Do you think the president could give them political cover by including something in a SOTU about how an underfunded Congress is bad for America and they should stop this self-defeating business of performative self-starvation and give themselves the necessary resources to do their job for the American people?
Ia it possible that Ben's article "Congress Needs to Invest in Itself" could have an influence on members of Congress? Ben's reasons are so vital such as a ban on stock trading, increasing members' salaries, supporting agencies and especially the CRS. All this instead of "disinvesting in Congress."
Since the left seems to generally be fine with paying government people a lot, I think if you’re going to change this, it would have to be with rhetoric that has some crossover appeal to independents or people on the center right. I think one of the ways to make the argument is that right now a government job is only appealing to ideologues, because the pay is far below what competent people can get in the private market. So I think you could frame this as getting the ideologues out and getting competent people in, and you could base the salaries on some median of comparable jobs (which is how the private sector sets pay).
The pay for MCs and their staff is absurdly low, but that’s not a popular take so I would focus the framing on a problem which is even more unpopular: lobbyists write the legislation. Read “Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy” by Hall and Deardorff 2006 APSR article. Basic idea is that even if no member of Congress were corrupt, the institution will still pass more legislation with lobbyist support because Congress is constrained by a lack of costly expertise that lobbyists can provide to ideologically aligned legislators. Real question is do you want lobbyists to pay the experts that help write the bills or should they be employed by the American people?
These would be great steps. But one could be a lot more ambitious. The entire regulatory state apparatus could easily sit in Congress. Two thirds of the SEC, half of the EPA, all these folks writing rules could just be writing the actual laws. Something that would stop the constant flipping of positions each time we get a new administration.
"No one I spoke to dropped a magic number that would magically solve the staffing turnover. But in some peer countries, namely France, median salaries are nearly double what our legislative staffers make in the United States."
Lol, yes, France, model of sound government, let's emulate them.
That France's government bureaucracy is famously intransigent, inefficient, and expensive, and the idea that we should emulate that is silly, hence lol
As long as we're dreaming, propose realigning committee responsibilities. Past reorganizations of the executive branch have not been reflected by corresponding realignment of committees, notably the creation of Homeland Security, etc. after the 9/11 commission's report.
Low pay for high-level government employees is a problem throughout the US. For example, NYC mayor Adams's salary is less than $259K (and less than one city housing authority plumber made last year), which is a nice salary for most Americans, but ludicrous for one of the most responsible and demanding jobs in the nation (and less than many first-year associates at law firms). Although it's not justification for becoming a lackey of Türkiye, it might be partial explanation for the lure of corruption and the disincentive to public service.
The link for this claim just points back to Matt's old post again:
"But in some peer countries, namely France, median salaries are nearly double what our legislative staffers make in the United States."
I have my doubts about it, knowing that civil servant salaries in France are pretty modest. What I find from a quick search suggests it's around 45-50k euros, which is only a bit more in dollars.
Oh, duh, I see it now. I searched the piece for France, didn't find it, and assumed the link was a copy-paste error.
But something isn't right with that data. It seems to come from the Italian report, which I can't find now. But even wikipedia says this: "Assembly legislators receive a salary of €7,043.69 per month. There is also the "compensation representing official expenses" (indemnité représentative de frais de mandat, IRFM) of €5,867.39 per month to pay costs related to the office, as well as a total of €8,949 per month to pay up to five employees. "
I wonder if the legislator pay Milan cited is including the expenses number? Because €7,043.69/month is ~$94k/year. And the number he cites for staff pay ($131,778) is pretty close to €8,949*12 at 2021 conversion rates, but that's for *up to five* employees. I doubt they could get away with using it all for just one person even if they wanted to.
Two centuries ago, Congress was seized by the quaint idea that congressmen should know something about the world. They built the Library of Congress, and it became the greatest library in the world.
I wish they would spend more time reading and less time flying back to their districts.
I don't think that anyone is going to be paying enough attention to the salaries of Congressional staffers to care very much (unless they are pro). I almost think that attaching it to a stock trading ban would have a Streisand Effect. Just do the reforms that are needed. Call it the "Efficient and Informed Legislation Act" or something and it'll put anyone to sleep if they try to talk about it.
All it takes is one Tea Party type (who surely doesn’t use that label any more) to want to make a name for themself, and thus demagogue about Congress increasing slush funds for running their offices, to sink the bill. Tying it to stock trading makes that harder.
Do you think the president could give them political cover by including something in a SOTU about how an underfunded Congress is bad for America and they should stop this self-defeating business of performative self-starvation and give themselves the necessary resources to do their job for the American people?
Ia it possible that Ben's article "Congress Needs to Invest in Itself" could have an influence on members of Congress? Ben's reasons are so vital such as a ban on stock trading, increasing members' salaries, supporting agencies and especially the CRS. All this instead of "disinvesting in Congress."
Ben's proud grandparents
Since the left seems to generally be fine with paying government people a lot, I think if you’re going to change this, it would have to be with rhetoric that has some crossover appeal to independents or people on the center right. I think one of the ways to make the argument is that right now a government job is only appealing to ideologues, because the pay is far below what competent people can get in the private market. So I think you could frame this as getting the ideologues out and getting competent people in, and you could base the salaries on some median of comparable jobs (which is how the private sector sets pay).
The pay for MCs and their staff is absurdly low, but that’s not a popular take so I would focus the framing on a problem which is even more unpopular: lobbyists write the legislation. Read “Lobbying as a Legislative Subsidy” by Hall and Deardorff 2006 APSR article. Basic idea is that even if no member of Congress were corrupt, the institution will still pass more legislation with lobbyist support because Congress is constrained by a lack of costly expertise that lobbyists can provide to ideologically aligned legislators. Real question is do you want lobbyists to pay the experts that help write the bills or should they be employed by the American people?
Obama, 2009. Democrats controlled majorities of both houses.
These would be great steps. But one could be a lot more ambitious. The entire regulatory state apparatus could easily sit in Congress. Two thirds of the SEC, half of the EPA, all these folks writing rules could just be writing the actual laws. Something that would stop the constant flipping of positions each time we get a new administration.
I work at a company which has been using the 40 minute cutoff Zoom “feature” for years to encourage shorter meetings.
"No one I spoke to dropped a magic number that would magically solve the staffing turnover. But in some peer countries, namely France, median salaries are nearly double what our legislative staffers make in the United States."
Lol, yes, France, model of sound government, let's emulate them.
What are you trying to say?
That France's government bureaucracy is famously intransigent, inefficient, and expensive, and the idea that we should emulate that is silly, hence lol
Love the trade!!! Insider trading is gross getting well-funded research sounds great
As long as we're dreaming, propose realigning committee responsibilities. Past reorganizations of the executive branch have not been reflected by corresponding realignment of committees, notably the creation of Homeland Security, etc. after the 9/11 commission's report.
Low pay for high-level government employees is a problem throughout the US. For example, NYC mayor Adams's salary is less than $259K (and less than one city housing authority plumber made last year), which is a nice salary for most Americans, but ludicrous for one of the most responsible and demanding jobs in the nation (and less than many first-year associates at law firms). Although it's not justification for becoming a lackey of Türkiye, it might be partial explanation for the lure of corruption and the disincentive to public service.
The link for this claim just points back to Matt's old post again:
"But in some peer countries, namely France, median salaries are nearly double what our legislative staffers make in the United States."
I have my doubts about it, knowing that civil servant salaries in France are pretty modest. What I find from a quick search suggests it's around 45-50k euros, which is only a bit more in dollars.
Milan did some research for the last piece that had it around 120k usd
Oh, duh, I see it now. I searched the piece for France, didn't find it, and assumed the link was a copy-paste error.
But something isn't right with that data. It seems to come from the Italian report, which I can't find now. But even wikipedia says this: "Assembly legislators receive a salary of €7,043.69 per month. There is also the "compensation representing official expenses" (indemnité représentative de frais de mandat, IRFM) of €5,867.39 per month to pay costs related to the office, as well as a total of €8,949 per month to pay up to five employees. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_(France)
I wonder if the legislator pay Milan cited is including the expenses number? Because €7,043.69/month is ~$94k/year. And the number he cites for staff pay ($131,778) is pretty close to €8,949*12 at 2021 conversion rates, but that's for *up to five* employees. I doubt they could get away with using it all for just one person even if they wanted to.
Two centuries ago, Congress was seized by the quaint idea that congressmen should know something about the world. They built the Library of Congress, and it became the greatest library in the world.
I wish they would spend more time reading and less time flying back to their districts.
I like that this is a proposal for both what needs to be done and a way to politically make the medicine go down. Good post.
I vaguely knew this was a problem but the numbers are insane. 70k for a mid-level position??
I don't think that anyone is going to be paying enough attention to the salaries of Congressional staffers to care very much (unless they are pro). I almost think that attaching it to a stock trading ban would have a Streisand Effect. Just do the reforms that are needed. Call it the "Efficient and Informed Legislation Act" or something and it'll put anyone to sleep if they try to talk about it.
All it takes is one Tea Party type (who surely doesn’t use that label any more) to want to make a name for themself, and thus demagogue about Congress increasing slush funds for running their offices, to sink the bill. Tying it to stock trading makes that harder.