These people do the jobs for the prestige, power, and political connections. Some of them are multi-millionaires and own multiple homes. Salary is a distant consideration and has little bearing on whether they would stay in the job or not. The raises are insulting precisely because many or all of them are wealthy. It's like taking a hamburger from a little girl and giving it to a fat teenager.

I think the scary thing is that even though they haven't had a raise in 10 years, their pay rates are still on the high end of similar positions in neighboring states.

I can agree that you have to pay for good management, and their performance has been good. Perhaps a 3% raise should be the way to go.

I don't have time to dig into this, but the governor has emphasized that their "positions" have not received increases. Is this kind of like an increase in step pay for teachers, on top of the raise they'd get for putting in another year?

Another question is how many of these political appointees have actually been in their current positions for 11 years?

Justin - The salaries are set by statute, so yes, he is referencing the pay associated with the positions. It didn't make any sense to me either.

My payroll data has Booth-Gallogly taking home $151,480 in FY10 and $154,404 in FY11, roughly a 2% increase. Per the article, her pay has gone up something like another 1.6% since then. Another data set shows that it wasn't long ago she was making more like $111,956.

Maybe it was a promotion, but still, to imply that somebody whose pay has gone up almost 40%, from the low $100Ks to the mid $100Ks has been struggling along with no raise would be disingenuous anywhere but within government.

We have two possibilities there: step increases or grade promotion. I'm more familiar with the Federal system, but I believe the RI state system works the same way. "Pay raise," as reported by politicians and the media, generally refers to an across-the-board increase in grade and step compensation amounts through a COLA. Step increases are based on longevity in the position, or occasionally performance if a step increase was not due that year. Thus, even when pay is "frozen," salaries will increase every year or two because of guaranteed step increases, which cannot be frozen absent a drastic law change.

Footnote 1: I am not justifying any of the above, simply reporting.
Footnote 2: I do not believe it is an accident that public compensation is difficult to comprehend.

It is interesting that high earners in govt come under scrutiny in this blog as do SNAP recipients. The amount of scorn assigned seems to be pretty equal. What never gets discussed here though, when government giveaways are aired, is the home mortgage interest deduction that adds 100 billion annually to the federal debt. No tea party flack, or Anchor Rising blogger, or Current controller sees any problem with this high end private earner welfare program.

David, we're all volunteers here and do this as a hobby, so we can't exactly hit in every single topic under the sun. However if you feel that Anchor Rising is in need of a post against the mortgage interest deduction, I would encourage you to submit it as an Engaged Citizen post. I look forward to reading it. Thanks.

The amounts are already outrageous.

I don't believe they are all so great to deserve that amount of compensation.
These are public service positions,pay them the state median earning or minimum wage.

David S,

Your comment is unfair. A quick Google search will show that the mortgage-interest deduction has been a subject of conversation around here.

Admittedly, it's not a clear case in either direction. I'd be happy with a completely flat-percentage tax on all income. But if the tax code is going to favor certain behaviors and certain people, I think the mortgage deduction is a foolish favor to target.

Thanks for the offer, Patrick. I may indeed do that. Justin Unfair? To Whom?

David S writes: "What never gets discussed here though, when government giveaways are aired, is the home mortgage interest deduction that adds 100 billion annually to the federal debt."

Note the perspective--allowing people to keep their money is considered adding to "the debt." The debt, David, is caused by a gov't spending more than it takes in, period.

Finally, the mortgage deduction exists to incentivize home ownership, formerly a good thing in a stable, prosperous society. It is also a lesson of how a good idea can be twisted and abused over time: the deduction should end at a certain point--lets say 650K (jumbo) loan, but that in itself creates additional challenges. How does incentivizing single mothers and dependency on gov't aid to a stable and prosperous society?

"Note the perspective--allowing people to keep their money is considered adding to "the debt.""

Also stems from the mentality that Matt Allen pointed out: all money belongs to the government, which decides how all of it will be spent and on what. Wrong.