I don't know if this writer doesn't understand the difference between part-time and full-time legislatures, but the article ignores the distinction:
For more than two decades now, the 150 members of the Indiana General Assembly have earned a base salary of $11,600, a relative pittance compared to legislative pay in neighboring states. Comparison shoppers need look no further than Illinois, where lawmakers recently approved a 9-percent, post-election pay raise that would increase legislative salaries from $57,619 to $63,143.
"We could send them five senators for that," said Sen. Frank Mrvan, D-Hammond.
The comment underscores the general response of shock and awe that Indiana lawmakers conveyed when told what their Illinois counterparts are bringing home.
"I've been looking into a transfer to Michigan, where the base salary is ($79,650)," joked Rep. Duane Cheney, D-Portage.
There are about a dozen full-time legislatures in the nation, Michigan's and Illinois' among them. They meet all year, and the legislators get an annual salary. In Indiana, our part-time legislators are paid per diem.
It may well be that our legislators deserve some kind of a raise. They are willing to give up part of their lives for public service, after all. But unless we're going to make it enough for a full-time job, the General Assembly will continue to draw the same kind of people it now does -- i.e., people who can take off from their normal jobs a few months a year -- and continue to not attract the "middle class."
Whether we should make our legislature full-time is an entirely different level of debate. Because it ignores that angle, this story is about much less than it appears to be.
