Much ado has been made about whether Maryland state legislators deserve a raise. But the main issue is not if the nine members of the General Assembly Compensation Committee recommend raising legislators' $43,500 annual salary, the second-highest in the nation for part-timers.

It's why residents should pay legislators a pension for part-time work. Instead of wasting time on state-by-state salary comparisons, the commission members should focus on what is fair to Maryland residents when they meet Tuesday. Common sense speaks heavily in favor of dropping or scaling back retirement benefits for legislators.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that only 11 percent of part-time workers have access to defined benefit pensions like those given to state legislators.

And only 34 percent of part-time workers have the option to participate in defined contribution plans like a 401(K). State legislators, however, can enroll in the pension plan as soon as they take office and also sign up for supplemental benefits including a 401(K) plan and tax deferred annuities, to lessen their tax load.

To make things even sweeter, three months of work counts as one year of service in the pension plan, an equation possible only when benefits are disconnected from economic reality.

Even one of Maryland's largest employers, Constellation Energy, must track pay to the company's overall financial position. According to its Web site: "Our total compensation philosophy is to pay employees competitively and vary rewards based on individual and company performance."

The potential pay raise and increase in pension benefits that would go with it is especially troubling in a year when many private employers dropped matching payments to employee 401(k) programs because of deteriorating financial conditions.

A Watson Wyatt Worldwide survey released in September found that 11 percent of employers suspended their 401(k) matching contributions and that 17 percent are considering the option as a way to cut costs. Since the survey only covered employers with 1,000 or more employees, the number is likely much higher.

The generous pay package for legislators also makes a joke of House Speaker Michael Busch's observation that "You're down to bone and gristle now when it comes to state government."

If Busch and Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller, who earn $56,500 each year for their legislative duties, joined the system when they first took office and retired today, they would rake in over $3,100 each month. Benefits are capped at 66.7 percent of salary after 22 years and three months of service.

No doubt one of the reasons pension benefits for state legislators and all state employees are never questioned is that the Board of Trustees of the State Retirement Agency is comprised of elected officials, state employees and appointees of the governor. That's equivalent of a teacher giving students the power to assign homework and grade it.

Members of the compensation commission did not return phone calls prior to publication. But they would do right by taxpayers if they not only rejected pay raises for state legislators but recommended reducing pension benefits for them too.

Maryland must not follow the bad example revealed by USA Today of the federal work force, which saw a large increase in the number of employees getting huge raises in the past year while the economy tanked and unemployment skyrocketed.

The only fair thing to do would be to offer all new legislators only a 401(K) defined contribution plan, the kind the vast majority of private sector workers receive from their employers, and move all existing pension plans into a 401(K). Shifting the packages puts legislators in charge of their retirement savings after they leave office instead of foisting the vast majority of the burden onto taxpayers who will not enjoy the same benefits.

Changing the composition of the Board of Trustees of the State Retirement Agency should also be on the table. Why shouldn't the people of Maryland select the members by vote? The only requirement for candidates would be that they work in the private sector, which would benefit taxpayers by providing an independent voice on investment policy and operations.

Legislator pensions may not be the biggest state expense, but they are a symbol of a political class who thinks they are entitled to lavish benefits regardless of the well-being of their constituents.

Examiner Columnist Marta Mossburg is a senior fellow with the Maryland Public Policy Institute and lives in Baltimore.