The Hammer of Democracy

Published December 3, 1989 in North Shore Sunday.

The congressional pay raise controversy has shown most members of the U.S. House of Representatives for what they really are – the spoiled and arrogant children of the Western world.  Yet come election time, we're going to re-elect over 90% of them.  We know it and they know it.  In fact, that's how they got to be as arrogant as they are.

That's what is so maddening about democracy  –  there is no one to blame for abuses in the system but ourselves.  It's like hitting ourselves on the thumb with a hammer, over and over, and then complaining bitterly about the hammer.  In a democracy, we wield the hammer.  We just don't seem to know how to use it.

In terms of sheer, outrageous gall, the pay raise itself is overshadowed by two accompanying aspects of the pay raise issue.

The first is an agreement signed by leaders of both parties not to use the pay raise vote as a weapon in next year's congressional elections.  How can such an agreement be made in a country that honors free speech?  Why should a handful of people determine what is and is not an acceptable point of political debate?  What else have our elected representatives decided not to bring to the attention of the voting public?

That isn't democracy.  That is politics-as-usual with a wink and a nod, and the slightly giddy feeling of knowing they got away with another one.  And yet, at election time, bang goes the hammer, followed by the same, agonized song.

The second point has to do with the ethics questions that are included with the pay raise package.  Congress is admitting there are abuses that need to be corrected  –  for example, ending the speaking fees and limiting the free trips that special interest groups use to (wink-wink, nod-nod) further the causes of freedom and democracy.  But the House was willing to correct these abuses only if they got their raise.  No raise, no ethics provisions.  Plain, simple  –  and utterly arrogant.

There is a lesson to be learned here, but the picture it conjures up should be captioned "Kids, don't try this at home."  Parents would never tolerate such an attitude from their children.  But next November, no doubt, bang goes the hammer once again.

As for the pay raise itself, $30,000 over the next year or so is outrageous.  The raise is over $9,000 more than the entire year's pay for the average U.S. worker ($21,871 in 1988, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics).  And that's on top of the $89,500 that congressmen already make.  In most circles, that's called making a bundle.

But congressmen will tell you it's not enough.  They have to maintain two residences, they say, which is true.  They can't make ends meet, they say, which is elitist nonsense to the guy making the 22K.  And they say that voting on their own pay raises is an extremely delicate matter for elected officials.

The solution to all of this is obvious.  Let's take the burden of deciding on their own salaries away from them.  Let's base congressional salaries on two factors:  the average pay for workers in the congressman's home state plus the average pay for workers in the District of Columbia.  After all, how can government be truly by, of, and for the people if those who represent the people live in an economic stratosphere that is uninhabited by most of everybody else?

Under this system, congressmen from Massachusetts would make $52,125 a year.  They would get raises only if the pay of the average worker increases.  This is known in capitalist systems as incentive.  It's a fact of life you and I have to live by every day in our jobs.  Why won't congress do the same?

But you know and I know this will never happen.  If you ask members of congress why they wanted their jobs, they will give you reasons wrapped in anthems and the flag  –  a love of country, a desire to make government work, a sense of duty, ka-blah ka-blah.   But in the painfully clear light of the pay raise issue, most would have to answer, in a starkly honest mood, that they do it mainly for the big bucks and great bennies.

Next time, let's try banging the nail, squarely on the head.