Current Conditions
43°F - CLEAR
Taxpayers pick up legislators' per diem tab
Intelligencer Journal
Lancaster New Era
Jul 08, 2009 10:04 EST
Commonwealth Ave
By TOM MURSE, Staff Writer

Media Center

Related Topics

Related Stories

Bookmark and Share
Pennsylvania's 253 state lawmakers have been working without pay during the week-old budget stalemate. But that doesn't mean they're scraping to get by.

More than 200 legislators, including two from Lancaster County, are being reimbursed by taxpayers for meals on the days they've been in Harrisburg since July 1 — even though most have no role in the high-level budget talks.

Others are staying in hotels near the Capitol, and taxpayers are footing the bill for that as well.

The tab?

More than $33,000 each day they're in Harrisburg, most spent waiting for Gov. Ed Rendell and legislative leaders to reach some sort of compromise on a spending plan that, by law, should have been in place a week ago. Meanwhile, without a budget in place, tens of thousands of state workers will receive their last paychecks nine days from now.

Paying per diems to lawmakers — either a flat rate of $45 for meals and other expenses or $158 for meals and lodging — during the stalemate bothers those who don't (and even those who do) claim them.

"The per-diem system is a relic of an earlier time which should be replaced with a submitted expense system. I would readily support such a change," said Republican Rep. Gordon Denlinger of Narvon. Denlinger routinely claims $45 a session day for meals, he said, "to offset the expenses that come with holding office."

State Rep. Mike Sturla, a Democrat from Lancaster city, also claims the $45 per diem for meals and other expenses but said he doesn't keep "exact track of what it gets spent on."

State Rep. Katie True does not take per diems, despite being called up to Harrisburg during the impasse almost every day. Rank-and-file lawmakers are not involved in the budget negotiations but are voting on other legislation and are on call, waiting for the budget deal.

"People say we go on vacation for the summer. We don't. We're at the call of the chair. I can't go to Bermuda," True laughed. "Wherever I am I have to get back to Harrisburg in six hours. This budget not getting passed is costing me a lot in gas because I drive up and drive right back to the district."

True, a Republican from East Hempfield Township, said she would prefer to work in her district while Rendell and members of leadership hammer out a budget deal — a move that would save taxpayers from having to shell out for lawmakers' meals and lodging costs.

"Who needs to be in Harrisburg but the folks who sit at the table?" True asked. "None of us rank and file have any say. We're going to get handed something. There is no good reason for taxpayers to pay for hotels and meals when we're not a part of it."

Pennsylvania ended the year with a $3.3 billion deficit, and faces a similar shortfall for 2009-10. Rendell and his Democratic allies in the Legislature are proposing a mixture of program cuts and tax increases, while Republicans — particularly in the Senate — have dug in their heels in opposition to adding new taxes or expanding existing ones.

Asked about claiming the per diems during the budget stalemate, Sturla was sarcastic: "I think we could correct this pretty quickly if we got rid of a bicameral Legislature and eliminated the Senate. Not only would it save per diems, it would eliminate the cost of the Senate."

Russ Faber, the Senate's chief clerk, said about 35 of the 50 lawmakers in his chamber claim per diems — adding up to about $5,230 for each session day. Roger Nick, the House's chief clerk, said about 169 of his 203 members claim per diems — adding up to a total of $28,215 each day.

The total daily cost for lodging and meals: $33,445.

Without a budget in place, the state lost its authority to pay workers, including lawmakers, on July 1. But per diems are paid from taxpayer-funded legislative reserve accounts.

While $45 a day might not seem like much, members who claimed the partial per diem each day of the session last month got $765 in addition to their paychecks. Those who took the full per diems got $2,686 in addition to their June pay.

And that doesn't factor in additional payments for days when there are committee hearings.

At more than $78,314, the salary for rank-and-file lawmakers is the fourth-highest in the nation, so their monthly paychecks — now on hold through the stalemate — total more than $6,500.

The House has been in session for five days in July, not including today, and the impasse is hardly nearing an end.

So what are rank-and-file lawmakers doing in Harrisburg?

"We're moving some other pieces of legislation so they're ready to go if we ever reach an agreement or compromise," said Sturla, the policy chairman for House Democrats. "There hasn't been a day go by when we haven't positioned something."

He added: "We'd probably get more guff if we weren't here, but we get guff when we are here."

State Rep. Dave Hickernell, who does not take per diems, said he would prefer the state reimburse lawmakers only for their actual expenses.

"I can't argue that these folks from Pittsburgh shouldn't be reimbursed for their hotels," said the West Donegal Township Republican. "But you can get a hotel room for $30 or $40 a night. I think it's more fair to get reimbursed for the actual expenses. That's my opinion, though, and I don't know that it's shared by a vast majority of my colleagues."

House members who live within a 50-mile radius of Harrisburg can claim only the $45 per diem for meals; members of the Senate can claim expenses. Those who live farther away can claim the full $158 for food and hotels.

State Rep. Tom Creighton, who also does not take per diems, said, "There's no good reason other than I don't think I need them." He said he understands why lawmakers from far-flung locales such as Pittsburgh, Erie and Altoona take money for food and lodging.

Creighton, a Republican from Rapho Township, said eliminating per diems wouldn't do much to plug the $3.3 billion budget deficit. "I don't know that by taking away per diems or meals, I don't think that solves the problem," he said.

E-mail: tmurse@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 30 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (ReaganRepublican @ Jul 9 2009, 11:12 AM)
The entire system is flawed. A Constitutional Republic form of gov't was established to minimize the reliance upon gov't. Early Americans were smart enough to create a nation that protected a simple system intended to maximize the ability and capability of the individual to navigate life on their own and control their own destiny. Personal responsibility and hard work were for a long time in our history honored - not penalized.

Modern day politics attracts the worst type of people ... control freaks and dishonest manipulative personalities that stupidly believe they are smarter than everyone else, and dumbed down voters allows them to continue to create rules and regulations that apply to everyone but themselves (and their financial friends and associates).

You ask, "whose fault is that"? It's all our our faults, because our system of government is us ... we are in charge. We the people have allowed gov't to become a highly paid career field and it has evolved into an "us versus them" situation. They make the rules and we pay for it - whether we like it or not.

Margaret Thacher said it best, "socialism fails when you run out of other peoples' money".

I have said to many that in theory I am a Federalist. The best and brightest should lead, assuming that they desire to take office. The gov't as it was established (as you noted) was done so by said Federalists and was also built in a country were 95% had no voting rights and lived in extremely rural areas. To compare the desires and precticality of their situation to our modern, urban, interdependent society is a tad presumptious to say the least. I do agree with your premise but fail to see how we could put it into practice having come this far. What we need to do is a better job of vetting our candidates and increasing the interest level among all voting aged citizens.
Gresham
QUOTE (Gresham @ Jul 9 2009, 09:59 AM)
The best and brightest should lead, assuming that they desire to take office.
Great theory, but in practice control freaks, manipulative personalities, and self-annointed elitists determine who among us is the "best and brightest" .... somehow this list of smart people always includes their friends, family, and political supporters. And you honestly think our state reps are worth their taxpayer supplied per diem?
QUOTE (Gresham @ Jul 9 2009, 09:59 AM)
The gov't as it was established (as you noted) was done so by said Federalists and was also built in a country were 95% had no voting rights and lived in extremely rural areas. To compare the desires and precticality of their situation to our modern, urban, interdependent society is a tad presumptious to say the least. I do agree with your premise but fail to see how we could put it into practice having come this far. What we need to do is a better job of vetting our candidates and increasing the interest level among all voting aged citizens.

Oh, I get it .... you advocate that our Constitution becomes a "living document" so that the "best and the brightest" can determine how more gov't control can fix society's ills. Tyranny versus freedom. A quick review of world history will show how more gov't doesn't work.

Freewheeling capitalism may not be the fairest economic system, but centralized control always ends badly.
ReaganRepublican
QUOTE (ReaganRepublican @ Jul 9 2009, 01:27 PM)
Great theory, but in practice control freaks, manipulative personalities, and self-annointed elitists determine who among us is the "best and brightest" .... somehow this list of smart people always includes their friends, family, and political supporters. And you honestly think our state reps are worth their taxpayer supplied per diem?
Oh, I get it .... you advocate that our Constitution becomes a "living document" so that the "best and the brightest" can determine how more gov't control can fix society's ills. Tyranny versus freedom. A quick review of world history will show how more gov't doesn't work.

Freewheeling capitalism may not be the fairest economic system, but centralized control always ends badly.


Without getting into his specific politics per issue, I always thought that John Heinz was an excellent Senator. Intelligent, articulate and committed. Plus he had enough money that he could not be bought by special interest. He did not need to play the game for financial support from particular factions.

Yes, I do believe the the Constitution is a "living document". In my opinion that is its genius. That it is adaptable, without losing site of its basic premise.

Could we agree on a Benevolant Dictator?
Gresham
QUOTE (Gresham @ Jul 9 2009, 04:11 PM)
I always thought that John Heinz was an excellent Senator. Intelligent, articulate and committed. Plus he had enough money that he could not be bought by special interest. He did not need to play the game for financial support from particular factions.

I always considered Heinz as personally aloof, an internationalist and big business friendly senator who was not overly helpful to the independent small business community - the backbone of American free-enterprise.

Without reseaching, name (off the top of your head) any noteworthy pro-personal freedom accomplishments Heinz spearheaded while in elected office? I can't think of any .....
QUOTE (Gresham @ Jul 9 2009, 04:11 PM)
Could we agree on a Benevolant Dictator?

No need to agree - we recently elected one. Let's see how he does.
ReaganRepublican
It seems both the governor and the Repub-controlled state senate are to blame for doing this (failing to set the budget by July) year after year. It's the fault of both political parties and there's no good reason.
skeptic2
Top Ads