Few proposals evoke more visceral public resistance than a pay raise for elected and appointed government officials.

The discussion becomes even more noisy when people are having a tough time making ends meet, when cash is so tight they have given up many of the extras they enjoyed in better times.

You’ve heard the litany. Why, they ask, should legislators, administrators and budget directors get to put more in their wallets when everyone else, save corporate executives, are pinching pennies?

Besides, they’re just a bunch of lazy, self-interested politicians who do little to ease the burdens of citizens’ lives. As taxpayers, we want to see tangible uses for our contributions to government, they say. We want state highways and public schools fixed up; functional, if not improved services; and parks and facilities better maintained.

People tend to forget that they either voted for most state leaders, or didn’t vote at all, so they are reaping what they sowed. And though shared sacrifice is what they’re after, they dismiss the fact that legislators and top executives took a 5 percent pay cut a few years back. They point out instead that the cut will be restored in July and that previously approved pay increases will kick in next January.

Whether politicians and top bureaucrats deserve raises isn’t easy to gauge. Whether they will work harder for their money can’t be calculated. But in either case the Commission on Salaries has recommended increases, and it is unlikely legislators will take the initiative to reject them.

The biggest hurdle in getting the public to accept the raises is the convoluted way the salary bumps are installed. The commission is made up of appointees of the governor, the Judiciary, the House and the Senate, which leads people to believe the deck is stacked from the beginning.

Then the pay recommendations are tied together in an all-for-one-and-one-for-all package, forming a public workers union for high-level employees. Raises for some — for instance, lawmakers and administrators — can’t be rejected without raises for judges also being refused.

In addition, the procedure for approval is passive. If legislators simply do nothing, the recommendations go through. To disapprove, they must pass a resolution turning them down.

While the public might agree that judges should earn more, that their profession, services and education warrant higher salaries, they won’t get the increase if people want to deny legislators and the lieutenant governor the same.

The commission setup was supposed to remove politics from decisions about salaries, but lack of trust in government and the inactive method of approval breaks down the buffer.

The commission’s plan establishes a baseline for pay increases for down-slope public workers as they negotiate new contracts. With top-scale folks getting 2 percent annual raises compounded through the next five years, union members will expect at least that much.

The commission’s reason for its recommendation was the hope of attracting the “best and the brightest” to public service, but that’s a discussion for another time.

———
Cynthia Oil can be reached at coif@stradametrical.com.