Plan to boost lawmaker pay in Minn. budget bill

  • Article by: BRIAN BAKST , Associated Press
  • Updated: April 9, 2013 - 2:08 PM
  • 27
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mjcmspApr. 9, 13 1:39 PM

WOW! The legislators make so little. I figured they would make a lot more than that. Not even $50k a year, no way I would EVER want that job. Too little pay for way too much pressure/responsiblity.

4
18
falcon1681Apr. 9, 13 2:13 PM

What's not mentioned is that they don't pay for housing, food, travel or medical care. If I didn't have to pay for any of that, I could live REAL well on 50k a year.

16
5
EleanoreApr. 9, 13 2:23 PM

Just so long as they get theirs for that part time gig with benefits and retirement without putting anything into the system. that's what they want, who are we to say no dice?

11
2
avejoeconApr. 9, 13 2:42 PM

What they don't mention is that this is for 3-4 months work. Most of them have a full time job also. I'd take 40K a year for working 4 months!

15
1
dlzabzApr. 9, 13 2:57 PM

You voted for the DFL now you got them. Bonding bill for union work, unfunded Viking stadium for union work, bump up their pay, bump up minimum wage, raise taxes.

12
2
aquabirdApr. 9, 13 3:00 PM

Tell me, Just how many Middle Class Minnesotans can afford to run a campaign for Office? And that 50K is for maybe 6 months of work. No legislator should receive an increase more than what the 30,000 state workers received, and they should pay at least what state workers pay for their health insurance. After all aren't legislators considered state workers?

12
1
locks80Apr. 9, 13 3:46 PM

We should just dispense with the myth that serving in the legislature is a part time job and double the salary accordingly. As a practical matter very few people can maintain another career while spending maybe 6 months a year in session, not to mention that they're still expected to responsive constituent servants the other 6 months. Think about it. What would it do for your career to be out of the office half the year? I'm all for cutting government excess, but this is a bad way to do it. As it is the only people that can afford to serve in the legislature are those that are independently wealthy, supported by a high-earning spouse, or are so desperate for power that they're willing to impoverish their family to obtain it. Is it really good for the people of Minnesota to have a legislature entirely consisting of such people?

6
6
benleeApr. 9, 13 4:20 PM

The number of days the legislature can work is capped at 120 days per biennium (60 days per year) by the State Constitution. An annual salary of $31,140 averages out to $500 per day. If their salaries were raised to $40,890 per years they would average $680 per day. On top of their $500 per day salary, the legislators also receive session per diem rates of $96 per day for senators and $77 per legislative day for representatives (as of 2010).

7
1
twincitizen1Apr. 9, 13 4:29 PM

I'm with locks80-- We should recognize that this is a full-time job and pay them accordingly, but straight salary, no more per diem nonesense. The current pay system for legislators is not transparent. They should write off job-related transportation and hotel expenses on their taxes like anyone else. In order to keep this change mostly revenue neutral, I would also like to see the size of the Senate reduced to something in line with other states. We currently have the largest Senate body in the country, due to the 1:2 ratio to the house. We could easily make that 1:4.

6
1
brianjapanApr. 9, 13 4:53 PM

Why not. Minnesota is rich. Ha

4
1

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT