Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

theOGlib t1_j5y2avj wrote

They should be paid nothing! It's a privilege to represent the district and the people who make it up. We should take a lesson from New Hampshire.

−18

NerdDruggist t1_j5y5bbd wrote

IMO, you have to be rich to retire. My generation and the younger kids will be working until we drop dead I’m afraid.

0

[deleted] t1_j5y5rxr wrote

I will grant you 250k salaries for legislator if you agree they are only allowed to be civil servants at any level of the government for 8 years and then return to the private sector.

15

theOGlib t1_j5y6uey wrote

Replying to urBEASTofBURDENog (#1,503,058)

The government shouldn't be as large as it is or have the power it has. I'm not saying things r perfect. I just personally believe we need a more liberty driven system. This means drastically reducing the size of government overall.

−11

General_Awareness510 t1_j5y93gy wrote

They line their pockets in other ways. If you don't understand this you shouldn't even be on this planet.

−1

werd2828 t1_j5ya2bg wrote

I’d be good with a raise if they stopped putting forth bullshit bills

6

ImCloserToThePin t1_j5yb1up wrote

Fuck that, how about we pay me more to do my job? Fuck those cocksuckers who are only self serving lol. You think that’s the only income they have?

−5

RT1977 t1_j5ydciw wrote

It should be volunteer our taxes are high enough

−12

RunnyDischarge t1_j5yfhwa wrote

It’s a part time job

Connecticut's General Assembly is considered a part time legislature. The legislature convenes for five months on odd numbered years, and for three months in the even numbered years

178

HerAirness t1_j5ygg6a wrote

It leaves the door wide open for corruption, so I am all for changing those legislative roles to full time. It's the reason we have so many Eversource execs in legislative roles. It's complete BS

30

silasmoeckel t1_j5yh0dk wrote

Replying to MormonReformist (#1,503,893)

The reelect mormonreformist committee who your spouse is on the board of and gets a 200k salary for.

All of the various "charities" whom you now are on the board of can pay you.

At the federal level you can not get paid for speeches but they can donate to a charity of your choosing.

Universities love to keep politicians on salary give a lecture/speech now and again to justify it.

It's all in the filings so hit up opensecrets and dig in, plenty of politicians do it.

8

twomorecarrots t1_j5yho5z wrote

Replying to smkmn13 (#1,504,552)

Yes, this is a problem, more than the salary I think. It’s one thing to be paid X for a part time job. But how are you supposed to find a career that allows you to work the other part of the year? It limits public service to people who can work for themselves or not work at all.

57

microspora t1_j5yi8ws wrote

Replying to ImCloserToThePin (#1,503,839)

Most of them do have other income, no one is disputing that. But what professions allow you to take several months off each year to go to Hartford? Take a look at the current legislators we have - a big proportion are lawyers, real estate agents, or retired. Our current structure excludes basically everyone else. That’s fine with you? You don’t think we might benefit from having other perspectives in Hartford?

5

ThePickleHawk t1_j5ymllo wrote

Lucky for you it was just bumped to 40k, indexed for the future, and leadership almost always finds some obscure extra role for members so they get extra money.

46

OpelSmith t1_j5yoatt wrote

Replying to theOGlib (#1,503,397)

this is just a word salad of nonsense. Also NHs government is even larger with 400 members in the House of Reps. 400 Reps who are all people who forever whatever reason don't have to work like a normal adult. This isn't a great model for a government

1

NLCmanure t1_j5ypo6q wrote

I thought they already got a raise to $40 or 45K and it was approved.

5

DarkLamont t1_j5yqla5 wrote

Hmm, uhh a part time job for retirees paying $28,000 seems perfectly acceptable to me. Plenty of people in CT working full time for $35,000....

−3

dumplingboy199 t1_j5yrroa wrote

Didn’t they recently give themselves a raise? Also they get 5k per committe they’re on. I do know they’re part time as well but honestly, at this point just make it a full time position and pay them accordingly

4

Burwylf t1_j5yvp1r wrote

They should make minimum wage, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

1

activehobbies t1_j5yxr2m wrote

How about you prioritize increasing teachers' salaries first? THOSE are more important.

It's good to keep the legislature's wage low. Otherwise, you get the problem the overall US congress has; people who use their positions to reap all manner of profit with just enough credibility to keep getting elected, all but guaranteeing they serve their entire lives.

Low legislature wage makes your legislature more honest as lame-duck legislatures are more likely to find better money elsewhere.

1

Azg556 t1_j5z1i3q wrote

Not from CT. Is the legislature a full time job? Year round?

0

adultdaycare81 t1_j5z25a6 wrote

Check their Expense Reports. They rack up more than their Salary.

32

PeteyWinkle t1_j5z3riu wrote

Replying to activehobbies (#1,506,947)

>It's good to keep the legislature's wage low. Otherwise, you get the problem the overall US congress has; people who use their positions to reap all manner of profit with just enough credibility to keep getting elected, all but guaranteeing they serve their entire lives.

That's the exact opposite impact. Low wages increase potential for corruption and incentivize alternate streams of income that can lead to conflicts of interest (speaking engagements, etc). If they made good money with their legislative role they wouldn't need to use their position to "reap all manner of profit."

It also makes it nearly impossible for a working class person to serve as a legislator. If we want more "relatable" legislators we should pay them well so anyone with qualifications can do it. As it is now, it's very difficult to serve if you don't already have a lot of money.

7

TreeEleben t1_j5z8oex wrote

The system is designed to keep the poor out, and wealthy in. Can't have a government that would benefit the citizens, it has to always benefit the rich and corporations.

5

WhittlingDan t1_j5z9nqi wrote

Minimum wage is perfectly fine. If its not then perhaps minimum wage is what should go up. This is part time though , with their hours it varies year to year but more than double minimum wage still.

0

Taurothar t1_j5za2la wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,507,238)

I agree with reasonable term limits, but cycling new people that them too easily abused by lobbyists who know the system better than newbies. Career politicians at all levels have value in safeguarding the processes.

That said, nobody should stay at the same level for more than 8-12 years. Move up or move out.

4

Blicero1 t1_j5zcnj7 wrote

Replying to MormonReformist (#1,504,469)

Term limits sound so good, but in practice they've been quite bad. Missouri tried them and all they've done in let the bureaucrats and lobbyists run the show. If you're out in eight years you're already looking for your next job, so you'll cozy up to industry.

10

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j5zfbcw wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,507,238)

We have them. Every so many years, the term is limited by having to be reelected with popular support.

If someone is popular and gets elected what's the issue?

I prefer the wisdom of experienced people than some arbitrary feel good term limits.

2

Big-Pond t1_j5zhrnv wrote

Well, you certainly have the requisite level of critical reasoning, research and data analysis to qualify for office.

I’d encourage you to look up starting salary’s to attract educator talent to our public schools…just keep in mind -that- number isn’t part time, unlike the assembly.

1

nikedude t1_j5zhxab wrote

Replying to smkmn13 (#1,508,504)

That's an unfair argument. If their job was FT it would be less than minimum wage, it averages ~4mo a year of work. 16 weeks * 40 hr = 640hrs. $28k/640hrs = $43.75/hr

0

Ziggy1433 t1_j5zio8i wrote

I'm SURE there are other perks to being there...

2

smkmn13 t1_j5zjbcf wrote

Replying to nikedude (#1,509,599)

The person I was responding to said "that’s still more or roughly the same as what many other jobs make from working all year," so I was clarifying that all (FT, full year) jobs in Connecticut are actually required to earn more than 28k.

Scaling the pay for 4 months implies that you can get a job for the remaining 8 months at a similar rate, but there aren't many jobs / careers that allow you to work 8 months a year and keep the job each year, let alone advance normally, unless you're already well established and successful (which was the point of my original comment earlier in this chain).

5

JJamesP t1_j5zk7gs wrote

It’s a part time gig. Settle down, you.

0

MormonReformist OP t1_j5zq2ve wrote

Replying to ctmirror (#1,510,405)

> House passage came on a 95-53 vote after a brief and seemingly choreographed debate in which two Democrats and three Republicans spoke in support and no one rose in opposition

That's pretty much how it all goes.

9

Darkling5499 t1_j5zqtoj wrote

Legislatures should make minimum wage, no more no less.

0

poppymonte t1_j5ztze1 wrote

It’s part time, they are public servants and many have other things and full time jobs they are doing to make money.

0

Hyasfuq t1_j5zugwu wrote

Replying to Strat7855 (#1,509,395)

It's a full time job only if you consider all the hours they spend consuming alcohol at the Capital. Ask anyone who works there and they will let you know how pickled our state reps regularly get while "working"

−5

Evan_802Vines t1_j5zvxg1 wrote

It's a part-time gig right now for sure. They're passing serious legislation in the early morning hours.

2

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j6005u8 wrote

Replying to microspora (#1,511,580)

Whatever. I don’t care. I would prefer we don’t have anyone who’s job it is to sit around and dream up new ways to control our lives. The problem with these stupid jobs isn’t even the salary. It’s the back door deals, the fact that these positions attracts megalomaniacs, the board positions and industry jobs that are likely guaranteed once they push favorable legislation for their corporate buddies.

The whole thing is a scam. I don’t care if they get paid.

−2

rambolo68 t1_j601ho7 wrote

This is not a career job since it is only a part time job.

1

_JayC114 t1_j601nh7 wrote

They don’t deserve what they get!! They’re part time employees!!!

0

Fappiness-isawarmgun t1_j603wdr wrote

Only in tax and spend CT do mothafuckin citizens want to pay they politicians more. Smdh some u all trippin

0

Nyrfan2017 t1_j605psa wrote

Hmm but yet they all seem to be paying there bills

2

sld06003 t1_j606mlb wrote

Replying to _JayC114 (#1,512,620)

You're missing the point. The only people who are able to take the job at that pay are people who are independently wealthly or do not need to otherwise work. These groups don't tend to be truly representative of the population. Raising the salary to a point that *typical" people are able to quit their job and run would be how you get a truly representative group.

14

MetsGo t1_j608t8c wrote

I worked in the Capitol and I can say that everyone has another job and the further you live from Hartford, the less you even show up. I worked for a guy from Stamford, he was in maybe 1 day a week

1

Gusto36 t1_j60ag7h wrote

Don’t feel bad for anyone in the legislature

2

BrandonP1976 t1_j60l9m3 wrote

Before you post you should probably check your facts or maybe just stop being a moron. Connecticut Legislators are only a part time job they are only required to be in a Hartford a couple of times a week for votes and work around a regular full time job schedule. It is not a full time job. It has never been a full time job. It was never meant to be a career. Even if trash like Rosa deloro and Is Joe Lieberman made sure to make it a career.

1

bladerunner_203 t1_j60mojn wrote

Since when was becoming a politician supposed to be your only source of income? Politicians were initially meant to be Good Samaritans who had an established career and wanted to help make positive changes in their communities. Career politicians in todays world are in essence the ruination of modern politics as we know it.

2

y2kill4money t1_j60myvk wrote

Maybe if my electricity didn't just go up 50% it would still be liveable

1

Pinkumb t1_j60n6y8 wrote

Replying to RunnyDischarge (#1,504,373)

I don't think this negates OP's critique.

What kind of person can afford to be totally absent from a full-time job for 5 months out of the year? Or even 3 months out of the year? Either people already entrenched in the political system or rich/retired people who make their own hours.

25

red_purple_red t1_j60qr8m wrote

Agreed, their salaries should be increased to at least $500k a year to make them less susceptible to bribes.

0

UnfairAd7220 t1_j60rq4y wrote

Turning it into a paying job is when CT jumped the shark.

1

smkmn13 t1_j60tgqr wrote

Replying to TheDudeMaintains (#1,513,413)

Sure, assuming they can find a job that pays the same rate on an 8-month-a-year basis (with a schedule that perfectly matches up with the congressional sessions). My larger point is that this system (and low compensation) incentivizes people with disproportionate means to run for office.

2

lrpage1066 t1_j60wx6t wrote

I agree with OP with stipulations. Give it a living salary for a family of 4. Make it a full time job. M-f 9-5. Either in Hartford working on legislation or back at their local town and city halls working with the towns and constituents. Always visible. Public google calendars. No 4 hr golf games I mean economic development meetings. Actual real work.

Then anyone could afford to be a state legislators.

2

Big-Pond t1_j60xblz wrote

Replying to MormonReformist (#1,509,634)

If you have a legitimate interest in serving the best way to approach it is find a problem that impacts your community and find a realistic working solution and build on it.

No one needs another gaslighting politician beholden to a corporate interest.

At the local level it’s still possible to mount a campaign in such a way.

1

CxT_The_Plague t1_j60zjer wrote

it's not meant to replace a full time job and they should be working when the senate is not in session. 28k for a part time gig is sufficient when you get to spend a good portion of it on the golf course.

nice try tho

2

that_one_dude13 t1_j611wlk wrote

While I live in MA and not CT, I gotta say I like the idea of politics not being a paid position. Tax wrote off able, but you shouldn't be paid to guide your fellow people to what's good for THEM. It absolutely shouldn't be a job for just anyone, and honestly I think they should take it further.

1

BobbyBuzz008 t1_j61jaf7 wrote

Replying to microspora (#1,504,765)

  1. Of the 187 legislators, 178 have a job outside of their legislative position.

  2. In the state of Connecticut, it is against the law for an employer to deny leave to an elected representative serving in the legislature. Employers must excuse employees from work without any punitive action to employees who are elected to the state general assembly.

  3. The $40,000 salary is higher for most. If you serve in a leadership position (committee chair, vice chair, leader, whip, debuty speaker, speaker, etc) you get several thousand more dollars annually. All 36 state senators are in leadership and nearly have of the 151 state representatives are in leadership. State representatives also receive a travel stipend which can be worth several thousand more dollars, free meals, good healthcare, and a pension if they serve for ten years. Legislators also have access to a staff and a office at no charge.

1

Dank_Bonkripper78_ t1_j61wa4g wrote

If it wasn’t part time, I’d agree. I had the former speaker of the house as a professor and he said most reps go back and work full time jobs when they’re not in session

1

IndependenceSpecial9 t1_j62sdu2 wrote

You’re telling me I can take five additional months off per year and make 12k more? Sign me up, rich bastards

1

ThatsALotOfOranges t1_j63b9i2 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#1,525,949)

Why would politicians with shorter terms be less self serving? If anything, knowing they're going to go right back to their private sector company in a couple years give them even more motivation to represent that company's interests.

0

Badgercakes7 t1_j63izcp wrote

Replying to ImCloserToThePin (#1,503,839)

That’s exactly the point. You or I COULDNT live our lives in politics because we don’t have other sources of income. The current system makes it so that those who can afford to become a politician are those who are already wealthy, while those of us working schlubs would go bankrupt trying to do a stint in politics. By increasing pay for politicians to a livable level, we can make it so that the working class will be able to become involved in politics and would therefore give more of a voice to their fellow workers.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j63k074 wrote

Replying to theOGlib (#1,503,397)

Let’s follow that train of thought though. We could minimize our government to an extent but to completely abolish it would create utter chaos so regardless we need SOME level of government and politicians. By keeping politics as a volunteer or incredibly low paid position, because it’s a “privilege to serve”, we are making it so that the only people who do not have to work a 9-5 to pay their bills, i.e. the wealthy, are ABLE to get involved in politics. As it stands if I, a working class stuff, were to get involved in politics I would likely have to quit my job, try to live on the salary provided for the duration, and then cross my fingers my job is there waiting for me in a few years. Meanwhile a multimillionaire can just go for it because he doesn’t have those same worries. Lowering or removing salaries for politicians would actually increase corruption because IF a working class person got elected they would almost have to sell out to corporate interests just to make ends meet.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j63u19s wrote

Replying to BoatAccidentSurvivor (#1,527,256)

Wow. That’s a lot to unpack there. First of all I said “not independently wealthy enough to take off work for several years” and you heard “poor people”. Second of all, the assumption that poor people are inherently less intelligent or capable than more wealthy people is simply not correct. Lastly, we’re not talking about running any business, we’re talking about running a government and those are not the same. Hell, if we’re talking about basic finances I’d rather trust someone that can stretch a small amount of money further (one of the dirty poors) than someone used to just throwing money at a problem to solve it

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j63uoq4 wrote

Replying to Badgercakes7 (#1,528,768)

Ok. So the solution is high salaries for those who are used to stretching a dollar? They would never make any decisions to personally enrich themselves at the expense of their constituents.

Anyway, I think you can see that there isn’t a solution. We have pitifully few examples of people in government serving because it’s their civic duty. It just gets overlooked because people are on teams and they want their political team to win.

0

djdeforte t1_j647bdd wrote

Holding public office was NEVER meant to be a full time job or a career. It was meant to be held by working class peoples who live the same lives as their constituents.

2

Badgercakes7 t1_j64hvp7 wrote

Replying to BoatAccidentSurvivor (#1,528,853)

Unironically yes, give a living salary to people who are used to having to work for a living to allow them to represent their constituents. They have had to actually live paycheck to paycheck, had to go without, and they would be the most likely to represent faithfully the people who have had to live the same life, because they know how much it sucks. Otherwise you get someone who thinks nothing needs to be done to help the poor because they just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and maybe consider having their housekeepers come half as often if they are having trouble paying their bills (in case this needs saying, most working class people don’t have housekeepers so this is an out of touch perspective.)

1

BoatAccidentSurvivor t1_j64l2k3 wrote

Replying to Badgercakes7 (#1,532,044)

How do you propose that we prevent already rich and powerful people from just collecting an extra 100K just for the hell of it? After all, a huge amount of your probability of winning a local election depends upon your ability to fund your candidacy, which is how we ended up with the oligarchical political class that we have.

1

Badgercakes7 t1_j658unw wrote

Replying to BoatAccidentSurvivor (#1,532,547)

Campaign finance reform. Or even better, make all campaign funding illegal. There are half a dozen state sponsored debates between candidates, televised of course, that’s it. All other forms of campaign advertising are illegal.

1