A commission has recommended pay raises for state elected officials in Oregon. Some of the recommendations make sense, even though the overall rationale is weak.

The panel wants judges, legislators and statewide elected officials to get substantial raises in 2009, and their main reason is to bring their compensation in line with their counterparts in other states.

The governor makes $93,600 now, and for the chief executive of an enterprise with 50,000 or more workers, that's low. But other states have nothing to do with it. What do we care what Arizona or Nevada pay?

Legislators now get paid just under $20,000 in base salary plus expenses when in session or attending committee meetings. They should get more money because it's a full-time job, and families can't very well live on that. But again, the current pay is too low regardless of what goes on in other states.

Setting salaries for elected officials is hard because there's no economic way to settle on an amount. Wages in those offices have no link to the amount the enterprise earns. (They don't in mega-corporations either, where the principals often get raises even when their enterprise is about to go broke.)

In public positions the guiding principle should be: Make the compensation high enough so someone can live on the money, but not so high that people seek office because of what they would earn if they win.

The one thing that should not matter is what other states pay. If would-be elected officials are interested in the pay of Washington or California, that's where they should move. (hh)