By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Facing criticism over congressional stock trading, Speaker Mike Johnson argued that stagnant congressional salaries since 2009, now 31% lower inflation-adjusted, necessitate supplemental income for members to meet the demands of public service. He defended stock trading as a means for these individuals to support their families and maintain financial stability. However, this practice has drawn increased scrutiny amid allegations of insider trading following market fluctuations related to recent tariff announcements. The upcoming May 15th deadline for financial disclosures promises to shed further light on these concerns.
Read the original article here
Mike Johnson’s recent argument that members of Congress need to engage in stock trading to support their families due to stagnant salaries has ignited a firestorm of criticism. His assertion, essentially, is that the current congressional salary of $174,000 annually is insufficient for adequately supporting a family.
This claim, however, sits uneasily with many. The significant disparity between a congressional salary and the average American income of approximately $42,000 immediately springs to mind. Many question how a salary exceeding four times the national average could possibly be considered insufficient, especially when coupled with the extensive benefits and healthcare packages afforded to members of Congress.
The argument further falters when considering the substantial wealth amassed by some members of Congress. The existence of several members with net worths exceeding $100 million, placing them in the top 0.2% of the US population, undermines the claim of financial hardship. The juxtaposition of such immense personal wealth with the plea for insider trading to make ends meet paints a picture of profound disconnect from the realities faced by most American families.
Johnson’s defense rests partially on the fact that congressional salaries haven’t been raised since 2009. While this is true, the argument conveniently ignores the equally stagnant federal minimum wage, which has remained unchanged since 2005 (or even 2009, depending on the source). This omission reinforces the perception that Johnson’s argument is self-serving and ignores the plight of millions of Americans struggling to survive on significantly less.
The suggestion that Congress needs access to insider information to support their families is viewed by many as a thinly veiled justification for illegal activities. The inherent conflict of interest between legislative duties and personal financial gain via insider trading is a central concern. The ethical implications are vast; the potential for corruption and abuse of power is substantial.
Many suggest that instead of justifying insider trading, Congress should focus on addressing the broader issue of income inequality. Raising the minimum wage, or even indexing it to inflation, would be a more equitable solution than allowing legislators to exploit their positions for personal enrichment.
The hypocrisy is further amplified by the fact that many members of Congress consistently vote against measures that would benefit average Americans, such as raising the minimum wage or expanding access to affordable healthcare. This perceived prioritization of personal financial gain over the needs of their constituents adds fuel to the already intense criticism.
The counter-argument that unfreezing congressional salaries would attract less qualified candidates is largely dismissed as disingenuous. The current state of affairs, with several members facing accusations of unethical behavior and displaying evident incompetence, hardly provides a strong basis for this assertion. The claim seems to suggest that only financial incentives can attract competent individuals to public service, thus disregarding any sense of civic duty or commitment to the public good.
Ultimately, Mike Johnson’s argument is perceived by many as a tone-deaf and self-serving justification for unethical behavior. His attempt to frame insider trading as a necessity for supporting a family on a $174,000 salary is seen as a profound disconnect from the financial struggles faced by ordinary Americans earning far less, while simultaneously highlighting a blatant disregard for the ethics and integrity of public service. The ongoing controversy underscores the growing distrust in government and the need for greater transparency and accountability among elected officials.