Finding out exactly what a law costs the taxpayers is usually nearly impossible. But today we have an exception.
The Legislature has finally opened up the books, a small crack anyway, to how our elected Representatives spend our money.
The exception I am talking about is KRS 6.211 the entire law is listed below:
6.211 Additional allowances for members of General Assembly.
Effective January 1, 1994, in addition to any and all sums, compensation, or expenses now paid the members of the General Assembly, each shall receive an expense allowance of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the expense allowance paid federal employees traveling in the Frankfort, Kentucky area for each calendar day. This sum shall be paid whether the General Assembly is in regular or extraordinary session and shall be in full recompense of any additional expenses incurred in excess of that now received by them.
Effective: July 15, 1994
In 2010 this little perk cost the citizens of Kentucky $2,080,482.80. What did this mean in terms of your local legislator?
Here’s a look at my Representative the Honorable J. Stan Lee.
Legislator: Lee, J. Stan
Calendar Year: 2010
Session Salary (KRS 6.190): $20,139.54
Session Daily Expense Allowance (KRS 6.211): $13,908.40
Session Mileage (KRS 6.190): $435.58
Session Stationery Allowance (Legislative Branch Budget Bill): $500.00
Interim Salary for Authorized Days of Official Business (KRS 7.110): $2,821.81
Interim Monthly Expense Allowance (KRS 6.213): $15,086.88
Reimbursement of Travel Expenses Previously Paid or Incurred by the Legislator: $437.90
Now these amounts may be a little higher than usual since there was a special session in 2010 to pass a budget because the legislature couldn’t get its’ act together during the regular session.
But here’s my question for Stan, and this applies to all the legislators:
Since we are already giving you gas money ($435.45 in mileage) and the state capital is, 21.8 miles from your house, why do you need $13,908.40 in expenses? What are you buying with my money?
What does this $2,080,482.80 in expense allowances buy the tax payers of Kentucky?
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Some Thoughts on "Call to civic — and civil action"
There are a number of people talking about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the need for civility in the political arena.
I agree we need to tone down the rhetoric. But I am somewhat bothered by the self-serving nature of some of these pieces.
The latest was in the Herald Leader. The piece by Finance Cabinet Secretary Jonathan Miller makes some excellent points.
■ Attend the next political town hall meeting in your community so your sane voice gets more air time than destructive extremism.
■ Communicate with your elected representatives using all of the new technologies of our social media.
■ Demand more civic education in your kids' schools.
■ Join a group that promotes bipartisanship, such as the national citizen movement No Labels (NoLabels.org), which organizes community gatherings to advocate solutions to the obstinate, chronic policy problems that our politics-as-blitzkrieg simply can't fix.
But was it really necessary for him to include the subtle look at me part in his opinion piece? The emphasis (Bold Face) is mine.
In 2005, the Aspen Institute — the venerable Washington monument within the swamp of D.C. partisanship — gathered 16 of us: young elected officials, with a deliberate mix of gender, race, geography and party affiliation. Under the banner of the Rodel Fellowship program — whose mission is to support a "political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue" — we were joined in the hopes of producing a more responsible approach to America's most important domestic issues.
The Aspen nation-builders surmised that if they could identify future leaders early enough and empower us to connect and debate, we'd ultimately view each other not as partisan opponents but as fellow Americans pursuing our own notions of the common good. In turn, the public would benefit from leadership more accountable to it, instead of to the political parties or special interests.
Even within our group of highly touted talents, amid the torrent of ascendant egos and alpha-dog chutzpah, Gabrielle Giffords was the model of soft-spoken confidence
And then was it necessary to follow this up with an email to his mailing list titled
“My Op-Ed tribute to Gabby Gifford”?
I know Miller still has political ambitions, but this really isn’t the place for self-promotion.
I agree we need to tone down the rhetoric. But I am somewhat bothered by the self-serving nature of some of these pieces.
The latest was in the Herald Leader. The piece by Finance Cabinet Secretary Jonathan Miller makes some excellent points.
■ Attend the next political town hall meeting in your community so your sane voice gets more air time than destructive extremism.
■ Communicate with your elected representatives using all of the new technologies of our social media.
■ Demand more civic education in your kids' schools.
■ Join a group that promotes bipartisanship, such as the national citizen movement No Labels (NoLabels.org), which organizes community gatherings to advocate solutions to the obstinate, chronic policy problems that our politics-as-blitzkrieg simply can't fix.
But was it really necessary for him to include the subtle look at me part in his opinion piece? The emphasis (Bold Face) is mine.
In 2005, the Aspen Institute — the venerable Washington monument within the swamp of D.C. partisanship — gathered 16 of us: young elected officials, with a deliberate mix of gender, race, geography and party affiliation. Under the banner of the Rodel Fellowship program — whose mission is to support a "political system based on thoughtful and civil bipartisan dialogue" — we were joined in the hopes of producing a more responsible approach to America's most important domestic issues.
The Aspen nation-builders surmised that if they could identify future leaders early enough and empower us to connect and debate, we'd ultimately view each other not as partisan opponents but as fellow Americans pursuing our own notions of the common good. In turn, the public would benefit from leadership more accountable to it, instead of to the political parties or special interests.
Even within our group of highly touted talents, amid the torrent of ascendant egos and alpha-dog chutzpah, Gabrielle Giffords was the model of soft-spoken confidence
And then was it necessary to follow this up with an email to his mailing list titled
“My Op-Ed tribute to Gabby Gifford”?
I know Miller still has political ambitions, but this really isn’t the place for self-promotion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)