Pay raises elusive issue in budget
HARRISBURG – As the details of a $24 billion state budget deal finally hatched on Wednesday, it was pay raises for state lawmakers that remained the most elusive issue around the Capitol. Lawmakers hunkered down for an evening of passing budget-related bills that could stretch into the early morning hours on Thursday. But there was still no drafted proposal for a pay hike, even as many around here believed it would be coming.
Still, many lawmakers had already taken a position as media outlets hounded the issue for days on end.
Sen. Richard Kasunic, D-Dunbar, gave a conclusive ‘no’ to a pay raise.
“In terms of my district … with Fayette being one of the poorest counties in the state and the Medicaid issue, in good conscience at this time I could not support a raise.”
“I’m going to be voting ‘no.’ It’s been in the media enough,” said Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-16 (Beaver). “As a first-term member, it’s not something I feel comfortable with.”
“We are the board of directors of Pennsylvania,” said Rep. Thomas Corrigan Sr., D-140 (Bucks), a ‘yes’ vote. “We walk into a room full of superintendents and we are the lowest paid people in the room.”
The most talked about proposal would match the salaries of rank-and-file lawmakers to 50 percent that of U.S. congressmen and senators, with a promise that such a formula would remain in future years. That salary amounts to $81,050 per year, or a 16 percent increase above the current annual salary of $69,647.
There’s also been talk of an equivalent $20,000 raise for committee chairs, bringing their salaries up to nearly $90,000. Judges, the governor and Cabinet positions would presumably also be getting a raise, also tied to federal positions, although those details have not been forthcoming.
By comparison, the average Pennsylvanian earned an annual salary of $38,235.
The proposal would bring the Pennsylvania legislative salaries to the second highest in the nation, behind only California. However, Pennsylvania is among only four states with full-time Legislatures (Michigan, New York and California are the others).
Gov. Ed Rendell, in a budget briefing with reporters, didn’t say definitively if he would sign a hike in pay raises, but indicated that some of his conditions had been met for one. Those were an alleviation of proposed benefit cuts to Medicaid as well as the federal tie-in, which takes raises out of the hands of the Legislature and does away with the unseemly appearance of judges asking lawmakers for more money.
“I wanted movement on minimum wage,” Rendell said. “Although I didn’t get it this session … it’s my determination to see passage of a minimum wage bill in the fall.”
Rendell said he, personally, would not accept a pay raise above his $155,572 and its cost of living adjustments, although he stressed his stance is not meant to cast judgment on lawmakers.
“When I ran for governor in Pennsylvania, I knew my term would be limited” to eight years, at the most, he said. “I knew what the salary was … legislators are in different shoes. For many, this is their life work.”
The fiscal impact of the pay raises is expected to make a mere dent in the overall budget, although actual figures were not available because a plan has not been offered.
But for some lawmakers voting ‘no,’ the issue takes on a symbolic meaning, especially in a year where $500 million in benefit cuts to Medicaid were debated.
House lawmakers receive a generous benefits package that exceeds that of most Pennsylvania workers. It includes:
– A $128 per diem allowance if they live beyond 50 miles from Harrisburg.
– Up to $650 per month in reimbursements for car expenses.
– Medical benefits amounting to an annual $12,201 with no co-pays or monthly contributions.
– A $50,000 life insurance policy at a cost of $126 per year, per member.
– An insurance policy for long-term care in a nursing home or at home at $842 per month, per member.
– And a generous pension plan.
Senators receive a similar package, but the Senate’s clerk could not immediately provide details and asked that a request for information be put in writing.
“These are different times in which we are living,” said Rep. Paul Clymer, R-145 (Bucks), who voted for a pay raise the last time it came up in 1995 but noted a slip in worker salaries and job insecurity since then. “That relationship I have with my constituents is a close one and I want that relationship to be there. And I think voting for a pay raise that’s written about in the press is more than I can vote for.”
Clymer said even if lawmakers approve a pay raise, he will not take one.
But other members intoned that they deserved one, with what amounts to a seven-day per week job and long hours.
“I talk at great length with every constituent who calls me,” said Rep. Frank LaGrotta, D-10 (Beaver). “I don’t have another job. This is what I do, 14 to 16 hours a day. I’m going to vote for it because I think it’s fair.”
Some members, in dealing with their own ambivalence toward the issue, have come up with creative solutions. Rep. Mark Mustio, R-44 (Allegheny), said he’d take the money, but put it toward the hiring of a Medicare specialist for his office in preparation for next year’s dramatic changes in the senior health care program. And Lawrence Curry, D-154 (Montgomery), said he could sure use the extra cash since the ceiling on his living room collapsed on Monday.
“I’m not a strong advocate for it. I feel very guilty about taking it,” he said. “I think if I voted for it, I would probably return the increase and give it to a library.”
Alison Hawkes can be reached at 717-705-6330 or ahawkes@calkins-media.com