For the most part, I ignore the legislature of PA, much as I would disregard someone’s elderly dog who farts and sheds. They’re there, and I have to put up with them, but don’t have to like them.
Then, my Sunday paper is graced with this reminder of how much they’re doing for themselves: annual pay raise.
2.4% increases across the board, despite budget issues in Harrisburg. Governor Rendell had the decency to push away from the table and not take that automatic supersizing of his paycheck.
With so many servicemen and women serving around the globe, I have to wonder how many of them saw a similar increase. Who of the nation’s police, firefighters, and EMS workers saw that sort of bump in the wallet?
Have you no shame? I’d like to believe your Mothers taught you better.
Stuff like this makes me wonder if it is possible to get a proposition, ballot measure, or any other kind of citizen’s intiative passed that would make so that only the voters can approve the pay raises of the state legislators.
The only drawback to that idea is that a pay raise would never happen.
The pay rise in question is tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index, a measure of price inflation. That is, as prices rise, so do politician’s salaries. The net effect on their wealth in “real terms” is zero: the increase in pay is offset by a general increase in prices.
Would you prefer a position where legislators’ salaries fall in real terms?
Would this approach encourage more able people to enter politics? Would more educated professionals enter politics, or would this act as a disincentive to gifted, hard-working people from leaving the private sector to enter government?
Would crappier pay for politicians lead to better government, or worse?
**Incidentally, I don’t envy the life of a politician. Consider:
Hideous working hours, including work on weekends and holiday tending to an electorate, official duties outside office hours, and sitting times into the wee hours of the morning.
Frequent travel away from home and family.
Facing intense public scrutiny of one’s private life and family, and the unrelenting cynicism of the public; and
Earning a salary less that what an educated professional could earn in private enterprise.
Would you do the job, for the pay at offer?
:dubious:
With respect, I don’t agree. I don’t think any teacher would care to compare their average weekly working hours and annual vacations against those of a politician. I also don’t think that too many teachers suffer public scrutiny of their private lives (background checks aside) and have to frequently travel away from home.
… however, I also don’t want to fall into the trap of arguing teachers have it sweet. They don’t–they work an important job in tough conditions and deserve the public sympathy they attract.
But this issue isn’t about teachers and what they may or may not deserve. It’s about a legislators getting a pay rise, in line with inflation. If it could be established that the pay increase in question went straight from the pocket of teachers to those of politicians, there may be merit in comparing the two occupations–but this is an automatic increase; there is no casual link. We may as well argue that, say, funding of the arts and teachers’ salaries are linked: “how can we throw money at the arts, when teachers deserve so much more?”
So I’ll stick to my previous line: without a CPI pay rise, you will effectively pay legislators less money as time goes by. Do you want the people responsible for governing your state to be paid less each year? Is it acceptable to you that we should provide economic disincentives to educated professionals from entering the world of politics?
If you pay peanuts you get the monkeys you darn well deserve.
Incidentally, personally I’d be mightly peeved if I only got a 2.4 per cent pay increase next year.
You could also argue that something like minimum wage for office-holders would improve government by making certain that the pool of willing candidates is composed of those who truly want to make the government work, as opposed to those looking to make a quick, (with corruption) unethical and (with pensions) long-lasting buck.
The best way to keep criminals out of government is to make government office unprofitable.
From what I’ve read, when this Nation was founded, those who entered the legislature did so out of sense of obligation to the electorate. Many of them were business persons in their own right, and served their term in office before returning to their private commerce.
Nowadays, politicians make a career of it. I disagree with the statement that salaries are comparable to those of teachers. The PSEA is one of the more powerful lobbies in Harrisburg, and starting salaries in most of the suburban Philadelphia school districts are in the $50K and higher range. If you factor in the other perks such as the per diem for attending session (isn’t that what you took the job to do, Bub?), the vehicle, etc., you’re more likely in the $75K range.
Enact term limits, put in a pay program that is more in line with median income, benefits that Joe Average can respect, and I believe there would be flock of talented people willing to restore faith in Government by making it work the way the founding fathers intended.
in an effort to attract talented people – who could enjoy better pay and conditions in the private sector – into politics?
… I’m not sure that’s going to work. :dubious:
**No, it’s not. Not paying politicians a competitive salary will encourage people to enter the game with a view to securing benefits on the side. Your idea will ensure people who enter politics will seek kickbacks, pursue private deals on the side and a develop a willingness to trade political favours for repayment post-political life. And whither your pool of “willing candidates”? Can you honestly imagine a long line of educated, talented professionals snaking around the block seeking to get a tough job which pays minimum wage? Pure fantasy.
Does anyone care to address my point that the pay rise you’re all bitching about is in line with price inflation? That without this indexed increase, you will effectively pay politicians less each year? Do you all agree that this is the best way to attract the right people to enter politics?