An age-old argument over legislator pay
Thursday, Dec 15, 2016 - Posted by Rich Miller
* This is a very common notion…
One of the problems for many lawmakers is that they view their jobs as full time.
They certainly get paid full-time salaries – $67,836. Many receive stipends of $10,327 for extra duties. The total: $78,163.
But the Legislature is in session only from January until May, with a 2-week veto session in November.
Full-time employment? Not hardly.
By stretching their legislative jobs to full time, such lawmakers don’t have any “real” jobs to fall back on. And now, their personal finances are feeling the pinch.
How many “real jobs” allow workers to take off January through May (and beyond) every year? Some lawyers can do it, but do we really need more of them in the GA? Could school teachers take that much time off? Factory workers? Please. I suppose they could all become Uber drivers like Rep. Andrade. Or they could get government jobs at the local level, which can often accommodate politicians, but do we want more of that?
We could probably restructure the General Assembly so that it doesn’t meet as often, but that would require a pretty darned heavy lift.
* However, there’s no doubt that their pay rate makes them a big target when things don’t go well. And things haven’t gone well in Illinois for quite a long time.
From 538…
“The question of salaries has haunted American legislatures since the 1640s,” said Peverill Squire, a professor of political science at the University of Missouri and an expert on state legislatures. “It has been a chronic issue where lawmakers generally ask for more pay and the public is almost always resistant.” […]
Lawmaker salaries vary wildly across the country, from California, where legislators make nearly $100,000 a year, to New Hampshire, where they are compensated with $100 annually and no per diem. Overall, though, they tend to skew low. In 2014, according to research by Squire and Gary Moncrief, a political science professor at Boise State University, the median base pay was $20,833.
The site also posted a chart listing lawmaker salaries in all 50 states and comparing them to median household income. In Illinois, legislators make 132 percent of median household income, the fifth highest in the country.
* And there is a danger to not paying legislator much money…
Low pay also puts limits on who can realistically serve in a legislature. In states like New Mexico that have short legislative sessions, lawmakers must leave their day jobs for one or two months every year and travel to the state capital — in addition to dealing with year-round demands from constituents. Many lawmakers must be independently wealthy or have flexible jobs that allow them to juggle politics and everyday work. Part-time legislators are also more likely than full-time legislators to be retirees, Moncrief said. It’s no surprise, then, that state lawmakers tend to be older than their constituents.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:23 am:
You get what you pay for. The governor wants legislators starving for a deal on his terms.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:25 am:
Now wait a minute. When it comes to teachers (many would love to retire after 35 years—–35!!! and advanced degrees! with a salary close to 80K) many say this is a service, a public job! Why would you expect to make oodles of money? If that’s the argument for those who work a heckuva lot longer time and have the responsibility of educating those who might become those legislators, why isn’t it the argument for legislators? In these economic cruch times, it sure makes sense to scrutinize every penny, doesn’t it?
- Come on Man! - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:26 am:
You 2 out of three Cheap, Honest, or Effective. Pick carefully.
- Meh - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:28 am:
The 538 article brought up some good points.
California for example has a smaller legislative branch (80 assembly members, 40 senators), which means they are generally representing larger more populated districts. Yet, they also have a more highly trained/educated legislative staff.
Are they better off than other states? I think it’s relative.
But they do have a budget.
- Nieva - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:29 am:
I would vote to pay them double if the could get the job done but it seems that is not going to happen. Balance the budget and make the cuts and raise the taxes to make this state well. I think we are talking a 20 year or longer process. It took that long to get into this mess.
- A Jack - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:30 am:
Paul Powell’s salary was pretty low.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:30 am:
I would love to run for office. Could I afford too? No way. That legislator pay would be a good salary increase for me. But it would have to bey only full time job. I couldn’t afford to not get paid. I couldn’t just make a donation to my campaign fund. I don’t have the money to support myself to make a run. I am effectively locked out from even trying. Like a MAP grant student, I won’t even make it to the launch pad. Regardless of what people think of me, that’s just wrong. I hope this lawsuit wins against those who would lock others out who don’t have the means.
- Jaded - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:32 am:
I’ve got no problem with the pay. It is the sweetheart pension they get that has always bothered me. 85% after 20 years and 3% compounded COLA every year after reaching 60?! Most “full time employees” would kill for that kind of retirement plan.
- m - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:33 am:
=Many lawmakers must be independently wealthy or have flexible jobs that allow them to juggle politics and everyday work.=
That’s an issue regardless of lawmaker pay. How many people can take off the time necessary to successfully RUN for office?
This is part of the reason that it used to be all lawyers and farmers. Now it’s mainly lawyers, other wealthy people, and people who are able to abuse a local gov job to get the time. (With a handful of exceptions)
- Graduated College Student - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:34 am:
New Mexico’s daily per diem (no annual salary at all) is also really low if you don’t live in Santa Fe or maybe Albuquerque. It’s basically an invitation for corruption, which, to be honest, might be the reason it still exists.
- Arsenal - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:34 am:
I don’t think cutting pay to match our expectations of a “part time job” is the answer. Politics and government are complicated, time-consuming projects and we should encourage people to devote as much energy as possible to them. Instead, we should adjust our expectations to reflect that.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:34 am:
===I would love to run for office.===
- Honeybear -
No you wouldn’t. You would not love it.
It’s a huge compliment, honest. You wouldn’t.
- Anyone Remember - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:35 am:
Legislators do far more work than what is involved in legislative session. After Karen Hasara became Mayor of Springfield, in reply to a question about the difference between being a State Senator and Mayor, she said words to the effect of “As Mayor, now I get my Sundays off.”
- Montrose - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:35 am:
It’s not like legislators are sitting around twiddling their thumbs when not in session. The good ones are putting in close to full-time hours all year long.
- Ducky LaMoore - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:36 am:
Just a little snarkiness…. Why do we even need a state capitol? Just Skype it all from the comfort of home and anyone can be a legislator!
- Wondering - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:39 am:
And the point is? Rauner/Munger were engaged in unlawful activity, period.
- justacitizen - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:42 am:
I suggest cutting legislative pay in half. Same quality/types of people would run and might be inclined to limit their term.
- TR - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:44 am:
The state rep I work for ran for election promising to be a full time legislator. He’s not alone, others have promised the same. I assume the Northwest Herald and other editorial boards would hold him to that promise.
Unfortunately for him, he thought he’d get paid.
- Henry Francis - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:45 am:
With everything this state is trying to deal with, I fail to see whether our GA members make $20k or $120k makes much of a difference. This is just another distraction for the Guv to use to beat up on the Dems and avoid any scrutiny of what he is actually doing (or failing to do). And of course, he maximizing the pr on it. Look to the right of these comments and see his tweet.
I get that the lawsuit needed to be filed to eventually make this issue go away. But otherwise this is just a red herring that the Gov is exploiting to the best of his ability in order minimize the outcry over his lack of a budget and the unbelievable damage it is doing to this state.
- Steve Schnorf - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:51 am:
You know, I’ve always know the Herald to be conservative but I don’t remember them being that stupidly disingenuous at the ed board level before
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:53 am:
I would love to be a part time legislator and would love to have a property tax law firm that’s very successful.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:54 am:
===I would love to be a part time legislator and would love to have a property tax law firm that’s very successful.===
Whose stopping you? You?
Go to law school, win a seat in the General Assembly.
- Annonin' - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:55 am:
Tiein’ some justification of pay to session days is nearly moronic, but let’s agree poorly informed. Nearly all members spend more time in-district dealing with citizens being F* over by government — usually more than the state level. The citizen with the problem usually cannot distinguish between federal, state or local branches. State legislators usually have small staff and end up chasing answers themselves.
The other reasons for decent money is ethical and to limit the number 1%er/selffunders who descend. Some have outside incomes, most do not.
This is why the Munger squeeze was such a pitiful move by BigBrain.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:58 am:
Wow, what’s the next old editorial evergreen? President Eisenhower/Bush/Clinton/Obama golfs too much? Pres. Nixon/Reagan/Bush/Obama goes on too many vacations?
What Henry Francis said.
I wish legislative pay was a major issue for Illinois citizens to deal with.
Unfortunately, the state’s fiscal position and delivery of core responsibilities are collapsing by design, allegedly to “leverage” some “agenda” that will bring a bright sunny day.
Maybe the deep thinkers at the NWest Herald can fill us in on the ROI of the governor’s agenda? Tally up the price to date, the projected payoff?
Aren’t they the least bit interested in that?
- A modest proposal - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 10:58 am:
First and foremost - the majority of legislators on both sides of the isle work extremely hard year round.
Retired people, Lawyers, independently rich people, and small business owners really are the only professions that can handle the day to day activities that are needed in order to properly do the job.
Maybe mid career people in there 30s and 40s would be willing to do the job if they were given a 401k option? That’s they could take with them after they serve instead of burdensome pensions
- Timmeh - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:00 am:
Elected officials have to campaign too. Politicians have a side job that will be full time around the end of the term, but is a necessary part of the job and has costs of its own. So that’s less “vacation” when they’re not in session.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:01 am:
Don’t know benefits of judiciary pensions but for the pay and time worked by legislators, to retire with 85% after 20 puts TRS recipients to shame. Legislators sure do take care of themselves, apparently but want to “reform” others’ pensions. 85% after 20!
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:02 am:
Thanks for saying it’s a compliment OW but what do I do with my really strong desire to serve my state governmentally. I’m afraid that it won’t be long before I am either laid off or outsourced in what I do for the state now. Honestly I’m looking for my next step in public service. There aren’t career counsellors for this stuff.
- Dome Gnome - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:04 am:
Interestingly, the Founding Fathers had this discussion as far back as the Constitutional Convention, in 1787. A frail Benjamin Franklin made an appearance to promote his idea that executive-branch officials shouldn’t receive any pay. He wanted only civic-minded leaders, not officials sucking off the government teat. Other members of the convention were concerned that this would exclude all but the “idle rich.” They won out.
Personally speaking, as an ordinary mom and citizen, I’ve had about enough of the rich (idle or otherwise). Let’s pay legislators well and regularly, or we’ll be stuck with a class of rulers poised to exploit policy for their own gain. It’s disheartening enough that we’re only seriously considering wealthy candidates to run against Rauner in ‘18. Personal wealth shouldn’t be the main qualification for public service.
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:06 am:
I love people that think that legislative jobs stop when the legislature is not in session. The good people take their job seriously and treat this as a full-time job, are meeting with Constituents and other folks in district, spend a whole lot of time on the phone doing business and planning for what will occur in session, and are driving to various events and functions to meet with the people that they are representing. A whole lot of evenings and weekends get burned up as well. Plus, you have to maintain a home in Springfield and in your district, and travel back-and-forth between the two. It isn’t a heck of a lot of money, especially if you happen to have a family to raise, or have the additional burden of being a single parent.
- Archiesmom - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:08 am:
And I am in wholehearted agreement with the principles set out by Dome Gnome right above me!
- run for this - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:08 am:
The bottom line is this…1)the constitution spells out the requirements and limitations of payroll. Follow the constitution. 2) Do we really want one branch of our government dictating to another branch? 3) Do we want our legislators beholden to anyone but taxpayers for their income source? We already know the answer to these questions, lets pay our bills - all of them.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:10 am:
==legislative jobs stop when the legislature is not in session===
Newsflash. So do many many other professional jobs. Same argument for teachers. As if lesson plans magically present themselves, papers get graded by some great eye in the sky, curricula just somehow get written, etc., etc. Somehow, no one ever thinks of that or defends all of that outside work. Hello? There are lots of people who keep working outside of their scheduled hours/day.
- Jaded - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:10 am:
==Don’t know benefits of judiciary pensions but for the pay and time worked by legislators, to retire with 85% after 20 puts TRS recipients to shame. Legislators sure do take care of themselves, apparently but want to “reform” others’ pensions. 85% after 20!==
Judges are the same.
- Flapdoodle - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:11 am:
Yes, Anonymous 10:23, we do get what we pay for. And if we want a citizen legislature made up of citizens both capable and willing to represent their districts, without being beholden to party leaders and special interests, then we must be prepared to pay legislators meaningful salaries and to provide appropriate financial support/oversight to keep them independent.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:12 am:
Set the pay to the median household income. That encourages lawmakers to improve the economy. Also, increase the number of reps and schedule them like National Guard duty: 1 weekend a month, 2 weeks in the summer.
- Soccermom - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:29 am:
This is ridiculous. Of course legislators’ work extends beyond the time they spend in the Capitol. How else could they ever know what their constituents care about? It’s not a bad thing when legislators treat their responsibilities as a full-time job - especially since we hear so much bashing of legislators who do have other jobs, because of “conflict of interest.”
Please choose one from column A, or one from column B.
- Deft Wing - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:31 am:
Where to begin?
1) Illinois pays their legislators real well, especially in comparison to other (better run) states. Perhaps compensation ought to be aligned on a performance basis?
2) The job is part-time. The fact that some “make it full time” is both a good thing … and a bad thing. The rank over-legislating is unmistakable. How did we ever make it through each year without the 200 to 500 new laws the following year?! In sum, I wish more legislators had real jobs (based on performance, efficiency, and productivity) because I think it’d rub off on them a bit during the legislative sessions.
3) Compensation and benefits (they are wonderful for lawmakers although their pensions are woefully underfunded) may need adjustments but in far greater need of change is the Rules by which the legislature acts. The heavy “top-down” administration makes it impossible for rank & file to do anything other than watch as their “leadership” decides almost anything … like now as Madigan and Cullerton have willfully decided to act feckless and pretend the legislature is being overwhelmed by the executive (which is nonsense). Madigan and Cullerton can easily propose a budget … today if they wanted to do so. But they don’t, they’d rather play the blame-game and wait it out until 2018.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:31 am:
===Whose stopping you? You?
Go to law school, win a seat in the General Assembly.===
How successful would be practice be if I didn’t have the county assessor lobbying me?
- Grandpa2 - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:31 am:
The best legislators I have known treated the position as full-time. My suggestion for improvement is pay legislators for full-time (90-100K annual) and prohibit outside employment. That would eliminate many current problems.
- illini97 - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:34 am:
Honeybear, get involved locally. You can run for Village, Township or City positions for very little out of pocket. If that’s not feasible contact your local government and ask to volunteer for a Board or Commission. I’ve been doing it for 7 years in my own Village. Pays nothing, but gives me an outlet to impact my community.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:38 am:
===Perhaps compensation ought to be aligned on a performance basis?===
How is that measured, who measures it, and constitutionality of separation of powers.
===Madigan and Cullerton can easily propose a budget … today if they wanted to do so.===
It’s a governor’s job to propose… But… you already know that.
- Cheryl44 - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:38 am:
Does anyone at that paper have even half a brain?
- Regressive - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:39 am:
Here’s a crazy notion. Lawmakers should be paid more than $68,000. They should get per-diem. They should get generous healthcare benefits and pensions. Even if other public sector benefits are cut.
Why?
Because it’s an important job. We want to be able to attract the most talented people. We don’t want ONLY people who are independently wealthy. We don’t want only retirees.
People constantly complain that there aren’t any good people in politics. Well why would any good person want to go into politics when the public so regularly vilifies their job?
Also, this job is not “part time” if you’re doing it right. You may only be IN SESSION part-time, but you ought to be working your district in the off times. Holding meetings, going to events, meeting with your local chamber (and other groups), etc.
I’d like to see them get a raise, frankly. However, I don’t have a problem with them not getting paid without a budget. Because no money should be going out the door without a budget (or more specifically appropriations authority) and putting them on continuing appropriation reduces the incentive to get a balanced budget done on time (as does the patchwork of consent decrees and court orders.)
Note: I’m a Republican and would not personally benefit in anyway from higher legislator pay and benefits.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:39 am:
===How successful would be practice be if I didn’t have the county assessor lobbying===
Let’s see if you can get through lose school.
With your ridiculous victimhood, you already found a reason not to go to law school.
Speaks volumes about you, and your own weakness.
- Tom S. - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:40 am:
The cushy legislative pension numbers being mentioned here all apply to Tier One. Anyone who took office after 1/1/2011 gets a Tier Two pension, which is nowhere near as generous. About half the House chamber has turned over during that time.
- A guy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:49 am:
It is a part time job. It’s just not an easy or convenient one. It’s almost set up better for a Landscaper than a Lawyer. You need to have enormous flexibility to make this Part time job work.
- frustrated GOP - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:49 am:
Try not paying an employee and see what the fine will be from Dept of Labor. Not cheap.
Remember when the GA and Edgar went into overtime, everything stopped. Lasted a couple of weeks long enough to print shirts and grow beards.
Long ago I heard a speech by the retired chairman of american airlines. He said we have a weak airlines industry because our federal bankruptcy laws were weak. If management and labor were looking at a complete loss of their jobs they would fix the problems. Look at what happened at GM.
Until the State is shut down completely we will continue to have this fight and continue to hurt a lot of people who can’t fight the system. The whole idea of punishing people, elected or not really needs to stop and everyone in Springfield needs to start making realistic deals.
I wonder how many people in the governor’s office at this point even care how much they are hurting or destroying the state’s long term economy. It’s as if they believe in the Vietnam story where troops burned the village to save the village from the enemy. They are destroying the State to save it from Mike Madigan. ok, but in the end, they still destroy the thing they tried to save. Might work in private business where you can sell stuff off afterwards, but how does that work for a State? Our State. How long before things get better?
- Earnest - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:53 am:
I don’t begrudge them their pay. I visit my legislators when they’re not in session and would expect assistance if I called with a problem at any part of the year. Given all that, I like seeing them get enough money to live on so as not to exclude people who don’t have a lot of money from representing their area.
- Oswego Willy - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 11:59 am:
===I don’t begrudge them their pay.===
There’s nothing to “begrudge”
It’s unconstitutional not to pay legislators, and not pay them as scheduled.
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 12:11 pm:
Illini97. No I get that. God bless you that you serve. I’m trying to navigate how I make a transition into state service before I am outsourced or laid off at DHS. I’m afraid the writing is on the wall for me. I have an interest in politics but I’m obviously an idealistic far left goo goo. I’m also middle aged and it seems like all the “staff” positions are being held by younger folk. But bottom line is I can’t volunteer. In three years my girls will be in college and hopefully Navy ROTC so I can move to Springfield then but I’m panicked that I won’t have a job before that time the way Rauner is going after us “goons” as Sue calls us.
- Ghost - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 12:14 pm:
many many moons ago govt was run by people on low pay who had other jobs. One of the problems is thisminvites corruption and abise of tuese jobs to increase earnings. we added pay to reduce the need for dependence on putside income. its part of why judges make so much.
- W Flag - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 12:19 pm:
During the Fifties, when legislators were considered to be part-timers, everyone got boxes of envelopes and stationery, plus stamps. There were no district offices to fund.
- Earnest - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 12:20 pm:
>There’s nothing to “begrudge”
Meant amount of their pay. Agree totally that it is absolutely wrong they are not being paid their paychecks. I keep working on my writing, especially being brief. However (and this is humor), my attempts at Flaherty get me nowhere.
- Lucky Pierre - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 12:31 pm:
Problem is not the salary it is the benefit package which brings there total compensation to over 100K for a part time job
Pension benefits are way over the line as is the cadillac health care package
- Honeybear - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 1:06 pm:
Frustrated GOP, most people wouldn’t care or notice that the state shut down. Only those in need and the suffering would hurt worse but we ostracize and mute them as a society. I believe all is already lost. We just don’t know it yet.
- regular democrat - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 1:54 pm:
Even super progressives like Rep Cassidy have to turn to the machine to get another govt job with the sheriff in order to make ends meet. I guess driving an uber is beneath her.
- illini - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 3:10 pm:
@Honeybear - I understand your conundrum. I was there 20 some years ago myself. Far too many variables and uncertainties for me as well. So I did not attempt any campaigns.
Yet, serving at the local level, even with relatively little or even no pay, can be satisfying. You are already deeply involved with your Union, and that was not the case for me. You do have a chance right now to impact policy and some decision-making. And we have both been involved, on behalf of others, in various campaigns.
BUT, if you change your mind - count me in to help your campaign. YET, I agree with Willy - you are probably better off funneling you passion into those areas of your concern that do impact the well being of so many people.
- Flyer - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 3:50 pm:
Any member of the General Assembly who takes their role seriously is putting at least the traditional 40 hour work week.
- Michael Westen - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 4:06 pm:
“How successful would be practice be if I didn’t have the county assessor lobbying me?”
You think Mike Madigan is the only successful property tax lawyer in town? Do you think Berrios lobbies all of them? Sheesh.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Dec 15, 16 @ 9:55 pm:
==……destroy the thing they tried to save. Might work in private business where you can sell stuff off afterwards, but how does that work for our state?==
This is the problem with a venture capitalist for a governor. Many people in business deal with things and cold cash. People are not factors unless you consider trying to get them to part with what’s in their wallet.
Public service is exactly that. Service to actual people. Does anyone honestly believe that Rauner thinks about people? Their welfare? Yet that’s what his office ultimately is about! And they’re not “stuff”
- Jim - Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 5:20 am:
It is not just the $78,000 plus salary and the 85% pension with 3% annual colas. It is also the Springfield staff and the district staff and office. Each Senator has a personal Legislative Aide in Springfield (cost, including fringes has to in excess of 40k) plus a district Legislative Aide and a district office (annual budget is about 80k) plus a significant legislative staff in Springfield shared by all members of his/her party. The cost to Illinois taxpayers is much higher than in most states but who is going to change that? It is all a great benefit to elected legislators to help in their own reelection so they are not going to vote to change it. Term limits, anyone???????
- Oswego Willy - Friday, Dec 16, 16 @ 7:20 am:
===It is also the Springfield staff and the district staff and office.===
You will always have Staff, and what, you want no Staff with institutional knowledge? How are you going to fire them? This makes zero sense.
===Each Senator has a personal Legislative Aide in Springfield (cost, including fringes has to in excess of 40k)===
Your jealousy and bitterness is noted.
The continued bitterness about what other people “make” shows how ignorant some people are.
===The cost to Illinois taxpayers is much higher than in most states but who is going to change that?===
So… you want Staff that has no experience, paid low, and fewer of them to boot? Yikes.
The “taxpayers” bit is so cute. You are trying to sound so smart, but come off more ignorant with… “taxpayers”.
We’re all taxpayers.
===It is all a great benefit to elected legislators to help in their own reelection so they are not going to vote to change it. Term limits, anyone???????===
You need about 8 more question marks.
No sitting legislative body in America has imposed term limits on thrmselves. None. It was the voters.
Oh… even if they were passed… in 2018… they wouldn’t take effect until 2028.
Hope you feel better!