Congressional staffers are perhaps the most overworked and underpaid individuals on Capitol Hill. These finely dressed, experienced and educated individuals are the engine that keeps the federal government running.

Yet murmurs of living off of food stamps and being unable to afford dry-cleaning can be heard echoing throughout the offices of our nation’s representatives. 

Average staffer salaries have largely stagnated since the early 2000’s, meanwhile, education and living costs in the D.C. metro area have skyrocketed. 

Variation exists for salaries in each representative’s office, however, the aggregate amount of money allotted to each office to cover salaries is the same—and this amount has actually decreased when adjusted for inflation since 2001. Why?

As it stands, congressional representatives pay their staffers and fund their office operations as a whole through their Member Representational Allowances (MRA), a lump sum provided to each Member and decided through the annual budget-making processes. Not only does this system enable widespread variation in staffer salaries across offices, a staffer pay increase would require representatives to publicly vote to increase their MRA’s—this is the root of the problem. The optics of increasing their own allowances, according to various members, would inspire electoral backlash.

This seemingly humble frugality is foundational to a well-known and incredibly problematic phenomenon impacting the functionality of our federal government.

Our nation’s Capital, as a whole, is dominated—and has been for centuries—by white men from typically elite backgrounds.

After all, who else can afford to sustain a role that pays $45,000 annually in one of America’s most expensive cities?

Arguably, there are four primary, highly destructive consequences of Congress refusing to raise its own budget: underrepresentation of individuals from marginalized backgrounds, domination of Capitol Hill by mostly white elites, increased influence of lobbyists, and an aggregate consequence of policy that fails to meet the needs of the average American.

But First, What Exactly Do Congressional Staffers Do?

From drafting legislation to helping constituents resolve IRS disputes, congressional staffers perform a wide range of roles that keep the nation’s government afloat.

Several even remained on the House floor in the onset of a violent insurrection to retrieve the electoral college votes. 

Generally speaking, each office will have a constituent services director, legislative counsel, staff assistants, press secretaries, schedulers, Chiefs of Staff—or some variation of similar positions. Staff duties may vary, however, as a collective, congressional offices are entrusted to handle constituent correspondence and perform casework (like resolving citizen disputes with the Department of State, IRS, or other federal agencies), research and draft legislation, coordinate paperwork and the likes with other offices and committees, address the press, plan their representative’s schedule, maintain a functioning office, and they’ll often participate, to some degree, in re-election campaigns. This only begins to cover it—and especially with the onslaught of Coronavirus-related relief efforts, the workload across congressional offices has only skyrocketed in the previous year.

Even in 2019, a majority of congressional staffers surveyed by New America worked more than 40 hours each week—with some working as much as 70.

A Legislative Assistant, for example, perhaps one of the most crucial staffers, entrusted to curate legislation for their affiliated representative—are paid an average of around $56,000 a year, whilst the position demands upwards of 40 hours a week and 5+ years of experience on top of a college degree. And for the entry level positions, which arguably, are one of the few ways young policy professionals can get their foot in the door, salaries tend to range from $28,000 to $35,000 annually. 

Staffers essentially are left with no choice but to work second jobs or seek outside assistance.

As follows, high turnover, low diversity, and domination by lobbyists and individuals from elite backgrounds plagues congressional offices.

The Composition of the Capitol

Young, highly educated individuals of diverse backgrounds cannot afford to serve as congressional staffers—and those who do nonetheless often are forced to work multiple jobs and live in abhorrent conditions.

As such, the most diverse Congress in history is still staffed by majority white employees, many of whom come from wealthy, well-connected backgrounds. This is who is charged with curating our national policies, handling constituent services, and through their roles, gain access to valuable legislative experience and political connections that are inaccessible to others. Not only does this make it difficult for Congress to formulate well-rounded policy that serves the diverse needs of the American electorate, it makes more senior congressional positions less accessible to individuals of underrepresented backgrounds who could never afford to work on the Hill in the first place.

K Street is Calling

It’s easy to question the morality of former staffers who abandon their roles as public servants only to immediately go to work for the oil lobby. But with student loan debt and living expenses at an all time high, there is virtually no sustainable way for an individual, without outside assistance, to work as a congressional or committee staffer.

In fact, even representatives themselves have a difficult time budgeting their salaries which average $150k a year and haven’t increased since 2009. Considering representatives are required to maintain two residences: one in their home district and one near Capitol Hill (some even simply sleep in their offices), perhaps it’s no surprise Americans feel their interests are ceded to corporations and lobbyists.

But, I digress.

With congressional salaries as low as they are and lobbying firms always eager to recruit those with inside knowledge and connections, congressional staffers are prime targets for firms looking to hire—in fact, the Congress-to-lobbying pipeline is quite strong. Every year, countless former members and staffers leave their roles in the public sphere to better paid positions in K Street firms. This relationship not only benefits struggling congressional staffers, eager to earn living wages, but it also provides lobbying firms ripe pickings for the institutional expertise they need to see their policy agendas to fruition.

Policy Outcomes

There are two key policymaking dilemmas that arise from stagnant staffer wages. The first of which is rooted in the lack of diversity mentioned earlier, which, notably, has improved over recent years—however, the approximately 29% of staffers who are people of color still underrepresent the at least 40% of Americans who are people of color.

Various advocates have argued that increasing staff salaries and ending unpaid internships would quickly help to heighten staffer diversity by making roles accessible to individuals from low-income, marginalized backgrounds.

When congressional offices are composed of homogenous perspectives, the policy will mirror that. When diverse perspectives from underrepresented backgrounds are excluded, policy outcomes will neglect, or deliberately harm marginalized groups. Countless examples of this exist from the entire history of the United States. From the Immigrant Exclusion Acts of the early 20th century, to the anti-crime bills of the late 1980’s and early 90’s—overrepresentation of white elites in the nation’s Capitol has produced significant harm in minority communities.

Research has even shown that increased diversity helps to build policy cohesion and increase general consensus—meaning that diversity may even help Congress overcome the gridlock it has long been plagued by.

Policymaking is further hindered when we consider the impacts of resource scarcity (in terms of time, technology, and personnel) that staffers are constantly trying to work around. As such, it’s actually commonplace for legislators to accept research and even drafts of legislation offered by lobbyists.

Yes, research and drafts of legislation curated by lobbying firms—coined "Fill in the blank bills”are routinely used in actual federal, as well as state policy.

The Solution is Really Simple

There are really only a couple ways to go about increasing Congress’ budget. Sen. Elizabeth Warren offered up a suggestion where congressional staffer salaries would increase in a manner similar to that of other federal employees in accordance with a General Schedule (GS). GS increases require regular, inflation-adjusted wage bumps determined each January. GS employees in Washington, DC, for example, saw an average 8.19 percent increase between 2001 and 2018.

If Staffer salaries had simply been increased for inflation since 2001, that Staff Assistant that makes a meager $29,000 today would actually be earning $45,881.32. That’s nearly $20,000 more.

The current MRA system in place requires far more work, and is subject to congressional gridlock and overvaluation of optics, albeit at the expense of the functioning of their offices and the nation as a whole.

Is Change on the Horizon?

While some representatives claim the aesthetics of increasing their own budget would produce electoral backlash, others are actively advocating for change. Sen. Elizabeth Warren even told Vox that the issue requires urgent action. Not to mention, the events of January 6th and the pandemic as a whole highlighted to many the intensity congressional staffers endure at their places of work.

Not only did they keep our nation running in the midst of a violent insurrection, they almost seamlessly managed personnel changes, the transition to remote work, and the massive influx of constituent claims resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. They are more than deserving of living wages—and the American people deserve policy that reflects their needs—rather than the whims of K street, or Ivy-educated rich kids.

So, just give them a raise.