Dear Editor:
“Is the ECM Editorial Board this tone deaf? Or are they that cynical?” These were the questions on my mind as I read their recent editorial piece advocating for a “yes” vote on the legislative pay constitutional amendment.
In said editorial, the board made arguments that sound great in theory, but completely lacked any meaningful analysis of possible downsides or drawbacks to their position, almost as if they were cheerfully ignoring them altogether.
1) The board claims that legislative pay hasn’t increased for fear of supporting legislators being labeled as “greedy” by election opponents.
The editorial board appears to think this is a bad thing. But why? In our age of increasingly unaccountable public officials who mistreat and abuse the people and their rights as a matter of course, this appears to be one of the few sources of accountability remaining that, short of cheating on one’s spouse while committing mass murder, would present a serious challenge to one’s ability to stay in office. Furthermore, while advocates of this amendment love to emphasize the supposed “independence” of the legislative pay board, past history has shown us that such boards aren’t nearly as independent as we would be lead to believe.
2) More pay would result in a more “professional” legislature that, in turn, would pass more bills into law.
Passing more bills into law, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily a good thing. Each bill that’s passed, more often than not, represents a further erosion of the peoples’ liberty, their rights, and creates more centralization and consolidation of people and control away from the people. When viewed in this context, it’s utterly disturbing that a newspaper editorial board, a body that’s supposed to be pointing out and exposing government abuses of power, would advocate for something that would ensure it.
3) Legislators need to be paid more for legislative work to be a viable career option.
Again, with all the career politicians we already have in the legislature (one of the more dramatic examples of which was Phyllis Khan, who was recently defeated in a primary election, but first took office in the early 1970s), this doesn’t seem like something that should be encouraged further. Additionally, it’s worth pointing out that if Minnesotans actually valued legislative work at the proposed levels of pay in question, legislators should be able to increase their pay to that level without concern about electoral backlash. The fact that this isn’t possible speaks volumes.
Thanks again, ECM Editorial Board, for once more taking the wrong side of an issue and aligning yourself against the power, control, and interests of everyday Minnesotans. I’m sure you’re all really proud of yourselves.
Matthew Rothchild
Isanti