Vermont's 180 legislators are due for a 1.8 percent pay raise this year, or $11.06 a week for the 18 weeks the Legislature is ordinarily in session. But these are not ordinary times, as you have probably noted unless you are tossing out your 401(k) statements without opening them. As a result, lawmakers are under pressure to repeal this modest, statutorily mandated pay increase as a way of showing economic solidarity with their struggling constituents.

At least we assume the point is symbolic, since by our calculations the total cost of the raise amounts to about $36,000 for the typical legislative session, hardly a blip in a billion dollar general fund budget. And while we do not underestimate the power of symbols, especially at a time when the state is facing a budget shortfall that may require drastic cuts in services, the system of legislative compensation currently on the books serves several important public purposes and ought not to be cast aside lightly.

During the 2005 session, lawmakers passed a measure tying their pay to annual cost of living adjustments negotiated for state employees. This solved the perennially touchy issue of legislators voting to raise legislative salaries, while at the same time adopting a reasonable benchmark for pay increases. With this year's raise, legislative salaries would increase from $614.30 a week to $625.36, which strikes us as a fair wage, especially when it's combined with generous mileage, meals and lodging allowances. Fairness is an important consideration in this regard, because it affords people who are still working the opportunity to serve as legislators without sacrificing their economic well being or that of their families. It’s important for a legislative body to include a broad demographic cross-section if all society's interests are to be represented. The alternative is a legislature of the wealthy or the retired, or the wealthy retired. This dynamic can be seen at work in New Hampshire’s $100-per-session-plus-mileage compensation for the 424 members of its Legislature.

Nonetheless, Vermont state Rep. David Ainsworth, a South Royalton Republican, intends to file legislation to repeal the raise, although he says the extra money would be welcome to pay the help who perform the chores on his dairy farm while he's away. “I don't think it’s appropriate to take an increase … when you’re making (budget) cuts.” And we have no doubt that many of Ainsworth’s constituents would agree with this sentiment.

A simple solution presents itself: Let those who need the pay increase take it and let those who want to forgo it either return it to the treasury or donate it to a charity in their home district. That way a carefully calibrated mechanism isn't disassembled for transitory reasons, and lawmakers are afforded the opportunity to make a truly symbolic and individual gesture. We suspect that peer pressure would accomplish Ainsworth's goal in the overwhelming majority of cases, even if lawmakers refuse the raise primarily because they don’t want to have to defend taking it when they run for re-election.