The 1995 law granting automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments to all 253 state legislators, more than 1,000 state judges, state row officers and some executive branch members was envisioned initially — at least from lawmakers' standpoint — as a reasonable way for dealing with the touchy issue of lawmakers voting themselves pay increases.

The inflation rate in the Philadelphia area is used as the basis for the adjustments. The latest adjustment, which took effect Monday despite the fact that the commonwealth could be facing a $2 billion 2008-09 budget shortfall, has resulted in a 2.8 percent pay hike.

Although state taxpayers apparently have been content with the automatic-adjustments system — at least there hasn't been much outrage displayed against it — a movement is brewing that would repeal the automatic-adjustments law. The basis for that movement is sound.

Rep. Barbara McIlvaine Smith, D-Chester, who will start her second term in January, plans to introduce legislation in 2009 that would repeal the 1995 law. Taxpayer groups are enthusiastic about the effort, with one strong supporter commenting, "This Capitol is one of the most expensive places in Pennsylvania. It really gets my ire up. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus — if you're in the Pennsylvania state Legislature."

"Our constituents are losing their jobs, and everyone is struggling to pay their bills," McIlvaine Smith said. "Thousands will not see their salaries or wages increased in the coming year, so why should we?"

Even if the 1995 law has allowed the General Assembly to avoid the process of proposing and considering pay increases each year or whenever lawmakers deemed appropriate, there remains the logical point of lawmakers being required to take an official stand regarding any change in their pay and/or fringe benefits status so that action can be judged by the voters.

A side issue to consider is when should a raise, cost of living or otherwise, take effect. Voters should expect that lawmakers should follow a provision in the state constitution that mandates that raises cannot take effect until the term following the one in which lawmakers approve the raise.

Elimination of the automatic-adjustments law would return salary increases to the guideline that the constitution stipulates.

Most state residents remember the taxpayer outrage that ensued after lawmakers passed a big middle-of-the-night pay raise in July 2005 — despite the existence of the annual cost-of-living raises. That pay hike, amounting to 16 percent to 34 percent, was repealed four months later amid sustained public outrage.

Taxpayers are justified now in being just as angry that state officials' pay has been upped, despite the commonwealth's tough economic circumstances and the uncertain prospects that the situation portends.

Thanks to Monday's adjustment, lawmakers and other state officials are not feeling the pain of the economic meltdown while the people who pay their salaries face the prospect of higher taxes to enable the state to overcome its budget shortfall, whatever that eventually might be.

Sen. Joe Scarnati, who is both the new lieutenant governor and the Republican leader in the Senate, has commented that cost-of-living increases for all state officials should be considered for cuts, due to the state's worsening revenue shortfall.

Meanwhile, Gov. Ed Rendell, who is scheduled to make nearly $175,000 next year, said he might halt cost-of-living hikes for himself and other executive branch officials.

That's not enough. All considered, the latest raises should be repealed and lawmakers should act quickly next year to consider McIlvaine Smith's proposal.

Regardless of the thinking back in 1995, Pennsylvania is in a different era of much more challenging fiscal circumstances. Pay raises without regard to the condition of the economy should be a no-no.

And, in addition, pay raises without specific legislative action also should be a no-no.

There's no guarantee that the voter wrath that followed the 2005 pay raise would repeat itself if the lawmakers, without an automatic cost-of-living-raise law, were to approve a reasonable pay hike in the future. However, pay actions of lawmakers, as with their other actions, should be considered by the voters when they vote. But under the automatic-increase law, pay raises aren't a polling-place issue.

The current law should be repealed next year. Lawmakers should vote on pay increases.