You can’t cut government by growing government, and you can’t save taxpayer money by spending more money on government employees. And yet that’s what some politicians want to impose on Idaho. They have taken their eyes off the ball. 

What Idaho truly needs now is budget restraint, grocery tax repeal, school choice, immigration reform, and less wokeness in higher education. Let’s do those first. 

Not so long ago, legislators were connected to their constituents and satisfied to work as true public servants. I know, because I was there. When I took office in 2015, I committed to do the work of the people and to respond to their every request. I answered my own phone, I responded to all my voicemails, and I replied to every email — all of them. It was work, but it was manageable. None of us worked for the pay; we worked for the people.

Idaho’s Legislature Is Modest and Accessible

Legislators’ pay in Idaho has always been modest and fair. The current salary is $19,913. Let’s remember, our legislators are only required to be in Boise for the legislative sessions from January through March and sometimes into April. Outside the session, there may be a few meetings and interim committees to attend and participate in, but those are not many and not onerous. Legislators often answer constituent concerns during the interim as well. Again, not a big burden. I’ve been there, done that.

Idaho has a part-time legislature, and legislators’ pay is roughly the national average of such. It’s been fair and reasonable. Remember, it’s essentially a three-month salary.  

Outside their legislative work, legislators often have employment in their home districts, or are retired, or otherwise engaged in their communities. They are connected to their constituents through frequent interactions in the community. Legislative pay was never intended to sustain legislators or their families for the entire year. It was to compensate, if only in part, for the time spent away from home and other work for a few months’ time.

Pay them more?

Let’s ponder for a moment the likely consequences of increasing Idaho legislators’ pay, the proposal made by legislative leaders Sens. Chuck Winder and Melissa Wintrow, as well as Reps. Mike Moyle and Ilana Rubel. Their plan would have leap-frogged Idaho to the very highest paid part-time legislature in the country. They wanted a whopping 43% increase. 

Instead, the Citizens’ Committee on Legislative Compensation came back with a 22% raise – half of what the leaders proposed, but still much too large. 

The large pay increase presents a concerning paradigm shift for our citizen legislature.  

Will a significant and sudden boost make our legislators more or less likely to oppose bigger government, lower your taxes and make Idaho freer? History suggests the answer: “less likely.” Higher pay could make legislators more hesitant to oppose spending requests from agencies wanting to pay employees more and/or to increase the employment and scope of those agencies.

Let’s look at elections for legislators. The amount of pay probably determines the kind of person who runs for legislative office. Currently, the job is seen as “public service,” and as such likely attracts people with more benevolent motives. But make the job lucrative and sustaining, and you’ll get more of the “career politician” types. A legislative seat becomes a prize, in monetary terms, and many would see this change as a step toward a longer-working Legislature, and maybe even a full-time one. It’s a dangerous shift. 

Priority: Keep Idaho’s Legislature in Touch

“What does the Idaho legislator deserve?” is the wrong question. We should rather ask, “What is the proper compensation for a legislator, and would changing it bring about distorted incentives?”  

Let’s not discount the great characteristics of Idaho’s citizen, part-time legislature. There is a genuine connectedness between the public and their representatives. We have legislators who are largely available for communication. We have willing candidates and legislators with decent work ethics. Keep in mind, current pay is enough to attract plenty of candidates to run for office. No legislative seats have ever been left empty.

One argument for higher pay is that it will attract higher quality candidates, incentivize them to work more and to work harder. Would we see better legislative outcomes?

A simple comparison of states suggests otherwise. As Idaho Freedom Foundation’s own Fred Birnbaum points out, states with the highest legislator pay have year-round, full-time legislatures with dozens of staffers for each member. The top states are New York and California, two of the biggest government-control states in the country. Conversely, the very lowest legislator-pay states are New Mexico (per diem reimbursement, but no pay) and New Hampshire ($100 pay per year), and they have part-time legislatures and more modest governments.

What Makes More Sense

Instead of super-charging legislators’ pay and benefits, Idaho should consider some alternatives to keep its legislators connected, ease their burdens somewhat, and preserve the incentives keeping our legislature from becoming a full-time, career politician affair.

One option is to keep the status quo in legislator pay practices, while continuing to give cost-of-living increases over time to offset inflation. 

If legislators believe their pay doesn’t reflect their workload, with its many time demands and so many bills, they could pass rules to limit the amount of interim committee work and the number of bills introduced. That would be the best and easiest answer to concerns that the pay is unfair.

One option would be to restrict interim committee work to a given number of days, like six or ten. Imposing a quota of only two new bills per legislator would be even better. That way, legislators would propose fewer “boutique” or “distraction” bills and focus on only the most important proposals.  A legislator who had more than two essential bills would have an incentive to entreat other legislators to take up those bills within their bill allotment. This encourages cooperation and collegiality. Finally, as a bonus, these changes will mean it is far less likely for legislative sessions to stretch beyond three months.

Conclusion

Keeping the current pay structure with cost-of-living increases would help keep legislators connected with their constituents and serving from their hearts rather than their pocketbooks. Limiting interim legislative days and the amount of legislation coming before them could keep their work manageable. Trying to do too much to make legislators more comfortable or even well-off risks doing to Idaho what we have seen in other states and in the U.S. Congress. Let’s keep Idaho’s Legislature modest, connected, and, dare I say, humble.