A raise for a job poorly done
I, like many Rhode Islanders, haven't had a raise in over 3 years. The economy is terrible, many businesses are experiencing problems, and the State seems to be facing constant deficits. It's understandable that the typical worker wouldn't see a raise. What is unbelievable is that members of the General Assembly will be receiving a raise .
In the grand scheme of things, the amount of money isn't much when compared to the annual budget. In total, the amount is a bit over $50,000, but that is beside the point. The General Assembly had to make many difficult cuts, and I would frequently hear lawmakers talk about "sharing the pain". From what I can see, there isn't much sharing going on in the State House. What's worse is that raises will be given for a job poorly done!
There are many who believe we should move to a full-time legislature. I have an even better idea: Let's strip the General Assembly of all monetary compensation and health benefits? Since many of them spend substantially more on their reelection than they make, it shouldn't be a big deal. Plus, we're talking about dedicated public servants working for the good of the state, so I'm sure the compensation shouldn't matter.
It sounds like a good idea to me, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Such a move would set the tone for reducing government expenditures. Unfortunately, the typical legislator doesn't think along those lines.
In the grand scheme of things, the amount of money isn't much when compared to the annual budget. In total, the amount is a bit over $50,000, but that is beside the point. The General Assembly had to make many difficult cuts, and I would frequently hear lawmakers talk about "sharing the pain". From what I can see, there isn't much sharing going on in the State House. What's worse is that raises will be given for a job poorly done!
There are many who believe we should move to a full-time legislature. I have an even better idea: Let's strip the General Assembly of all monetary compensation and health benefits? Since many of them spend substantially more on their reelection than they make, it shouldn't be a big deal. Plus, we're talking about dedicated public servants working for the good of the state, so I'm sure the compensation shouldn't matter.
It sounds like a good idea to me, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. Such a move would set the tone for reducing government expenditures. Unfortunately, the typical legislator doesn't think along those lines.




Comments