I recently
saw the article below about a female congressional candidate. Her comments about congressional pay were
pertinent to themes in recent blog posts.
Mia Love
is currently the mayor of a town in Utah, but is running for congress. If she wins, she would make $175,000
annually. But don’t cry for her,
Argentina. She has “no problem with
having a pay cut.”
Factually,
this statement apparently makes no sense because she is making much less than
that in her current mayoral job. And of
course the press loves to pick up on this rather insensitive comment. $175,000 would be a HUGE salary to most
American families--even if we weren’t all still suffering through a painfully
sluggish economy.
But what
really got my attention was her explanation as to why she would be fine with a
“pay cut.” Mayor Love explained, “The
pay means nothing to me. My husband
provides a great living for all of us and you know I’m obviously not doing this
because I need a job.”
Yikes.
A couple
things disturb me about this comment.
First, it
perpetuates the assumption that men’s wages put food on the table and women’s
wages are simply “pin money.” My hat is
off to Mayor Love’s husband. Great for
him that he apparently earns such a comfortable living. But Mayor Love’s statement simply fuels
existing assumptions that are used to justify paying women less. Not every woman is in Mayor Love’s privileged
place that she could work for free. Most
women would not agree that their “pay means nothing.” Most women I’ve known in
the work place need the money they earn.
Their own sustenance is dependent on it.
Often they have a family to support as well.
The second
concerning aspect of Mayor Love’s comment is actually something I hear from a
lot of politicians. It is popular to say
one is against raises or for pay cuts for those in elected office. It sounds to many voters like a fiscally
conservative thing to say. Trim the
government budget by paying politicians less.
I myself am a pretty thrifty person. Fiscal conservatism appeals to me. But mindlessly cutting costs without thinking
through the structural repercussions is not wise.
Although
congressional pay seems high to the average Joe or Josephine, it is important
to recognize that members of Congress have costs that most of us do not
have. Unless they represent a state
neighboring the District of Columbia, they typically must incur duplicative
housing costs. They have to have a home
in their district, but they need a place to live near the Capitol. Even when they are thrifty and rent a small
apartment, that can be pricey. D.C. real
estate is very costly. And if a member
of Congress wants his/her family around, they need a larger home in the nation’s
capital. That can really be
expensive. Then there are additional
travel costs to go between Washington and one’s home district. Members of Congress need to be in touch with
their constituents. It is like having a
job with two work sites.
Although
at first blush it may sound noble to not need one’s paycheck when one is a
representative of the People in Washington, think about what that really
means. It means that one is
independently wealthy or one has a spouse whose earnings can support the member
of Congress. The latter possibility is
pretty rare. Less than 18% of the
current Congress is composed of women.
Men rarely have a spouse who is the primary or sole breadwinner.
So, most
members of Congress who do not have a financial need for the paychecks that they
earn are rich. I have nothing against
rich folk. But having a Congress filled predominantly
with people, who have the rare luxury of giving away their time for free, is
not necessarily a good thing. Such
individuals are not representative of the vast majority of Americans. They do not have life experiences that their
constituents have, which might be critical in understanding the policy
repercussions of various types of bills.
Mayor Love’s
comments disturb me. I don’t see
anything inherently praiseworthy or noble about being a person of
independent means. Good for you if that
is your situation, but that does not reflect anything more than extreme good
fortune.
Moreover,
I see absolutely nothing shameful about needing to work for a living. I find it praiseworthy and noble to work hard
to bring home the bacon to support oneself and one’s family. There is certainly nothing to be embarrassed
about in such a situation.
1 Thessalonians 2:9
Don’t you remember, dear brothers
and sisters, how hard we worked among you? Night and day we toiled to earn a
living so that we would not be a burden to any of you as we preached God’s Good
News to you.
2 Thessalonians 3:8
We never accepted food from anyone
without paying for it. We worked hard day and night so we would not be a burden
to any of you.
1 Corinthians 9:12
If you support others who preach to you,
shouldn’t we have an even greater right to be supported? But we have never used
this right. We would rather put up with anything than be an obstacle to the
Good News about Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment