One of the biggest reasons that 1,500-page monstrosity of a Continuing Resolution was defeated in the House of Representatives just before Christmas was the inclusion in it of a provision that would have increased congressional pay 3.8 percent, from the present $174,000 annually to $180,600.

Every congressional pay raise proposal in recent decades has caused explosions of anger from constituents who see their own incomes being eaten away by the inflation, lowered productivity, decreased entrepreneurial vigor, and growing restrictions on individual freedom that Big Government always causes.

Congressional pay raise debates invariably prompt a great deal of demagoguery in the public debate, but one absolutely legitimate point that is invariably and repeatedly made by the elected official themselves is that they must shoulder the costs of maintaining two homes, one back in their state and one in the nation's capital.

That is a legitimate burden that deserves genuine consideration. But instead of continuously raising members' compensation while continuing to impose the two-homes burden, here's my modest proposal with an upside for everybody, including taxpayers and individuals elected to serve in Congress:

Why not have each state shoulder the costs of buying and maintaining a home in the national capital region for each of its elected senators and representatives? Given the costs of buying homes throughout the Washington, D.C. region, removing the necessity of a second mortgage would make a huge difference for senators and representatives, a difference far exceeding that of a 3.8 percent pay raise.

Alternatively, if officials back home don't want to be bothered with the costs of acquisition and maintenance, each state could provide a stipend to each of its senators and representatives to fund their living quarters while working on behalf of constituents in Congress.

If such a system were in place, over time we would see state-owned residences occupied by famous or infamous representatives and senators becoming historical landmarks. It is also likely that competition would arise among the states to see who can provide the most suitable housing for their elected officials serving on Capitol Hill.

More importantly, once relieved of the financial burden of maintaining a second home in one of the most expensive regions in the country, senators and representatives would be freed to focus more of their creative and practical skills on solving the nation's problems.

Now, combine this approach to the housing issue with a genuine and enforced ban on senators and representatives making stock market investments while in office and limit their tenure to 12 years. The result would be a more productively focused and accountable Congress, much closer to what the Founders envisioned.

A modest proposal worth thinking about.