Posted by Kudos to three GOP state senators who have taken a principled stance that would have given many of us pause.
Three state senators have refused their annual $18,840 expense allowance increase that House and Senate members voted themselves last week.
Sens. Bradley Byrne, R-Montrose, Larry Dixon, R-Montgomery, and Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, said Tuesday they refused the pay raise and instructed the Senate paymaster to delete the raise from their monthly checks.
Erwin was adamantly opposed to the pay raise and even told the protestors in front of the Statehouse, “I will not take the pay raise today, tomorrow, or forever.” (He also said on the Senate floor that he would not accept the pay raise.)
Byrne and Dixon were adamantly opposed, though I can find no record of them saying that they would not accept the pay raise if it passed.
Still, these three stood on principle. They acted on their convictions that the pay raise was unreasonable by returning the taxpayers’ money back to the “cash-strapped General Fund.”
Hats off to these three.
An extra $1500 per month is not chump change, and walking away from it is no small act in my book.
Then there are legislators like Sen. Arthur Orr (R – Decatur) and Rep. Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) who are opposed to the pay raise and have said they will not keep the pay raise, but they have not filled out the available form to refuse all or part of the increase. Instead, they have said they are going to give the money to charities. Sen. Jabo Waggoner (R – Birmingham) is also on record as saying he will give a “good portion to charity.”
If they feel that the raise is unmerited and that they cannot accept it, shouldn’t they acknowledge that this is money from Alabama taxpayers and return it to the “cash-strapped General Fund?” I respect their stances that the pay raise is unreasonable, but should Alabama taxpayers be footing the bill to support charities of these legislators’ choosing?
If they want to stand on principle that this pay raise is undeserved and that they will not accept it, their stance would have more meaning if they filled out the form to leave Alabama taxpayers’ money in the “cash-strapped General Fund.” An extra benefit for these gentlemen is that it would leave no room for anyone to doubt the veracity of their claims that they are not accepting the pay raise.
Again, hats off to Byrne, Dixon, and Erwin.
Edited for clarity, 10:32 a.m.
Related Articles:
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
So Hubbard and Orr should return the money to the General Fund so it can be used to pay the pay raises of the greedy bastards who voted for it? Instead of giving $20,000 to causes like Habitat for Humanity and providing a free education to a deserving college student, they should let it fund pork projects in Roger Bedford and Hank Sanders’ legislative districts? Nice logic, in my opinion. . .
As I’ve stated elsewhere, I wonder how many of these legislators voted “no” only because they knew that the resolution would pass anyway…
The AL taxpayers should not be bankrolling Hubbard & Co’s charities. I wonder if Hubbard is able to write that off on his taxes…
And ALmod, many of the legislators who voted no, wanted dearly to see the raise pass.
Actually, Hubbard aid he would donate his raise to Auburn University for scholarships and to toher loval charities. I don’t remember him stating that he would refuse the raise.
So Hubbard is using the pay raise like the Community Grants Projects(pork)?
Anonymous from Comment #1, if taking money out of the General Fund for the benefit of charities chosen by individual legislators is such a good idea, then why don’t we encourage that even more money be appropriated for this purpose?
Susan, you are exactly right that Hubbard said he would donate the money to charities like his local church and Auburn University scholarships. I intended to be clear that he was giving the money to charity instead of accepting it himself. In response to your comment, I made a minor edit to the post that I hope removes any ambiguity.
Why is the first commenter being so hard on Sen. Byrne, Sen. Erwin, and Sen. Dixon and the decent thing they did?
Of course on the Hank Erwin radio show today he said that he was working on legislation with “several others” that would create a special line item in the budget so that those who gave their raises back could use the money for projects in their district. What is the difference between this and voting for more pork?
This looks like a dog chasing its tail, to me. Money returned the General Fund helps finance the grants legislators approve for themselves to buy votes with in their districts or other things taxpayers may not favor, so I wonder if that is better or worse than donating the expense raise to a charity of one’s personal choice?
It is indeed praiseworthy on the parts of Senators Byrne, Dixon and Erwin to refuse to accept the increased annual expense allowances. However I feel if they are genuine and serious in the above matter they should not rest upon that noble gesture only, on the contrary in continuation to the same they should campaign vigorously to get this wasteful allowance annulled forthwith so that no senator would be able to avail of the said fund now or in fjuture.
It is indeed praiseworthy on the parts of Senators Byrne, Dixon and Erwin to refuse to accept the increased annual expense allowances. However if they are genuine and serious in the matter they should campaign for getting it annulled so that no senator would be able to avail of the said allowances now or in future.
[...] Hats off to Brooks, Marsh, Smith, and DeMarco, in addition to Byrne, Dixon, and Erwin. [...]