Last week, state lawmakers voted themselves an $11,000 raise. A columnist at a Philadelphia newspaper called the action "obscene" while so many citizens in the state are struggling. An editorial in another state newspaper said "legislators ought to be ashamed" for giving themselves a raise as part of the budget deal.

A commentary about the pay raise and state lawmakers in a newspaper in the central part of the state was headlined "Money for nothing."

The reaction from across the state to lawmakers voting themselves a 16 percent pay raise has been universally negative.

Most observers of Pennsylvania's General Assembly were not shocked by the deal, which packaged the generous pay raise as the key component in passage of a budget - which, it should be noted, was a week past deadline. But still, the arrogance of Pennsylvania's lawmakers, protected, as are most lawmakers across the U.S., by a 98 percent re-election rate, is obvious.

They simply don't care what journalists or citizens think. They don't have to care; they will be re-elected no matter what they do.

Newspaper columnists and editorial writers have blasted the pay raise, and regular working Pennsylvanians, who make an average of $38,532 a year, lament the gaping contrast between themselves and state lawmakers - who will now make over $81,000 a year, plus receive other benefits including a car, insurance, gasoline, daily expenses, health insurance and a generous pension plan - perks valued at more than $30,000 a year.

Defending the vote, lawmakers complained that they had not had a pay raise since 1995. This argument was based on the belief that the automatic, annual cost-of-living increases, which have boosted their paychecks by 25 percent over the past decade, don't count.

The outrage and condemnation from the media and public were predictable. But lawmakers did it because they can.

The arrogance evident in voting themselves a pay raise is exceeded only by the arrogance in using "unvouchered expenses" as a back-door way around the existing restriction on not taking the pay hike now, but waiting until 2007, when the next term begins - as the law requires. The law's intent is clear, but in Harrisburg they have a loophole and have no shame in using it.

Once elected, an incumbent lawmaker pretty much has the job for as long as he or she chooses to run for re-election. Political leaders from both parties have cooperated in creating districts that are mostly safe for one party or the other.

And, when a controversial vote is taken, as with this pay raise, lawmakers believed to be in competitive districts are allowed to vote against the raise, as are freshmen legislators who have not quite become cemented in their job-for-life positions.

With their pay-raise vote, Pennsylvania lawmakers are now second only to California legislators in compensation. Yet California is a much larger state - and one with far fewer lawmakers (253 here, 120 in California). In Harrisburg, they must be asking, "How can they possibly manage?"

If our representatives in Harrisburg want to be paid like California's lawmakers, they should be willing to adopt two conditions found in Sacramento, the California state capital.

Lawmakers' pay is determined by an independent commission, not by lawmakers themselves. Despite the fact that the pay-hike vote taken last week in Harrisburg will tie future pay increases to pay hikes in Congress, an independent commission would have been a better system.

California is one of 15 states with term limits imposed on state lawmakers. Most states with term limits, including California, limit lawmakers to eight years in office. Three states allow for 12 years of service.

Term limits in Pennsylvania would make the just-passed pay hike more palatable to voters under the theory that our state lawmakers, who constantly note that they could make more money in the private sector, can now return to the private sector on a predetermined schedule to make the really big paycheck that they say they are worth.

Though the issues facing Pennsylvania are admittedly difficult, lawmakers don't have much to brag about in terms of job performance.

The last three budgets were not passed by the legal deadline.

The predictable implosion of Act 72 revealed the legislature's so-called property-tax-relief effort to be a badly flawed bill. Much like its failed predecessor Act 50 (Homestead Exemption), it was nothing close to real property tax reform.

The state's lackluster economic and job-creation performance cannot be blamed on lawmakers alone, but they clearly have done little to improve the economic climate in the Keystone State.

Still, lawmakers gave themselves a 16 percent pay hike, because they can. Now, they should be prepared to accept term limits. And then they can work at their newly enhanced salaries to accomplish something really significant for their fellow Pennsylvanians in their limited time in Harrisburg.

- J.L.W.III