Mayor de Blasio and City Councilmembers could get fat raises now that a de-Blasio appointed panel has weighed in on the side of stuffing their pockets further. Those politicians, as well as the city's borough presidents and district attorneys, have not gotten raises since 2006, in part because of the traditional mayoral reluctance to appoint the panel that by law is supposed to consider the raises once every four years. De Blasio has said he won't accept a raise during his first term, and now his commission has come back with a report [pdf] recommending that he get one, from $225,000 to $258,750.

Other recommendations included $185,000 to $209,050 for the comptroller, $165,000 to $184,800 for the public advocate, $160,000 to $179,000 for the borough presidents, and $190,000 to $212,800 for the district attorneys. Councilmembers got recommended raises from $112,500 to $138,315, contingent on them being reclassified as full-time workers so that they give up potentially corrupting outside jobs, and ending the system of "lulu" bonuses for chairing committees. The $26,000 boost for the Council is a far cry from the new $192,500 some members allegedly planned to ask for.

For comparison, the median household income in New York City is $52,259, a number that has barely risen since the economic crisis began in 2008. The average New Yorker currently makes just $32,000. A New York cop makes $76,600 after five years on the job, while a New York public school teacher makes somewhere between $50,812 and $63,534

Begrudging public officials their salaries has a proud tradition in this country, as the report explains in the course of its flowery job performance review:

There always has been a powerful, visceral feeling that government officials should not be paid too much. Indeed, in 1787, in Philadelphia at the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin argued that the president and other federal elected officials should be paid nothing because paying them would combine "ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money." And to make "posts of honor places of profit" would "sow the seeds of contention, faction and tumult." Finally, Franklin argued that "the pleasure of doing good and serving their country, and the respect such conduct entitles them to, are sufficient motives to give up a great portion of their time to the public without the mean inducement of pecuniary satisfaction."

Compensation for all the relevant city officials except Councilmembers and DAs has decreased since 1983, if you factor in inflation, according to the report.

Bizarrely, the report's authors argue that in addition to 2006-level salaries going a shorter distance in 2015, increased wealth inequality and housing costs constitute new job responsibilities for politicians that should justify giving them raises. Executive pay increases in the private sector, the authors explain in another confusing comparison, have wildly eclipsed wage boosts for rank-and-file workers, whereas in the city payroll, the landscape is much flatter, with the mayor making merely 8.7 times the salary of the lowest-paid municipal union employee. Thus, the gap should be expanded at the top end?

"Like ordinary citizens, [city officials] should get raises from time to time," one section of the report concludes. "But they never can, or will, be paid what they are 'worth.'"

Any raises must be ratified by the Council. Dick Dadey, director of the good-government group Citizens Union, called the report a "commendable treatise" and said the group supports tying Council raises to getting rid of lulu stipends, which can run as much as $25,000 a year.

Dadey also implored the Council to delay all raises until 2018, after the current term, to lessen the conflict of interest. A Citizens Union survey found that 37 of the 51 Councilmembers and de Blasio support avoiding raises for the current term. Most Councilmembers do not currently have outside jobs.