The Price of Public Service

"Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country."

President John F. Kennedy's notion of public service has long been used as a justification for calling on young Americans to renounce the material rewards of the private sector in exchange for spiritual satisfaction. Money shouldn't be the purpose of public service according to this philosophy, whether that service is collecting signatures on a petition, toiling at a reform-oriented nonprofit, or working in a government agency.

But the "money isn't everything" argument doesn't mean that it's feasible -- or right -- to ask young people to work for nothing, or next to it. No matter how dedicated someone is to a cause, they can't live on enthusiasm forever. At some point, they have to get paid.

The political and advocacy sectors already have encountered this problem. The outsourcing of low-wage campaign labor to young workers has resulted in unfavorable publicity, including Dana Fisher's book Activism Inc. (Stanford University Press, 2006), which exposed the practice.

While the federal government is unlikely to rely solely on volunteer labor, it is important for debates over the federal pay system to consider seriously, what's the appropriate compensation for public servants?

That topic seems to be on the minds of pay reform advocates. "When you're in your 20s, it's OK to share an apartment. But when they're [sic] a journeyman, they can make an effective contribution, and they start thinking about getting married and having a family. They look around, and say, 'I can't do this' and flee to a lower cost city," said Kathrene Hansen, executive director of the Los Angeles Federal Executive Board, at a recent congressional hearing on locality.

It's unlikely, both for practical and political reasons, that Congress can move immediately to mandate pay comparability between the private sector and federal government. The pay gap remains considerable among many professions in the two arenas, and the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act has never been completely enforced. The costs of immediately moving to close the pay gap would be enormous.

"There's a worry among employees that the bill will get too expensive and won't make it through the process," said Charles Grimes, deputy associate director at the Office of Personnel Management.

But a serious and substantive plan to reduce the pay gap is necessary, and should include a number of elements.

First, it can't be optional, and it must be flexible. There will be years when the federal budget is tight, the economy is fragile and the entire federal government must accept difficult economic realities. But presidents have used their authority to issue alternative pay plans under all sorts of circumstances. Perhaps some sort of progress toward closing the pay gap should be mandatory, even if that progress cannot always be as rapid as federal employees and their advocates would like.

Second, it's time for another conversation about the importance of public service. It's no secret that the next president has to inspire a new generation to enter federal service to keep the government running at peak capacity. But the discussion has to be broader than that. It needs to define how Americans value public service, government programs -- and the price we're willing to pay for both. Because the truth is, people who choose to serve their country should get something in return than just a warm, fuzzy feeling.