Let's play another round of my favorite game, "Posting Numbers Without Proper Context." In this edition, D.C. government salaries and how out of control they seem, courtesy of @forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/06/16/why-washington-dc-is-in-trouble--7780-public-employees-with-100000-salaries-cost-taxpayers-1-billion/#ffdff6b33879

First off, let's start with this opener: "Local politicians in Washington, D.C. claim a $1.5 billion budget deficit due to the coronavirus pandemic. So, they’re lobbying Congress for a two-year $3.15 billion bailout." Uhh yeah, that's not totally accurate.

D.C. officials have merely been asking for the same direct federal aid that states got in the first COVID-19 bill: $1.25 billion per state, but D.C. got $775 million since it was lumped in with the territories.

Could that federal money be used to cover revenue losses? Lots of state officials have been hoping as much, so D.C. isn't the only place that would be looking to those dollars to cover the pretty massive hit government budgets across the country have taken.

And this: "The city’s financial woes aren’t stopping nearly 8,000 city government employees – including the mayor and city council – from bringing home six-figure salaries and higher." This is true. But it also buys into the idea that public service should be at low pay.

Now, there is of course a good debate to be had about what D.C. public officials should make — and whether there should be higher salaries down the ranks for teachers, fire fighters, police officers, social workers, etc.

But the Forbes story very largely plays into the idea that public servants shouldn't be paid well. A school crossing guard making $67,324? Heavens no! The "city librarian" earning $223,863? Can't be! (BTW, that's the head of the D.C. Library system.)

More broadly, the Forbes story says many D.C. officials make more than their state counterparts. Well, D.C. operates like a city, county and state — so in some cases, local officials do more than some of their state counterparts.

Again, there are cases where some D.C. agencies are top heavy. There have long been criticisms that @dcpublicschools' central office is too big. That's ripe for proper accounting and oversight.

But lambasting crossing guards for making between $60-70k? That ignores a basic reality that D.C. has a long history of using public employment as a tool to offer economic stability to communities who have otherwise been discriminated against. Oh, and D.C. is expensive.

And yes, public service should probably try and be competitive with the private sector. Is it surprising that @AGKarlRacine "has six advisory positions that paid $174,520"? Sure, if you ignore what the many, many law firms and lobbying shops in town pay.

Finally, the Forbes story ignores that Bowser's proposed budget has a four-year pay freeze for city workers in it. Is that fair, or the best policy? Maybe, maybe not. Is the government too big? Maybe, maybe not.

But if the pandemic evidenced anything, it's that it's often public servants who aren't paid nearly enough for the value they provide. Teachers, for one. Or election workers. Or social workers. And I could go on.

Anyhow, debating public service salaries, especially at the top, is fair. But casting a wide net and saying "OMG look at all these government workers living off of the public dime" misses the nuance of the debate, and unfairly assumes public service is charity.

Last thought on executive pay. Per the Forbes story, Bowser makes $220,000, "an amount exceeding every governor of the 50 states ($202,000)." But 45 states offer governors and their families an official residence. (That's public housing!) D.C. does not have a mayoral mansion.

How much is free housing for four years worth for all those governors? Funny how that number wasn't included.