Submitted by RamaSchneider t3_11yd3el in vermont
Comments
Azr431 t1_jd85d8t wrote
A 6 month session in a state with such a small population is quite long. Should only be 2-3 months but the P/T issue would persist.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jd78sc9 wrote
That's the article title - so click bait, if it exists here, is on Seven Days.
I think you should drop the place of birth bigotry too.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_jd79rbd wrote
I was not implying you created the title. Only pointing out that the title of the article while factual is meant to invoke a specific sentiment while the details of the “doubling” is much or nuanced and complex than “government officials double their pay”.
Your out of state comment it noted and ignored. I still believe it is nearly impossible to identify and relate to the historic and generational issues which impact a state when you grow up in a wealthy suburb of an east coast city.
EscapedAlcatraz t1_jd7exky wrote
Rama is the chief shit stirrer here.
thisoneisnotasbad t1_jd7f9fj wrote
Yeah, I usually don't engage but this is an interesting topic outside just the political sphere. Right now VT politics is pretty much restricted to people who can afford to not work 6 months out of the year.
Dukaso t1_jde6y58 wrote
I should have listened.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdbxndj wrote
If I'm "chief shit stirrer" in this sub then you don't have:
a) shit;
b) a pot to stir it in; and
c) a spoon to stir with even if you had a pot which you don't!
In other words - you're imagination is running away with what you want to see happening as opposed to what IS happening.
But, as I've done before and as I don't do my public life cloaked in anonymity, let's talk it out in a non-anonymous, civil, personally in public manner.
Dukaso t1_jdd046m wrote
So here's the thing - the way the post is titled makes it sound like increasing statehouse wages is a bad thing. I googled you and see that you've run for legislature before, and I also noticed in one of your comments that you agree this is a good thing.
Ironically, I think a lot of the people who are shitting on you would actually agree with you, but are thrown off by the post title. Notice how the replies supporting increased wages are being upvoted (including yours!), but the actual post is at 0 votes? There's a clear disconnect. Given your opinion on the subject, a more appropriate title may have been "Progress towards livable wages for VT lawmakers".
I have an honest question for you - do you think that the average person knows what a VT lawmaker is paid? I'd wager they don't, and when a person hears that VT lawmakers are going to double their salary, their gut reaction is going to be negative.
PS: I know that you didn't editorialize the title of this post, but do you really think people are going to even open the seven days article? They're coming here for the comments.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jddlw35 wrote
I'm not allowed to alter the title.
Dukaso t1_jddtmb7 wrote
Wouldn't be the first time a politician realized they couldn't un-say something. Choose your words carefully next time.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jddxgnh wrote
Okay, I give up ... what the fuck are you talking about now?
The only way I could post the the article was with heading unchanged from link. Get it? I've nothing to unsay. Read what I wrote and not what you wanted me to write.
For fuck's sake.
Dukaso t1_jde0ze9 wrote
It'll auto-fill the title but you can edit it. Alternatively, if you title the post before adding a link, it'll won't set the title automatically.
Alternatively, it's also common to make a regular "post" (not "link") and the include the news article in the body of the post.
Here's a "link" with an edited title:
​
RamaSchneider OP t1_jde4fv1 wrote
I'm done with lunch and gotta run, but I'll try one more time heading out the door: regarding your point about me not editing the headline or putting it in as a regular post .... I am not allowed to.
That's the same as "I am not allowed to."
Take me at my word.
Dukaso t1_jde4x3o wrote
I agree that you can't edit a post title after it's been posted. I accept your word there.
You have to change the title from the default before hitting submit on the original post.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jde7cmb wrote
No, I'm not ALLOWED. I don't have the mod's permission to do so. It's a permission thing, it isn't about otherwise available methods.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdgph99 wrote
What you really need to do is ask the mods about the Rama-hater club that likes to keep you from seeing and reading what I post. You yourself pointed out the numbers that don't seem to make sense, and that's why they don't make sense.
All you have to do is sort posts and comments by "new", however, and the Rama-haters fail again.
[deleted] t1_jdcyv34 wrote
[deleted]
Aesopscorp t1_jd7by7c wrote
They gentrified were they lived now have flocked to were we live for it’s beauty, quaintness, and meridian of other reasons. Then realize we don’t have delivery and this place would be great if it had a Starbucks…or insert other mega corp. Said etc out of stater
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_jda8ecn wrote
I've heard that exact conversation in winooski too many times to count in the last two years. "On long Island we had x, y, and z."
Cool, maybe you oughta go back.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdbx9yw wrote
You just defined bigotry, only you don't realize it right now.
"I can't define who I am unless I define who somebody else is by their place of birth." - That's what is reads like to me.
PS. Wanna talk this out? I don't hide behind anonymity in my public sphere. I'll sit down with you in public and civilly discuss this issue of birth placed bigotry. In public with full disclosure of identities.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_jda875s wrote
Oh, so this is why you're so infamous. Bigotry. Interesting. And no, we aren't going to drop it. Add New Jersey to that list.
Twombls t1_jd82uvt wrote
Politicians should make a living wage yes.
The current 14k salary is a huge barrier to anyone who isn't already wealthy.
DiscHorse t1_jd7fmu7 wrote
Hopefully this will lead to more working-class folks being represented in the statehouse. Gotta get those landlords out of there.
huskers2468 t1_jd7ghg8 wrote
I'm not against the idea of paying politicians a much higher wage than what is being proposed.
Make the position worthwhile, so it attracts more than people who can do it on the side.
[deleted] t1_jd7jalc wrote
[deleted]
zombienutz1 t1_jd7co5m wrote
It should be on a sliding scale. If you're someone like Dick Mazza with plenty of passive income and are well off, then you get less (or nothing) than someone who has a low annual income.
brothermuffin t1_jd7dhmo wrote
Well now there’s no way we could adopt something so… fair and balanced
drinkingchartreuse t1_jd778v2 wrote
They can’t afford to live in Vermont on only the salary they are paying now.
ImpossibleMeatDonut t1_jd77ku6 wrote
Not many can.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jd73jp6 wrote
I believe that we need younger folks in our government setting policy right now. This is important for humanity's future, and if they need some financial help to do the hard work, then I say let them have some financial help.
Galadrond t1_jdaepml wrote
The comically low salary is a HUGE barrier to entry for average Vermonters to hold office in the state legislature. It pretty much guarantees that only the Rich and well off run for office.
Dukaso t1_jdcyjfu wrote
If you don't pay lawmakers a solid wage, you're going to get people who are already wealthy running the state. Low salaries are by design; they keeps the "poors" out of the statehouse.
richstowe t1_jde2521 wrote
Sure double their salaries but why are there 180 assemblymen . (150 house reps and 30 senators) That's way way too many members . Cut their numbers by half or more and triple their compensation .
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdgonjo wrote
I get your point, but the flip side of that argument is that the more legislators there are, the more diffuse political decision making power is and the easier it is for locals to access their state reps.
It it's just about money, then I'll agree with your assessment. But I believe it is about more then just money.
richstowe t1_jdjujod wrote
I've got to believe (but am too lazy to research it) that Vt is has the most extreme number of legislators for the population . Plus nominal pay and limited responsibility leads more homogeneity not less . I'm talking seniors of which I am one .
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdlidhn wrote
66 myself, and I think New Hampshire is one that has more reps per voters, I'm not sure about other states.
As I said, I think it's about more then just a dollar figure. It's about how we run our common government.
When the Paine Mountain School District (at that time we still called it "Central Vermont Unified Union School District") held it's first organizational meeting, I made sure to push for an increase in what school board members were receiving for a stipend.
I pushed for it so fewer folks would be facing financial barriers to serving their community. I think this issue is important.
Allemaengel t1_jd839xk wrote
Just be glad that you don't have our insanely over-paid, underworked full-time legislature here in PA that approved automatic raises so they never have to vote for one again.
I would take your state legislature in a heartbeat.
Necessary_Cat_4801 t1_jd8z44r wrote
It must be really, really bad in PA. Our state legislature sees their job solely as finding ways to make VT more expensive.
Allemaengel t1_jd903q1 wrote
Yes why yes it is. Crappy legislature plus 2nd highest gas tax, most expensive toll road, truly bad roads and a landscape filled with warehousing, billboards and roadside trash.
HomeOnTheMountain_ t1_jd7j77c wrote
K
FyuckerFjord t1_jd7ihlf wrote
We should set their salary by their record. Every 6 months we go online and see a list of their votes/bills and then award them a set amount per vote or bill we agree with. Saved some turtles? That's a $2k per year raise. Voted to deregulate banks? Lose $5k.
But, Fyucker - won't the two sides just cancel each other out? Not if the politicians focus on what we ALL want.
Sure, there are probably flaws in this system, but I just made it up and I don't get paid to fix politics, plus the flaws could be ironed out.
Rogers_Ebert t1_jd77vc1 wrote
Politicians are bloodsucking scum.
canthaveme t1_jd7b4km wrote
Did you even read the article
Rogers_Ebert t1_jd7beft wrote
Cry me a river.
Otherwise-Lock7157 t1_jdbomff wrote
So that's a no?
RamaSchneider OP t1_jd78x7j wrote
The above is one of the most useless comments possible, has no bearing on the subject, nothing to do with Vermont ... and should be removed by the mods.
[deleted] t1_jd7dvym wrote
[removed]
420MaxGod t1_jd7j7gf wrote
This is Reddit get used to it. The mods are not going to save you nor should they.
RamaSchneider OP t1_jdbxd8m wrote
Ooooo, mods - "we don't have a job to do, just a title to show off and beat our breasts with"
thisoneisnotasbad t1_jd780k1 wrote
Kind of a clickbait title.
> 180 lawmakers, who currently make $14,610 per year, would earn just under $30,000. Lawmakers would also become eligible for medical benefits.
Being a lawmaker in VT is a 6 month a year commitment. This will at least make it so you can do so and then survive on a less than stellar job the rest of the time. Maybe it would lessen the number of MA and NY native who walk the halls at the statehouse.