Bice: Wisconsin Lawmakers and Employee Bonuses

Daniel Bice reveals that Wisconsin lawmakers are using taxpayer funds to reward their workers with bonuses.

Bice writes:

Banks and insurance companies aren't the only ones using taxpayer dollars to hand out employee bonuses.

Lots of federal lawmakers are doing it - including a majority of those from Wisconsin.

So much for sharing the pain.

At least one Wisconsin legislator, Tom Petri, bumped up the pay of everyone on his congressional payroll with a bonus, paying out more than $100,000 late last year. The one-time gifts ran as high as $14,000 per staffer.

But just like many of the folks on Wall Street, the Fond du Lac Republican doesn't want to discuss these bonus babies, even if they were rewarded with public funds. Petri spokesman Niel Wright cited "privacy concerns" in refusing to discuss the amounts and recipients of congressional bonuses.

...Most Wisconsin lawmakers were eager to seize on public anger over hefty bonuses paid to executives at Wall Street firms receiving government bailouts. All but one voted to impose huge taxes on these payments.

But many of those same members of the House and the Senate were tight-lipped about their little-known practice of using tax dollars to dole out bonuses to workers. Those one-time employee rewards are paid out of surplus office funds that must be spent or forfeited.

...Bonus money comes from lawmakers' office accounts. Each year, House and Senate members are each given a set sum for office expenses, including salaries.

Is this supposed to be a disturbing revelation, a scandal?

Bice seems to be painting it that way. He points out that "much of the rest of the state is facing furloughs, wage cuts or layoffs." He seems to be saying that giving out bonuses, ANY bonuses, using taxpayer dollars is inappropriate, given the economy.

I disagree.

The bonus money isn't coming from any government bailout funds. It's from the lawmakers' office accounts. That's an important distinction.

Bice writes that "House and Senate members are each given a set sum for office expenses, including salaries." He reports that the bonuses "are paid out of surplus office funds that must be spent or forfeited."

What's wrong with paying workers with funds meant to be used to pay workers?

Yes, taxpayer dollars are funding the bonuses, but taxpayer dollars are the source of their salaries. It's all taxpayer money.

I don't think it's wrong to reward a job well done with surplus office funds, funds that are meant for office expenses, including salaries.

The lawmakers' are given a set sum for expenses. They're working within that set sum. They have to work within a budget.

It's not as if the lawmakers' applied for ADDITIONAL funds for bonuses.

Instead of whining about the bonuses, Bice should be railing about that "set sum" being too large if he wants to complain.

Should that "set sum" be lowered so there's no chance of surplus funds being available to reward employees with bonuses?

Bottom line: The lawmakers and their workers are paid with taxpayer dollars -- salary, bonus, benefits, whatever.

I can't get upset about a lawmaker awarding bonuses with the funds that are allotted to him or her for office expenses, including paying workers. It seems to me that it's more responsible to award bonuses, depending on the availability of surplus funds, than to give higher salaries in the first place.

And of course government employees are paid with taxpayer dollars. How else would they be paid?

I think it's legitimate to suggest that cuts be made and lawmakers receive less for office expenses in the future, but I don't think it's right for Bice to try and incite anger because lawmakers worked within their budgets.

They've done nothing wrong.