Several of my FB friends have posted graphics mocking Rep. Jim Moran, D-VA, for saying that members of Congress are underpaid; one popular image compares congressmens pay to army privates pay. While never an admirer of Morans acumen, I think hes right in this case. Benjamin Franklin proposed at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 that high federal officials serve without pay. The proposal went nowhere. Why? The room was full of Washingtons, Franklins, Morrises, Madisons, Pinckneys, Rutledges... the wealthiest men in America. Why didnt they support this proposal? Because it was un-republican. If you dont pay high officials, you guarantee that only the very wealthy can afford to hold such offices. It costs a pretty penny to take a seat in the US House. Virtually everyone in that body is a professional for whom $174,000/year is a pay cut; after all, they tend to have successful legal practices, medical practices, etc., all of which pay much more than $174,000/year. Add that after taking this pay cut, he then has to set up a second household in or near the District of Columbia, one of Americas most expensive regions, and youll see why most of Americas successful businesspeople dont consider careers in politics. Consider that Congress is responsible for managing a gigantic operation. To do anything remotely akin to what they are charged with would be far more lucrative in the private sector. Corporate CEOs, after all, commonly take in 7- or 8-figure salaries. Im not arguing for paying members of Congress more. But Moran has a point. Surely we dont want to cut congressmens pay to the level of an army privates.
Posted on: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 01:38:05 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015