Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

It makes no sense to give lawmakers more cents

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ross Marchand takes issue with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who claims that lawmakers cannot afford two homes on their $174,000 annual salary when the median household income in D.C. is half that amount.

Alex Wong/Getty Images News

Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.

"We want a raise!" is a sentiment that many can relate to ... up to a point. Even though congressional salaries have been frozen for a decade (at $174,000 a year plus generous benefits), taxpayers across the country are understandably outraged that members of Congress are trying to vote themselves a raise. The issue appears to have been shelved for the time being, but will surely be back on the agenda sooner rather than later.

Some supporters of a pay hike argue that even higher compensation would attract better talent and deter members of Congress from pursuing lucrative lobbying jobs at the end of their tenure. In reality, America is stuck with the same jokers whether their salaries are set at $1 or $1,000,000. The best that taxpayers can do is hold members of Congress accountable for their reckless spending. The best Congress can do is to actually do something to prove they have earned the raise.


Since enactment of a 2009 law blocking automatic cost-of-living increases for members of Congress, lawmakers' salaries have fallen 16 percent in inflation-adjusted terms. It's far from obvious that this salary slide is a bad thing, considering that members of Congress make more than thrice the median full-time U.S. worker (who earns less than $50,000 per year). This assumes that the typical American worker and member of Congress log a similar number of hours, which is far from the case. John Q. Taxpayer is expected to show up to the office around 260 days out of the year, versus almost always less than 190 days for lawmakers! And for America's representatives and senators the (potentially lifelong) health insurance benefits are great, and the free gym, parking, and million-dollar annual allowances for staff and travel aren't too shabby either.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

But maybe Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is right, and it is just too difficult to afford to rent two apartments on a $174,000 budget. Bear in mind that median D.C. household incomes are around half that of the base congressional salary, and the median Washingtonian can usually find an affordable one bedroom apartment within a reasonable commute to downtown. A member of Congress can find a perfectly nice, spacious apartment in a pleasant building in a suburb such as Greenbelt or Deanwood, Md., for under $1,500 per month.

But maybe even $174,000 isn't enough to keep America's public-spirited defenders from falling into the clutches of K Street. A recent op-ed in this publication argues that "record numbers of legislators are now going to work for big bucks on K Street." Lobbying has inevitably increased over the past 50 years, as far more federal expenditures are at stake (outlays per person have doubled in real terms) and industries have done their best to respond to existential threats.

But, since the congressional pay freeze came into effect a decade ago, fewer retiring/defeated lawmakers have opted to go private. The Center for Responsive Politics (hardly a right-wing outfit) has found that, from the 111th Congress through the 115th Congress, the number of lawmakers going to work for a lobbying firm, advising a lobbying client, or banking a job with any other private company has gone from 59 to 33. The number continually declines year over year, election year or not.

And there just doesn't seem to be much evidence that members of Congress are getting squeezed by low salaries and jump ship in panic. Representatives typically run for office after successful careers, and spend an average of 17 years in the House before retiring from service. Besides, some of the best-known (read: notorious) lawmakers turned lobbyists – such as Evan Bayh, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Heath Schuler – had net worths well into the millions before leaving Congress. Maybe, just maybe, these politicians like staying close to the action and wheeling and dealing, regardless of their finances.

If members of Congress really want their salaries boosted, they should make their case to the American people why they deserve it despite record debt and general inaction. But as is, the salaries and perks are more than sufficient and haven't seemed to fuel the growth of K Street. There are few bargains in this world, and raising the pay of a well-off, well-connected throng of political elites certainly isn't one of them.

Read More

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less