The Sausage Factory Payroll

September 19, 2006 5:36 PM

So, exactly how much do Congressional staffers make? What about their bosses? Regardless of amount, some think it's not enough, and some think it's plenty already.
posted by scrump (28 comments total)

Computer Systems/Mail Manager:
$30,205 – House
$39,612 – Senate
Maintains the computer network and correspondence management system.

There are IT people in this country who are willing to be paid this little to do their job?

Why do I get the feeling that it would be trivial to hack into your average senator's computer network?
posted by Brak at 5:54 PM on September 19, 2006

A very imp[ortant issue,. though, is what benefits they get. We know that Congress people have the best health coverage in the nation. Do staffers get this too (at our expense)?
posted by Postroad at 5:55 PM on September 19, 2006

How about this: Legislative salary would be $1,000,000 per year for the first 12 years in office, then $1 per year thereafter. This would encourage ordinary-citizen participation in the electoral process and then ensure that they depart after a reasonable time in office.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:05 PM on September 19, 2006

This would encourage ordinary-citizen participation in the electoral process

But would encourage people to run for all the wrong reasons.
posted by chrisamiller at 6:06 PM on September 19, 2006

After maintaining two residences and flying back to your district every weekend, you aren't going to make much of a profit even on a million bucks. It's not a good investment strategy.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:13 PM on September 19, 2006

I'm all kinds of conflicted about this website, as some of my friends and I were discussing it over dinner tonight. First of all, transparancy in government is a noble goal, and one which I'm fully in favor of the US government aspiring toward. The people listed here, however, are just every day people most of whom are just trying to do an every day job. I think most of us would take rather unkindly to the details of our wages being posted on a website for anyone with a passing interest to check in on.

Postroad: Health insurance that I had while working on the hill is comparable to the health insurance I have now working off the hill, staffers don't get anything extra special, and they get paid peanuts compared to the cost of living in Washington DC. I barely made ends meet when I worked on the hill, and had to take a loan from my parents once to make rent. And I worked in the Senate; don't get me started on House of Representative staff wages, which are even worse. All of these people are there because they're interested in politics, trying to make the world a better place (for whatever their definition of better is). In other words, speak not of that which you do not know.
posted by Inkoate at 6:31 PM on September 19, 2006

I strongly support big increases in the wages of all congressional members and staff, if only to make them more resistant to the golf trips and conferences that Abramoff et al. offer. It also might be a backdoor way to provide public funding for congressional campaigns, reducing the amount of time representatives, at least, need to fundraise.
posted by gsteff at 7:01 PM on September 19, 2006

After maintaining two residences and flying back to your district every weekend, you aren't going to make much of a profit even on a million bucks. It's not a good investment strategy.

No, according to the links:

Expense Allowances for members, kept separate from personal staff allowances, cover domestic travel, stationery, newsletters, overseas postage, telephone and telegraph service, and other expenses in Washington and in the members' state or congressional districts.

posted by mulligan at 7:22 PM on September 19, 2006

We know that Congress people have the best health coverage in the nation.

We know badly, then. Members of Congress get the same health care plans as any other civilian federal employee.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:23 PM on September 19, 2006

Of course, there are other benefits.

And drawbacks.
posted by gottabefunky at 7:25 PM on September 19, 2006

And a few more benefits, especially when you leave congress.
posted by milkrate at 8:08 PM on September 19, 2006

Echo Inkoate on this one. Seriously, most Hill staffers aren't paid much (starting salary out of college for most is around $29k), and government benefits aren't nearly what they used to be. They're much more industry-standard. Especially the retirement benefits, which mimick 401(k)s, and the health care, which you have to pay for.

Other food for thought: Washington, DC has a locality bonus that's the same as West Virginia. This in a city where it's hard to find an efficiency apartment in a moderately safe neighborhood for less than $1k/month.
posted by kdar at 8:17 PM on September 19, 2006

Actually, my wife works for the judiciary in a place very far away from DC and her benefits are among the best that can be had in her locality. Also, she has her pick from many, many plans. (My understanding is that the Post Office actually has the best options) As far as that goes though, as she reminds me continually, you don't get into government work for the money. Seeing the salaries of the staffers, I can't help but agree.

And I can't believe I'm saying this, but, since I am in effect paying their salaries, I appreciate being able to see just what people make and what kind of jobs people get hired to do. I think that way no one gets hired as House "fluffer" or Executive Assistant to the Secretary of the Landscaping & Lawn Implements Maintenance Cordinator.

Transparency is important. When I found out that my old company's CIO made 3 million a year I almost wet myself. I'm sure staffers earn every bit of their salaries and more besides, but actual Congresspeople, I'm not so sure.
posted by BeReasonable at 8:25 PM on September 19, 2006

I think most of them deserve the pay. In the high profile situations I wouldn't like to be in the media with death threats, people knowing my family, etc.
posted by thecashcow at 8:52 PM on September 19, 2006

Computer Systems/Mail Manager:
$30,205 – House
$39,612 – Senate
Maintains the computer network and correspondence management system.

Did anyone notice that House and Senate chaplains ($40,000) make more than CS Managers?
posted by parmanparman at 9:11 PM on September 19, 2006

I think Senators and Representatives use God more than their computers. At least their speeches seem to indicate that...
posted by BeReasonable at 9:24 PM on September 19, 2006

Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen: the Senate shoe shine boy (and manicurist, and hair stylists). How about you just go ahead and hire some Senate palace courtesans and litter-bearers and whatever you call those guys who fan you with palm fronds and give up the charade, huh? Le noblesse est mort. Vive le noblesse!
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:41 PM on September 19, 2006

Ishmael Graves, do you seriously have a problem with the fact that there's a barber shop in the Senate office buildings? It isn't some Hollywood spa, it's a one room barber shop across the hall from the deli in the Russel Senate Office Building. It's quite convinient for times when you need a haircut but don't have time to leave the building.

The Capitol complex is the size of a small city with regards to people, I should think. The Senate has a nurses office too, do you take issue with that?
posted by Inkoate at 5:35 AM on September 20, 2006

And, of course, Senators have to actually pay for their shoe shines and hair cuts.
posted by MrMoonPie at 6:28 AM on September 20, 2006

DC is a pretty expensive place. You obviously want to have some quality people working for the government as opposed to low-wage hacks. As long as these people are doing something productive and have not been hired as BeReasonable said, as a "fluffer", then I am satisfied. I'm kind of surprised at the difference between the two houses though. It seems that equivalent government positions should have equivalent pay rates.
posted by JJ86 at 6:35 AM on September 20, 2006

Staffers are definitely not well paid compared to DC's costs. However, a lot of them are planning on flipping that low paying job for a high paying lobbyist job (where they'll get hired in large part because they have the contacts), so there's no need to feel bad for them. It's a career decision.

As for the health benefits, there's no dental included, which a lot of people complain about...
posted by inigo2 at 6:55 AM on September 20, 2006

Poor staffers! Their bosses get a lot of bribery bonus too. Not sure if that can trickle down to the staff. Well, here is the irony: a congressman or senator makes less than $200K a year, does it make sense for someone to spend million$ in seeking such a "low-paying" job? Something is fishy here.
posted by henryw at 7:03 AM on September 20, 2006

The huge gulf between staffers' pay and lobbyists' compensation makes some of them obvious targets for lobbyists' nefarious plots, one would think.

There's another thing going on though; many of these staffers are fresh out of Georgetown, the Wilson school (Princeton), etc., and are breaking into the family business (politics) - they are not staying in efficiency apts. on the wrong side of the tracks.
posted by Mister_A at 7:09 AM on September 20, 2006

Computer Systems/Mail Manager:
$30,205 – House
$39,612 – Senate
Maintains the computer network and correspondence management system.

Did anyone notice that House and Senate chaplains ($40,000) make more than CS Managers?
posted by parmanparman at 9:11 PM PST on September 19 [+] [!]

As I read these salaries, the ones for the House were for a 3 month period, and those for the Senate were 6 month. So, 80K-120K for a CS/Mail manager? I'm not shedding tears.

And how many of the Senate started out with net worth <$1 M are now worht many times $1M. I know it's possible to save money on those low six figure salaries, but c'mon. The salary is their mad-money while they make their deals and stuff their pockets (Dan Rostenkowski, anyone?). Again, not shedding tears.

Solution? Don't have one. But I like the idea of paying more and making it illegal for them to receive ANY trips/gifts/perks. And limit the re/election expenses to $100K-$500K solely from the checked boxes on 1040 returns. No outside money. Opposing candidates get the same money from the coffers.
posted by beelzbubba at 7:19 AM on September 20, 2006

I think most of us would take rather unkindly to the details of our wages being posted on a website for anyone with a passing interest to check in on. - Inkoate

Such is the joy of working in the public service!! Where I work (municipal government) there is a publicly published list every year of what every single employee earned in the prior year. Sorted alphabetically by last name! Joy! It's one thing to publish what a position earns. IE: "Executive Secretary, $30,000-$35,000" But quite another to publish "Adams, Jane $32,354.12" All the better to stalk me with.
posted by raedyn at 9:47 AM on September 20, 2006

The Washington Post allows you to search for any federal employee (legislative branch excepted) and find pay grade and bonuses for 2002. Cross reference that with the OPM's pay tables, and you can tell what your neighbor the government worker was earning a few years ago.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:13 AM on September 20, 2006

As I read these salaries, the ones for the House were for a 3 month period, and those for the Senate were 6 month.

Where do you get that from? The listed salaries sound about right to me, decent money, but certainly not wads of cash compared to the cost of living in DC. But it's quite true that many of these staffers are just getting their foot in the door for future political jobs--few do it for the (immediate) money.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:19 AM on September 20, 2006

Want to see job listings for the House and Senate?
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:00 AM on September 20, 2006