Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., again made headlines last week, this time by arguing that Congress is due for a pay raise. The necessary expenses of the job are, she argues, too high for the wages it gets.

She’s not wrong.

Immediately, many disapproved of her suggestion. Congressional pay raises have never been popular — Ocasio-Cortez’s tweets were spurred by the fact that Democratic leadership was forced to kill a congressional pay raise bill on June 10. But before getting outraged, it’s worth taking a closer look into what the effects of a raise would actually be. Making sure that America’s lawmakers have decent salaries should really be a bipartisan concern.

Congressional salaries haven't increased since 2009, because people so detest the idea. When looking at the case against a pay raise, there seem to be two arguments. The first line of reasoning is that congressmen already have salaries significantly higher than that of most Americans. The average member of Congress has a salary of $174,000, plus additional benefits. This base salary easily puts members of Congress in the top 10% of income-earners.

The reality, however, is a bit more complicated. Members of Congress also have much higher costs than the average American. Washington, D.C., is ranked as the ninth-most expensive city, and costs of living are 19% higher than the national average. Furthermore, members have to pay for housing in D.C., stacked on top of the cost of maintaining a home in their district. This is especially hard on representatives from expensive urban areas such as New York or San Francisco.

Others, such as the Washington Examiner's Brad Polumbo, argue that Congress has done nothing to deserve a pay raise. After all, Congress has had a terrible track record with actually passing legislation, to the point where something as routine as raising the debt ceiling consistently creates shutdown scares. If Congress is simply unable to accomplish its most basic purposes, why should its members get a raise?

Polls indicate that people aren’t happy with Congress. According to a May 2019 Gallup poll, only a mere 20% approved of the way Congress is handling its tasks, while a staggering 75% did not. Why should such an astonishingly unpopular body be given even more money?

But these polling figures are a little more complicated. Yes, Congress as a whole has extremely low approval ratings, but individual members of Congress have much higher approval ratings, particularly within their own district. In the eyes of many throughout the country, their own elected official is doing fine — it’s all the other members that are causing trouble.

When Gallup asked about people’s own representative, approval rates shot up to the 50% or higher range, while disapproval ratings plummeted down to the mid-30s.

Clearly folks are more annoyed with Congress as an institution than they are with their particular representatives. One of the more consistent criticisms of Congress is that it’s plagued by gridlock. But the fault for Congress’ setup doesn’t lie with representatives. Both of these frustrating features were built into the federal government by the Founders with expressed intent.

A congressman's job is to represent the people of his district, not to pander to the nation as a whole. If he can remain popular enough in his district to stay in office, then he’s probably doing a pretty good job. For that, let’s give them all a raise.

David Doerr (@davidrdoerr1) is a graduate of Hillsdale College and a writer for Young Voices.