One-billionth of a second, or a nanosecond, is a speed so fast, it's useful only to measure such near-instantaneous events as basic computer functions and the amount of time it took the General Assembly's presiding officers to shoot down a proposed salary increase in the next term.
Funny how political self-preservation will do that. House Speaker Michael E. Busch and Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller can spot a re-election killer when they see one. Even discussing a pay raise while the state remains mired in high unemployment and lawmakers grapple with a projected $1 billion-plus state budget deficit is far beyond the pale of propriety, even by the generous standards of Annapolis.
Gov. Martin O'Malley reacted similarly last month when he announced he wouldn't accept a pay raise if re-elected this year - even if the modest recommendations of a gubernatorial salary commission are allowed to stand. At least he can take comfort in knowing nobody will foreclose on Government House.
But the most absurd moment to emerge from this exceedingly brief - and legally mandated - flirtation with legislative raises was in the specifics that emerged from the nine-member appointed panel known as the General Assembly Compensation Commission. The group decided that lawmakers ought to eventually have some modest raise in the next four-year term - but only if the state's unemployment rate falls to 5 percent.
It's not clear whether one should be more blown away by the sheer chutzpah of some minor advisory commission setting a performance standard for the state's elected leaders or their particular choice of standard. It's fair to say that state lawmakers could no more drop the unemployment rate by 2 percentage points than they could cure cancer, stop violent crime or eliminate taxes.
Why not simply tie it to an improvement in the state's economy (which, admittedly, could be measured by the unemployment rate)? Wasn't the point of the commission's deliberations to simply set salaries at an appropriate level? But the group clearly had greater things in mind. Members told reporters point-blank they wanted to spur current and future lawmakers to create jobs with tax cuts or similar pro-business policies.
No doubt legislators would love to do just that, but how to pay for it is another matter. Even with the money-creating abilities of the federal government, President Barack Obama's stimulus package has only softened the recession's blow. State lawmakers might find millions of dollars to reallocate from Maryland's budget, but nothing on the scale of deficit-denying Washington.
Still, if the commission wants the state to adopt this kind of merit pay approach to elected officials, why set just one performance criterion? Perhaps it would be better to use broader statistical measures - pollution levels in the Chesapeake Bay, growth in personal income, public school performance.
And while we're at it, why should the hardest-working lawmakers earn the same pay as the most lazy and incompetent? Let's pay them based on attendance and work product. Surely, StateStat can devise some appropriate measures.
All of which merely proves that depoliticizing the methods by which salaries of Maryland top officeholders are set is a hopeless task, independent commissions or no. Merely keeping that process rational may be too much to hope for as well.
Readers respond
The people on this compensation committee are appointed by people we elected and are only there to give raises so that the elected ones can say, "Gee, if the committee thinks I deserve a raise, I guess I do." Does no one see a conflict of interest here?
Bar