Pennsylvania lawmakers are among the highest paid in the country, earning an average annual salary of $113,000 for rank-and-file members. This is a significant increase from the national average of $47,904, which includes part-time legislatures.
The raises are automatic and based on consumer price metrics, with no requirement for a vote by lawmakers. However, some have called for an end to this practice, citing concerns about accountability and transparency in government. In 2005, lawmakers even voted on their own pay raise, leading to widespread criticism and eventual repeal of the law.
This year, several bills have been introduced aimed at reforming the automatic pay raise system. One bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Shaffer (R-Allegheny), would suspend automatic raises for legislators if a budget is not passed by the constitutional deadline. Shaffer argues that this system is unfair and should be tied to performance, with lawmakers' pay adjusted based on their ability to deliver results.
Shaffer's proposal aligns with his broader goal of reforming the state legislature, which he believes has become too focused on constituent outreach rather than actual policymaking. He advocates for a part-time legislature that meets for shorter periods and is tied to performance metrics. "In the private industry, pay is tied to performance," Shaffer said. "Tying pay raises to actually delivering a budget on time seems like a very simple first step to try to tie pay to performance."
Despite these efforts, lawmakers continue to benefit from their lucrative salaries, which are largely determined by cost-of-living adjustments rather than any actual achievement or productivity. As one observer noted, "It helps people stay more focused," but the question remains whether this focus is truly on public service or just a means to secure a comfortable income.
The raises are automatic and based on consumer price metrics, with no requirement for a vote by lawmakers. However, some have called for an end to this practice, citing concerns about accountability and transparency in government. In 2005, lawmakers even voted on their own pay raise, leading to widespread criticism and eventual repeal of the law.
This year, several bills have been introduced aimed at reforming the automatic pay raise system. One bill, sponsored by Rep. Jeremy Shaffer (R-Allegheny), would suspend automatic raises for legislators if a budget is not passed by the constitutional deadline. Shaffer argues that this system is unfair and should be tied to performance, with lawmakers' pay adjusted based on their ability to deliver results.
Shaffer's proposal aligns with his broader goal of reforming the state legislature, which he believes has become too focused on constituent outreach rather than actual policymaking. He advocates for a part-time legislature that meets for shorter periods and is tied to performance metrics. "In the private industry, pay is tied to performance," Shaffer said. "Tying pay raises to actually delivering a budget on time seems like a very simple first step to try to tie pay to performance."
Despite these efforts, lawmakers continue to benefit from their lucrative salaries, which are largely determined by cost-of-living adjustments rather than any actual achievement or productivity. As one observer noted, "It helps people stay more focused," but the question remains whether this focus is truly on public service or just a means to secure a comfortable income.
, like $113k is crazy 4 part-time work! on the other hand, i dont think automatic pay raises r the worst thing in the world, cuz they help prevent politicians from goin broke mid-term and just pass bills they dont really care about. still, shaffer's proposal makes sense, we should tie pay to actual performance, not just cost-of-living adjustments 
. it'd be cool if lawmakers got paid based on how well they do their jobs, like in the private sector. that way, they'd actually have a vested interest in makin' good policy. but i guess that's a tough sell 
. I get why some ppl think it's unfair, especially since they're not exactly known for their performance... but at the same time, don't these raises kinda incentivize them to stay engaged and focused? Like, if you're getting a decent paycheck, aren't you more likely to show up and actually do some work? 
But then again, is that just gonna lead to more politicians who are all about lining their own pockets? 
.
. And let's be real, if they can't even pass a budget on time, how do we know they're capable of making good laws? It just doesn't add up 
.
I mean, come on lawmakers, you should be getting paid based on your work, not just because inflation happened 
.
I mean, I get it, they gotta live too, but $113k a year? That's wild! It's like they're more worried about keeping up with the Joneses than actually doing their job 
. It feels like they're just trying to justify their own bank accounts rather than actually serving the people who elected them 
. We should be worried about accountability, not their compensation package 
. Maybe if their pay was tied to actual results, we'd see some real change 
. It's time for reform and some much-needed transparency in government 
.
. anywayz, shaffer's proposal sounds cool - tying pay raises to performance metrics is a great idea 
. maybe they can even get paid in pizza 
. And don't even get me started on the fact that automatic raises are a thing – it's like they're saying "Hey, we trust you to make good decisions without having to do any actual work"