BCT news article – 7/8/05

This page was last updated on July 15, 2005.

Lawmakers: Pay increase was justified; Bob Bauder, Times staff; Beaver County Times; July 8, 2005.

This article is a treasure trove of politicians saying the darnedest things to defend a pay raise ranging from 16% to 34%.

Though I haven’t done a detailed vote tally, it appears both Democrats and Republicans supported the pay increase in large numbers.

A letter to the editor I sent to the Times is shown at the end of this critique.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Local legislators said they voted to increase their base salaries by a whopping 16 percent Thursday because, well, they work hard and deserve it.”

[RWC] Though never mentioned specifically, the subject of this article is House Bill 1521 (2005).

“‘I believe this pay raise was justified and warranted,’ said state Rep. Mike Veon, D-14, West Mayfield, who co-sponsored the pay raise bill. ‘I think the base salary is absolutely commensurate with the responsibilities of a legislature in the year 2005.’

“Salaries of state senators and representatives will increase from $69,647 to $81,050 under the measure. They also will continue to receive a $129 daily allowance for each day in session and $650 per month if they lease a vehicle, plus taxpayer-funded medical and pension benefits.”

[RWC] This article greatly understated the increase for many (most?) members of the General Assembly. The 16% increase is to base pay only, and most GA members qualify for more than base pay. In some cases, the increase is as high as 34%!¹ Why? Because the pay raise also includes another hike for party leaders, committee chairmen and vice chairmen, and subcommittee chairmen. The House has 26 committees and 41 subcommittees. Each standing committee potentially has two chairmen and two vice chairmen (one Democrat and one Republican for each position). Each subcommittee has two chairmen, one Democrat and one Republican. In case you haven’t kept count, this totals up to 186 members out of 203 who will make more than base pay.

The article also failed to note PA GA pay is now second only to California, and California (120) has less than half the reps/senators of Pennsylvania (253). Of course, the GA was already relatively well paid with a previous ranking of #4.

The article also failed to note the GA already received cost of living increases tied to the Philadelphia area cost of living, an area whose cost of living tends to increase faster than the rest of PA. This increase isn’t the end either. The new pay is tied to 50% of the pay received by a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, unless the Philly area cost of living increases faster than the U.S. rep pay. What a scam!

Heaven forbid that these guys would propose tying pay to performance.

“In addition, the bill raises salaries for judges, the governor, Cabinet officials and state row officials.

“‘We make decisions where hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to go,’ Veon said. ‘Those are very difficult, challenging, complex and controversial issues that we deal with all the time, so I think a base salary of $81,000 for a state legislator is very commensurate with what we do.’”

[RWC] If you read Mr. Veon’s statement closely, here’s what he really said. “We should be paid based on how much we spend of your paycheck and retirement income.” With this kind of thinking, when can we expect a bill proposing to peg GA pay to commonwealth spending, like collecting a commission?

Here’s a proposal I could get behind. Make GA pay inversely proportional to the size of the PA budget.

“Six of 11 legislators representing communities in The Times’ circulation area voted in favor of the raise. Those who voted against it said they were satisfied with the current pay scale.

“Rep. Vince Biancucci, D-15, Center Township, said current economic conditions in Beaver County also played a part in his decision.

“‘I just didn’t feel comfortable putting up that kind of a vote,’ he said.”

[RWC] Before you swallow Mr. Biancucci’s statement, read Mr. Veon’s story later in the article.

“State Sen. Gerald LaValle, D-47, Rochester Township, said he compared legislative salaries with judges, school superintendents and congressional representatives. All earn more and put in less time than a legislator, he said.

“‘I think the time that legislators put in if their doing their job is much more time-demanding than judges, much more time-demanding than superintendents, and just as time-demanding as Congress folks,’ LaValle said. ‘There are people who probably don’t deserve it, but this is not a pay raise for an individual. This is a pay raise for a position.’”

[RWC] If you read closely, Mr. LaValle justified his pay raise by demeaning other public servants. That’s real classy – not. You’re in trouble when you try to build yourself up by tearing others down.

“State representatives, who will run for re-election in 2006, said a backlash from constituents was a concern, but they forged ahead despite the potential political damage.”

[RWC] Wow, what courage! <g>

“‘I didn’t find it hard to justify for as hard as people like Mike Veon and I work, and the kind of responsibility we have,’ said Rep. Frank LaGrotta, D-10, Ellwood City. ‘When it comes time for re-election, I’m going to ask the voters to look at what I’ve done and my performance, and to make a decision whether or not they want me to continue to represent them. No matter who they elect in 2006, that person is going to make the same salary.’”

[RWC] Another “suck-up” to Mr. Veon by Mr. LaGrotta. The comment, “No matter who they elect in 2006, that person is going to make the same salary,” is a tad disingenuous. First, Mr. LaGrotta has held his seat since 1987 and hasn’t faced a primary or general election challenger since before 2000.

Second, the pay raise bill has a backdoor called “unvouchered expenses” allegedly allowing legislators to get their raise sooner rather than later. This is important because Article II, Section 8 of the PA Constitution stipulates that “No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.”

Messrs. LaValle and Veon are in similar “safe” seats. Mr. LaValle has held his seat since 1990 and hasn’t faced a primary or general election challenger since before 2000. Mr. Veon has held his seat since 1984 and hasn’t had a credible challenger since before 2000.

The reason my dates stop at 2000 is that 2000 is as far back as the PA Department of State has election results archived on its website. Given the stranglehold Democrats have on local elected offices, I suspect the trends I noted probably go back much further.

“Veon said the vote was controversial and predicted it would be unpopular among taxpayers. That’s why he advised Biancucci and Rep. Sean Ramaley, D-16, Economy, who are both fairly new to the Legislature and susceptible to election challenges, to vote against the bill.”

[RWC] Didn’t the story above claim Mr. Biancucci didn’t vote for the raise because he was “satisfied with the current pay scale?” Oops. It seems cornered career politicians can’t keep their stories straight.

Whom should we believe, Mr. Biancucci or Mr. Veon?

“He said it was better to let more established legislators take the political flak.”

[RWC] Translation: Don’t vote for what you believe; vote to protect your job. What happened to standing by your convictions?

“‘There’s never a good time to vote for a legislative pay raise,’ he said. ‘I’ve cast many difficult votes over the years and many controversial votes, but that’s my philosophy, that’s my style, and I leave it up to the people of the 14th District whether they think I should be re-elected.’

[RWC] As noted above, this is a disingenuous statement. The only way Mr. Veon – or Messrs. LaGrotta and LaValle – wouldn’t be re-elected is if he changed his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican.

Conspicuous by its absence was any claim Pennsylvania’s performance relative to the rest of the country justified the raise.

Did the GA deserve to have its pay raised from number four in the nation to number two?

I don’t know, but given the quality of defense given by Messrs. LaGrotta, LaValle, and Veon, I have my doubts.

1. The legislative pay raise: A public shafting; Editorial; Pittsburgh Tribune-Review; July 8, 2005.

I sent the following letter to the Times on July 10^th. It was published on July 15^th under the title “A lesson in credibility”.

Pay increase lessons

The article “Lawmakers: Pay increase was justified” (July 8) taught readers a lot.

We learned cornered career politicians can’t keep their stories straight. First we were told Mr. Biancucci didn’t vote for the raise because he was “satisfied with the current pay scale.” Later, however, we read that Mr. Veon advised Mr. Biancucci to vote against the raise because he was “susceptible to election challenges.”

Whom should we believe?

The other lesson to take from Mr. Veon’s advice is he believes reps should vote for what they support, when it doesn’t jeopardize their seat.

When he said, “We make decisions where hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to go,” Mr. Veon implied we should tie General Assembly pay to the size of the budget. In other words, we should reward GA members for their profligate spending of our paychecks and retirement income.

Mr. LaValle justified the raise by demeaning the effort of other public servants, like judges and school superintendents. Very classy.

When Mr. LaGrotta said, “No matter who they elect in 2006, that person is going to make the same salary,” I found that disingenuous on two points.

First, Mr. LaGrotta has held his seat since 1987 and hasn’t faced a primary or general election challenger since before 2000. Likewise, Messrs. LaValle and Veon hold “safe” seats.

Second, the pay raise bill has a backdoor called “unvouchered expenses” allegedly allowing legislators to get their raise sooner rather than later.

Conspicuous by its absence was any legislator’s claim Pennsylvania’s performance relative to the rest of the country justified the raise.

Did the GA deserve a pay raise from number four in the nation to number two?

I don’t know, but given the quality of defense presented by Messrs. LaGrotta, LaValle, and Veon, I have my doubts.