Left In Lowell

An automatic pay raise

18 Responses to “An automatic pay raise”

1. -b Says:
   January 7th, 2009 at 9:32 pm

   Most of my family left the state long ago. How I am still here I have no idea.

   This kind of stuff is all too common, and again and again people keep voting in favor of people who support this BS.

   Last election I had to write in “other” several times because there was no one in opposition to the incumbents. Totally annoying.

2. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   January 7th, 2009 at 10:27 pm

   When Tom Finneran was speaker he sold voters a bill of goods in getting them to vote in favor of this constitutional amendment. Finneran could have introduced it as routine legislation but he didn’t want voters to be able to vote to roll back legislative pay raises as we did after the October surprise.

   So now, every two years like clockwork, our legislators will be getting a pay raise.

   According to Senate President Therese Murray, it is up to each individual lawmaker to decide if he/she will accept the increase. I wonder if the members of the Greater Lowell delegation will accept it and defend how hard they work, or reject it.

   I wonder if it’s time for voters to look at abolishing the “professional” legislature in favor of a “citizen” legislature as is the case to our immediate north? If not maybe a petition banning outside sources of income.

3. Ryan Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 2:12 am

   It’s nice that they gave themselves a 5.5% raise.

   Their aides haven’t had a raise in 7 or 8 years ($28k/yr, commuting to or living in Boston)…

   Glad they have their priorities straight. LOL.

4. Lynne Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am

   Well, is there a way to track who takes this pay raise and who doesn’t? I think a public shaming is in order here…

   Honestly, the supposed reason for auto raises is that it’s based on median income, determined by another branch of government (the governor) therefore there’s no political maneuvering for more pay or anything like that. But 5.5% is steep, when everyone else has to content themselves with an average of 1-3%, if they’re lucky to have a job right now.

   The legislature can do some redeeming of itself if they universally reject the pay raise. I’d be pretty impressed by that. Humans being humans and all that, though, I don’t expect it. The angels of our better natures are more often suppressed than not.

   What a thing to run on though…”I refused the pay raise in the middle of an economic crisis because I am working for the people of the Commonwealth, and if they are suffering, I choose to suffer too.”

   Though honestly, IF being a legislator were a full time job (and for the House, it often is NOT, they often have jobs or businesses on the side), $61K to have to be in Boston either commuting, living, or whatever isn’t that much, compared to many middle class workers. Just thinking of my own family income here. Obviously a lot of people have to make do with $30-$45K in this state, and to them, $61K seems excessive, and I could see why they would be a little peeved.

5. sco Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 11:14 am

   is there a way to track who takes this pay raise and who doesn’t?

   Of course there is. It’s called the telephone. Call every legislator’s office and ask them. Post the results to the web.

6. Just Me Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am

   Is it 5.5% every year or 2 years (as it says in comment 2)? If it is every 2 years, that’s not really that much 2.75 a year. They do work so they do deserve some kind of a raise. How many people can afford to raise their families on the same pay year after year?

7. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

   Just me: I believe it is 5.5% over the life of the session, 2 years however you must also keep in mind that the $61,440 is the BASE pay. Many legislators earn an addition $7500 to $15000 as chairs of committees or members of the leadership teams, nearly everyone in the Senate is the chair of at least one committee.

   Then there is that lovely “per diem” that they collect. Being paid additional money to commute to the statehouse even those legislators that live in Boston.

   And as has been pointed out it is the rare legislator that does not have a “full time job” elsewhere, be it a law office, real estate office etc. The legislature is their “part time” job.

   The constitutional amendment creating this automatic pay raise needs to go away so we can once again hold individual legislators accountable for their actions in accepting or rejecting future pay raises.

8. Mr. Lynne Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 3:29 pm

   I think there are two points being conflated here. The first is whether or not the 5.5% raise is justified. The second is whether or not the actual base salaries are justified. Truth be known, 5.5% over two years is not huge. It is in line (or even less) than typical escalation of management jobs in the private sector. I’d have a hard time arguing the amount is too much (as a percentage) knowing what I expect for escalation from my employer about every 12 months. Of course, separate from the issue of the reasonableness of the actual number, there is the political echo it sends in the current budget circumstances - which I’m not addressing here.

   Much of the outrage I hear is over the base pay. 5.5% over two years doesn’t even sound like much, but if you think they are over-paid to begin with, then it can seem politically excessive in that context.

   But I suggest we direct our displeasure at the particular part of the story where there is justifiable concern. The 5.5% is easier to defend against than the base pay.

9. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   January 8th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

   Just a note and I’ll be done. My company is granting 3% raises to people making under 40K a year, under 60 you get 1% over 60 nothing and some no longer have jobs.

   I am not objecting to a 2.75 percent pay raise for legislators, I AM objecting to the fact that they were able to take themselves out of the equation!

   “You can’t blame me for getting a pay raise in a bad economoy, you voted for it!”

   BULL!

   It is a part time job and they work for us. People are losing the jobs, their homes, their retirements and we are granting payraises that we don’t have a say in and can’t repeal.

   We can NOT legally rollback their pay as has been done in the past because most voters were hoodwinked.

10. -b Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    Channel 5 has a list (albeit incomplete) of House and Senate members who will be “taking” the pay raise.

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/18438963/detail.html - Senate

    http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/18439010/detail.html - House

    When my company hit hard times back in 2001 they froze salaries for about a year and half. This time around we are staring down a large layoff.

11. waittilnextyr Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Freezing all salaries would seem to be appropriate when the State is at least $1B in the hole. That may mean ALL salaries, including municipalities that are dependent on State aid. The Legislature would be a good place to start, although it may have already started with the Governor and Lt. Governor.

12. mike01824 Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 8:13 am

    $61K for a part-time job is excessive. For a full-time legislator it seems on the low side.

    The political symbolism of this is huge, given that our legislature hasn’t voted for automatic (indexed) increases to the minimum wage.

13. Always Right in Lowell Says:
    January 9th, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Not sure if there is a way to track the refusal/acceptance of the raises BUT… those who make a show of telling us they will accept and then donate think we’re all stupid.
    If they accept the raise, their pensions are automatically boosted and they get a tax deduction for the donations. Wow, I’m impressed!
    Only the reps who actively refuse the raise are the ones who understand life in the real world of their constituency.
    We only have ourselves to blame for voting for this in 1998. Citizens for Limited Taxation and those dreaded republicans were all over it but nobody listened. We need a “Never Vote For An Incumbent” push in this state.
    On another note, what about Tom Finneran asking for a Presidential pardon for his perjury conviction! He’s an attorney and an elected official. Wouldn’t you think it would be obvious to him that you don’t lie to a grand jury… now he wants to be absolved because he’s been punished enough! I’ve been listening to him for the past year since CAP got so bad but I will never listen to him again. He left for a Hawaiin vacation Wednesday so he’s not available to take on air calls. Great timing on his part.

14. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    January 10th, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    Now would be the time to begin the first step toward the repeal of the Constitutional Amendment granting these pay raises.

    I don’t know how how to go about filing a petition for a constitutional amendment but I know it is not an easy process. I do believe it takes a vote of two consecutive legisaltures, (unfortunately the first of the two just began) and then it would go to voters so it is a six year process assuming the legislature goes along.

    So, who wants to begin calling their reps and senators and demand they file legislation to begin the process to amend the State Constitution to repeal the amendment? (as I understand the law they can not refuse to file, but they can oppose it publically or privately).

    Nangle ($76,440) Panagiotakos ($70,030) Golden ($68,940) Murphy ($68,862) … Source: Lowell Sun

15. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    January 10th, 2009 at 11:12 pm

    I am just adding this little tidbit. According to
    http://www.city-data.com/city/Lowell-Massachusetts.html
    in 2007 the Median Household Income in Lowell was $47,421 That is far below the pay scale of Lowell’s representatives!
    The statewide Median Household Income was $62,365. Again, still below the wages Lowell’s state representatives amd senator makes.

    Even the folks that voted to approve the consitutitional amendment thought the wage scale would me that of the median income. They found ways to make sure they make more…and as Waitil points out, those that take the pay and then give it away still pad their pensions and have a major tax deduction.

    It’s time we repeal the Finneran amendment and make “our” representatives accountable once again!

16. Kim Says:
    January 11th, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    This pay is excessive! They should be ashamed of themselves.

17. mike01824 Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 11:19 am

    Why do you think legislators should make only the median income for their district? In the private sector, do you expect managers or execs to make only the median income of their employees? Will that attract the best? I can’t think of a better way to ensure that poor districts get poor representation.

    Many legislators, particularly the competent ones we’d like to have, could certainly be earning six-figure incomes in the private sector. Public service is a calling, but it shouldn’t require dramatic sacrifice for the legislator and their whole family. It shouldn’t be an option only for people who are independently wealthy.

18. Lynne Says:
    January 12th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    That IS the best argument for paying (elected officials, teachers, police, etc) a very decent wage, maybe even one that is actually *attractive* for smart people who can make (as Mike says) a 6-figure salary in the private sector. (Of course, this is outside of those former elected officials who use their former positions and connections to GAIN 6-figure salaries once they leave the office - some deserve their high wages, usually lobbying, but many of those certainly don’t.) I like Mike am referring to someone who chooses to forgo private enterprise to work for the public.

    That said, it shouldn’t be any more than the very good pay of say, a middle middle income person. Enough to be comfortable, buy a home, raise your kids, feed them good food, and have a couple of vacations now and again.

    The other thing is that these pay raises, honestly, are a drop in the bucket of the budget. Eliminating the raises or reducing them solves just about nothing in our budget woes right now. It is very much merely symbolic, if you are for reducing/eliminating the raises. You object to the appearance of this being a burden on the state budget, rather than wanting to actually solve the problem. If you did, you’d make a MUCH higher stink about the rising cost of health care, or (at least til now) the rising cost of commodities that makes steel and other building materials so expensive. Being angry about this is about as effective as using a single fly swatter to kill all the flies at a junk yard.

Leave a Reply