So Brad Bumsted of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review recently wrote a column about me and the annual legislative cost of living adjustment (COLA). He tried to paint me as a hypocrite, but he missed some key points. Click on the link below to read his column first, then come back and read the rest of this post. First off, I didn’t get any pay raise. My very first legislative paycheck was for the same amount as my last one. Bumsted never really comes out and says what salary he believes I, or any other legislator, should accept, although he clearly implies my initial salary is wrong, and too high. Secondly, I formed PACleanSweep in 2005 not to haggle over the amount of legislative salaries, but to protest the unconstitutional manner by which that year’s pay raise became law. The Supreme Court agreed that it was in fact unconstitutional. I know a lot of folks tried to make it about how much legislators take home, but that was not our focus. According to the Constitution, legislative salaries shall be set by law and no legislative salary increase can be received in the same term it becomes law. Current legislative salaries and the annual COLA are based on a law passed in 1995. That law stands as constitutional. The Supreme Court has also ruled that I cant refuse any portion of the salary. The Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional and what is not. Thats the law of the land. I have heard that some legislators donate the COLA portion of their salary to charity or return it to the state Treasury. I can’t speak for them, but I can only assume they’re attempting to show they personally believe the COLAs are unconstitutional. They’re entitled to that opinion, but unless they’re donating or returning the full amount of all annual COLAs dating back to 1995, the logic seems flawed to me. One final point on the COLA itself, and it’s something I believe Bumsted may be confused about. I was never really out front banging the drums to end the COLA as an activist. Other activists were doing that. But I understand the confusion. I often get credit for that giant pink pig as well, even though it belonged to a different activist. He did quote a passage from my book about PACleanSweep, but that was merely my response to a legislator who foolishly proclaimed in 2005 that he hadn’t had a pay raise in ten years. It was not a dissertation on the validity or merit of the annual COLA, but a refutation of a ludicrous comment. In an attempt to back up his overall position, Bumsted mentioned that Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania does not list me as one of its endorsed members. There’s no mystery as to why that is: I refused to sign CAP’s pension declination form during the 2014 primary campaign, a prerequisite for that group’s endorsement. Instead, I decided to decline the legislative pension on my own. For the record, I have signed on to cosponsor a bill that would eliminate the annual COLA and change the law of the land. Practically speaking, if that bill becomes law Pennsylvanians should be prepared for the General Assembly to spend valuable time and resources every few years to justify an actual pay raise. I think we have better things to do with our time, such as enacting meaningful reforms. Short of eliminating the COLA outright, I will pursue legislation that bases it not on the higher-than-most price index currently used, but on an index that more closely reflects reality for the majority of Pennsylvanians. I will also seek to create an independent compensation commission to determine salaries for all state-level elected servants. I will spend my time in the legislature working as hard for reform as I did as an activist. I will also strive to be as forthcoming and reality-based as I’ve ever been. But columns like Bumsted’s, based on misconceptions and supposition, make me begin to understand why many legislators may be hesitant to do either.
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:50:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015