President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 01, 2012 08:11 PM UTC

Shaffer, Senate Democrats Moderate Per Diem Pay Raise Fiasco

  • 9 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

As the Durango Herald’s Joe Hanel reports:

The Senate gave final approval to a bill that funds an increase in per diem pay for rural lawmakers Wednesday morning on a 21-13 vote…

Three Republicans and 10 Democrats voted no on HB 1301, including Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, who had been a co-sponsor.

“This does not impact my pay, and I support additional help for our rural lawmakers, but I’m voting ‘no’ because, right now, with our severe budget issues, I feel it’s just not the right time,” Shaffer said in a prepared statement.

He is running for Congress in the Eastern Plains district. One of the Republican ‘no’ votes came from Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, who is running for Congress in the northern Front Range district.

We have been clear from the beginning on two important facts about this story: first, our agreement that legislators are underpaid, and second, that the disastrous handling of this bill in the GOP-controlled House made the the issue of raising legislative per diem toxic. The absolute worst way to have handled this in-effect request of taxpayers for higher compensation was to try to ram it through with no debate. This confirms a lesson we have tried to inculcate in our readers for years: you will never, ever make a negative story go away by hiding it.

Fortunately for Democrats, whether by better insight or simply watching the situation explode in House Speaker Frank McNulty’s lap, the Democratic Senate had a much more open debate about the need to raise legislative per diem. Senate Majority Leader John Morse, who we’ve been critical of for his brusque handling of questions about this, publicly took ownership of the political unpopularity. With that in mind, it was still very wise for Senate President Brandon Shaffer to remove his name from the bill and vote no–and it’s worth noting Sal Pace’s vote against in the House. In the end, considerably more Republicans voted for House Bill 1301 in both chambers than Democrats, and that may be the best yardstick for electoral utility/risk.

One additional point we feel obligated to make: there is perhaps no one we are more sympathetic to in this story than state employees who did not get a raise, per diem or salary–and haven’t in four years. Not minor-celebrity legislators who may or may not deserve special treatment, but snowplow drivers, nurses, corrections officers, people who care for the disabled, employees at the state mental health facility in Pueblo. State workers have taken the legislature’s budget cuts in the teeth for four years–pay cuts, furloughs, shrinking resources to do their job–and if they complain, some Republicans call them “scum.”

Anyway, we hope they’ve been paying vote-by-vote attention. We suspect they have.

Tweet
Share

Comments

9 thoughts on “Shaffer, Senate Democrats Moderate Per Diem Pay Raise Fiasco”

  1. Your spins works both ways at a minimum.

    http://www.coloradopeakpolitic…

    Far be it for us to ever say something nice about a Democrat, but House Minority Leader Mark Ferrandino does know a thing or two about Colorado’s budget. What he doesn’t have is the leadership mojo of his House Democrats. What started as a seemingly smooth transition when Sal Pace (D-Urination) resigned his leadership post to focus on his Don Quixote-esque run for Congress has turned into a night of long swords for Ferrandino.  

    Say what you want about the per diem increase, but one thing is certain, it’s been a real headache for Ferrandino, and his caucus has used this as an opportunity to stick a knife in the back of their new leader and throw him straight under the bus.  

    It started innocently enough with Ed Vigil popping off against Ferrandino’s move on per diem, but has grown into all-out warfare in the Democrat caucus with Sal Pace and Ferrandino’s appointee to the JBC, Boulder Rep. Claire Levy, piling on.

    “There was a declaration by some members of the Joint Budget Committee that we could not afford any salary increases, not even for our lowest-paid employees,” Rep. Claire  Levy, D-Boulder told The Denver Post. “I thought it was inconsistent to increase per diem, which effectively is an increase in pay.”

    It’s not everyday you see Democrats bashing bills backed by their legislative bosses.

    To answer a question posed earlier, I am not associated with Colorado Peak Politics in any way. But I find them a refreshing counterpoint to the nonstop Democrat spin from Colorado Pols. If nothing else, Colorado needs both.

    3. Really Beavis? Holding on to that Public Urination story aren’t they? If you shake a public urination story more than 3 times, you’re playing with it.

      The Peak Politics post highlights one of the great things about Democrats. They are way better at thinking for themselves than Republicans and it seems like the author is poking at the Dems for not acting like GOP puppets who’s decisions are either made by GOP leaders or Super PAC donors.

  3. is it correct to say that this is a result of a desire on the part of the legislature for a more thorough and uniform method of funding the rural members?

    Good then.  

    1. Third reading yesterday.  It had already passed the House.

      I think all you can say is that it is the result of a desire on the part of many legislators to put more money in their own pockets.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

89 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!