Democrats in the Legislature overruled Gov. Baker's veto: The new law passed by the Legislature increases the stipend for several top leadership positions in the House and Senate, as well as statewide elected officials and judges. House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Stan Rosenberg got 40 percent raises, with the members of their leadership teams also scoring big pay bumps attached to their roles.
Massachusetts isn't like other states: Most other states don't have a full-time Legislature. Massachusetts is one of only about a dozen states that have office-holders that work year-round. The National Conference of State Legislatures averages the pay in all the full-time states to $81,000. The same number of states pay their lawmakers about the same as the state's median income.
In California they all make nearly $100,000 a year. In New Hampshire, they have a large part time Legislature that gets $100 a year without additional per diem pay.
Some states need to vote in order to keep up with cost of living, and some, like Massachusetts, get it bumped automatically.
This isn't really about rank-and-file members: The new law doesn't alter the base salary all lawmakers earn. A constitutional amendment in 1998 set up automatic base salary raises for lawmakers. Every two years, their base pay goes up according to the state's median household income. They just got this session's raise, which was 4.2 percent and puts the starting pay at $62,500.
The new pay raise law increases the perks that come from being in leadership positions. The higher up the ladder the politician, the bigger the stipend that comes with the rank. Rosenberg and DeLeo are in for a $45,000 increase to their stipends that will bring their compensation to $142,000 each. That's high for government work, but Democrats argue it's not nearly what many professionals at the top of their game bring home.
Democrats argue the pay isn't enough to live on: Anything under six-figures does seem low for any kind of top manager in today's market. So the top leaders, the House chairmen and all the Senators, have been getting that base salary increase every two years, but the stipends for their special positions hasn't gone up since 1984. Based on the votes they got to approve this measure, virtually all the Democrats agree that the compensation for those leadership jobs just isn't enough.
And that's been one of the key defenses Rosenberg has been repeating: the two top leaders haven't gotten a stipend boost in 33 years and it's time to do it now, before leadership assignments are doled out to members.
Judges are getting a raise too: Judges and court clerks are also in line for raises in this law, upwards of 15 percent. By including the judiciary, the new law cannot repealed through a ballot question initiative because of a constitutional prohibition on altering judge's pay that way. Supreme Judicial Court Chief Justice Ralph Gants is getting a $25,000 raise.
Pay could be seen as comparatively low, but pols have options: Keep in mind that while many lawmakers do work as hard as anyone, the lawmaking gig doesn't have to be a full time job. Plenty of representatives and senators run small businesses, maintain a law practice or sell real estate on the side. It's really up to the voters in their districts whether or not they're okay with someone with a second job representing them.
But as Rosenberg sees it, it's almost the inverse: young lawmakers that could be on a leadership track are choosing to leave the Legislature in order to go make money somewhere else, and that's robbing state government of experienced leaders.
More money for top lieutenants: Another thing to keep in mind is the centralized power structure on Beacon Hill. Those top two branch leaders rely on really only a few dozen members to do the real heavy legislative lifting: the chairmen, the division chairs, minority leaders and party whips. The rank-and-file members tend to concentrate more on their districts than on huge state-wise policy questions.
Republicans voted against it, but they win too: The bill increases the pay for the minority party's leaders as well, so both sides are getting a share. The GOP may very well benefit more in the long run since it's sometimes hard for them to recruit capable candidates to run against comfortable Democrats, and one of the big reasons it's hard to find Republicans to run is because of the pay. With the raises, at least, there's a little something extra for Republicans looking to rise through the ranks of their very small minority.
Then again, there are a lot more Democrats in Massachusetts than Republicans, so a rising income may lead to more capable Democrats eyeing State House runs - if the money's good enough.
