Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Score one for Frank Phillips

By

… and minus one for me. Gov. Patrick confirms that he’s considering legislative pay raises as a bargaining chip for the legislature forking over control of rogue agencies:

The governor said it is unlikely that lawmakers will put in for higher pay this year, but he said he wouldn’t be shy about using the volatile issue as a bargaining chip in the future. Patrick is pushing several agenda items that could encounter friction in the Legislature, such as local option taxes and reforms to independent agencies like the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. 

“Listen, I’m here to get stuff done, so sure, you bet,” Patrick said when asked if he wanted anything in return for lawmakers’ pay hikes.

Well, I don’t like the principle or precedent at all, even though the actual money at stake in the raises is chump change. Does he have to allow them a pay raise anytime he wants something done?

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Now are you willing to vote, just once, for Republican legislative candidates as part of a purgative process in Massachusetts?

  2. Don’t be so sure getting control of “rogue” agencies is such a great idea, either. The idea of setting up semi-independent agencies was to remove them from politics so they could act in the public interest. There’s certainly an argument to be made that it hasn’t worked — that agencies should be under the direct control of elected officials — but there are problems either way.

    <

    p>
    Too bad Patrick got to run unopposed in the November election. He should have been pressed on such matters.

    • My critique of the Big Dig Culture is the diffusion of responsibility — that we don’t know whom to blame for outright disasters in management, since we don’t know who’s in charge. If the Governor gets Massport, and Massport still sucks in 2010, blame the Governor. Conversely with credit. Simple and accountable.

    • The whole idea of “depoliticized” public agencies has been a clear failure.  Do you see Massport or the BRA as “depoliticized” entities?  Of course not!  In the end, do these agencies actually perform any better by virtue of their lack of accountability? 

      <

      p>
      C’mon, this is the racket that blessed the nation with Robert Moses’ reign of destruction.  Don’t tell me that HE was untainted by politics!

      <

      p>
      If you want to let professional planners and administrators do their jobs in an atmosphere free of bullying and nest feathering, then you need to elect leaders who will let them do so and leave it at that.

      • The biggest probem with so-called “quasi independent agencies” is the total lack of accountability.  Also, each becomes a barony making its own rules and pay scale.  Not good.  Also, with regard to these baronies – public meeting and freedom of information only get a kind of lip services because only minions attend meetings!

        • I spent several hours drafting a careful analysis of the child welfare system, where I have practiced law for more then a decade, and written and argued more than 90 briefs.  No response.  It was sent in in December.  I sent it to every member of the transition team, since child welfare law and foster care were not “a working group.”  No response at all.

  4. Trading chits is part of the process – it has nothing to do with ideology.  Besides, at least Patrick is being up front about it.

    • The Governor should lay out his agenda along with a bounty for each plank of his platform:

      <

      p>
      –More local aid.  Yes, gets a few bucks.  Easy vote.

      <

      p>
      –Hard votes.  Vote yes on the equal right amendment, Legislators voting yes, if vote passes, each get, $10,000 stipend.

      <

      p>
      –Casinos, if the agenda is pro-casino, then each yes voting legislator gets $5000 stipend.

      <

      p>
      –Tax increase.  Whew! At least $20K for the yes vote.

      <

      p>
      And so on…

  5. They are underpaid as it is. Why not pay them what corporate CEOs get — they are just as important to our collective well being, maybe moreso — then perhaps we’ll get better people to run.

    • As it is now, cops on the beat and kindergarten teachers are paid as well as the legislators who are supposed to manage our 23 billion dollar budgets.  I gather public services in Massachusetts is supposed to feel like penance, right?

    • I agree that Massachusetts legislators are underpaid, though. But I don’t think they should be making the millions that corporate CEOs earn. Then again, I don’t think most corporate CEOs should be earning the millions that corporate CEOs earn.

      <

      p>
      Legislators should be making money a bit more in line with a responsible white collar job in private industry. I’m still trying to figure out who can afford to be a legislator in communities where average housing prices are $600,000 and higher. Unlike most other jobs where you can live somewhere cheaper and commute, legislators have to live in their districts. As a result, the pay vs. housing price issue excludes large numbers of people from seeking the job in high housing cost areas – especially newcomers who didn’t buy into the housing market years ago, unless they happen to have another hefty salary (or large personal wealth) in the family.

    • If legislatures are so under paid why are there no open seats?  From an economic stand point the wage is fine.  I have never heard any say they weren’t running for a seat because they couldn’t afford to live on the salary.  Most elected positions in the state (any state) get little or no salary.  I am a town meeting member and don’t see a dime.  It is supposed to be public service not a career! 

      <

      p>
      The argument for the staff to make more money is likely a just one, but I don’t know enough about the details to really know.

      • The question isn’t, why are there no open seats.

        <

        p>
        The question is, who ISN’T running?

        <

        p>
        The answer to that, more complicated question, is: people who can’t afford live on an income of 52k a year.

        <

        p>
        That income is livable in some communities, and wholly impossible in others.

        <

        p>
        Town meeting members, selectmen, etc, these are part time public service gigs. State Rep./Sen. is a full time job with high responsibilities and a requirement to interview (run again) every 2 years.

        <

        p>
        That’s why so many legislators are attorneys – one of the only professions where they can afford to work flexible hours outside of normal requirements of their job.

        <

        p>
        The problem with current salaries is that the highly intelligent, highly educated, highly driven individuals who we all need to represent us, in every district, can get jobs that pay at least two, but often three or four times more in the private sector.

        <

        p>
        People will run for the offices – but are the people running the people you want doing the job??? That’s the real question.

        • I can kind of see your point in some aspects.  I will give that there is a section of the population that makes in between say 52K and (not really sure but for arguments sake) 75K.  Under 52K, you’re getting a raise, over 75K you can likely afford to take the lower salary in order to serve.  In between 52K and 75K there are likely some people who would like to serve but can’t afford it.  So there may be some validity to your argument.

          <

          p>
          However, I would just like to point to Grace Ross.  She is a person that I whole heartedly disagree with on virtually every issue but respect tremendously.  She doesn’t make much money but is very involved politically.  She manages to find the time and effort.

          <

          p>
          Myself, I make over the average salary of a legislature and even considered a run when Mitt had his push for people to run against incumbent Dems.  I would have been willing to risk/deal with the salary but other factors came into play with my decision.  (Most of all I didn’t believe I could win, I would have been a fat, white guy with a polish surname running against Brian Joyce in a community that has a large minority percentage and I would of been running as a Republican and I don’t particularly like the party).  I will admit that my profession, environmental consultant, also lends itself to flexible hours. 

          <

          p>
          My point is that I don’t believe the salary is as big of a factor for most people who would consider running as you are making it out to be.  I think there are other issues that could be addressed by things like term limits that are more important.

          • Just because there are SOME people who can afford it doesn’t mean that you get real competition.

            <

            p>
            Look at the suburban house districts for prime examples of this. The Senate district you live in, NBP, has inexpensive places to live. But, look at Alice Peisch’s district… Wellesley and Weston. Look at other, similar suburban districts. The cost of housing alone is incredibly prohibitive to being able to afford a 52k a year job.

            <

            p>  With excellent credit, you can afford a mortgage payment of 1/3 of your income, which, even if we count pretax is somewhere around 4,000/month. That means you can pay about 1/3 of that, or around $1350 for your mortgage, at most (beyond that lenders won’t lend to you).

            <

            p>
            $1350 a month for a mortgage payment (assuming a 30-year fixed interest loan) allows you to buy a property for as much as $250,000.

            <

            p>
            The median cost of a home in the Commonwealth is around 330-350k.

            <

            p>
            You can afford 250k. Where are you going to live?

            <

            p>
            In real terms, that means that your salary allows you five options:

            <

            p>
            1. Be independently wealthy before you run, so that your salary doesn’t make or break you financially.

            <

            p>
            2. Work two jobs (i.e. as an attorney)

            <

            p>
            3. Get married (or get into a stable relationship where the other person contributes a lot financially so that you’re financially solvent).

            <

            p>
            4. Rent and/or live with relatives.

            <

            p>
            5. Live in one of the few communities where you can purchase a place to live for less than 250k (under 20% of the state).

            <

            p>
            P.S. Legislature = legislative body; Legislator = person who is a member of a legislature.

            • We can go around and around and never come to an agreement as to what the fair wage for a legislator (thanks for the correction) should be.  The underlying point in my argument is “It is supposed to be public service not a career!” 

              <

              p>
              While financial considerations may prevent some people from running for public office, there are many people who also find a way to make it work (see Grace Ross).  Also, there are other less burdensome ways to participate in our government.  No one is being shut out from participation based on personal wealth or lack of it.

              <

              p>
              If we want better/more people serving in the legislature, the answer isn’t more money.  Campaign finance reform, term limits, etc. are better ways to get more/better people involved.  One of the best things you could do with this $80K if you are not going to return it to the people you took it from would be to make it available to people who wish to run for an office for things like lawn signs, web sites, etc.  But make it dependent on means and it being your first race.

              <

              p>
              Even worse, the pay raise as a bribe to vote for the governors agenda is just disgusting.

        • First off, I’ll say I’m a bit taken aback by comments which indicate the only people worthy of serving as a public official are those who are already making more than $52,000.  Maybe government would be better if more public officials were “of the people” they represent.  There’s a certain common sense that is lost when those making the laws don’t need to live with them in the same way as the masses. 

          <

          p>
          This statement seems like quite an exaggeration:

          That income is livable in some communities, and wholly impossible in others.

          <

          p>
          At $52,000 a year, that’s $43,906 after taxes, you’re looking at a monthy income of about $3,600.  With that salary, you could certainly afford a nice apartment in South Boston or even Weston.
          These are two of the most expensive communities I could think of.  I don’t think the public owes an official a swanky lifestyle.  This is a call to service, not a call to the feeding trough.

          <

          p>
          At $52,000, one person’s salary alone is more than the median household income of over 100 communities in Massachusetts.  And they get that salary for a job which requires them to appear at the office about 100 days less than the average full-time worker.  They also receive parking allowances (not many jobs I know offer that), and eligibility for a pension that will provide for you and yours until the day you die. 

          <

          p>
          I don’t think salary is what keeps more people from running.  There are other factors — family, job stability, risk/public life aversion, etc., — that I think are more likely suspects. 

          <

          p>
          In any case, I’m disgusted by the quid pro quo.

          <

          p>

          • So, a legislator should be confined to an apartment?

            <

            p>
            In Weston, you forget to mention, a legislator would rent a 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath apartment. Good luck with that for anyone who isn’t single, which brings up another point… suppose they have kids?

            <

            p>
            Or do we want to restrict state legislators to single men and women who live in apartments?

            <

            p>
            Of course, good luck getting elected in a place like Weston while living in an apartment … “he/she isn’t one of us” the attack ads will say … because something like 98% of the people in town own the place they live in.

            <

            p>
            And I’m sorry, but after State Income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, and Federal Income tax, no way does $52,000 turn into $43,906.

            <

            p>
            Legislators have to appear one hundred days less than the average full time worker? That’s just crazy talk. Where are these numbers coming from?

            <

            p>
            Your argument is counter to itself. If you want legislators to be “of the people” that they serve, then you should argue for them to be paid like the median income of the district they represent. Of course, in the Weston-Wellesley district that’d be around $100k.

            <

            p>
            If you want legislators to live a normal lifestyle, not a “swanky” one, 52k is not enough everywhere. And, unlike you and I, a legislator can’t move out of the district in which they live.

            <

            p>
            I’m not making a statewide argument. All I’m saying is that 52k is simply not enough in many places, and where it’s not enough, you get candidates who either sacrifice everything to be there (and are not of the people) or candidates with independent financial means (and are not of the people.)

            <

            p>
            I too would be thrown off by the pay increases if legislators (and for that matter teachers, who get woeful pay for what they do until the very tail end of their careers) were paid more, to where the choices weren’t poverty-public service or normal life-private sector.

            <

            p>
            In the end, I believe that you get what you pay for.

            • The Senate journal for 2006 contained 141 entries.  Am I interpreting this wrong? A full-time employee getting 3 weeks vacation works about 240 days.

              <

              p>
              Federal Income Tax Rate Schedule comes to $5,338 annually
              State income tax is still 5.3% and comes to $2,756 annually

              <

              p>
              I didn’t think public employees contributed to SS.  Medicare?  Okay, that would be about $912/yr or $76/mo. 

              <

              p>
              52,000 – 5,338 – 2,756 – 912 = 42,994

              <

              p>
              Hard to believe, maybe, but true!

              <

              p>
              Maybe the median income of a legislator’s district should be considered.  That thought certainly crossed my mind, but I don’t think it would be an improvement to the system.  As it stands, some benefit from the current pay and others don’t. 

              <

              p>
              Remember the figures I gave are for household income, not individual income.  Is it conceivable that a legislator from Weston belongs to a household where a spouse or partner earns $100K?  Yes.  So I don’t see that $52K is out of line, even for Weston.  (If single, the legislator would still be earning more than 18% of Weston residents). 

              <

              p>
              Barring that, they could move to Natick!

              <

              p>
              But you’ve tipped your hat, with the “woeful” statement on teacher pay.  You haven’t done the math and seem to approach the salary question with emotion rather than reason.  But thank you for the comment about “crazy talk”. It did make me smile.

              • “Barring that, they could move to Natick!”

                <

                p>
                Of course, that’s not true. Unlike your job, and mine, a state legislator’s job is not portable. You can’t move out of your district.

                <

                p>
                That’s in many ways my point. It’s not that you can’t be a state legislator for 52k a year. It’s that you can’t afford be a state legislator in many of our districts and live a normal life without serious sacrifices.

                <

                p>
                That’s not true for those reps who represent some areas, and very true for those who represent others.

                <

                p>
                “If single, the legislator would still be earning more than 18% of Weston residents”

                <

                p>
                Does that mean we should make our legislators marry, or else live in the bottom 18% of the income scale where they live?

                <

                p>

                <

                p>
                I don’t approach this with emotion. Teacher pay is woeful, when you compare required credentials and responsibilities for a teacher with those of other jobs with similar requirements and responsibilities.

              • Is your argument that the only days a legislator works are those days that have votes and/or hearings recorded in a journal?

                <

                p>
                If that’s your argument, I stand by my crazy talk allegation.

            • Some one correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that due to the number of days the legislature stays in session, their pay is exempt from most taxes.

              <

              p>
              If this is the case, 52k in the legislature is equivilant to around 75k in the private secture. 

              <

              p>
              By the way, for 2005 the median income for Massachusetts was 53k.

              <

              p>
              As far as comparisons to other states, New Hampshire pays $200 per year with no per diem and only New York, Ohio, Penn, Michigan, and Cali have higher salaries for legislators.

              <

              p>
              As I have said before, this is supposed to be a public service not a career.

              • I never heard of a tax break for part-time employees (which, at 141 days of official work time, is what legislators effectively are).

                <

                p>
                Can you back this up other than asking the peanut gallery if they have sources for your facts?

                • I emailed someone that was a former state legislator and here is what I got in return:

                  <

                  p>
                  JK, I was a legislator for three terms. Due to a provisionof the federal tax code, 100% of my income was (federal) tax free. Any state legislator who lives more than 50 miles from the state house (in any state) gets a daily deduction (as I recall, then it was $105) for every day the legislature was in session.

                  <

                  p>
                  Since the Mass legislature then was in session 365 days a year (it never voted to prorouge), those legislators living more than 50 miles from the statehouse got a pre-tax deduction of over $38,000 (more than our salaries).

                  <

                  p>
                  The deduction was intended to compensate legislators for the cost of staying away from home (in most states, the sessions were short and people were coming from hundreds of miles, staying in motels, etc).

              • They pay full state and federal tax on the salary, as well as the office stipend and other perks furnished at taxpayer expense.

                <

                p>
                The fact that they may or may not show up 365 days a year is a different isue.

    • Put that money into publicly funded elections. Money in politics is the biggest barrier to good people running for office, not the pay. In Maine and Arizona — two states that KEPT their Clean Elections law — smart, dedicated, normal people actually hold office. The governor of Arizona was a Clean Elections candidate.

      <

      p>
      Perhaps the quasis de-politicize some decision-making, but in that process, they also make it secret and unaccountable (Not that our legislature is open and accountable!). How much taxpayer money is MassDevelopment in charge of? How do we the people get to oversee their budgeting and contracting? All of the Big Dig contracting was behind closed doors…  but what’s a billion dollars here
      and a billion dollars there?!

      <

      p>
      I am very concerned here, in many directions. Pay raises (sorry, stipends) for the committee chairs consolidate power for DiMasi & Travaglini. What government restructuring are they signing off on to get this? I’d love to see the quasis become more transparent… but I doubt that will be the result. So far Patrick has signalled that he is ready to speed things up for developers and big corporations. One-stop shopping and more love for companies.

  7. There are two things wrong with this, maybe.

    <

    p>
    The first is that “raises for lieutenants and committee chairs” is really just “more goodies to strengthen the hand of the leadership.” That’s just plain bad government.

    <

    p>
    It makes the legislature more regimented and top-down and less democratic by appealing to the baser instincts of our elected representatives. Yuk.

    <

    p>
    Maybe that makes the Governor’s job simpler (if not easier) by reducing the number of seats at the table. I doubt that it is a vision of government that most voters share. And it could make the Governor’s job harder if he ever chooses priorities that are ambitious enough to require a little grass-roots people-power, by making the legislature that much more people-power resistant.

    <

    p>
    The second is that the deal that is being hinted at–reform of the agencies and authorities–is just not worth the candle.

    <

    p>
    In other words, not only is the food lousy, but the portions are too small.

  8. A legislator’s job, in most districts, involves working during the week, commuting between their district and Beacon Hill.

    <

    p>
    On the weekends, they’re meeting with constituents. In the evenings, they’re attending community events.

    <

    p>
    What remains is their tiny bit of personal time.

    <

    p>
    For this, we pay them 52k a year.

    <

    p>
    A paralegal makes more money than that, and works strictly M-F 9-5.

    <

    p>
    The Speaker of the House and the Senate President make less than 100k. They oversee a 25 billion dollar budget.

    <

    p>
    What would a CFO at a corporation with 25 Billion dollars in annual revenue make???

    <

    p>
    When you’re disappointed in the results, remember that you get what you pay for.

    <

    p>

    • Some paralegals I’ve worked with put in just as many hours as the attorneys, are just as essential to the success of the case, and make much less money.  They earn their salaries.

      <

      p>
      I take your larger point; I just think the paralegal example is a bad one.

      • The paralegal v. attorney pay argument is similar to the nurse v. doctor pay argument.

        <

        p>
        Neither is the issue here. The issue is that the demands placed on legislators far outstrip what they get paid, and that if similar demands were placed on an employee in the private sector they would receive much better compensation.

    • What about all the staffers for the legislators who work all the same hours, and often do much more of the heavy lifting, yet get paid a fraction of what their bosses do.

  9. This is a bribe.  Cash money for a vote.  It is disgusting that The Current Occupant would react to the Legislature in this way after less than a month in office. I can hardly WAIT to see his first budget, that he gets an extra month to compose!

    <

    p>
    I thought a Democrat in the Corner Office would usher in the New Millenium of Cooperation?  What’s that?  Deval isn’t Omnipotent?  Then how the heck did a mere GOP like Mitt get rid of the Democrat-hackarama MDC (with its own building, no less!) – without a cash incentive?

Archives