Congressional Salaries, Accountability, Not Term Limits, Are The Problem

A significant topic of discussion surrounding Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) revolves around her transition from bartender to congresswoman with a congressional salary of $155 thousand and a purported net worth of $26 million.

Critics use this to imply corruption. However, the deeper, more systemic issue is the very nature of how Congress compensates its members.

The Founding Fathers originally envisioned members of Congress being paid per diem rather than receiving an annual salary. The per diem system was to prevent legislators from becoming wealthy through their positions, ensuring that public service remained just that – service to the public.

The Founders aimed for a government run by “citizen legislators” who would serve temporarily and return to their regular professions, avoiding the rise of career politicians. The approach encouraged lawmakers to work efficiently and avoid prolonging sessions unnecessarily, as their compensation would be tied directly to their active workdays.

Additionally, the system accounted for the varying lengths of congressional sessions and the different distances members had to travel from their home states, and it allowed for adjustments based on economic conditions without needing a fixed salary. It aligned with the vision of a limited federal government, where serving in Congress was a temporary duty, not a long-term career.

Another layer of the problem is that members of Congress have the authority to determine their salaries. This situation, and their exemptions from laws that apply to the private sector and the executive branch, creates a fertile ground for systemic issues.

Congress is not required to keep detailed workplace records like private sector employers. There are fewer protections against retaliation for congressional employees when compared to those in the private sector.

Congress is almost entirely exempt from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which limits transparency. Congressional employees have fewer protections when they report misconduct, and Congress is not subject to the same scrutiny regarding workplace health and safety as other employers.

These exemptions and self-regulated salaries foster an environment where ethical lapses occur, leading to public distrust. Reverting to a per diem system and removing exemptions would be a move toward rebuilding public trust and ensuring that serving in Congress is genuinely about public service rather than personal gain.

A per diem system would discourage unnecessarily long legislative sessions, aligning with the idea that a government that legislates less interferes less with citizens’ lives. Ensuring lawmakers get paid for actual work done, rather than receiving a blanket salary, would encourage efficiency and accountability.

So, while focusing on individual figures like AOC might draw attention to potential corruption, the issue lies in congressional compensation and accountability created by our so-called public servants without the people’s realization.