The 2003 National Commission on the Public Service, chaired by Paul Volcker, called judicial salaries the "most egregious example" of failed federal compensation policies, referenced a "similar crisis" as to executives, and stated flatly that "[f]ew democracies in the world expect so much from their national legislators for so little compensation."

For 20 years, legislators have matched their salaries to those of United States district judges and deputy cabinet secretaries. They hoped that coupling their own compensation with that of officials less in the public eye would salvage legislative salary increases despite voter hostility. However, Congress has still been reluctant to increase its salaries (compared to, say, average worker wage gains). Thus, linkage has not produced the benefits legislators anticipated for their own salaries, and at the same time, it has held back less controversial salary increases for judges and executives.

This paper examines salary linkage, in particular judicial-legislative linkage. We describe the federal judicial system and its judges' salaries, review the intermittent history of salary linkage, and consider arguments in support of linkage. For purposes of this paper, we are agnostic as to judicial or legislative compensation per se. Determining appropriate salary levels requires reasoned assessments of relevant job markets; salary effects on recruitment, retention, job satisfaction and many other factors; as well as comparisons of the full range of government benefits--issues that are well beyond the scope of this paper. . . .

Click here to read the full text of this paper as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

Russell Wheeler is a guest scholar in the Governance Studies program at the Brookings Institution and president of the Governance Institute in Washington, D.C. Michael S. Greve is the John G. Searle Scholar at AEI and director of AEI's Federalism Project.