Scraping by on $170,000

In November, a last-ditch effort to slide "cost-of-living" salary increases for federal judges into the auto bailout legislation failed in Congress. That means judges are the only federal workers who won't get some sort of pay raise in 2009.

This fact, coupled with what some argue is an inherently low pay scale, has again triggered warnings from members of the judiciary about a potential exodus of sitting judges seeking more lucrative opportunities in the private sector.

And like similar warnings in the past, it's a crock.

"Federal judges are currently under-compensated because Congress has repeatedly failed to adjust judicial salaries in response to inflation," argues James C. Duff, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

Nonsense.

Federal judges earn $169,300 a year. Judges on federal appeals courts make $179,500 annually. Their pay has increased 23 percent since 1999. They have lifetime tenure. They may retire at age 65 with full pay after only 15 years of service.

The idea that these jurists need annual cost-of-living hikes to help them offset the rising costs of groceries is insulting to struggling taxpayers -- as even some former judges admit.

"It's almost embarrassing to say you can't survive on $170,000 or $180,000, whatever it was that I was being paid," said Timothy Lewis, who resigned his seat on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999 at the age of 44 and is now in private practice. "That's not true, of course. But it just did not seem conducive to the lifestyle I was trying to provide for my children in private schools and college tuitions, which I'm paying now."

Fine. But Mr. Lewis is the exception, not the rule. The Associated Press reports that in the past two years only seven federal judges younger than age 65 have quit. And if potential vacancies go unfilled, it's due to politics or congressional dithering, not a lack of eager candidates.

"Existing judges could make more money if they retire, maybe three to four times their salary, and yet they don't retire in great numbers," Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, told The AP.

Mr. Posner recently wrote a paper with Stephen Choi of New York University and G. Mitu Gulati of Duke on the wisdom of giving judges more money. They concluded that raising salaries as a retention tool might be a solution in search of a problem.

"For many people, it's more rewarding and less stressful to be a judge," Mr. Posner said.

Congressional committees in both the Senate and House last year approved hefty 29 percent raises for members of the federal judiciary, but the bills went nowhere. No doubt a similar effort will surface next year. Let's hope it's destined for a similar fate. Any increase should be far less extravagant.

Federal judges do important work and deserve to earn a comfortable living. Occasional increases in base pay are certainly warranted. But supporters of higher salaries don't help their case complaining about missing a COLA increase during a recession or predicting a brain drain that never seems to materialize.