Topeka ? Since proposing a pay raise for state legislators that would be tied to federal poverty guidelines, Rep. Ty Masterson has been chewed up in print, broadcast and the blogosphere.

Masterson, R-Andover, said Monday that his recent proposal to increase legislative pay based on family size has been misunderstood.

“I would be fine with it if it went into effect the day I left office,” said Masterson, who has been in the Legislature since 2005.

Masterson said all he was trying to do was point out that because lawmakers’ pay is so low, in most cases only those who are wealthy or retired can afford to serve in the Legislature.

When working-class men and women who are raising families don’t run for legislative office, that skews public policy, he said.

His argument has been made before. But in the world of politics, any attempt by lawmakers to increase their pay, suggest an increase or propose a mechanism to study an increase can come back to haunt them at the ballot box.

Kansas legislators get $84.80 per day when they are in session, plus $99 per day for expenses. For a typical 90-day session, that equals $7,632 in pay and $8,910 in expenses.

They also receive $6,774 as a legislative allowance for work outside the session, such as helping constituents and other legislative business. In addition, they receive the same daily pay and expenses for interim committee work as they receive during the session.

For a typical legislator, the total is slightly more than $23,300.

Legislators who serve in leadership positions and head House and Senate budget committees receive an additional stipend.

Lawmakers’ pay and allowance are taxable, but the expense funds are not unless the legislator lives within 50 miles of Topeka.

“The compensation outside the session is nowhere near what they should get,” said Jeffrey Russell, director of Legislative Administrative Services. “In my opinion, that is where the shortcoming is.”

Last week, a discussion in the House Appropriations Committee on increasing the pay of state judges evolved into a discussion on legislative pay.

That prompted Masterson to offer an amendment that would tie legislative pay to the federal poverty guidelines, which are based on household size.

Afterward, Masterson, who is a self-employed homebuilder with a wife and six children, said the amendment could appear to be self-serving. The federal poverty limit for Masterson’s household would be $34,570.

But Masterson insisted he wasn’t making the proposal for himself. He said he felt sure the amendment wouldn’t survive the full House and Senate, and simply thinks the Legislature should discuss the issue of legislative pay.

Perhaps, he said, there could be a third-party entity that could help determine pay.

Commissions in the past have studied legislative pay, but they have brought to light even more pay-related issues that have stalled progress. For example, lawmakers’ pay is nearly uniform, so they receive the same allowance whether they represent a compact urban district or one in western Kansas that is bigger in area than some states.

And it has been difficult to use other states as a comparison because legislative pay ranges are all over the board, as is the amount of work a specific state’s legislature does.

For example, state representatives in California make $110,800 per year, but they are considered full-time legislators.

Oklahoma has a part-time Legislature, but lawmakers there earn $38,400 annually. Missouri’s state lawmakers receive $31,351 plus $5,700 in expenses.