$51,404: the median household income in the United States as of February 2013.

$172,500: the annual salary of most members of Congress.

This number puts the U.S. senators and representatives in the top-5 percentile range of income distribution and is clearly more than triple what the average household is raking in each year. However, according to a Washington Post blog post (and several members of Congress), this number isn’t high enough.

Timothy Lee, author of the column, argues that able members of Congress are either corrupted or led away by opportunities to make much, much more as lobbyists. He uses a quote from Rep. Phil Gingrey to prove his point, who compares his salary to that of lobbyists by saying: “Meanwhile, I’m stuck here making $172,000 a year.”

U.S. senators and representatives have important jobs, and because of that, they deserve impressive salaries. Their jobs are hard; their lives are complicated, and that deserves compensation. However, the money should not be an important factor in motivating competent politicians to run for office.

Yes, money is important in the world of politics — campaign fees, dinners, even the lifestyle of a member of Congress is necessarily expensive. However, Lee’s argument isn’t that members of Congress deserve larger pay so they can afford these luxuries, but rather as competitive motivation.

He makes the comparison to a private firm that offers competitive salaries to highly-ranked employees in order to keep them in the company. This would be a strong comparison, except for the fact that the powers of a firm’s businessman and a U.S. senator are very different.

A senator or representative, though he or she is just one of 535 voting members, has power that the average individual does not. A talented businessman might have influence within his country or the industry, but few have the level of national influence that a member of Congress does. The power to represent, to speak for the people, to shape and guide the country belongs to these elected politicians.

In this way, the power itself in the hands of a member of Congress is reward for “getting the job.” That level of influence in one of the world’s leading nations should mean more than all the money on Wall Street.

However, power alone should still not be a motivating factor for two reasons. One: that power is as corruptible an influence as is money. Two: the lobbyists who make so much more can have comparable power.

The true reason a man or woman should aspire to congressional power is for the service to their country. Whether for personal or party platforms, politicians attempt to shape U.S. legislation but their reason for doing so should be a sincere belief that they are helping the people of America.

Not power, not money, but a genuine desire to improve their country — this should be what motivates the driven men and women toward political office.

Lee may argue that senators deserve a bigger salary — and certainly they could be earning more — but they don’t need to be. High pay is a fitting reward for jobs that are hard and have few other benefits. But as a member of Congress can influence his party, change legislation and shape his country, it is apparent that this is a job with additional advantages.

To ensure the best people are in office, and to purge corruption, tax payers should not pay our senators and representatives more. By even considering it, we make money the emphasis, and belittle the true power and responsibilities of the members of Congress.