"STRAIGHT TALK" Part I: The Raise Congress Wants

(SBA) - Every once in a while, a news story comes along that isn't really about the headline.

It's about what that headline represents.

That was my reaction when I read about a federal lawsuit filed by current and former members of Congress seeking back pay and future cost-of-living salary adjustments. The legal question before the courts is whether Congress violated the 27th Amendment by repeatedly blocking automatic pay increases that were established under federal law. If the lawsuit ultimately succeeds, taxpayers could be responsible for millions of dollars in retroactive compensation and future salary increases for members of Congress.

The courts will decide whether the legal arguments have merit. That's their job.

Mine is simply to ask a different question.

Why does this story strike such a nerve with me?

The answer, I believe, has very little to do with congressional salaries.

It has everything to do with timing.

For nearly two decades, working Americans have been told to adapt and suck it up.

When inflation pushed grocery bills higher, families adjusted.

When health insurance premiums climbed, they adjusted again.

When deductibles increased, wages failed to keep pace with rising prices, or retirement benefits became less generous than they once were, people didn't have the luxury of asking someone else to make up the difference.

They made sacrifices.

Some delayed buying a new car.

Others postponed home improvements.

Many worked overtime, picked up a second job, or pushed retirement farther down the road.

Parents quietly found ways to stretch another paycheck while hoping their children never realized how tight the family budget really is.

Making these decisions isn’t easy. They were simply necessary.

That's life for much of middle America.

In Sergeant Bluff, I think we're fortunate in many respects. The community remains strong. Residents still know their neighbors. Businesses continue to invest and support community initiatives, SBL continues to grow, and volunteers continue stepping forward whenever there's work to be done.

But we're hardly immune to the pressures affecting the rest of the country.

Ask anyone buying groceries for a family, a young couple looking for their first home, a retiree opening another insurance statement, or a farmer watching input costs climb while commodity prices fluctuate with every growing season.

Inflation doesn't care where you live or if you vote Republican or Democrat

It simply makes everything cost more.

The difference is that most Americans don't have the opportunity to recover years of lost purchasing power through a federal lawsuit.

Members of Congress currently earn $174,000 per year, a salary that has remained unchanged since 2009 after lawmakers repeatedly voted to block automatic cost-of-living adjustments. Supporters of increasing congressional pay argue that maintaining homes both in Washington and back in their districts has become increasingly expensive. They also contend that competitive salaries help ensure Congress remains accessible to people from a wide range of economic backgrounds rather than only the independently wealthy. Those are legitimate points worthy of consideration.

Serving in Congress is demanding.

Members spend long stretches away from home.

They maintain grueling travel schedules.

They work under constant public scrutiny.

No honest observer should pretend otherwise.

Public service at the national level carries enormous responsibility, and people entrusted with making decisions that affect more than 340 million Americans deserve fair compensation.

The question isn't whether members of Congress should be paid fairly.

The question is how Americans define "fair."

Most workers don't receive raises simply because inflation occurred.

Employers generally expect something in return.

Greater responsibility.

Better performance.

Higher productivity.

Improved results.

Raises are usually tied, at least in part, to what an employee contributes to the organization.

I remember one Christmas before Wayne Dominowski, the former Editor and Publisher, purchased the Advocate. Our holiday bonus was a $10 ham. Ya, he left the price tag on. A year of busting our behinds to make the owner money. Working extra hours, evenings, and yes, holidays, because the Advocate needed to be published every week and on time. And Wayne and I got a pat on the back and a $10 ham. Oh gee, THANKS! Not a small pay raise for winning his paper countless awards for writing and design. A ham. We still laugh about that one.

It's a standard millions of Americans understand because they've lived under it their entire careers.

It isn't unreasonable for taxpayers to expect a similar standard from the people they elect.

Congress isn't an ordinary workplace.

Its members write the laws, approve spending, oversee federal agencies, and make decisions that shape nearly every aspect of American life. They ask taxpayers to fund everything from roads and bridges to national defense, disaster relief, education, scientific research, and countless other priorities.

With that responsibility comes an expectation that Congress will also hold itself accountable.

That's why this lawsuit has generated public attention.

For many Americans, it isn't about whether members of Congress deserve higher pay.

It's about whether Washington has demonstrated the kind of performance that would justify asking taxpayers to provide it.

Maybe that's where the conversation needs to begin.

Not with how much members of Congress earn, or with constitutional arguments over cost-of-living adjustments, or even with the lawsuit itself.

It should begin with the people who have quietly endured the very same economic pressures lawmakers now say have affected them.

For years, millions of Americans have watched their paychecks grow a little while their expenses grew a lot.

A modest raise at work often disappeared before it ever reached the checking account. Higher insurance premiums took part of it. Rising grocery prices took another part. Utility bills climbed. Property taxes increased. Vehicle repairs became more expensive. A trip to the doctor's office cost more than it did just a few years earlier.

Wayne and I often joked about receiving a $50 check in the mail we weren’t expecting, then receiving a bill in the mail the very next day for $49.99.

On paper, many families earned more money than they did twenty years ago.

In reality, many felt like they were falling behind.

That's the difference between wages and purchasing power.

You can receive a raise and still have less money left over at the end of the month.

Most Americans understand that because they've been living it now.

They've adjusted family budgets without expecting someone else to make them whole. They've accepted that inflation is simply another obstacle to overcome.

It isn't fair; it's reality.

That's why this lawsuit feels different.

It creates the impression—whether intended or not—that the rules are different in Washington than they are everywhere else.

If inflation hurts members of Congress, taxpayers are asked to help.

If inflation hurts taxpayers, they're generally expected to figure it out on their own.

Perception isn't everything.

But in public service, perception matters.

Trust matters.

Confidence matters.

People don't expect elected officials to live exactly as they do, but they do expect them to understand the challenges they're facing.

That's one reason small-town communities often function as well as they do.

In Sergeant Bluff, I think people know what it's like to make sacrifices for something larger than themselves.

Volunteer firefighters don't answer calls because they're looking for a raise.

School board members don't spend their 6 AM meetings reviewing budgets because they're chasing financial rewards.

Legion members who place flags on veterans' graves each Memorial Day don't ask whether the work fits into their schedule.

Library board members, church volunteers, youth coaches, EMTs, and countless others donate their time because they believe serving their community is simply the right thing to do.

They don't expect applause.

They certainly don't expect back pay.

They step up because someone has to.

That doesn't diminish the importance of public office.

If anything, it reminds us what public service is supposed to represent.

About accepting responsibility, making difficult decisions, and putting the interests of those you represent ahead of your own.

It's one reason military service is respected, and first responders are admired.

Teachers, nurses, and countless others earn our appreciation despite often working under difficult conditions. When we get a heavy snow, city workers in Sergeant Bluff spend all night clearing our streets so we can get to work in the morning. And yes, that is what they are paid for. But it's really demanding work. Ever work a night shift in the freezing cold?

People recognize genuine service when they see it.

They also recognize when something feels disconnected from the realities they live every day.

Whether Congress ultimately wins or loses this lawsuit isn't likely to change that perception.

My question is: Has Washington become too insulated or disconnected from the everyday experiences of the people they represent?

That's a question worth asking—not because Congress should be underpaid, but because representative government depends on representatives understanding the people they serve.

The farther government drifts from that understanding, the wider the gap becomes between elected officials and the public.

Closing that gap won't happen through a court decision.

It will happen only when Americans once again believe their elected leaders are facing the same challenges they are, living under the same expectations they are, and accepting the same accountability they are.

That's a standard most working men and women already meet every day.

Maybe it's also the standard we all hope to see in Washington someday.