In the face of the budget crisis we are facing, there are two discussions taking place with regard to the legislature. One, legislators are overpaid, and their benefits are too generous. Two, legislators are too inexperienced and therefore, we should change term limits by at least letting them serve 12 years in the same house, rather than limiting them to only 6 in the House and 8 in the Senate.
What I find curious is the apparent inconsistency in the way these two issues are being handled. On the one hand, there are proposals out there to cut our pay by 5%, NOT including currently serving members. On the other hand, there is a proposal to change term limits to 12 years, used any way you wish, INCLUDING currently serving members. Isn't it interesting that when we want to cut our pay, we don't include ourselves, but when we want to extend our stay in the House, we DO include ourselves?
I don't think this dichotomy will get past the voters when and if these proposals show up before them in the ballot box.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Unless I am missing something, both HCR 26 (5% pay cut) and HCR 53 (10% pay cut) would apply to all legislators if enacted by the SOCC in 2008. HJR DD and EE may affect all members as well, I think it is just the benefits cuts that may apply only to newer members. That could be changed depending on what the Senate does.
Post a Comment