Iowa legislators consider giving themselves a raise

And Joni Ernst is doing something right

Members of the Iowa Legislature applaud during the 2025 Condition of the State address. (Photo: Screengrab from Iowa PBS broadcast.)

Last week, Iowa lawmakers narrowed the list of bills they will consider in the last few weeks of this session.

One bill that’s still alive: A proposal to raise their pay by 80%, from $25,000 to $45,000. The pay increase would take effect in 2027.

I can’t imagine this would be popular with the public.

Since 2007, the last time Iowa lawmakers got a raise, the average weekly earnings for Iowans increased by about 70% in nominal terms, according to federal data. If this bill passes, the rate of increase for state legislators would match—and surpass—the rate of increase for regular Iowans in one fell swoop.

Iowa has what is typically considered a part-time Legislature, and they’re in session for three to four months out of the year. They also receive a per diem for travel and lodging that, according to the Des Moines Register, amounts to $17,800 this year for most legislators.

Shaded areas indicate US recessions.

This new pay proposal also includes what is essentially an automatic inflation clause. Lawmaker salaries would rise each year the same as pay for non-unionized state employees, or 3%, whichever is less.

Inflation escalators are smart, but let’s be clear: Most Iowans don’t get this annual guarantee. Certainly, the people who earn the minimum wage don’t get this kind of treatment.

The $7.25 hourly minimum wage in Iowa has lagged behind inflation for years. In fact, it hasn’t increased since 2008, and there are no plans to change that. Common Good Iowa reports that, along with Wisconsin, Iowa has the lowest minimum wage of all its contiguous states.

Since they gained control of the state Legislature, Republicans also have rarely met the 3% threshold when it comes to basic state aid for Iowa’s school districts. The vast majority of a school district’s general fund is spent on staff pay and benefits, and even when inflation was at its height Republicans in Des Moines were pretty stingy with supplemental state aid.

I don’t reflexively oppose increases in pay for politicians. I once wrote a column proposing the Davenport City Council double their salaries.

Some of the aldermen looked at me like I had been smoking something.

In my defense, I proposed paying for it by cutting the size of the city council in half. (Actually, I think that may be why they thought I was high.)

At the time, I argued an increase in pay might draw a different mix of candidates. As I recall, a lot of people running for the city council back then were retirees and people who already made good salaries.

I reasoned the higher pay would incentivize younger and more working-class people to run for office.

This is basically the same argument some Iowa lawmakers are making now.

I’m sympathetic. But I’m also skeptical. How many of these lawmakers who say they want younger, working-class Iowans in the Legislature envision these people replacing them, as opposed to other legislators? How many would step aside in favor of one of these younger candidates?

I’m sure there are some who might do this. But I’m also certain a number of legislators just want the extra money, even if they don’t want to admit it.

Photo by Austin Goode on Unsplash

The bill also would raise the pay for statewide elected officials, and by pretty healthy sums, too.

The governor’s salary would go up by $100,000, a 77% raise.

According to a Des Moines Register article, the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Jason Schultz, a Republican from Schleswig, was asked during subcommittee consideration of the plan whether the governor would support the bill, and he said he believed she would.

“I was told she'd be okay with this if the legislature decides to do it," Schultz told reporters after the subcommittee.

The governor would be “okay” with a bill that gives her a $100,000 raise? You don’t say.

Actually, I’m pretty skeptical of this, too. Kim Reynolds is a smart politician. I don’t believe she would support a bill to increase her own pay by $100,000. (The Register reported her spokesperson declined to comment.)

If lawmakers do decide to raise their own pay, I doubt it will be by as much as what is in this bill. Last year, they were only talking about a $10,000 raise, and even that failed to advance.

Of course, it was also an election year.

Still, politicians know, whatever the year, raising their own pay is a risky proposition. This is especially true when working people have watched their standard of living fall in recent years because of inflation. And when many of these same politicians refuse to help the lowest paid among us improve their station in life, it will be hard to make the case for an 80% pay bump for themselves.

If this is really about diversifying the Legislature, why not spread this pay raise out over a longer period? Say, 10 years. This would better position the Legislature down the road to lure younger lawmakers while making it look less like existing legislators just want to put more taxpayer money into their pockets. (Maybe if I’d proposed a longer-term plan to the Davenport City Council all those years ago, I might not have gotten so many funny looks.)

We’ll see what happens. The Republicans who run the Legislature have gotten bolder as they’ve accumulated more power in recent years.

We’ll see just how bold they really are.

In praise of Joni Ernst (sort of)

Readers of this newsletter know I’ve never bought the idea that Joni Ernst is a budget hawk.

The Iowa senator votes for budget-busting tax cuts and spending bills, then she’ll try to cover for it with phony “squeal awards” that target obscure corners of the federal budget in an attempt to make people think she’s a fiscal conservative.

Usually, it’s more talk than action. She’s been doing this for years.

Still, on occasion, Ernst will do something right, and this week may be one of those times.

Ernst and a bipartisan group of senators and representatives are supporting a proposal to force the executive branch to be more transparent about a quirk in federal spending that allows certain outlays to escape the attention of the USAspending.gov website.

Other Transaction Agreements, or OTAs as they’re known, sometimes don’t get reported to the website, which is the official source for government spending data.

Sen. Joni Ernst on the floor of the US Senate.

Last year, Ernst falsely blamed the Biden administration for “hiding” what she called “secret spending,” even though non-partisan watchdogs have made it clear the OTA problem goes back years, including during Donald Trump’s first term. In 2017, an Inspector General’s report said one agency in the executive branch failed to report to USAspending.gov nearly all of the OTAs the IG reviewed because the agency didn’t think it was required to do so.

These OTAs are a relatively small part of the entire $6.8 trillion annual federal budget, but they still should be publicly reported. That much Ernst got right.

At the time, the Iowa senator said she was introducing a bill to mandate this spending be disclosed.

The bill sat for several months, then was amended and passed by a Senate committee last December. But it didn’t become law.

Let’s hope Ernst and her colleagues have better luck this time. Politico reported the new bill would get a Senate committee vote on Wednesday.

Other Transaction Agreements have been around a long time, and it’s been almost a year and a half since the Government Accountability Office told Congress it should consider requiring federal agencies to report all of them.

Maybe this time they’ll actually get the job done.

---

Along the Mississippi is a proud member of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Please check out the work of my colleagues and consider subscribing. Also, the collaborative partners with the Iowa Capital Dispatch, which provides hard-hitting news along with selected commentary by members of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. Please consider making a donation to support its work, too.

---