May 16, 2007
Pay raises for state elected officials

State elected officials were awarded substantial pay increases yesterday by the Washington Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials.

Mrs. Gregoire's salary goes up from $150,995 to $163,618 this September and to $166,891 in September 2008. With any luck, she'll enjoy the latter pay grade for only a few months.

Personally, I think that an elected official should receive a pay increase only if they keep their campaign promises, such as "not raising taxes" or "changing the culture of Olympia", etc.

BTW -- several Democrat legislators testified for pay raises earlier this year. Republican legislators did not.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at May 16, 2007 04:22 PM | Email This
Comments
1. this shows why they are in those positions. It's easier to get a raise in that sector of employment as an incompetent boob that it is in the private sector.

Posted by: PC on May 16, 2007 06:29 PM
2. This shows why they go all out to be elected. It's easier for incompetent boobs to get a pay raise there than it is for them in the private sector.

Posted by: PC on May 16, 2007 06:31 PM
3. #1 didn't take the first time, sorry about the repeat.

Posted by: PC on May 16, 2007 06:32 PM
4. Queen Christine needed the extra bucks to buy gasoline for her 90 yard commute....

Posted by: Walters on May 16, 2007 08:07 PM
5. This is why this state is always out of money. Acepting this massive pay increase is an example of an individual who is totally disconnected with the rest of the workers in this state.

We are continually being tapped by her for more and more, and I consider this a massive slap in the people of this states face.

Enjoy your newfound increase Gregoire, I'm sure it will more than cover the extra taxes you have passed onto the people of this state, of whom most by the way have never seen this % of increase in their wage.

Yet once again an unreal waste of our taxpayer resources.

Posted by: GS on May 16, 2007 08:07 PM
6. The average over the past few years is pretty much in line with what most professionals expect. anywhere from COLA to 5 or so percent a year. Gregoire could easily make a ton more in the private sector. Hell I am sure Locke is making at least 2 or three times that if not alot more. A first year attorney at his firm almost makes that.

Posted by: Giffy on May 16, 2007 09:02 PM
7. Giffy, if Mrs. Gregoire could be tempted to leave state government for a better paying job in the private sector, I'm not going to stop her.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on May 16, 2007 09:15 PM
8. I thought I heard the msn stating this was the biggest % in wage increase (self raise) in the past twenty years.

How about that Giffy. Now it will not be a big shock when she does move to private sector

Posted by: chris on May 16, 2007 09:33 PM
9. Yeah, she probably get a job at Foster Pepper since she's lining their pockets now. though they probably don't want someone that has shown she can follow the rules and costs her employers millions of dollars for not doing basic filing.

Posted by: Dengle on May 16, 2007 09:48 PM
10. Most government wages should be sub private sector pay. I view government work like non-profit work. Nice that you'd like to contribute, but don't expect peanuts. If you want a real job, contribute to the GDP and GNP in the private sector, otherwise, take your scraps and count yourself lucky to get any pay at all.

It would reduce the size of government quickly if the cash cow was sacrificed.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 16, 2007 10:15 PM
11. What do you expect from a lefty!?

hey Stefan did ya see this one :D

I love it so much that I'll share it with you! ;)

Posted by: dcat on May 16, 2007 10:30 PM
12. Slightly OT, can anyone give me a URL for a list and description of the laws that were passed this session by the D's and Mrs Gregoire?

Posted by: mredly on May 17, 2007 12:23 AM
13. Giffy, I'd like to SEE her make more in the private sector.

Posted by: Michele on May 17, 2007 12:32 AM
14. glad i'm getting that incremental (corresponding) increase in WA services, value-added efficiency and innovative tax savings from the pay raises.

i don't mind paying for results and talent, if i'm getting something more in return. wait--maybe we WILL receive better diversity consultants/bureaucrats and efficient admin. of our benefit dollars paid to illegal aliens.

mute R's haven't noticed the 'kick me' sign on their backs for a long time.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 17, 2007 06:14 AM
15. Stefan--
It's a Huge mistake to ever discuss just salaries.
What you want to discuss & disclose is
TOTAL COMPENSATION PACKAGE--
That includes Salary + Benefits + Paid Time-off

Generally this equates somewhere in the 30-35% Range for benefits like FICA, Retirement, Medical, Dental, Vision, Workers Comp., UC etc.

Paid time-off (Vacation + Sick Leave) is approx. 15%. NOTE: If anyone thinks paid time-off has no value, then they ought to forfeit it!

For folks that are self-employed, we understand the huge value of Benefits & Paid time-off.

Therefore, Gregoire will not be paid $166,891 in Sept. '08..............
It's more like $166,891 + 83,446==$250,337!!!
Plus all the taxpayer paid perks of office she can grab...like the mansion, car, travel & entertainment etc. etc.

NEVER just discuss salaries. It minimizes the true cost to taxpayers.

Posted by: Mr. Cynical on May 17, 2007 06:14 AM
16. Truly, truly amazing that the politicos can greatly raise their salaries for themselves but not their employees.

To keep things in perspective, I know mortgage people who make more than Gregoire- even with bennies thrown in. Heck, when I was self-employed and working hard, I made that 15 years ago.

Posted by: swatter on May 17, 2007 07:13 AM
17. Chris, but for the last few years the pay has not increased that much in 1995 it was about 120k and was still that in 1999. 5% a year from 1995 would have equaled about 212k and 3% would equal about 171k. http://lbloom.net/og.html

Stefan and Michelle, I kind of walked into that one. :) But I think we can agree that attracting qualified people to serve in government is important and qualified people tend to make money. They also tend to enlarge there lifestyle to meet there income. Unless they are super wealthy, this means mortgages, expensive schools, etc. I would venture that even with a salary of 166k, many would have to dip into savings or cut back. At the very least they are giving up a fair amount of money.

Posted by: Giffy on May 17, 2007 08:29 AM
18. It used to be politicians weren't in it for the money but the honor. How old fashioned. Now it seems to be not only for the money, but a launching pad.

Posted by: PC on May 17, 2007 08:33 AM
19. PC, look at our last few candidates for governor, none of them really need launching and just about everyone took a big pay cut. Hell I bet 166k barely would cover Rossi's income tax bill (thats not an insult)

Posted by: Giffy on May 17, 2007 09:09 AM
20. "With any luck . . . only a few months."

W's stench will last many moons longer than that, sonny.

Posted by: Abdul on May 17, 2007 09:39 AM
21. The use of unelected (appointed) commissions to make make and implement policy in our state and local governments is rampant. These commissions are unaccountable to voters and provide cover or deflect scrutiny from elected officials. The pay raises authorized by Commission for Salaries is the latest example of how Democrat controlled legislatures and governors have been screwing us for 50 years or more.

This is government at its worst.

Posted by: Paddy on May 17, 2007 11:48 AM
22. And who appoints the person responsible for giving pay raises to the Governor? Well, the Governor.

Posted by: swatter on May 17, 2007 01:06 PM
23. While I can understand the anger at higher salaries for elected officials, place your blame at the Washington Citizens Commission. Or better yet, blame voters in the 1970s for creating the Commission, if you want.

Would you rather they set their own salaries like they used to? Didn't think so.

You can get all mad at Chrissy and the rest. And you can even point out that Democrats testified in favor. Just don't go back and look at testimony in prior years or else you'll find a Republican Senator's spouse in tears complaining that her part-time legislator husband wasn't making enough money.

And to those who think this is the result of years and years of D control? OK. Who was in control in the mid-90s in the Legislature? And how do you account for the majority of the Commission membership that's selected in this manner?

Nine members are randomly selected by the Secretary of State from the rolls of registered voters, one from each Congressional District.

Are there reasons to loathe the things 'Chris' does? Yep. The Legislature? Yep. But this ain't it folks, and you're making yourselves look bad by going off the rails on this.

Don't like it? Take it up with the Commission.
http://www.salaries.wa.gov/commissioners.htm

Posted by: jimg on May 17, 2007 01:30 PM
24. I must be really off the rails; I couldn't understand your rail comment- the rest of the statement I could so if you choose to respond, just do the 'rail' thing one more time.

Posted by: swatter on May 17, 2007 01:56 PM
25. 23--you may be right, but we need to be ever vigilant on how public funds are spent. wisely. and value-for-expenditure/salary. the private sector does this on its own for the most part. there are exceptions.

however, the public realm is an entity unto itself. no ofsetting competitors. we can't have all public servants earn sport star salaries & government grow exponentially, nor pay paltry to attract good talent. it's a balance.

i think the public resents someone becoming wealthy on their collective (tax-forced) dime, thus the differential salaries.

an aside--i always marvel at college tuition hikes--at all times far outpacing the local COLA rate. no one seems to bother nor ask why.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on May 19, 2007 12:46 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?