Capitol Hill hands out bonuses

Posted by LegiStorm on Wednesday, April 01, 2009

The Wall Street Journal has reviewed the annual practice of lawmakers rewarding staff with annual bonuses - and this past year they appeared to do so in record numbers, according to the LegiStorm data that the Journal cited.

Bonuses are not unusual on Capitol Hill. But 2008 seems to have been an unusually big year for bonuses, according to the most recent House data LegiStorm analyzed. Each year, personnel compensation rises in the fourth quarter in the House of Representatives (data for the Senate is not yet available and is not as easily broken down). But in 2008, average pay per House employee spiked the most in the eight years since we have begun tracking salary data.

The Journal found that House bonuses ranged as high as $14,000. The New York Post also ran a more focused story this week about Rep. Vito Fossela's (R-N.Y.) generosity with bonuses as he served out a scandal-ridden last few months in office.

Of course, the bonuses of Capitol Hill staffers are a far cry from the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that some Wall Street executives made this year. Nevertheless, lawmakers might find it a bit awkward to explain handing out bonuses to their staff while their constituents face severe economic pressures of their own.

The practice of handing out bonuses can get particularly interesting during an election year.  Members of Congress hire staff for two conflicting purposes: to run government offices and to run political campaigns. So there is enormous temptation after an election to reward the hardest-working campaign aides with big government bonuses. But succumbing to such a temptation is also illegal because it represents a government subsidy to a campaign. While no smoking gun, it is interesting that in the hardest-fought election in recent years that we see a big spike in staffer compensation from taxpayer funds.

We have prepared a graph of salaries showing how the 2008 fourth quarter pay increased more than any other year that we have tracked. An average staffer was paid 17% more in the final quarter of 2008 than in the previous three quarters.

 

posted in congressional staff salaries, bonuses, Wall Street Journal, New York Post
Flag comment as inappropriate

15 comments so far

Posted by full disclosure on 04/20/2009 11:20 PM EDT
It appears that in most cases the amount of the bonuses are lumped with the salaries. Why aren't they listed separately? My Senator won't answer my request to publicly publish how much he has payed his staff in bonuses.
Posted by Led on 04/19/2009 12:48 PM EDT
Here is the deal with staffer pay and bonuses. For those of us that work in the real world, we get paid based on metrics tied directly to shareholder value. If we don't hit our goals we don't get bonus and potentially get fired. Congressional members/staffers should have the same standards as the real world. A $14k bonus is substantial no matter where you live and should not be paid unless specific metrics are attained. I would ask what metrics exist for staffers, representatives, senators, etc. that warrants they should receive a bonus. Our legislative branch has been ineffective for all but 4 out of the past 20 years (1994-1998) and do not deserve raises, bonuses etc. Balance a budget, reduce spending and earmarks, and create legislation that is for the benefit of all of the people and maybe you deserve raises and bonuses. Until then, drink your Starbucks and quit whining about how expensive it is to live in DC. It is the choice you made. Work for a real company and see how well you do when you actually are measured on your performance. No one deserves a free ride.
Posted by anonymous on 04/17/2009 04:38 PM EDT
As a congressional staffer, I find it beyond frustrating to hear people outside of the Hill complain about staffer salaries. You cannot simply look at the number of dollars earned. As the previous poster mentioned- cost of living in DC is high, so $50,000 in Washington is equivalant to MUCH LESS in other parts of the country. Take a look at this website http://www.bestplaces.net/col/. Enter in Washington DC, then the city you live in. Then enter some "ridiculous" dollar amount that you see some staff on here earning- say $50,000. Click compare and see what that is equivalent to in your city. See if you would still be calling that salary high. I bet no one on here would $22,654 in Topeka, KS is "ridulously high" (this is what a staffer making $50K in DC would be making by comparison in Topeka). Or do the reverse. If you are making $35,000 in Detroit, MI, you would have to make $79,000 in DC to be living as well as you are in Detroit. Then take into account the hours that staffers work. A staffer making $50K who works 80-100 hours a week is making about $10 an hour. Is that "ridiculously high"? How many of you out there would be willing to work mandatory overtime, without any overtime pay? Or be an at will employee who can be fired for no reason at all, knowing that if your boss has a car accident, you are out of a job immediately? And let's not even talk about the "transperancy" and all of the calls for tougher ethics? How many of your would be ok having your salaries and bonuses online? Plus- upper level personnel have to post their ENTIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT. That's right folks- how much money you have invested, your retirement accounts, money you made at the casino. Your lives are an open book. And the reference to everyone up here being crooks? BS. the ethics rules are so stringent that most staffers wont even let their friends pick up dinner for fear they violate an ethics rule. Do some research and get your facts straight.
Posted by anonymous on 04/16/2009 08:55 AM EDT
You have to remember that these people live in Washington DC, where the cost of living is extremely high. $54,000 a year, does not go very far there. I know young staffers who live with 4 or 5 people, share rooms, just to have that opportunity to work in a field they love. So, their salary is not that good.
Posted by Tony on 04/15/2009 10:46 AM EDT
Looking at average staff salaries (somebody recently posted that they are underpaid)...I would completely disagree with that. Most people in this country would love to make as much as a congressional staffer without a bonus.
Posted by Jay on 04/14/2009 08:03 PM EDT
I can't believe this is even an issue. Staffers are underpaid anyway. The highest bonus is $14,000? Please, thats what they give the janitors at Morgan Stanley (or, at least used to). These people are at least working on public issues that don't directly impact their wallets and pocketbooks -- its not like each staffer is on retainer and gets a bonus for each bill that is passed! This discussion and topic, in light of the BILLIONS in bonuses being handed out to AIG and other financial firms, is ludicrous.
Posted by anonymous on 04/13/2009 11:29 AM EDT
The thing is that no government employee should be getting bonuses, in bad or good economy. I work in a public school system and they cannot give out bonuses. Local, state and federal governments have long been unable to do this, so why is it OK to do in Congress. In fact I do not understand why publicly held companies can do this. Whether it is taxpayer money or the stockholders money, I just do not think it is right. Pay a decent wage and be done. Only businesses that are privately owned should do this, it is their business and they have the right to do what they want with their profits.
Posted by anonymous2 on 04/08/2009 11:02 AM EDT
OK if we are going to reward House and Senate staff with bonuses then we should give all government employees bonuses. We all do hard work and get shorted on pay and never get pay increases and then are asked to balance the budget on our back. We are asked to take furlows and go with out pay increases. While House and Senate and Congress vote themselves automatic raises and make out like they are underpaid. The stat I live in did a market study of all positions held by state employees and found that my position was 10% under market value. But yet our wonderful legislators wanted to get a 57% wage increase. Let see if that makes any sense. Throw me a freakin bonus....(Dr. Evil)
Posted by A conservative on 04/07/2009 07:32 AM EDT
Hey anonymous, which rep do you work for? You complain that you put in long hours doing the people's business to help address the financial crisis, the climate, etc.?? We would not be in the mess we're in if it weren't for you and the rest of the bureaucrats sticking your noses beyond the constitutional restraints! And as for the poor staffers that have to leave their public sector posts to return to the private sector....that's the way it ought to be! I'm sorry but it is you who is the one who needs to get real.
Posted by Wayne Vermillion on 04/05/2009 03:57 PM EDT
I don't object to the aids bonus as I do to the automatic raises Congress voted in for themselves. Even in a year of a deep recesion they did not vote out thier automatic pay raise. The aids do all the work and the legislators do all the talk and get all the money.
Posted by Jesse Silverglate on 04/04/2009 09:28 AM EDT
While we are piling on the little guys, why not get money back from the welfare queens. Of course, all the money from capital hill staffers and welfare queens would not cover the resort fees of the AIG bonus babies and hedge fund tax evaders, but if you can't get at who is really responsible you may as well kick the dog. We need regulatory reform and we need it now.
Posted by anonymous on 04/03/2009 11:06 AM EDT
The above posters are so ridiculously uninformed its not even funny. House and Senate staffers get paid far less than those with comparable skills and abilities in related fields. Everyone takes a pay cut to work there. It is public service, so that's expected. Look up the size of these bonuses if you're so outraged. Most of them are around $1000. Now consider how many more hours these staffers have had to put in over the past year in order to serve the people of this country in addressing the financial crisis, elections, climate crisis, etc etc etc. One of the biggest problems on the Hill is that the paltry salaries compel the most qualified staffers to enter the private sector after a few years because they start having families and children. You can't expect everyone to be a martyr. Furthermore, these bonuses are factored in at the beginning of the year and come from the same account that salaries come from. Have you ever even looked up the staff salaries on this site? Have you ever considered the cost of living in DC? How about the cost of living in the MD and VA counties where the schools are actually decent enough to send one's children. Get real.
Posted by lumaleg on 04/02/2009 03:57 PM EDT
It's about time someone opens up DC's books. I think every legislator, every aide, everyone at all working for the City of DC are out to get the most crooked things they can think of to steal whatever is available to them. There is absolutely "no one minding the store". And that goes for the legislators and their aides. Thanks to you everything (almost)is here to check them out. The question is: So? Who will still benefit?
Posted by Brandy on 04/02/2009 01:23 PM EDT
It is so ironic that as the representatives of the house and senate pretend that they care about us tax payers by crucifying wallstreet they are still and always have/will not practice what they preach.
Posted by petekent on 04/02/2009 09:53 AM EDT
Given how poorly Congress has performed over the past year in allowing our economy to go down the drain, I think all of these bonuses should be taxed at 90% unless they are returned! The hypocrisy of our legislators is outrageous. Barney Frank (aka Mde DeFarge) is the worst offender.

Leave a reply

Registered users can receive email notification of comments placed on this page. Sign in to an existing account or register for a new account.

» LegiStorm Blog