Stop the Pay Hike

[Jenksismyhero]

Just got this email and figured I'd add it here as I know some of you would probably be interested in signing:

 

Sorry to bother! but I don't know how much you've been following the mess in Springfield for the last few years but this is getting really ridiculous. If the Illinois Senate does not vote this week to reject the 12% political pay raises for the Governor, lawmakers, judges and other public officials, the unfair and undeserved salary hikes will take effect automatically. The members of the Illinois House have already voted overwhelmingly to reject the undeserved political pay raises, but they will still automatically kick in if the Illinois Senate does not do the same this week, which you can bet they will abstain from voting on unless they get enough grief.

 

It took me some time to find the link to sign Lt. Gov. Quinn's petition to have the Senate vote to reject the pay raise but here it is, if you're interested in weighin in:

 

www.nopayraise.org

 

***Just to put this in perspective, our esteemed govenor will get more than $192,000 by July 2009, up from about $171,000.

 

[DrunkBomber]

Vote republican next time

[NorthSideSox72]

Vote republican next time

Problem is, last time, the Republican alternative was Judy Baar Topinka. And remember, death wasn't an option.

 

I still think that race for Governor, between those two worthless candidates, was possible the worst high office race ever as far as quality level goes. Terrible choices all around.

 

As I recall, the Green party actually managed to get nearly 10% of the vote, which should tell you something. Which by the way means that, being over 5%, they get a nice chunk of money and media time in the next cycle automatically.

 

[DrunkBomber]

Problem is, last time, the Republican alternative was Judy Baar Topinka. And remember, death wasn't an option.

 

I still think that race for Governor, between those two worthless candidates, was possible the worst high office race ever as far as quality level goes. Terrible choices all around.

 

As I recall, the Green party actually managed to get nearly 10% of the vote, which should tell you something. Which by the way means that, being over 5%, they get a nice chunk of money and media time in the next cycle automatically.

I still choose death

[NorthSideSox72]

I have an idea here. I suggest a law that gives lawmakers an automatic pay raise that exactly matches the increase in pay, on average, for the average middle income Illinoisan. In other words, if the average annual wage increase in Illinois is 1%, then lawmakers get 1%.

 

Not that complicated, doesn't have to be revisited, and puts them on par with their constituents.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I have an idea here. I suggest a law that gives lawmakers an automatic pay raise that exactly matches the increase in pay, on average, for the average middle income Illinoisan. In other words, if the average annual wage increase in Illinois is 1%, then lawmakers get 1%.

 

Not that complicated, doesn't have to be revisited, and puts them on par with their constituents.

 

That makes TOO much sense. No way it'll happen.

[jasonxctf]

 

***Just to put this in perspective, our esteemed govenor will get more than $192,000 by July 2009, up from about $171,000.

 

 

BFD-- you mean to tell me that the Govenor in Illinois whomever he or she is, doesn't deserve to make $192k per year??? Jose Contreras makes $192k each and every week.

[jasonxctf]

I have an idea here. I suggest a law that gives lawmakers an automatic pay raise that exactly matches the increase in pay, on average, for the average middle income Illinoisan. In other words, if the average annual wage increase in Illinois is 1%, then lawmakers get 1%.

 

Not that complicated, doesn't have to be revisited, and puts them on par with their constituents.

 

 

gotta factor in inflation. So if inflation rises at 3% per year (which is a bs amount anyway as it historically does not include housing or fuel increases), then the lawmakers get a 1% raisie, so they lose 2% each year. sounds fair.

[kapkomet]

gotta factor in inflation. So if inflation rises at 3% per year (which is a bs amount anyway as it historically does not include housing or fuel increases), then the lawmakers get a 1% raisie, so they lose 2% each year. sounds fair.

That's what the rest of us deal with every day (year, month, whatever you want to say).

 

[jasonxctf]

That's what the rest of us deal with every day (year, month, whatever you want to say).

 

 

so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same?

 

Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe?

[kapkomet]

so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same?

 

Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe?

 

1% of $150,000 is $1,500.

 

1% of $75,000 is $750.

 

They still get double the raise of the ordinary joe in dollars. It's not what's important, it's how they get raises. Give 'em a "bonus" if they balance the budget (or stay out of jail, in Blago's case, ).

 

By the way, I don't necessarily agree with this, I'm just playing devil's advocate. If I agreed with this, I wouldn't be doing what I do...

[Texsox]

so in your mind, the President, Govenor, Lawmakers, etc are the same as a Dental Hygenist in Burbank, IL? They should be treated the same way, and compensated the same?

 

Couldn't one argue, that being the Govenor of Illinois is a bit more important than your average joe?

 

One can argue anything

 

I believe the American public, over all, would do well with giving law makers merit raises or at least have some criteria for the raises other then longevity or inflation. Perhaps on the state level there will be a raise if

 

There is a net reduction in the state debt, or increase in the surplus

There is a net drop in the unemployment rate

Crime is down

etc

 

In other words, reward them for doing a good job. Have all the lawmakers with the same incentives besides getting reelected.

[EvilMonkey]

We could give them all 50% raises and still come out ahead if they would eliminate the sweetheart pension deals they get. They should be on social security liek the rest of os, or 401k programs that THEY pay into. They should all be strung up for pushing that theft of tax dollars on us without the people getting any say. And Tex, before you say 'well, you elected them', that doesn't matter. Even if you threw them all oout the next cycle as punishment, you think the new guys are gonna end that cushy perk? No way.

[jasonxctf]

personally, I feel that all lawmakers are underpaid. I think that this is one of the reasons why so many of them are corrupt and have "other revenue streams". I also feel that this underpaid portion is a reason why many highly qualified and smart individuals don't run for office in the first place. They couldn't take the pay cut.

 

Wouldn't Bill Gates or Warren Buffett be a good lawmaker?

[Texsox]

We could give them all 50% raises and still come out ahead if they would eliminate the sweetheart pension deals they get. They should be on social security liek the rest of os, or 401k programs that THEY pay into. They should all be strung up for pushing that theft of tax dollars on us without the people getting any say. And Tex, before you say 'well, you elected them', that doesn't matter. Even if you threw them all oout the next cycle as punishment, you think the new guys are gonna end that cushy perk? No way.

Actually you did not elect the benefit packages. My comment is mroe along the lines is the government needs to be competitive in salary and benefits with the private sector. The disagreement is whether or not a state rep should be considered the same as a shift manager at McDonalds, a regional manager at All State Insurance, or the CEO of a 100,000,000 company.

 

And before you say they should pay for the privilege of being a State Rep or work only for expenses like George Washington, I think it is unrealistic and you should want to recruit the best possible person.

[jasonxctf]

President= $10,000,000/yr

Senator= $5,000,000/yr

House Rep= $2,500,000/yr

 

Govenor= $5,000,000/yr

State Lawmaker (House or Senate)= $1,000,000

[Jenksismyhero]

President= $10,000,000/yr

Senator= $5,000,000/yr

House Rep= $2,500,000/yr

 

Govenor= $5,000,000/yr

State Lawmaker (House or Senate)= $1,000,000

 

You guys are crazy. For one, money should NEVER be a consideration in why someone wants to run for office. Most of these guys are rich already, the money is a secondary concern. It should be all about working for the public.

 

More importantly, why on earth should we reward morons for moronic work? As far as I'm concerned Blago should get approximately $20 per year, $15 of which should go to his hair stylist. Where is this money going to come from? When a moron drives the states budget into the ground (all while continually SPENDING MORE F'N MONEY) the LAST thing that needs to happen is a pay raise.

 

And I understand that we're talking abotu pennies here (in the grand scheme of things) but still. It's the principle of the thing.

[Texsox]

You guys are crazy. For one, money should NEVER be a consideration in why someone wants to run for office. Most of these guys are rich already, the money is a secondary concern. It should be all about working for the public.

 

And of course rich people are better at running the government. We would not want to attract anyone who actually needs the salary.

 

There is a balance. You get what you pay for. Millions is crazy, but $5,000 and a bag of chips is equally crazy.

[NorthSideSox72]

gotta factor in inflation. So if inflation rises at 3% per year (which is a bs amount anyway as it historically does not include housing or fuel increases), then the lawmakers get a 1% raisie, so they lose 2% each year. sounds fair.

This is called goal alignment. Its basic business. If the lawmakers are getting the same increase in real wages that their constituents are, that does two great things. One, it motivates them further to create job growth and development, instead of smokescreen B.S. actions. Two, it creates more trust between lawmakers and their constituents, because they are in the same economic boat, on a RELATIVE basis.

 

I think its very fair. If wages in the state aren't keeping up with inflation, why should Congress get raises and no one else does?

 

[Texsox]

This is called goal alignment. Its basic business. If the lawmakers are getting the same increase in real wages that their constituents are, that does two great things. One, it motivates them further to create job growth and development, instead of smokescreen B.S. actions. Two, it creates more trust between lawmakers and their constituents, because they are in the same economic boat, on a RELATIVE basis.

 

I think its very fair. If wages in the state aren't keeping up with inflation, why should Congress get raises and no one else does?

 

 

Overall, I believe this is a better system than what we currently have, but should Congress be tied into State benchmarks? I agree that state reps, governor, etc should be tied to state benchmarks, but I think COngress should have national benchmarks.

[NorthSideSox72]

Overall, I believe this is a better system than what we currently have, but should Congress be tied into State benchmarks? I agree that state reps, governor, etc should be tied to state benchmarks, but I think COngress should have national benchmarks.

When I said Congress, I meant state Congress, since we were discussing the state level raises here. And I meant to say it also applies to the Gov.

 

I guess I should have said "State Assembly and Executive" to be more clear.

 

[Texsox]

When I said Congress, I meant state Congress, since we were discussing the state level raises here. And I meant to say it also applies to the Gov.

 

I guess I should have said "State Assembly and Executive" to be more clear.

 

I should have assumed that. I thought we were on a tangent.

 

The minimum requirement should be no pay raise without a surplus.

[jasonxctf]

You guys are crazy. For one, money should NEVER be a consideration in why someone wants to run for office. Most of these guys are rich already, the money is a secondary concern. It should be all about working for the public.

 

More importantly, why on earth should we reward morons for moronic work? As far as I'm concerned Blago should get approximately $20 per year, $15 of which should go to his hair stylist. Where is this money going to come from? When a moron drives the states budget into the ground (all while continually SPENDING MORE F'N MONEY) the LAST thing that needs to happen is a pay raise.

 

And I understand that we're talking abotu pennies here (in the grand scheme of things) but still. It's the principle of the thing.

 

 

So we want to encourage only the wealthy to run for office?

[southsider2k5]

So we want to encourage only the wealthy to run for office?

 

That's exactly what we do today anyway.

[NorthSideSox72]

So we want to encourage only the wealthy to run for office?

At $190,000 a year, that's a very good salary. The reason the wealthy run for office isn't because of the salary or lack thereof. Its the campaign finance system, the financial demands, and power/influence relationships built around the wealthy.