Symbolism counts for a great deal in Washington.

Back in November, for example, members of Congress roasted automakers’ CEOs for traveling to the nation’s capital in private jets to seek a bailout for their industry.

“Those types of symbolic things, they really matter, they set a tone,” said U.S. Rep. Peter Roskam, an Illinois Republican.

So what sort of “tone” should Roskam and other members of the Senate and House of Representatives set when it comes to their own pay?

At the very least, Congress should hold an up-or-down vote on whether the members will insist on receiving the $4,700-a-year raise they are otherwise automatically scheduled to receive this year
.
The 2.8 percent increase would raise their salary to $174,000 annually, placing them near the top 5 percent of all wage earners in the country. Office perks, gold-plated health care and pensions sweeten the deal beyond the salary, benefits that outstrip those received by many private workers.

A vote on the raise — which for now is not scheduled to occur — would show which members of Congress are on record in favor of the higher pay. And which members think it’s time to forgo the added money.

A decision to give up some of or the entire raise would be a welcome symbolic action as the country suffers through a lean economy.

Tens of millions of American taxpayers who supply the salaries for Congress are facing some of their worst financial problems in decades.

Businesses are laying off workers, freezing employee wages or reducing benefits.

Whether or not members of Congress accept their raises this year, out of fairness they should approve prudent and overdue pay increases for federal judges.

Unfortunately, Congress has petulantly refused to award annual cost-of-living raises to the judges. The federal judiciary’s independence must be protected, and salaries at least somewhat comparable to private attorneys can help insure their independence.

Many members of Congress will claim any vote on their own pay raise would be merely symbolic. But this is an appropriate year for shared sacrifice and tangible evidence of a new kind of leadership in Washington.

After all, many other Americans are being forced to give up a lot more to try to survive tough economic times.