Locals say legislators sending wrong message if they accept pay increases

LYNN -State legislators are sending the wrong message by taking a pay raise at a time when others are feeling the financial squeeze said Mike Buksa, a financial service worker who has seen seven friends laid off from their jobs in the last month.
The 5.5 percent pay hike will boost elected officials’ base pay from $58,237 to $61,440 – an increase of just more than $3,200 a year. Many lawmakers make more than the base pay with some heads of committees making an additional $7,500 or $15,000.
Under a state law approved by voters in 1998, lawmakers’ pay rises or falls every two years in sync with the state’s median household income.
The law requires the governor to determine the change to the household income at the start of each two-year legislative session.
Kandice Wampler works for the state and received a pay raise in July tied to the anniversary date of her employment. She is concerned that layoffs, not pay hikes, could be the fate awaiting many of her colleagues this year.
On Wednesday, Gov. Deval Patrick asked lawmakers for expanded budget-cutting powers after projecting just last week that the state’s revenues for the current fiscal year which ends June 30 will fall by another $1 billion. One of the biggest items on the chopping block is local aid to cities and town.
House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi and Senate President Therese Murray, both elected to new terms as heads of the legislative chambers, also warned Wednesday about dire fiscal times ahead. Demetrio Carrion thinks raises make sense in tough economic times because they give people the added spending power needed to stimulate the economy.
The ballot question setting the stage for legislative raises was intended to take the politics out of legislative pay raises by tying them to the fate of household income – and taking the decision out of the hands of lawmakers themselves.
David Falcone, a spokesman for Murray said there’s no guarantee lawmakers’ salaries will always go up at the start of each session.
“If the median household income had decreased, there could in fact have been a pay cut instead of a raise,” Falcone said, adding that the decision whether to accept the pay hike is up to each member.
Critics said few workers in Massachusetts have guaranteed pay hikes written into law.
But they also said that the voters who approved the ballot question in 1998 and may be upset with the pay hikes now, have no one to blame but themselves.
“Voters did a very, very foolish thing and they are going to have to pay for it literally,” said Barbara Anderson of the anti-tax group Citizens for Limited Taxation. “When they are worrying about where their next paycheck is coming from, their lawmakers are going to be enjoying a pay raise.”
Associated Press material was used in this report