The Rich Get Richer and The Poor Get Poorer:Lawmakers to get pay raises at time of budget cuts

Boston.com ^ | 27 December 2002 | Jennifer Peter

[SheLion]

BOSTON (AP) At a time of deep cutbacks in state services, there is at least one area where spending will increase next year: legislative pay.

Massachusetts' 200 lawmakers will automatically receive a pay increase an amount yet to be determined under a constitutional amendment approved by voters four years ago.

[buffyt]

My husband has worked for a major chemical company for almost thirty years and they announced no raises or bonuses next year.

[Sungirl]

Do they HAVE to take it? Why don't they do the people a favor and refuse it this year.

[coloradan]

Yes they do have to take it. The voters approved it and if they don't take it, they will be going against the Will Of The People. There's nothing in a politician's interest in going against the wishes of the people, and in the case of Taxachussetts those wishes are that the government is overbearingly intrusive, and very well paid.

[SheLion]

My husband has worked for a major chemical company for almost thirty years and they announced no raises or bonuses next year. But the lawmakers get THEIRS, don't they!

[dogbyte12]

I actually am in favor of this law. I think it is fair. Cutting members pay, or not giving them pay raises is mostly symbolic in nature. If you raise the pay of 100 legislators $5,000 each, that is $500,000. The new lotto member could do that without breaking a sweat.

Believe it or not... the founders were paying themselves alot more money in actual dollars than our legislators are getting now. I believe Washington's salary was $630,000 in today's terms.

Making salaries low, only encourages people who are very wealthy into taking political positions. If you make $100,000 a year, are you going to risk it all for a chance to take a pay cut to serve in the legislature, when you may not even win? If you have a big trust fund on the other hand, or a nice fat stock portfolio, it doesn't matter as much.

Tieing pay raises to the rate of growth of income actually is about the only good idea that I have heard lately from Mass. It gives the legislature an incentive to help families income rise, because their income rises as well.

It doesn't say so in the article, but I am curious as if they have to take a pay cut, if median household income actually drops. Then, for me, it would be perfect.