State lawmaker seeks raise in pay - to poverty level / LJWorld.com

Kansas Legislature

April 20, 2007

Topeka — With six children and a one-person business, state Rep. Ty Masterson said he is taking a financial hit by serving in the Legislature.

That's why he inserted in a state budget proposal language that would give many Kansas lawmakers a pay raise - up to the federal poverty level.

"When I took office, I sorely underestimated the amount of time it would take to be a good legislator," Masterson, R-Andover, said Thursday.

Masterson's amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee would track legislative pay to the federal poverty guidelines, which are based on the number of people in a household.

For Masterson, his wife and six children, the federal poverty limit is $34,570.

Kansas legislators get $84.80 per day when they are in session, plus $99 per day for expenses. That adds up to about $17,000 per session in salary and expenses. Lawmakers in leadership positions get additional pay.

Of course, being a legislator in Kansas is supposed to be a part-time job - the session lasts from January through April. And many legislators have talked about the importance of preserving the citizen Legislature.

But many other lawmakers say that with the annual session, interim committee assignments and constituent services, the job is full-time and then some.

Because of that, Masterson, who is in the construction business, said the Legislature is over-represented by mostly wealthy or retired people.

Masterson said he expects his amendment to fail because legislative pay is such a sensitive subject, but he thinks lawmakers and voters should discuss the issue.

"You get what you pay for," he said.

Sen. Dwayne Umbarger, R-Thayer, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said Masterson's proposal has no chance of passing.

"There are too many other important budget issues before us," Umbarger said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

20 April 2007
at 5:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Time to resign Ty.
20 April 2007
at 6:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Solomon (Anonymous) says…

$173.80 per day is a little above poverty level, isn't it? I'm sure this guy knew the pay when he applied for the job.

Any pay raises passed by and for politicians shouldn't take effect until after the next election.
20 April 2007
at 7:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

truthhurts (Anonymous) says…

“You get what you pay for”

Umm - no we don't. Look at the results.
20 April 2007
at 7:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Solomon:

Thte $99.00 a day will not even begin to cover the food and lodging costs.

It's rather odd, I think, that we dislike it when wealthy persons become public servants while at the same time making it nearly impossible for the “common” man or woman to become part of that sector.

We do the same thing here in Looneyville; expecting our Commissioners to do a full time job on part time pay.

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 8:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

I have little sympathy.
20 April 2007
at 8:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smitty (Anonymous) says…

Kansas State Rep should have the minimum wage….the Kansas minimum wage of $2.65. We are in Kansas not DC.
20 April 2007
at 9 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

civics (Anonymous) says…

What a clown. 6 kids, he knew what the pay was. Surely he had some concept of what a legislator did. He conveniently ignores his income from other sources. No mention of his wanting the federal standard to apply to ALL state employess and private sector folks as well. My favorite part of his proposal is the more kids you have the more money you make. He is right-you get what you pay for. Go home and help your poor wife with the 6 rugrats.

20 April 2007
at 9:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

See what I mean?

Thank you folks for proving my point!

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 9:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

civics (Anonymous) says…

Marion-the only point you made was equating level of pay to quality. Bad Marion.
20 April 2007
at 9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wilbur_Nether (Anonymous) says…

Marion wrote “we dislike it when wealthy persons become public servants while at the same time making it nearly impossible for the “common” man or woman to become part of that sector.” Which is exactly true.

In response to Masterson's comment about getting what you pay for, truthhurts retorted “no we don't. Look at the results.” I would suggest that if we are unhappy with the results of the last few legislatures (and I think we should be), that looking at the results actually *supports* Masterson's position.

I believe that, as a State, we have several hard decisions to make. First, are we willing to turn out the legislators that do not contribute to results? Second, are we willing to make the legislature a place where those who WILL contribute to results are both able and willing to serve? Sadly, I think the answers to both those questions is likely to be “not really.”

We get the government we elect, and we deserve the government we get.
20 April 2007
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

civics wrote:

“Posted by civics (anonymous) on April 20, 2007 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marion-the only point you made was equating level of pay to quality. Bad Marion.”

Marion writes:

Nope.

The present system permits ONLY those independently wealthy or very well off to become our legislators as becoming a legislator is an out-of-pocket experience for most who would consider running.

The fact is that most cannot afford to run or take the job if they win because of the very low salary.

The “thriftiness” of the taxpayers in this regard ensures that only the wealthy can become a part of the system.

Now who's “bad”?

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 9:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RalphReed (Ralph Reed) says…

Hmmm

Oddly enough I agree with Marion on this one. Our current mayor even said that you shouldn't even bother running unless you have $20K to spend on getting elected to just our city council.

Happy Friday
20 April 2007
at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

I thank god every April 15th for a government is inefficient and wasteful and that we don't get all the government we pay for. With all that money used efficiently they could do some real damage!
20 April 2007
at 9:38 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Sigmund:

Well, there is that!

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

civics (Anonymous) says…

165 legislators. At most 50 fall into the wealthy category as I define it. Since you did not specify what wealthy is neither will I. So less than 1/3 of our legislators are wealthy and part of the “system” as you call it-whatever that is.

20 April 2007
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

So he wants $37,000 for working January - April, possibly a little longer if he is on a committee? Let me know if I am understanding this correctly….
20 April 2007
at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

civics (Anonymous) says…

Mom-you are understanding it perfectly. The level of pay will be determined by the number of children you do or don't have. The amount of work you do, the quality of work you do, the attendance or lack thereof-none of this will figure into your pay.
20 April 2007
at 10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Solution:

Cut the Legislative session to SIX weeks every OTHER year. (Can anyone truthfully say the Legislature uses its long sessions for useful purposes now? Strange how there's little decisionmaking until the end of sessions but early on all the time in the world for fruitloop-busybody discussions.)

By my math, that leaves Mr. Masterson with 49 weeks a year to pursue more lucrative opportunities and still fulfill his public duties.
20 April 2007
at 10:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Well, I've already brought out their nutty ideas!

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 11:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Confrontation (Anonymous) says…

Yet another idiot who thinks we should be responsible for his stupid decision to have six children (that he can't afford). You should've been fixed after the first two, and then you'd have no problem.
20 April 2007
at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

hockmano (Anonymous) says…

I have five kids. Can I get a raise to federal poverty level? $17,000 for a few months work sounds good to me! If he doesn't want the job he should step down and let someone else take it.
20 April 2007
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

irishlad30 (Anonymous) says…

At $183.80 a day($84.80 + $99)…. if it was a full time position that would mean the jackasses makes more than me in a year. I guess I need a raise because I am living at below the poverty level as well. From what I've personally seen, our brilliant lawmakers don't work too hard. Mostly sit behind their desk or computer and have their high school pages do all the work. I wish I could get paid $183.80 dollars a day for sitting on my ass.
20 April 2007
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Irishlad30:

Run for office.

yeah, right

Thanks.

Marion.

20 April 2007
at 2:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sinedie (Anonymous) says…

irishlad30: Could you describe in more detail what you've personally seen? I'm curious.
20 April 2007
at 3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

I like the idea of the common person running for office instead of the wealthy, but didn't he know what the pay was, and commitment was before he ran?? And now that it is taking more time than he thought, the tax payers should make up the difference?
And he is from Andover. It's two hours (or less) from Topeka. I might feel more sorry for him if he was from Colby or other parts of western Kansas. It would be harder to run home during the week to check out the family or the business.
20 April 2007
at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

Of course he should get a raise, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their **need**” Abraham Lincoln put those now famous words into the Constitution for a reason, so that nobody will ever be poor in America ever again.
20 April 2007
at 4:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

civics (Anonymous) says…

Sigmund-thanks for not attributing the quote to me. Karl
20 April 2007
at 8:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Sigmund (Anonymous) says…

No problem!
20 April 2007
at 9:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

So quit then. You knew the salary when you ran for the office. These whiners make me sick to my stomach. Thank you, Lynn
20 April 2007
at 9:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Oh, yeah; just QUIT!

Don't EVEN think of trying to CHANGE anything?

Why do halfwits think that the corruption on the state level is what it is?

oh

no “living wage” for your representatives in government

bawhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

hypocrites

just start calling kansas “botswana”

Thanks.

Marion.
20 April 2007
at 10:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Yeah. Apparantly the poverty line is over 37,000 a year.

20 April 2007
at 10:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

See, what you spinners forget is that the $99.00 per day is for food and lodging as the legislators are away from home.

You cannot count the $99.00 as INCOME, you halfwits!

Try to live in hotels in Topeka for $99.00 a day; lodging, food, transportation.

GROW UP!

This is the real world, not the unreal microcosm of The People's Republic Of Lawrence, Kansas.

Thanks.

Marion.
21 April 2007
at 12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lawyerlee (Anonymous) says…

They get paid perfectly adequately for the part time job they do. If one is expecting to support his or her family by “working” (using the term loosely, of course) from January - May and a few days the rest of the year, one needs a reality check.

And there are plenty of options other than staying in a hotel. Many legislators rent apartments, which is significantly less expensive.
21 April 2007
at 12:14 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Douglascountycitizen (Anonymous) says…

Ty, in the article, refers to a desire to care for his family. As he now finds himself strained financially as well as emotionally, his committment to serving the citizens of his district is impared—he should resign.

A call followed by a letter to the Chair of the Butler County Republican Central Committee will intiate the process for a replacement.
22 April 2007
at 9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

getreal (Anonymous) says…

Should lawmakers be paid more? Yes, when they are ready to support a living wage and healthcare for ALL Kansans.

If there are no resources for health care and all day Kindergarten for ALL Kansas children, how silly of Rep. Masterson to think he should be paid more so that he can take care of his children, all the while leaving thousands of other Kansas kids behind.

Shame on Rep. Masterson.
22 April 2007
at 10:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

I simply do NOT believe some of the replies!

Many of you people clearly have NO connection to the real world!

“Rent an apartment…”

Halfwit.

Landlords normally require year-round leases!

I am appalled that you people do not want your public servants to be PAID!

oh

if “liberals' were elected, they would require no pay at all, i'm sure….

….gratis and all that……………..

You people get what you deserve!

you idiots!

You complain that only “the rich” can hold political office then REFUSE to PAY anyone else to do the job!

oh

sorry

i meant hypocrites!

I'l bet that hillbillary will REFUSE her pay if she is elected, then, won't she?

This country is doomed and ONLY because of people like you!

Entitlement-minded JERKS!

Thanks.

Marion.