we go into the Tax season and determine the new median salary for the upcoming year we can also find the representative’s approval rating. Let’s say it at 74%, which is what my Governor’s 2023 approval rating (which apparently is the second best in the nation). The approval rating would, essentially, be how much of that 42.5k they earn. So, my governor’s salary cap would be the 42.5k (assuming the median income didn’t also change, which to be honest I have not calculated last year’s median to this year’s but it neither here nor there for this scenario at the moment) to which he would earn 74% of that cap for a salary for the next year of 31,450$.
Also, given that a newly elected representative would not have any approval rating - they would get 100% of their 42.5k as per this suggestion. Any subsequent year would see the marriage between the Median income of their constituents and their approval rating.
PS -
I also think that all representatives should fall under a Congressional style Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The UCMJ is the additional rules and regulations that govern our military, so Congress (to include Governors, Mayors, etc) would fall under a similar system. It could be something to the effect of Congressional Code of Justice (just spit-balling naming conventions at this point). In it, it would dictate all sorts of new rules for representatives and any punitive measures to be taken if they violate it. Congress would have an Non-Judicial Punishment route as well as a Congressional Courts Martial. There kinda is that now but the public RARELY sees any punitive actions taken against our representatives.
Anecdotally- I remember stories growing up of Congressmen getting caught driving under the influence, drug possession, prostitution, etc and they stayed in office for years afterwards. If a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine were caught doing any of those things, they would be dishonorably discharged with forfeiture of all pay and benefits. Why the double standard? Because they can… But that is the cynical me talking. Let’s get back to brainstorming positive changes instead of dwelling on the negative past.
Agreed.
Richard,
I think what Geoffrey and I are talking about is not the removal of pay in order to be a public servant but rather get our public servants’ salaries to reflect more in line with those that they represent. While Congress is a full time-job, they only work about 200 days of the year. Should they be paid for 200 days? Personally, I don’t think so - but given that one can see there is a vast pay discrepancy between our representatives and those they represent. I pose the question -
How can someone who earn 4.7 times what I do, while working 1/3 less than I do really have my best interests in heart?
Simply put, I do not believe they would have my best interest at the forefront of their minds. And that is not to mention any supplemental benefits like Per Diem, campaign contributions, special interest group lobbying, and bonuses from special assignments.
One might argue that those wishing higher pay as a representative would simply flock to those districts which the median household income is far greater. And to that I say, good - let them. For instance Dublin California boasts an impressive 205k median annual income. So, California’s 14th District might have 100 people trying to become an elected official. Where as the median income of Idaho is about 33k and it might only get 4 candidates per district (according to Idaho’s most recent Congressional ballot).
Meaning, the people who would run for office in ‘poorer’ districts would (presumably) be more invested in their areas. More likely to want to enact positive change. Those that would want the paycheck would run in areas where they would make more money. And they would have to fight others who are in it for more of a paycheck.
This is a very interesting idea. The first thing that I enjoy about this is that it completely reverses the idea of a two-tiered justice system within the political sphere.
I would disagree with the idea of holding state actors (i.e. Governors, Mayors) to the level of federal actors (Representatives, for the limited purposes of this conversation only) due to the importance of the separation of powers, and out of concern that the federal government will punish state governments for political lawfare.
I also would like to point out that this could not be held in the power of the legislative branch, as they would never vote in favor of limiting their own power. I personally would prefer to see this in the hands of the supreme court. I also think the congressional sergeant of arms should fall under the supreme court, so maybe they should both fall under the same clause.
Perhaps we’re both cynics.
How about a State version for state representatives and a Congressional one for federal? Could be generally the same but small variations based off the individual sate.
Agreed.
Which is why this idea would probably never get off the ground unless we put in a ‘Grandfather’ clause in it. No sitting Representative would willingly reduce their own power, but reducing the power of the next guy? We would get many, many more people on board that way. Does it suck? Yes. Is it the right way of thinking? No. But, is it the intellectually honest way of understanding how to get it done? Unfortunately, yes.
So anyone already in office when this would take place would need to be exempt otherwise they torpedo it in an instant.
I feel that per deim and non-yearly payment scales would fall into the same risk issues of bribery and exploitation. Further, I don’t believe an elected official should have any salary coming from a private entity to supplement their income, which is what I fear we would fall into quickly.
Regarding special interest group lobbying-No more. I would argue that lobbying is almost akin to bribery, and-This is a separate issue that might need to be in a different clause-I believe it should be punishable by imprisonment. I believe that about every lobbying entity from the NRA to big tech to ActBlue. I am also aware that these lobbying groups coincide with campaign contributions, which I do not find as bribes due to the fact that I believe its important to ensure that the richest candidate is not the only one able to win. Therefore, I believe it’s important to separate campaigning from legislating. I propose one cannot contribute to a elected official while that official is elected to in-session congress. This could also bleed into other issues such as term limits.
Regarding people trying harder to run in higher paying income areas-I find that this would make things more interesting. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. On the inverse, there’s the possibility that the higher caliber of candidates are elected in these areas, for capitalism has a way of natural selection. However, I believe that people in an area of Idaho where the median income is $33,000 are voting for 4 people are much more likely to be able to sift through the better candidate than 100 people running in California, where the waters are muddied and the political mud slinging gets more and more brutal. Perhaps this would be a self-correcting problem in the long run.
I would certainly be in favor of this. However, I would give that power and decision to the states.
Agreed with a caveat… PAID Lobbyists are banned. There have been examples in our history where a group of concerned citizens came together and lobbied for change (think of the original MADD). This should be the only type of lobbying allowed. Lobbyists that don’t have a paycheck from such.
Agreed. Though I am sure it would need to be mandated for them to come up with something. But what they come up with should be in there hands.
(Typically I am in favor of less big G government and more small G. Feel like states should be able to self govern more than they do now.)
Geoffrey,
We haven’t even STARTED talking about retirement benefits though!!!
Senators and Representatives can earn up to 80% of their base pay in retirements, based off of their years in service.
This one is a bit personal for me, to be honest, as recently Congress altered the retirement for military members. I know back in the 80’s an Officer could get 100% of their base pay after 20 years, then it changed to 50% of the base pay with a marginal increase each year you stay past 20 up to 60% (all of it based of your highest 3 years of pay). NOTE - This is a general statement and I might be slightly off on the numbers but it is close enough for a conversation. And Congress changed it to 40% and a 5% match of the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan), which is kinda like a 401k.
Given the old system, as I don’t think we have enough data to calculate the new system as of yet, the average retirement payment per month is about 2500$ per veteran. Which calculates out to 30k annually (which we’ve already established that in my area that is less than the Median income). But the average annual retirement for Senators, as of 2023, was 45k. I think we could trim the Congressional retirement to reflect more like what the military gets.
Thoughts?
EDIT:
Maybe take an aggregate of their approval ratings, calculate it out, and get their approval rating as a percentage of their district’s Median income? Spit-balling.