A vote by Missouri senators to block pay raises for legislators and state elected officials prompts a number of questions, including a hypothetical one - where would the state get the money?
Much criticism of the proposal was comparative in nature. Mid-Missouri lawmakers complained about the proposal last year, shortly after it was released.
But, after Gov. Jay Nixon unveiled a $26 million budget that omitted any pay hikes for state workers, a number of legislators amplified their objections, raising the consensus expectation they invariably would block an increase for themselves to avoid appearing selfish, uncaring and unfair.
That expectation diminished Wednesday after two Democratic senators - Maria Chappelle-Nadal, University City, and Jason Holsman, Kansas City - filibustered in favor of the raises for officials and legislators.
The issue re-emerged in the Senate on Thursday and the pay hike eventually was blocked by a 31-3 vote. The tally followed House rejection on a 133-15 vote.
A two-thirds vote in each chamber before Feb. 1 is required to block any pay raises recommended for lawmakers and state elected officials.
The recommendations are submitted every two years by the Missouri Citizen's Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials, established by a constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters in 1994.
Last year, the commission recommended an 11 percent increase for legislators and pay hikes ranging from 8-10 percent for six statewide elected officials.
The panel said: "... the elected officials of our state in the executive and legislative branches should now be given due compensation for their commitment to public service."
We question whether, or if, the commission took into account the state's financial picture or the lack of raises for rank-and-file employees.
Missouri taxpayers, particularly state employees, dodged a proverbial bullet last week.
Most legislators were compelled to reject the pay raise to avoid public criticism and scorn.
But if this episode provides a lesson, it is that a lone filibuster that stretches beyond the deadline may preclude an opt-out vote. The result is lawmakers would receive a pay raise without ever voting for one.