Like the “executives” in this country, I don’t think that the politicians deserve more compensation than the people that really do all the work. I’d like to see them get paid a salary equal to whatever the median salary is in America. Then they get a bonus for having an approval rating (polled from their constituency) above 70%. Their bonus would start at 5% of their salary with a shot at up to 10%. Their bonus would also be tied to their attendance. If Congress is in session and you aren’t present, or don’t vote, you are docked 1 percentage point of your bonus. It is also possible to get a negative bonus as low as -5%, in which case the negative bonus is docked from your salary and dumped into your opposing parties state election funds. You can earn bonus percentage points by having an approval rating over 90%, having perfect attendance/voting record, not getting into legal trouble, keeping campaign promises, or by simply not accepting “gifts” from special interests.

The fact is, even a quick browsing of Public Choice Theory makes it clear that principal-agent problem between voters and elected officials is very formidable. Another concern is trying to come up with a measure of “output” for a member of congress. What does a congressman actually produce? Laws? Earmarks? Diatribes? Are any of these products directly tied to your congressman’s efforts, or to the efforts of lobbyists and other members of congress?

While approval ratings exist, the notion that these are in any way tied to reality is romantically naive. Almost every individual member of congress has an approval rating that most Presidents would kill for, yet congress as a whole is below 10%.

actually if public office paid more competitively with jobs in the business world, we might get more talented folks applying and fewer celebrities

Jeff (7.)

I agree that politicians are not “immune” to temptation. However, while you say we’re discounting the power of greed, I say you’re seriously overstating both this power and the ability of congresspersons to gain personal access to the loot. You provided a few links, and they’re certainly relevant, but a handful of money-grabbing scandals in a population of well over 500 (at a single point in time and at just the Federal level) is hardly earth-shattering or grounds for reform.

Saying that money-greed is powerful is not a fair statement until you specify what group of people it has power over. Money is a powerful–and primary–motivator for many, many people, but politicians (as I mentioned earlier) are typically not in this group of people. Many–if not most–of these people already sacrificed a much better paying career to enter politics. In politics, it the power/influence-greed that is the chief motivator. Money is just a bonus.

Paying public officials enough to be competitive with private sector industry would be dangerous on two counts. First, it would induce more competent people out of the private sector, which is where we need them. Second, if salaries rose sufficiently high, you could actually eliminate the need for congresspersons to carry out their responsibilities: if you make ANYTHING but re-election the primary goal for politicians, they will have decreased incentives to do specifically what they were elected for–represent their districts.

I agree that greed is an important factor we’ve not considered. If we raised Congressional (House and Senate) salaries to $500,000 a year, we’d get a *tremendous* amount of talent flocking to the primaries.

On the flip side – if we made it so that you got paid a strict per diem (say, $100), you’d weed out the types who really need the job, and limit it to those who’ve already made their bones.