Hoyer Not a 'Big Supporter' of Freezing Congressional Pay

Earlier this month we learned that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is not a fan of the 2010 congressional pay freeze. After stating that he was not "a big supporter" of the freeze, Hoyer then went on to say, "if you’re talking about in terms of freezing until we balance the budget – that’s a long time. I think that that’s further ahead than I want to plan."

The development and execution of a balanced budget is a primary job objective of our elected congress. Like most other Americans, overall job performance and achievement of assigned objectives should rightly dictate raises in pay. Again however, we see how far our elected officials have deviated from the core principles of the average American.

Hoyer, like most other members of congress, would prefer to assume little if any accountability for the results of their policies. It would appear that members of congress, like Rep. Hoyer, feel entitled to pay raises each and every year regardless of the state of the economy. After all, a pay raise shouldn't have to be earned... right?

Prior to 1989, congress had the monotonous task of having to vote themselves a pay raise each year. To make this process easier (and likely less embarrassing) new legislation was passed. With passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, congress had authorized themselves an automatic – no debate, no vote – annual raise every year.

Members of congress now have the only job in the country whose occupants can set their own salary without regard to performance, profit, or economic climate. Since 1990, congressional pay has increased from $98,400 to $174,000. That's a $75,600 difference, which alone is nearly double the current average American income of $39,000.

This may sound similar to the executive pay practices of some large publicly held companies. Many of which have been the focus of heavy media scrutiny as of late- think AIG, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, etc. There is however one major and overwhelming difference between the two. Investors and stock holders of these publicly held companies have the option to sell off their shares. Customers of these companies can take their dollars else well.  Both sending a strong message of their displeasure and ultimately affecting the company's bottom line. The firms are accountable to both their  shareholders and clients. In our government this balance does not exist. We as tax payers cannot pull out our tax money, even if we feel that it is being abused. We are forced to pay. Say what you want about the executive pay of these large Wall Street banks but at least the shareholders don't have to support what can be seen as over indulgent pay raises. Our country's shareholders, the American taxpayer, on the other hand are forced by law to pay their taxes towards a congress that 73% of the country currently disapproves of. This is a major and fundamental difference.

Lastly, it must also be mentioned that members of congress are free to refuse their pay increases, and some have chosen to do so... albeit a very small minority. These exceptions are the members of our elected leadership that truly reflect our nation. Sadly, until all Americans realize the level of greed and entitlement that has run rampant through Washington, these members will continue to reside in the vast minority.

See details of Hoyer's exact comments here.