Ignoring for a moment that the combination of Congressional and Presidential pay is a tiny drop in the bucket of the Federal budget and the fact the budget killers are entitlement programs tied to demographic problems and increased human longevity, let's entertain the possibility...
One meme in Facebook lists the current pay of these elected offices as:
Salary of the US President. ..$400,000
Salary of retired US Presidents ...$180,000
Salary of House/Senate...$174,000
Salary of Speaker of the House.. .$223,500
Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders... $193,400
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN IRAQ $38,000
I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree... repost
The amounts seem reasonably correct, though probably don't include certain allowances required for the performance of duties. Also, the inclusion of a serving soldier as a benchmark is a nice touch.
The idea of reducing governmental salaries of the President, former presidents, and the legislative branch, potentially to a level similar to that of a deployed US soldier, is assumed to be a good thing for the economic condition of the country. I, however, disagree and not for partisan political reasons.
Let me explain why...
The primary purpose of elected politicians is to serve as representatives of those who elected them. The ideal situation in a democratic form of government is one where the elected official would both act in the best interest of the electors and make the same decision the electors would make if provided the information and authority.
One measure tied to this idea of elected official as proxy is the maintenance of a sense of connection between the official and those who elected them. In the case of legislators, this often includes a requirement to maintain an office and/or residence in the district they were elected from. This--functionally--requires the elected official to maintain two residences unless they happen to live within easy commuting distance of Washington, DC. This also requires transportation on a semi-regular basis between the home district/state and Washington in order to carry out their functions in both places.
A second measure towards maintaining connection is term length. By putting the legislator in front of voters on a regular basis for election and reelection, the voters are able to make an overall assessment on the legislator's actions on their behalf. Although arguably not a unique situation, this process--the election cycle--also adds to the fiscal and emotional costs for legislators.
Additionally, in order for voters to trust a candidate enough to vote for them in the first place, a candidate must have some sort of history--either as a legislator at a lower level or in some capacity of publicly documented political, legal, or economically relevant skill--to base an assessment upon. This means getting elected to Congress (or the Presidency) is not an entry-level job and often requires a long vetting process to be a viable candidate.
However, these representatives are allowed a significant benefit in exchange for these costs; the power to create legislation and to exercise power over their fellow citizens in a somewhat unique scope of authority.
So, what's the problem with paying them less?
The first problem is one of motivation. No one tries to get elected for the money; at least no politician in their right mind would suggest such a thing. It's a reasonably high salary compared to many career professions and several times higher than that of the typical state-level legislator (or a US soldier). The requirements to keep two residences and/or commute to Washington DC offsets some of the pay increase, however.
Motivation--in this case--is often tied to a rational assessment of the costs and benefits of the job where the motivation--ideally--is to both serve their electorate and to be recognized as a trustworthy executor of political and economic power. The ideal motivation being a focus on service to the electorate or even the reputation (or legacy) derived from the positions.
Cutting legislator pay essentially creates a conflict for legislators, especially those with families, by forcing their job requirements to be at odds with a stable family life and the measures suggested to remain connected with their electorate. This creates a situation where the working conditions of the job selects for people who are more willing to sacrifice their own family stability (and potentially their constituent's) as a normal part of their decision-making process in order to continue to function in the position.
However, legislators with alternative sources of income may bypass this difficulty. While this "relieves" the taxpayers of some of the burden to support legislators, the motivations and economic ties of well off politicians may cause other difficulties including the potential for these connections to directly influence votes against the will of the represented electorate. In other words, these self-supporting legislators may also be more willing to support themselves and their close connections at the expense of their constituents.
One final problem is that of competition. Given a choice, how many people would allow a medical doctor being paid $10 an hour to operate on them or a loved one?
Most people probably would resist being treated by that surgeon because they are accustomed to getting what they pay for and a deal that looks too good to be true usually has some serious faults attached. In this case, a question about the doctor's capabilities as most experienced, capable surgeons can command a much, much higher rate of pay.
Likewise, most politicians--like doctors--tend to be professional careerists. They have a history in politics or a closely related field, they are respected, and they usually have other options. Cutting the pay for elected offices simply make the jobs less competitive by increasing the personal costs and allowing other opportunities--like lobbying firms, political action committees, and non-elected executive positions--to draw off those with more talent and attachment to their families.
The people who remain and are willing to stand for office are those who have fewer options because they have been less successful, are more motivated by the unique power over others in politics--at the expense of family or money--or are different enough ideologically to ignore the expectations of others and therefore reduce the perceived stress within the position(s).
In all cases, it means those who stand for election would be less like us, more likely not to act in our best interest because of different values, and unlikely to make the same decisions we would make if provided the information and authority these politicians are provided.
Ultimately, it's not an ideal situation and no politician ever behaves in a way all of their voters approve of, but one guarantee in life is if you pay a cheap wage, you get cheap (or desperate) workers.
