The Last Word on Legislator Pay?
The committee has made its recommendation
Last month, I used the pending decision by the Citizen’s Committee on Legislative Compensation as a springboard to discuss the balance of power in Idaho government. I followed that up with some additional scrutiny of legislative pay, as well as some out-of-the box ideas for how legislators could do a better job of fighting back against bureaucratic overreach.
On the morning of November 6, as most of us were celebrating big election wins from the night before, the Citizen’s Committee met again. They had deadlocked in October on a bipartisan proposal from legislative leadership to raise lawmaker pay by around 43%, and had therefore scheduled a second meeting. This time they unanimously approved raising legislator salaries to $25,000 per year. This would be an increase of just over 25% in base salary alone. Per diem rates are set federally, and those should increase by about 16% from 2024.
While leadership’s recommendation would have pegged base salaries at a percentage of the Average Idaho Household Income (AIHI) index, the committee seems to have pulled the $25,000 number out of thin air. Niklas Kleinworth, policy director at the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), testified in front of the committee on Wednesday:
According to numbers provided by Fred Birnbaum, IFF’s legislative affairs director, the average lawmaker would see a 22.1% increase in total taxable compensation. This includes the meal per diem given to lawmakers who live within 50 miles of the Capitol as well as $2,500 in “constituent service allowance” that would remain unchanged. For various reasons, the IRS does not consider the meal and lodging per diem given to lawmakers who live beyond 50 miles to be taxable income.
Seven incoming lawmakers along with incumbent Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld issued a press release opposing the pay raise following the vote. The eight signatories presented a resolution for the Legislature to increase the base salary by 2.5% instead. If the Legislature does nothing, the committee’s recommendation will go into effect. Any legislator can introduce a resolution to reject the recommendation or reduce it, but not raise it. Both chambers would have to pass that resolution for it to supersede the committee’s recommendation.
I take no position on this issue either way — que será será. Others have: IFF has written several articles about it, such as this from Birnbaum and this from President Ron Nate, and some of the incoming lawmakers who signed the press release have been outspoken about rejecting the proposal. However, the difference between a 25% increase and a 2.5% increase is less than half a million dollars for the entire Legislature. Real money, for sure, but peanuts compared to many other budget line items.
Critics are right, I think, that the optics of a legislative pay raise are not good. Are they ever? When was the last time you felt so proud of your government that you felt compelled to give them more of your own hard-earned money? Yet the workman is nevertheless worthy of his wages — I’m sure most people agree they should be paid something.
On the other hand, the optics of legislators who don’t need the money voting to withhold a pay raise from those who do aren’t very good either.
In any case, the resolution from the eight will surely be introduced. Will it pass? Will there be vigorous debate? Stay tuned. As always, contact your legislators and let them know your thoughts, whatever those might be. I’m hoping to see a fired-up and engaged citizenry participating in the legislative process this coming year. We’ve been given time to keep our Republic, so let’s not let it go to waste.
I’ll preface with I’m undecided on this, have historically been adamantly opposed, but starting to see valid points on both sides, and starting to migrate some. .
One perspective I recently learned of from discussing the issue with a conservative tax watchdog group in Oregon - while helping my parents research Oregon’s recent ballot initiative to institute an independent “compensation committee” - was that their republican party was having a hard time recruiting conservative candidates because some of the good prospective candidates had jobs, farms, ranches that were difficult and costly for them to leave for several months, and for some that were serving they were getting behind financially. I don’t know if similar issues may be in play here, but seems plausible and I’d prefer our pool of strong conservative legislators not be constrained or skewed…and we need more truly conservative legislators in touch with average Idahoans to make a meaningful dent in our rapidly increasing state government and many other issues. One example offered by the tax watchdog group was the number of attorneys serving in the legislature…partially a natural fit given the nature of legislation, but as a former partner in a financial services firm, I understand in some law firms it would be much easier for an attorney to take a leave to serve in the legislature than a [__fill in various occupations here —-]. I don’t want public servants getting wealthy from the government salaries and I also want a pool of bright, common sense hard-working people to be able to take the time to serve without financial hardship being a deterrent. I’ve been adamantly opposed to most raises in the past - I want to constrain government spending significantly - but we need a great pool of candidates to do it, which makes me lean a bit toward pegging to an Idaho wage index to make sure the natural tension of salaries is reasonably balanced. Recognizably, retirees may have time, money (and hopefully wisdom to share!) but also don’t want to see significant disproportions. The struggle to recruit over there was new to me, so thought I’d share that perspective.
Frankly I am sick and tired of government employees receiving large pay increases while us subjects receive mere pittance of a raise or nothing at all. Our military receives very little, Social Security recipients receives very little increases. It's time to go back to the idea that government employees are not in it to become rich, they are in it to serve "We the People".