HB 4076 makes me laugh.

I notice none of you have said anything about the $5,000 per year incerease the legislature gave itself and your illustrious governor is about to sign into law. A little math for you folks, that's $333 per day based on a 60 day secession and yes, they get paid extra for days past the regular secession.

Cato

One of the problems with a part-time citizen legislature is that the average Joe or Jane out there cannot afford to serve what is becoming more and more a year round job, but at a level of pay not much more than a 7-11 employee is paid.

So the people we elect are not working stiffs who are working two jobs just to pay the rent and the grocery bill. Those people don't have time to even run for office- let alone serve if elected.

So we end up with a majority of legislators who are lawyers or other professionals, but who have little or no living concept of what the average wage earner has to do just to get by.

So I believe that if we pay legislators at least an average state income, that we will attract candidates who are more acquainted with the real day-to-day life of more West Virginians.

I don't have a problem with the raise, considering it's the first raise since 1994 and only the second in what, 30+ years. I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of.

And as Paul Harvey might say, ....... "here is some more of the story."

Full benefits for part-timers?

Lawmakers should scuttle away from an outrageous benefits grab

PUBLIC cynicism notwithstanding, West Virginia's legislative leaders work hard for the public. The leaders of the state Senate and House of Delegates are effectively on call year-round, not just during formal sessions.

These are demanding jobs, and these officials should be compensated fairly for the time they put in.

The House has passed a bill that would raise the extra pay of legislative leaders. There's no real harm in that.

The bill passed by the Democratic majority in the House, 62-36, would also give all legislators a $5,000-a-year raise in 2009, bringing their pay for two months' work to $20,000.

Such self-serving bills do have a greasy way of speeding through the Legislature, but it could be worse. Legislators last raised their pay in 1994.

And yes, legislators who don't live near Charleston are probably due an increase in daily expense payments for travel and lodging from $115 to $131. The cap hasn't been raised in a while.

The bill also would triple to $150 the extra daily pay of the House speaker and Senate president during the regular session. Extra pay for lawmakers in several other leadership positions in each chamber would double to $50 a day. http://www.dailymail.com/News/200802270239?page=2&build=cache

But there is no excuse for going beyond that.

The Senate Finance Committee recently amended a bill that concerned the Public Employees Insurance Agency in such a way as to make all legislators eligible for vastly lower health insurance premiums.

This would be done by redefining part-time legislative service as full-time service to the state.

The Associated Press reports that if such a bill passed, nonsmoking legislators with single coverage would pay only $444 a year in premiums - a savings of $5,878 a year from what they pay now.

Lawmakers with family coverage would pay $1,632 if the law defined their part-time service as full-time work. That would save them $9,072 a year in PEIA premiums.

That would be an outrageous benefit grab.

Legislators are handsomely compensated for their part-time work. Giving themselves preferential health insurance premiums as well would be a calculated insult to an already abused public.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorial/200802270175

So, let’s add up those new entitlements.

A $5,000 pay raise.
A $9,072 Health Insurance savings
A $960 travel/lodging increase
A $1,500 extra pay for leadership positions

Adds up to a total $16,532 per 60 days per year increase.

Or, an actual yearly base pay of $31,532 for 60 days of attending Legislative functions.

And just what do the taxpayers of West Virginia get for this.

"YUP", ..... bout all they get is a "Johnny Cash", .......... "Another day older and deeper in debt."

To wit:

Tuesday February 26, 2008
A spending party in an election year?

Adding $100 million in spending is a danger to all taxpayers

WITH two weeks left in the legislative session, lawmakers have taken Gov. Joe Manchin's $138 million in spending requests and added another $100 million in tax changes, pay raise proposals and other new spending.

For example, legislative leaders upped Manchin's 3 percent raise for teachers to increases that will average 4.6 percent.

That extra $17.4 million in spending is not a one-time thing but rather a permanent increase in the state's operating budget.

This comes atop the House calling for a one-time payment of $78 million to the teacher's retirement fund to defray some of the costs of rolling the defined-contribution plan (401k-style plan) into the defined-benefit plan for teacher retirements.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/Editorial/200802260178

Tuesday February 26, 2008
Look what's coming at W.Va. taxpayers

THE ship of state that is West Virginia is sailing full speed toward a financial storm of hurricane proportions.

That storm is called OPEB, which stands for Other Post-Employment Benefits, mostly health care.

For the first time, state and local governments have to comply with new guidelines that require them to report the magnitude of these financial obligations over time.

For West Virginia, as well as most other states, the numbers are daunting.

West Virginia's unfunded liability for post-employment benefits other than pensions is projected to soar from about $3 billion now to nearly $20 billion by 2017 unless something changes.

In the years ahead, the number of active employees paying into the system will remain about the same while the number of retirees will rise. That will put increasing pressure on taxpayers and active employees to pay escalating health care expenses for retirees.

Premiums by active employees currently subsidize retirees' health care costs by $82 million. That amount will rise over 300 percent to $350 million in just nine years unless changes are made.

http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/HoppyKercheval/200802260179

Now folks, iffen ya add that $20 billion post-employment benefits to the $20+- billion in unfunded retirement liabilities and Bonding obligations ........ that puts the taxpayers responsible for paying off a $40 BILLION high interest mortgage ......... along with their own daily expenses ..... and the daily expenses of the State, the County and their municipality.

And dont forget the "unfunded liabilities" that the municipalities have put their residents in debt and which they will have to pay off. And the Legislature will force them to pay them off. To wit:

The Senate has agreed to help cities and towns with their police and firefighter pension funds, partly by reversing a recent tax break on consumer insurance costs.

The state would restore a 1 percent surcharge on most policies, which had been cut nearly in half in 2005, under a bill advanced 32-7 Tuesday to the House.

Besides devoting the revenue to these municipal programs, the measure would also allow them to increase employee contribution rates, expand investment options and tighten plan oversight.

These local funds face gaps between promised benefits and on-hand assets that total $660 million. Officials from West Virginia's largest cities, Charleston and Huntington, say these unfunded liabilities threaten to bankrupt them.

Undoing the 2005 break would add $3 to the average premium, and generate an estimated $15 million a year, supporters say.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/Kanawha/200802270125

.

I don't have a problem with the pay raise. I have a huge problem with the insurance premiums.

There is an election coming up. We can vote them out.

Stephanie wrote:There is an election coming up. We can vote them out.

Incumbents have such a tremendous advantage in attracting endorsements and campaign dollars from the government lobbying industry that "voting them out" is, more often than not, only a theoretical reality, not a viable reality.

You're right, Ziggy.......but that is "our" fault. I am very frustrated, but more so with the voters than with the politicians. "We" do this to ourselves.

I agree with the pay increase, but if they are going to provide that kind of benefits package to themselves, they need to provide it for every part timer the state employs in order to be fair. However, the taxpayers can't afford that and certainly they haven't earned it.

I'm not the shaprest tool in the shed and I am very simplistic in my views. Here's is what bothers me about the raise. HB 4076 started out as a raise for the leadership of legislature and a raise in the travel expenses for all Legislators. The $5,000 raise was added in the week prior to the passage of the bill, as an amendment. Now, I believe in leadership by example. Don't tell me to do something, you, as my leader aren't willing to do. The legislature as a whole and the governor has been singing the woe is me tune about state finances. They have been stating how teachers and state employees have to avoid raises and how maybe benefits should be cut.

If the state is in the shape it is in, then it seems quite logical and ethical to me that the legislators, should have avoided an increase or accepted an increase of the same magnitude as state employees and teachers were offered. Afterall, who is really to blame for the financial problems facing the state, the employees and teachers or the legislature and governors who passed the laws that put the state on the road it supposedly is. That question is simply answered by remembering employees asks, but management is the party that bears ultimate responsibility. If you think the legislature did right by passing themselves this raise, then you need to think long and hard about how we arrived at the place we are.

One last thought. If you think for a moment that higher pay is going to attract a better class of politician, you are wrong. That was the reasoning behind the last pay raise and it certainly didn't work. Politics is the one exception to getting what you pay for. Ziggy, hits the nail on the head. Politicians buy their way into office and the continue to buy their office using other people's money. Politics isn't about money, it is about power and people who seek power and control. The only way to correct the problems we face is to lessen the amount of power we give the politicians.

Cato

I agree, leaders should lead and not be so freaking afraid of the backlash from the media and others that they go 14 years before they give themselves a raise when independent studies has recommended a every year for I don't know how long. And then when they do give themselves a raise, they shouldn't be so freaking scared of the backlash from the media and others that they wait until the last possible minute and then add it as an amendment to a bill.

What they should do is give themselves the same standard raise that all state employees get every year, which is right around 3%. Had the done that every year for the past 14 years, the pay would now stand at $22,028.81 instead of $20,000.00. All they did was play catch up and they ain't quite there yet. The actual raise should have been 47% instead of 33%.

I do have one question for you. What year was it that teachers received no raise what so ever? I don't recall that happening.

Aaron wrote:What they should do is give themselves the same standard raise that all state employees get every year, which is right around 3%. Had the done that every year for the past 14 years, the pay would now stand at $22,028.81 instead of $20,000.00. All they did was play catch up and they ain't quite there yet. The actual raise should have been 47% instead of 33%.

I do have one question for you. What year was it that teachers received no raise what so ever? I don't recall that happening.

All school employees receive a "year of service" increase each year.

But Aaron, that 3% all state employees get is based on "12 months of work".

So, is it fair to give Legislators that same 3% for only "3 months of work n' partying"?

Would not 0.75% increase be more fair and equal?



.

ziggy wrote:One of the problems with a part-time citizen legislature is that the average Joe or Jane out there cannot afford to serve what is becoming more and more a year round job, but at a level of pay not much more than a 7-11 employee is paid.

So the people we elect are not working stiffs who are working two jobs just to pay the rent and the grocery bill. Those people don't have time to even run for office- let alone serve if elected.

So we end up with a majority of legislators who are lawyers or other professionals, but who have little or no living concept of what the average wage earner has to do just to get by.

So I believe that if we pay legislators at least an average state income, that we will attract candidates who are more acquainted with the real day-to-day life of more West Virginians.

Zig,

You hit on a fascinating point. Politicians across the board have gone from public servants/citizen legislators to professional politicians, and it's not a function of where they are or how much they are paid (consider that an average Jane can well to live on a 162000 a year salary but that doesn't stop the US Congress from being a milionaire's club).

I agree that there needs to be greater access by common people (and compared to the Illinois Legislature, the WV legislature, at which I used to work, is remarkably "plebian" if I can use that word in it's best possible sense), but raising the salary isn't going to do it, I fear.

In New Hampshire, a rather small state, the House is absolutely enormous and is paid virtually nothing. I think that's the ideal if what you are looking for is a representive nature of the legislature. You don't have that much status since there are so many members of the House, and as the pay is low and the House so large, the pressure on the individual is almost certainly less.

I might suggest in WVA doubling the size of the House by cutting districts in half, and then imposing term limits, so as to get greater economic, ideological, and social diversity within the statehouse.

SamCogar wrote:

Aaron wrote:What they should do is give themselves the same standard raise that all state employees get every year, which is right around 3%. Had the done that every year for the past 14 years, the pay would now stand at $22,028.81 instead of $20,000.00. All they did was play catch up and they ain't quite there yet. The actual raise should have been 47% instead of 33%.

I do have one question for you. What year was it that teachers received no raise what so ever? I don't recall that happening.

All school employees receive a "year of service" increase each year.

But Aaron, that 3% all state employees get is based on "12 months of work".

So, is it fair to give Legislators that same 3% for only "3 months of work n' partying"?

Would not 0.75% increase be more fair and equal?

.

I think the best way to do it is set an annual salary and then pay them a daily rate based on the days worked. But then you'd have those taking advantage of that as well so it wouldn't work. Hell, the fact that this bill took a cap off the amount of days leaders get's paid bothers me. All in all, I think it would be better to give them a year in service increase every year and that their pay should be set by an indepent bi-partisan commission.

Aaron wrote:I think the best way to do it is set an annual salary and then pay them a daily rate based on the days worked.

How would that be different from the way it's been done for decades?

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I think the best way to do it is set an annual salary and then pay them a daily rate based on the days worked.

How would that be different from the way it's been done for decades?

You know, I thought about that after I posted it. They have a salary so maybe the best way is to pay them a set salary for the winter session and then not pay anything other them the per deim for special sessions. Think they'd get it all wrapped up by March then?

It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year. That's what really needs to change.

Stephanie wrote:It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year. That's what really needs to change.

I tend to agree, Stephanie.

But I don't think they would need to meet full time year 'round, either.

Maybe 5 to 10 days every month.

Stephanie wrote:It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year. That's what really needs to change.

It's not 'ran' in only 3 months during the year. It's 'ran' year round by the various agencies throughout the year. It's funded for 3 months out of the year which is a tad different then 'running' the state, wouldn't you agree!!!

Maybe if the legislative branch 'ran' the government less, both state and federal, we might actually have more money and not be in the whole we're in.

Everyone should take a day when the Legislature is in Session and go to Charleston and watch what goes on.

If anyone thinks the Legislators are either in Committee Meetings or in their "big rooms" Voting on Bills ........ like they always show them doing on TV, ............. you need a "reality check".

cheers

Aaron wrote:
I do have one question for you. What year was it that teachers received no raise what so ever? I don't recall that happening.

In recent times I don't know of any. There was a period of four years when Moore was governor the second time. I think there was a couple under Caperton, but don't quote me on that. I don't remember any skipped years under Wise and I can't remember any under Manchin. However, again don't quote that as gospel.

Actually, I don't much care whether or not the bimbos in Charleston get a raise or not. What galls both my wife and I, is the sing song about how bad the state finances are and then turn around and increase their salaries by 25%. Their raise only amounts to an additional $675,000 dollars, so big deal. However, if the states finances are bad, then let's act like they are bad and all do our part. If they aren't then let's act like they aren't. Let's not play around and use the finances are bad excuse when its convienient and serves a purpose and then ignore it when it when it stands int he way of something they want to do.

Considering Caperton took teachers up to 31st in the nation in teachers pay, I doubt they missed a year during his tenure. They may have but if they did, he more then made up for it in other years.

There's a difference in commiting the amount to legislatures then there is to all the teachers who on top of a 5+% pay increase is going to have their retirement bailed out to the tune of $79 million. If they go double digit years without a pay increase, then they can bitch.

ziggy wrote:

Stephanie wrote:It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year. That's what really needs to change.

I tend to agree, Stephanie.

But I don't think they would need to meet full time year 'round, either.

Maybe 5 to 10 days every month.

I agree they don't need to meet 210 days a year either, Ziggy. I've been giving this a lot of thought. I gave it a lot of thought in RI because I thought the system there was terribly flawed also. I think perhaps they should try a few different approaches and see what works best.

It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year.

Huh? What has the Legislature ever done to make you believe they can "properly run " West Virginia in any number of days? Hell, it takes them sixty days now to parcel out the budget digest. You or I could do it in a couple hours...

ohio county wrote:

It's just foolish to think this state can be properly run in only 3 months of the year.

Huh? What has the Legislature ever done to make you believe they can "properly run " West Virginia in any number of days? Hell, it takes them sixty days now to parcel out the budget digest. You or I could do it in a couple hours...

Even if you had to share the "parcelling out" with 131 other elected officials- plus a governor who could veto it all with the stroke of his pen?

I was only talking about the budget digest which was eliminated in 2006. Most of the budget digest never saw the light of day and most of the 131 other elected officials had no clue. It was reserved for the leadership.

OK.

Did you get in a fight last night? You're missin' a tooth. And your nose looks puffy.

But you're still smilin', so I guess you're Ok.