Site last updated: Saturday, May 2, 2026

Log In

Reset Password
MENU
Butler County's great daily newspaper

Lawmakers' unfinished work argues against higher salaries

Now that the election is over, Pennsylvania taxpayers should give much-closer scrutiny to what is happening in the state legislature. With lawmakers back in Harrisburg for the last month of their two-year session - a session that by law must be completed by Nov. 30 - the time is ripe for votes on issues that have higher-than-normal political risk.

One item many lawmakers are eager to address now is a $5,000- to $10,000-a-year pay raise for themselves. It is a vote that they hope won't be noticed as state residents redirect their focus from politics and the Nov. 2 election results to the upcoming holidays. And, even if taxpayers do notice and end up angry over whatever pay hike is approved, lawmakers are counting on the passage of time to avert negative effects on their political careers. Current members of the House of Representatives who won re-election won't have to face the voters again until 2006, and senators re-elected this year won't be up for re-election until 2008.

But at this time, when many state residents are jobless or are working for lower wages and benefits for whatever reason, an important question in many people's minds is whether lawmakers should be seeking more pay.

Based on the plight thousands of other workers across the commonwealth still are enduring, the shaky financial picture from which the state has just begun to emerge over the last year or so but, even more importantly, the limited amount of accomplishment in Harrisburg's legislative chambers most of the time lawmakers are in session, due to excessive partisanship, the answer is a resounding "no."

If lawmakers aren't happy with their pay, they can opt to exercise their talents exclusively in the private sector - away from taxpayers' wallets and pocketbooks.

Being a lawmaker in this state can't be likened to a pauper's existence. Lawmakers currently earn a basic salary of about $66,000 a year, with a cost-of-living escalator automatically built in so they don't have to vote publicly for an annual increase in their pay.

The raise being sought would be to their base-pay figure, and then future percentage cost-of-living increases would be calculated on their higher pay - if, of course, the proposed higher-pay grab is successful.

It's also important for state residents to notice that when lawmakers are in Harrisburg haggling and accomplishing little, they are being paid an additional $126 for each session day, in addition to their regular pay. They also receive full health-care coverage for themselves and their families, taxpayer-paid vehicle leases up to $600 per month, a generous pension that is vested after five years' service, life insurance, free parking and $10,000 a year in non-accountable expenses.

That's for the regular lawmakers; those in leadership positions receive more.

The bottom line is that Pennsylvania lawmakers currently are the fourth-highest-paid in the nation, receiving more than $100,000 a year for their state service - and yet they still aren't satisfied.

The General Assembly shouldn't need these end-of-the-session days in Harrisburg. And, if they did need a couple of extra days, it should have been just for an item or two - not the seemingly full plate that currently is before lawmakers. Some of the unfinished business deals with amendments to the new slot-machine law, a proposed increase in the state gasoline tax, subsidies to help doctors pay medical malpractice insurance, raises for top Rendell administration officials and broadening of the attorney general's authority to regulate slot-machine gambling.

In being held after the election, the current abbreviated session is called "lame duck," since some of those who will be voting will be leaving office. Others refer to it as "sine die," which is Latin for "end of the day."

The Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association publication "The Bulletin" quotes one Capitol wag as describing the session as a "feeding frenzy" because it is a time for brazen "generosity" not necessarily in the taxpayers' best interests.

"Gluttony" would seem to be an even-better description.

More in Our Opinion

Subscribe to our Daily Newsletter

* indicates required
TODAY'S PHOTOS