Senator Peterson bitch-slaps Caesar Rodney’s Stapleford! OUCH !

Letters to the Editor: Legislators earn pay / News Journal 

Caesar Rodney columnist wrong

The recent “Comment” column by Dr. John Stapleford titled “The Special value of those who run our state” was either poorly researched or intentionally dishonest. Either way, it does not bolster the credibility of the Caesar Rodney Institute, of which he is president. The salary of a legislator in 2013 was $44,041 a year – not $59,000, as Dr. Stapleford claims. This represents a 4.65 percent increase from 2007 to 2013 (not 17.3 percent) which is 5.5 percent less than private-sector increases over the same period. Some legislators who serve in leadership positions or on certain committees received a stipend for their additional duties but many legislators do not receive any stipends.

Dr. Stapleford’s claim that legislators work only six months out of the year is intentionally dishonest. He knows better. Senators serve (on average) 42,000 constituents each, and House members serve approximately 21,000 each. We serve those constituents and their communities seven days a week, 52 weeks a year.

Finally, Dr. Stapleford claims that legislators’ salaries are set by the Delaware Compensation Commission, “of whom 5 out of 6 members are legislators and 1 member is from the private sector.” For the record, no legislators serve on that Commission.

Sen. Karen Peterson

District 9



5 responses to “Senator Peterson bitch-slaps Caesar Rodney’s Stapleford! OUCH !

  1. Publius e decere

    Well — maybe we can set aside the hysterical claim of serving the public seven days a week and 52 weeks per year.

    The essential facts are that we (the taxed) pay somehwere between $44K and $59K to legislators. Who knows (or cares) whether that grosses up benefits. It puts us in the ball park for commentary. My opinion is that is is fair compensation if it is their sole occupation. But as word has it, most of them are earing a base income elsewhere and considering the state “salary” as incremental. In their spare time.

    The reality is simple: “No Wonder”. Small Wonder. It’s a ham-and-eggs salary and we get ham-and-eggs legislation as a result.

    Not for nuttin’, but the (U.S.) Founding Fathers clearly felt that public office was for well-to-do land-owning don’t-need-wages people and therefore there should be minimal, if any, public compensation thereto.

    Of course these are the same founding fathers who were Deists with a Christian bias, men who thought they were regulating muskets with the Second Amendment (no concept of handguns, automatic weapons, etc), men who owned slaves, and men who thought that a solid 20% of the population had 3/5ths of the rights of everyone else. Not so perfect of a union after all.

    Coming back to Delaware legislator compensation, I’m not going to split hairs over what they are paid. However, I do think they need to pass a represent-all litmus test and be able to think their way through the issue in front of them instead of leading with their ideologies. I can think of many legislators who would be at risk under this requirement.



    • Did the thought ever cross your mind that maybe the forefathers knew exactly what they were doing when they called it, “right to bear Arms”, being short for firearms which is all inclusive of any changes/improvements to the stock, barrel, or chamber that might occur over time?

      Citing just, “right to bear muskets”, limits the militia/common man to not have the technology/improvements necessary to overthrow trained soldiers / hessians in a revolution. Since they just experienced a revolutionary war, they obviously wanted the amendment to be inclusive, not restrictive.

      Stating that one could only have a “right to bear muskets” would have been shortsighted and poorly thought out if they had done that. I think you shortchange and trivialize the words of Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe.

      Nah, I believe they thought out their words very carefully when they chose “Right to Bear Arms”. Glad I don’t have to protect myself today with rows of muskets against any corrupt military advancing on my property/interests.

      Were the founders perfect? No. Did they discuss, think, extrapolate, scenario debate? Absofuckinglutely!


    • Publius e decere

      If only those Founding Fathers could resurrect theselves today to let us know what they really meant way back when. I think their sense of proportion would prevail. Big arms for organized state militias. Small arms for personal use. And sensible police powers to regulate the use of arms in populated towns and cities..

      Afer all, they regulated entire classes of people to 60% of their potential in fear of insurrection by those classes should they have full citizen power. It stands to reason that those founders would have also proportionately regulated high-powered arms in the same fear of their insurrective potential.

      We’ll never know what the Founding Fathers and Mothers thought. We do know that today’s nihilistic shooting gallerys in our cities are certainly not an American ideal worth sustaining.

      OK, now back to the sport of education politics —



  2. Well that surely sounds like a contradiction. Sounds like you want government regulation on firearms, voting rights, therefore you would side with Mr. Adams. But on education you want free market, hands off. Sounds like side with Mr. Jefferson. Sounds like a dichotomy of confusion in your ideology. Maybe some time with the therapists will clear up your cranial malfunctions.

    Like I said, glad I don’t have to defend my person or property with muskets, which weren’t very accurate in the first place. Thank you Mr. Madison!


    • lastDEconservative

      Thank you Messrs. Smith and Wesson.

      Whew! Pub really is off the reservation on his Founding/constitutional claims. Surprised.