Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Is Politics Only to be for the Rich? Part Two

The Cheiftain thinks we pay too much for our legislators already.

Another piece of legislation that would make elective office only available to the rich involves raising the per diem for state legislators who do not live in the Denver Metro area. It is currently $99 per day, and it would be increased by $50. The Pueblo Chieftain’s Editorial Board has come out against the increase, saying it is an end-run around Amendment 41, which prohibits gifts, like meals, from lobbyists.

I don’t know when the Editors of the Chieftain last stayed in downtown Denver, but they need to back up their assertions that $99 a day is more than adequate with hard, current figures on housing, meals, transportation and other expenses in Denver. The last time I had business in Denver, I stayed to the south in an extended stay place that was the cheapest decent place I could find. (There are cheaper places, but the bed springs are coming out of the mattress and the carpet seems to move.) Cost: $83 plus tax. That would leave $16 for other expenses. A round-trip on the Light Rail downtown would run about $6. (It’s either that, or drive and arrive frazzled and grumpy and unable to catch up on reading.) We’ve got $10 left. Lunch out in Denver, even a simple sandwich, chips and beverage, will run $12-15 with tax and tip. If you brownbag it, you will probably buy more expensive ingredients for the sake of convenience than you would if you ate at home, so figure $3.

At this point you have $0 to $7 left of the per diem. My opponent, an experienced legislator, reported that she was at the Capitol on most days from 8 am to 6 pm. If you figure a half-hour commute each way, being at the Capitol takes all of a legislator’s time from 7:30 am to 6:30 pm. That doesn’t leave much time for a tired legislator to shop and cook from scratch, the cheapest way to get a healthy meal. Many will opt to eat out. On $8, you’re looking at fast food (not very healthy), or prepared entrees and dinners. These are more expensive than prepped from scratch, but take less time.

Note that a legislator who is otherwise used to doing his or her own chores, like laundry, will hire them out during the session because they don’t have time to do them. Even, or especially, if they commute home on weekends.

So, a legislator who was willing to cook and brownbag it and was otherwise Scrooge-like, might be able to manage on $99 a day. If he didn’t go to lunch or dinner with other legislators to discuss business. Which the wealthier legislators will want to do. A legislator has to eat, and what are they supposed to do? Go to a restaurant, eat and drink nothing, then fix dinner at 9 or 10 o’clock at night?

All of this also assumes that the legislator’s family will never come along for part of a session.

The Chieftain seems to think that the additional $50 is an end-run around Amendment 41. I think it was openly acknowledged that if Amendment 41 passed, the per diem would have to be increased. (A smaller amount may be more reasonable, but it’s the basic idea we’re arguing here.) What Amendment 41 does is eliminate special interest groups from subsidizing the expenses of being a legislator. The assumption is that legislators vote with lobbyists who buy them meals, as if the meals are social occasions requiring some sort of reciprocation. They are business occasions and it would not influence me to vote one way or another. (Listening to what the lobbyist has to say might influence me, if it was logical and well-reasoned, but the meal wouldn’t.) Which doesn’t seem cost effective to me as a taxpayer.

There is another factor the Chieftain is ignoring. The prices I mention are prices before the minimum wage increase. A large portion of the cost of a restaurant meal is the labor involved, and the minimum wage hike increased the minimum wage for restaurant workers something like 85%. Other wages will go up as well, for hotel maids, managers, bookkeepers and maintenance folks.

The Chieftain seems to feel that the salary plus per diem is too much for four months work, yet the Chieftain endorsed certain candidates because of the extra hours they spent once the session was over. Those hours wouldn’t be available to them if they had other jobs. The Chieftain ignores the fact that if you’re working out of town four months of the year, it’s a little difficult to come up with a job for the other eight months.  The Chieftain feels the taxpayer “shouldn’t be forced to pay for more than they get out of the Legislature.” If you’re not getting your money’s worth, don’t vote for the bums.

Not passing a per diem increase means that the only people running for office will have to be very, very rich.

Less...