New Hampshire model and politicians' pay

[JKP]

Did you know that state legislators in New Hampshire are paid $200 + mileage for their two-year term as legislators, effectively making them volunteers. They also get free use of state toll roads.

They also have 400 of them.

There have always been two schools of prevailing thought on what we pay politicians: Too much and not enough. Where would AP see the pay for politicians be? Does the New Hampshire model make sense? (As a result, over half of the legislators are retirees, btw...)

The other school of thought is you'll never get any one really good because they can go make a lot more in the private sector without all the BS from the press digging into every facet of their lives and looking to play "gotchya" all the time.

Thoughts?

[jd1]

Vermont also has a lot of legislators, over one hundred.

In my personal opinion since there is no way to get the balance between numbers, effort and pay it exactly right I would prefer to err on the have too many and over paid versus not enough and under paid. Why? Because MLA pay is insignificant in the grand scheme of things, it is only big in the eyes of disgruntled voters, which is valid, but does not make it right. STV would seem to demand an increase in the number of MLAs. Also when we move past the current Strongman approach to government many more issues will need to be worked on since the province's agenda will not longer be dominated by a few people, there will be a lot more to do. And besides MLAs will also start to spend a lot more time with their constituents since now their constituents views will be relevant to them. Having more MLAs also increases representation for electors. Even if we spend 10 times what we spend now for MLAs but get better policy and better democracy it is still a bargain.

[JKP]

My point wasn't that we don't have enough. In fact, I think we have too many. My point is make being a politician more of a volunteer thing than a fat salary. The problem with the salary is it isn't high enough (and likely couldn't ever be) to draw serious business people into the process because they're all off making much more money with much less hassle.

By making it a $500 per year honorarium, we'd get more retired folks who want to participate in the process and have some decent life experience and we'd lose the dimwits that do it now because it's the biggest paycheck they can find for their relative incompetence.

[Rob]

I like the idea of people coming forward to represent the population out of a desire to change things more than a desire to collect a paycheque. With true integrity, pay should be a minor factor in finding a good person to represent us.

That said, it seems that there are more than a few select individuals who use their positions of power to collect money - sometimes illicitly - from others who wish to buy influence. Singapore, for example, has a government that believes paying representatives well averts the negative influence of corruption. If that is the case - and I really don't know that it is - I think we are well served to pay our MLAs a decent salary.

So, what is the situation in New Hampshire? Are they getting effective representative policy? Is there corruption anywhere in the mix?

[goldcaper]

The other argument I've heard for good salaries is that many of our best and brightest could be making more money in the private sector, so in order to compete we need to have good salaries in the public sector. Wanting to do good is one thing, but if you are trying to save for your children's education and paying a mortgage you probably need to think about those issues first.

[JKP]

The problem is the best and the brightest can make a lot more than public service will ever pay, unless you want to get into serious mid-six-figures. Thus, you attract the folks that look at the $80k salary as a big number that they can likely never achieve otherwise. They are NOT the best and brightest.