Big Dogs Weblog

Congress Should be Paid for Performance

by Big Dog on Jan 13, 2008 at 10:31 Political

Some parts of the Federal Government have gone to a new pay system called the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) and it is supposed to be a pay for performance program where performers are paid more and non performers are laid less or even dismissed from service. From what I have read it is nothing more than a revised old boy system where those who have connections get great ratings and those who are not so well connected get an average rating. Despite being called pay for performance, my sources tell me it is only as good as the ability of the supervisor to understand what his employees do and how their actions equate to performance. Regardless, Congress allowed NSPS to take place and I think pay for performance is a good idea as long as they don’t change the rules a million times or lie about how it works, which seems to be the way government programs take place.

Congress should be on the same kind of system. The Congress just received a $4,100 cost of living pay raise that raises the average salary to over $169,000. When one considers the dismal performance of Congress it is not hard to see why they not only do not deserve the increase in pay but they should be giving money back. The last Congress had only 180 items signed into law and most were real important items like naming buildings such as post offices. If they ever rename the Capitol they can use the name Dewey, Cheatum and Howell building of corruption and inactivity.

Congress was good at adding earmarks and loading bills with pork. They added nearly 10,000 earmarks to the omnibus spending bill to steer our money toward pet projects in their home states. They have no idea of what fiscal responsibility is and they have no concept of being prudent with our money. Couple this with the fact that they work about 100 days a year and it is not hard to see that they are grossly overpaid for what they do. They take off for weeks at a time around every holiday and they take the entire month of August off. They have extended time off during elections and there are quite a number of members who have missed nearly a year of work because they have been on the campaign trail. We are paying them a salary to campaign.

Pay for performance is a good idea. Congress has this sneaky little method of receiving increases in pay. If they do not vote to stop the increase it is automatic. Then they can say they never voted to increase their pay. I think we should tie Congressional pay to performance. My first performance indicator is the budget. Congress receives absolutely no pay increase until the budget is balanced without raising taxes at all. In any year the budget is not balanced (and that means passed on time) they would not receive a raise. They would also not receive the raise until the end of the year so we could assess their performance. If you pay these schmucks up front you will never get good work out of them.

Next year needs to be the year where we get rid of all incumbents. In primaries people need to vote for the other person to represent the party so that incumbents are knocked out early. Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland should be a casualty of the primary but if he makes it through I and hundreds of my associates will be voting for the Democrat who runs against him. Why? Because he, like all others there, has become irresponsible. We need to rid ourselves of all of them.

I think we need to start over with fresh faces and fresh ideas. Until we can make that happen we should limit their pay and ensure they are not rewarded for the dismal performance we have seen.

Sources:
Townhall 1
Townhall 2

Tags: Congress, do nothing congress, failure, pay raise