Robert DeLeo rammed through his own $45,000 a year raise – and an over ride of Governor Baker’s veto to get it. He now earns $142,000 a year – immediately, no waiting. No over ride for the cut to opiod addiction services. No over ride of the cuts to care for the children’s most medically needy children either. But for $18,000,000 in legislative pay raises – you bet. DeLeo also made sure that term limits on the House Speaker were abolished.
Some call him “King DeLeo” with some reason. Was he betting on the electorate being distracted by the Trump circus? Could be. Addiction services and medical care for desperately ill children deserved over rides. This bloated pay raise package did not. Glad to hear Gov. Baker and Lt. Gov. Polito are foregoing theirs.
I would have been delighted by over rides to Gov Baker’s mean spirited 9C cuts, which as usual claimed to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. An over ride to grow the payroll by this amount, in one year while cutting those services? The nicest thing I can say about it is “That stinks.”
Lucky Winthrop to have him as their rep. You know he had the term limits removed from the Speaker job, right?
Totally agree. Thoroughly obnoxious.
Link him to Trump all you want, a lot of progressives voted for his and his veto will look like courage in a campaign ad. All of our potential nominees (Seti? Jay? Bueller?) should come out against it.
Kudos to Mike Connolly, proof that primaries make a difference-Toomey never met a raise he didn’t like. Rumor is he’ll finally get made mayor since the other councilors feel bad he lost his primary and the other public salary he has. Mike’s the real deal-had a beer with him and he told me he wouldn’t be a rubber stamp for DeLeo. So far so good. Provost is a treasure too. Jehlen disappointed me with her vote; though I heard it was primarily for her staff to get one too.
I stand by my previous comments that it was too much too fast, but it would be nice if the next gubernatorial race were about something a bit more substantive and with more impact on people’s lives than legislative paychecks. I’m also not glad Baker and Polito are foregoing theirs. Salaries are set by law for a reason and ought to be accepted rather than play politics with them and get all holier than thou about it.
n/t
But this was an issue we giftwrapped to him. The Democrats will be linking him to Trump and he can counter with vetoing pay raises, and signing progressive social legislation like pay equity and the trans bill into law. Most voters in this state self identify in the unenrolled fiscally conservative/socially moderate bucket and this plays right to Joe suburbanite who hasn’t seen a raise in a few years and his mad his school is making him pay for his kids uniforms now. But the legislature can vote itself a raise. Typical Beacon Hill.
…Democrats shouldn’t be linking him to Trump either. That’s just patently inaccurate, though a little more speaking out on the part of His Excellency wouldn’t hurt.
What has he done that is truly awful that wasn’t also enabled by the Democratic supermajority? It’s pretty hard to disagree with CMD and his analysis below, that as they trade barbs in public they shake hands behind closed doors.
…all the hue and cry about the amounts and types of cuts Baker is inclined to make? He’s not a Trumpist, but at the end of the day still very much a Republican in terms of what he sees the proper role and scope of government services, “starting with the premise that people are taxed too much”.
It’s that a GIANT raise to DeLeo is more important than the various things amberpaw noted, which have been cut. And, of course, can’t look for new revenue either.
Republican governors win in Massachusetts by keeping a little distance from the national party and running against the cabal of corrupt thieves in the legislature. This strategy works in significant part because the legislature is, in fact, controlled by a cabal of corrupt thieves.
This makes Baker’s re-election DRAMATICALLY easier. Gee, you would almost think that they don’t really want a progressive Democrat as governor, and would prefer Baker.
They’ve been way easier on him than Deval.
… maybe it’s because I lived in countries with high corruption, but I could not disagree with all of you more. A sure recipe for corruption in any public organization, and the legislature is no different, is low salaries. We’ve had speaker after speaker go to jail because of financial issues, and everybody’s upset that the Speaker salary is finally going to be raised after 30 years? Are you kidding me? Am I reading some twilight zone blog in Mississippi? Has the spirit of Barbara Anderson (God rest her soul) taken over your bodies? Material from transparency international about the effect of low salaries on public corruption might be worth examining: http://www.u4.no/publications/low-salaries-the-culture-of-per-diems-and-corruption/downloadasset/415
Grrrrr
Sorry. The link is from U4.
than when liberals adopt cons talking points without even realizing they are doing it.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I think of myself as thoughtful, honest and compassionate rather than conservative or liberal. I have grown increasingly less interested in being seen as “ideology compliant” with anyone. My talking points are not “con” talking points but rather my distress at autocratic, secretive process and putting self enrichment ahead of the public good. There is no reason our Speaker needs or deserves to be one of the highest paid in the country. Financially corrupt people, I believe, are never satisfied no matter how much they acquire; it is a kind of addiction and/or Mammon worship.
Isn’t political corruption most often a game played by relatively rich people to make themselves even more rich? Are we concerned about Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest because he isn’t rich enough?
Is the message being sent by the Massachusetts legislators to the taxpayers really “give us each an additional $45,000 a year and we’ll behave honestly?” Sounds like extortion.
I would like to see legislators paid enough that it can be their only job. I’m not suggesting otherwise they would all be truly corrupt in the sense of being “on the take”, but holding another job means for one thing there may be real or apparent conflicts, and for another they can’t give their constituents and their lawmaking duties their undivided attention as I believe they should.
… disagreeing with the central premise of your statement, I will differentiate the situation you describe and the process they’ve just undergone: which process, to these eyes, looks very much like corruption in and of itself: pitting the Republican Governors political self-interest against the financial self-interest of the Democratic State Legislature seems well outside the precis of our state constitution.
It is contradictions like this that create change: corruption, by very definition is change, not just for the worse, but actively against the good it was before… that’s why we punish it.
If the raises go to DeLeo personally and his leadership team. Your argument would be more convincing if they banned outside jobs, raised the salaries uniformly for all government employees-not just elected officials-like Singpaore does, and raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for this needed revenue.
Since they have failed to do that, than this is just honest graft of the Plunkett/Curley variety-plain and simple. And Baker gets to play the Brahmin Republican cop to Mistah Speakah and his consigliere.
And while I’m at it, I thought it was conservatives (and the tea party types to boot) who always trotted out this canard that, “I will not accept my salary until XY and Z happens.” It’s actually a flashback to the days of noblesse oblige when only the upper classes could serve in the legislature. (I guess the age of Trump affects all of us in different ways and has each of us stricken with different degrees of curmudgeonliness. Listening to all of the angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin, exquisite stratagems of liberals over the past few days doing backflips to find ways to support the Supreme Court nominee and pretend that the Merrick garland episode is “closed”, has made my metal a little brittle.)
And it’s full of people with outside interests who sometimes don’t work very hard.
How much will we have to pay these people to keep them as honest as your average CEO’s?
Make $174,000 per year. Sure, that’s plenty of money. But they can make a hell of a lot more as a lobbyist.
Why don’t they?
by substituting political paranoia for good public policy.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
It really is important that the salaries for the new legislators are high enough that they don’t feel the need to hold other jobs. It’s really tough for qualified people to have to choose between serving public office and a better paying career where they can do more for their families.
At the same time, is there any chance of primarying DeLeo? Maybe on another issue? Any other issue?
Only the bonuses for being in leadership.
Otherwise I agree, lawmakers should be paid well. However, the optics of rushing this bill through without public hearing are enormously bad. This will cost us seats in the General Court, I’m almost sure.
If the Dem leaders thought this will be forgotten in all the hoopla of the recent national election, they’re wrong. It actually cements the idea that political “leaders” are in it for themselves, and the average voter will always tie this in by saying “remember when Trump got in and then Beacon hill voted themselves a raise”.
…Trump being elected caused the pay raise, which is post hoc ergo propter hoc if I ever saw it.
They picked the perfect time when voters weren’t paying attention to local or state politics to strike. DeLeo may be many things-dumb aint one of them.
…and yes, federal and state political years both start in January, but this DOES seem like the most logical time to address this kind of thing. Plus, I think the evidence now suggests that if they thought people would not be paying attention maybe they aren’t that smart after all:)
That is all. If you did not know … And I consider the linkage of legislative pay to the average pay in the Commonwealth sane, helpful, and a shame to see lost.
So who can devote the time to being a legislator in New Hampshire, a wealthy individual or a minimum wage guy working two jobs to keep from being homeless?
Your reply is why this is a bad way to select legislators.
This is leadership stipends only (along with executive and judicial officials).
Don’t forget the 5 figure lump sum for all.
A lot of them just crossed their fingers and put in for 3 days a week no matter how often they were there. But still, they had to sign the sheets. Of course, some just filled in and signed a stack to be dated and submitted by a minion later, and maybe blame them for a mixup if anybody ever stopped snoring and checked if they were there on the same day the local paper had them cutting a ribbon 50 miles away…..no, this is better. Now they don’t even have to pretend.
The salary increase is an issue because Mr. DeLeo and his cronies steadfastly insist that no new taxes are necessary, even as our state crumbles. The effect of this action is to steal money from all of us, and especially our most destitute, and transfer it to the bank accounts of Mr. DeLeo and his supporters.
The argument that high salaries helps suppress corruption is all well and good (and I support it) when those high salaries are paid for by responsible tax policy. That is not the case here.
Shame on all of them.
(from the headline)
$18M divided by 200 legislators is $90,000 per legislator. They didn’t get $18M worth of pay raises. The entire pay package is $18M. I’d expect that’s salary, taxes, social security, pension, the works. Don’t believe common sense? Don’t believe me? Believe the Boston Globe.
From the Masslive article detailing Baker’s veto:
“The bill, which the House and Senate passed this week, would raise the stipends paid to anyone with a leadership position or committee chairmanship in the House and Senate, and would raise expense payments for all members. It would significantly boost the pay of the governor and all the constitutional officers, such as the attorney general and treasurer. It would also raise the salaries of judges and judicial staff.“
but it isn’t an $18M pay raise for the legislature. They didn’t vote themselves a $90,000 per member pay raise.
The headline is flat out wrong. It’s false. It’s incorrect.
No, it did not all go to the legislature, but the legislature guaranteed it sacrasanct that way. And the “ram it through” no hearing, no discussion quick time process while not taking care of the mentally ill, critically ill children etc does stink.
I just take umbrage with headlines that aren’t truthful here at BMG, where we generally hold ourselves and each other to high standards.
That has been my stance. I think AmberPaw has consistently made great points about how severely frayed our social services and safety nets are by these cuts, particularly to public defenders like herself. Similarly, dave from hvad has made post after post showing how these cuts are devastating to the mentally handicapped. Lastly, we all know that the T can’t cut it’s way to expansion or efficiency.
The grassroots energy in this state has been toward higher wages and more revenue through the Raise Up/Fair Share campaigns. And their victory in getting on the ballot happened with little to no help from statehouse leadership.
Had they raised taxes progressively sufficient to fund other priorities that have been cut, than a raise is appropriate for all legislators. Not as a slush fund for the Speaker to dole out bonuses and perks and maintain the tight grip he has on the house.
had our legislators done something to deserve it. But when the only thing they do is perpetuate a system that rewards themselves and their powerful friends, they clearly don’t deserve a higher pay grade.
But that’s a BIG jump all at once.
Baker’s opposition is a pose. He knows he couldn’t stop it, so he made a small show of opposition. If he really wanted to make trouble for DeLeo, he’d go public for longer, and louder.
This package is not about increasing legislators pay. It’s about strengthening the Speaker’s hold on the House. It’s about bribing DeLeo so that maybe maybe he’ll allow some progressive legislation through this session.
The pay raises are designed so that they only go to leadership. This encourages legislators to suck up to the Speaker even more because it impacts their own bottom line. And not just for a year, but for their pensions.
This is not about whether legislators deserve more pay (they do). This is about leadership’s ability to financially punish dissenters and reward loyalty.
The Center for Democratic Progress gives Massachusetts a C- in 2015. I would give it a D on their criteria today. https://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/courts/reports/2015/07/07/116570/the-health-of-state-democracies/
If the whole salary structure wouldn’t have to be overhauled, if it kept up with the times. It’s such an easy issue to demagogue that you have to wonder.
If you live near Boston, being a rep or senator may not be a bad gig. Commuting to Boston for $70,000 or $75,000, however, isn’t that attractive to me. In Boston, it’s certainly less than a public school teacher, but with less job security.
I’ve long felt that it’s enough money to attract low lives who think ‘geez that’s a great gig!’ and discourage the kind of people who are doing it to make a difference, rather than a living. You have cited the salary discrepancy repeatedly as a reason you don’t want to run, and frankly it’s helped persuade me to take up the stability of teaching over the insecurity of political fieldwork.
I just think the way we solve these problems is to fix the entire revenue structure of the system so that the T, schools, hospitals, public defenders and the mentally handicapped all get served. Then we just pick a median number and set the legislative salaries to an indexed inflation. Avoid the favoritism votes like this show.