Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise.
Let me say that again:
Rural families, suburban families, urban families - it's not just one subset of New Yorkers; all of us are feeling a pinch in one way or another. Which is why it's so insulting to learn that our legislators just gave themselves a $32,000 raise.
I can assure you, if I could get to my rooftop, I'd be shouting about this from up there, even in this weather. Fortunately for me, my neighbors, and for you, I'm not able to get up there now, so you're safe.
Why did they decide to give themselves a $32,000, 29% pay raise, after getting a 38% pay raise in 2019, you ask? I'll let them explain it to you.
From The National Herald:
Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, a Democrat, said legislators work hard, year-round, and deserved a raise to cover the increased cost of living. "It’s a full-time job,” she said. “Sooner or later in order to be able to afford to do the job, we have to raise pay.”
What she means is, she wanted a raise. In the same article,
Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy, a Democrat, said the raise would help the Legislature retain quality members who could make more in the private sector. “We have had an unhealthy churning and turnover particularly from downstate members,” she said.
What she means is, she wanted a raise. And, she doesn't want anyone other than an incumbent Democrat to win election, particularly downstate where the Ds have all the power.
From Politico:
Democrats defended the 29 percent pay increase that will serve as a nice holiday present, saying their salaries were stuck at $79,500 for 20 years before jumping to $110,000 in 2019 after a recommendation from a special compensation committee. The deal also includes limiting lawmakers’ outside income to no more than $35,000 a year.
“It’s a full-time job. People are working throughout the year, and to wait until 20 or 30 years (for a raise) isn’t reasonable either for lawmakers,” Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins told reporters.
What she means is, she wanted a raise. And her argument of having to wait 20 0r 30 years is ridiculous, since we all know they just got that raise back in 2019. The article graciously reminds us, or informs us, of the challenging legislative calendar our legislators set for themselves.
The Legislature has a roughly 60-day session in Albany that runs three to four days a week from January through June, and then occasionally reconvenes if a pressing issue arises — like in July when lawmakers came back for a day to vote to toughen gun laws after the Supreme Court tossed the state’s century-old concealed carry law.
The rest of the year is spent dealing with constituent work in their districts, lawmakers said.
Would it surprise you to learn that Ms. Stewart-Cousins hasn't recorded any items in her website's newsroom since August 26th? No communications to her district, or to the rest of us New Yorkers? No press releases? No nothing, since celebrating Women of Distinction? (By comparison, I've done over 40 posts since then, and I'm kicking myself that it's only that many...)
Would it surprise you that her website calendar shows only eight events in all of 2022? Or that it shows zero events since May? I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very much like a full-time anything to me...
From the same article,
“This is the right thing to do,” said Senate Finance Chair Liz Krueger (D-Manhattan). She said people shouldn’t be discouraged from running for office “because I won’t be able to meet my bills.”
What she means is, she wanted a raise. I'd suggest, though, that "people shouldn't be discouraged from living in New York because they won't be able to meet their bills" is perhaps a better description of what life is like for many. And that's one contributor to why more people have left NY than any other state, according to this report; I don't know if "legislators aren't paid enough here" is on the list of reasons people leave, but I highly doubt it.
And, this, too, from the same article.
“Legislators work hard, and we’re about to come into session in January to continue trying to do the best we can for families in the state of New York,” Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie (D-Bronx) told reporters. “This is more of a timing issue.”
What he means is, he wanted a raise. Honestly, you've gotta love a guy who stands in front of a microphone and suggests that, now that they've given themselves a raise, they're going to try and do their best for the rest of us. I swear, you can't make this stuff up.
And from Spectrum News:
Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins to reporters on Thursday morning acknowledged the public perception of the pay raise increases, noting lawmakers will address "affordability" issues facing New Yorkers next year when the new legislative session begins.
"This is a full-time job, I think people understand," she said. "We work hard and it was finally time to resolve the issue of pay."
What she means is, she wanted a raise. It wasn't "finally time to resolve the issue of pay" - for her and the rest of them, it was finally time to create the issue of pay.
From the same article,
Pay raises have long been a thorny issue in the state Legislature. And if the pay bill is approved, state lawmakers will still be paid less than what New York City Council members earn at $148,000.
"Legislators work very hard -- even some of the Republicans," Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said. "There's no compensation you can give to be away from your families."
What he means is, he wanted a raise. Cracking a joke on an issue of this magnitude? Yeah, that's leadership, Carl. And one more thing: if there is no amount of compensation that makes up for you being away from your family, why the hell did you run for office to begin with, and for re-election so many times?
I'll close with this piece from mychamplainvalley.com, quoting Stewart-Cousins on the issue of outside income:
There is currently no cap on outside income for lawmakers, but this bill would cap it at $35,000. Could we see some turnover with lawmakers who do have outside jobs?
“Well possibly, and that’s why we made that part of it effective two years from now, because people could have run with the old understanding that they would be able to make unlimited outside income and now with this legislation you will not be able to do it,” said the Leader.
What she means is, she wanted a raise. And she didn't want to wait two years to get it, even though "people could have run with the old understanding that they would" make a mere $110,000 annually for serving in the Legislature.
I've emailed Sen. Rachel May and Assemblymember Pamela Hunter, my representatives, for their thoughts and comments on their votes. It's clear from my comments that I don't support this move, so I'll be interested if I get a "thanks, Constituent" letter or if they'll try and convince me this is a good idea.
I've also reached out to Gov. Kathy Hochul, urging her to veto the legislation and force the two chambers to override her veto, which they can do if they want, and I encourage you to do the same if you don't like being taken advantage of by our legislators.
More to come on this issue, I promise.
Did I miss the vote tally some where in the text? I was wondering what the break down was. Was this a partyline vote or is each side as grasping as the other? - Don M.
ReplyDeleteIt was mostly along party lines. In the Senate, it was 33-23, with 7 Dems voting no; in the Assembly, it was 81-52, with 8 Dems voting no.
Delete