The jokes are flying about why senators raised their salaries by $23,200 a few days ago to $125,100 a year.
TV show host David Letterman and the Roll Call newspaper in Washington had lists of top reasons they felt were behind the raise, including:- With C-SPAN (cable TV coverage of Congress), senators now have to wear pants. (That was only one of many Ted Kennedy-inspired jokes because of his reported escapades sans pants.)
- Soviets not shelling out for classified stuff like they used to.
- Fees doubled at the Hair Club for Men (to cure baldness).
- It's fun to see Ralph Nader turn beet red on TV.
- Had to stop Robert Byrd, D-W.V., from moving the Senate to West Virginia where the cost of living is cheaper. (Byrd - the Appropriations Committee chairman - has moved several other Washington agencies to his state in recent months.)
While it's fun for people - most of whom earn only a fraction of $125,100 themselves a year - to ridicule senators, the raise may actually have been a good thing.
Before people start throwing stones at me too, the reason it is good is that it is a small price to pay to mostly eliminate the "honoraria system," where special interests pay senators up to $2,000 per appearance for giving a speech, touring a plant or even just holding a hand-shaking session.
The raise comes in exchange for banning honorariums, and exactly matches action by the House last year for its members. For senators who kept near the maximum allowed in honorariums - as did Sens. Jake Garn and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah - the action will not change their take-home pay.
It will change who pays it. Essentially, it takes them off the payroll of special interests and puts them exclusively on the payroll of taxpayers.
Critics say honorariums allowed special interests to buy access to senators, and maybe buy influence - although senators scoff at the notion. Hatch, for example, has often said the vote of a senator cannot be bought for a mere $2,000.
But senators themselves admit many of them had become financially dependent on their total honorarium receipts. Garn, for example, voted for the pay raise only because he feared the Senate might vote otherwise to ban honorariums without it - and he said he could not afford a $23,000 pay cut.
To be fair, senators have some expenses that other people do not - such as having to maintain homes and cars both in Washington and Utah. And through the years, senators have been under political pressure to not give themselves many raises for fear of voter ire. So the special interests filled the gap.
But while Hatch, Garn and other Utah congressmen have records and reputations of high integrity, honorariums still give the appearance of evil - or at least of questionable ethics.
For example, Garn earned $42,500 in honorariums last year. He kept $27,300 and had $15,200 donated to charities. At least $9,500 of it came from finance groups interested in his job as ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee.
Senate rules allowed members to keep honorariums amounting up to $27,337. The rest must go to charity - which can bring some tax breaks and the good will of charities receiving the money. Former Rep. Howard Nielson, R-Utah, also said some members of Congress use honorariums to make donations to charities and churches. Honorariums donated to charity will continue to be allowed, and special interests will still be allowed to pay for trips to allow speeches.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, earned $69,900 in honorariums last year. He kept $23,135 and donated $46,765 to charity. At least $12,500 of it came from labor and management groups interested in his job as ranking Republican on the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee.
Before the House banned honorariums, Rep. Wayne Owens, D-Utah, would around Christmas every year earn thousands of dollars in speech fees from companies owned or heavily controlled by his millionaire friend and former campaign director Ian Cumming.
Last year, for example, Owens earned $12,000 from Cumming companies such as Bolivia Power Co., Charter National Insurance Co., Jordan Industries, Leucadia National Corp. and Denver Instruments. When asked if they were Christmas gifts from Cumming, Owens said, "Sort of, except I had to work for them."
By eliminating honorariums, the pay raise will at least avoid the appearance of evil.