Congressional pay raises and minimum wage are apples and oranges

Democrats in Congress think they have made a connection that will help them ride to electoral success in the fall.
Unless Congress approves an increase in the minimum wage, they say, they will block a raise in congressional pay. Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, hasn't said exactly how he intends to stop the pay raises, but promises that he has some parliamentary tricks up his sleeve.
There is no question that congressional pay has grown faster than the minimum wage.
From 1938 through the end of World War II, the congressional salary was $10,000 a year. During that same time, the minimum wage increased by 60 percent from 25 cents an hour to 40 cents. Congress then gave itself a 25 percent raise, and its salary stayed at $12,500 for another 10 years. Fifty years ago, Congress was getting $22,500 and the minimum wage was $1. Since then, the minimum wage has increased by a little over five-fold, to $5.15 while the Congressional salary has increased about 7.5 times, to $168,500.
Health care costs, pensions and perks make a congressman worth well over $200,000 a year. Since the last minimum-wage increase a decade ago, salaries for members of Congress have gone up $31,600, which is equivalent to $15 an hour for a 40-hour week. Meanwhile, someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage makes $10,700 a year.
All of which goes to show that members of Congress have been much better able to cope with inflation than people who make minimum wage. But it doesn't prove that the minimum wage should be increased, or that members of Congress should receive a reward equivalent to $1.60 an hour for their work week if they agree to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 by 2008.
Debate the issue
Those who oppose an increase in the minimum wage argue that in the vast majority of cases it is an entry-level wage, that most workers have the ability to progress to a higher wage and that raising the minimum wage would actually hurt low-end earners because employers would cut jobs rather than pay more than a job was worth.
The minimum wage should be debated on those kind of questions, not on whether Congress should give itself a raise.
If members of Congress want to tie their own salaries to anything, it should be to their job performance.
And it that regard, a benchmark is easy to find. When Congress balances the budget it should begin to talk about giving itself a raise. Until then, Congress is spending more than it is taking in, and that kind of behavior shouldn't be rewarded.
A private citizen who spent 10 percent more than he made year after year after year would be facing bankruptcy. In Congress, members spend beyond their means, pile up trillions of dollars in new debt and look forward to getting raises.
Debate the minimum wage on its own.
As to Congress, since 1989, members have gotten an automatic increase unless they've held a special vote to say they don't want one. This is the year representatives and senators should just say no. They haven't earned a raise. If they want to know when they have, all they need do is keep their collective eye on the bottom line.