Give them their checks.

State lawmakers should get paid regardless of whether the budget is on-time. Now that they’ve passed two consecutive budgets by the April 1 deadline, it’s time to eliminate the silly and ineffective gimmick of withholding lawmakers’ paychecks until they approve a spending plan.

After 14 consecutive late budgets, Governor Pataki offered lawmakers a deal in 1998: They could have a 38% pay raise – but only if they agreed to put their checks on ice when the budget is late. Theoretically, this would give lawmakers an incentive to pass a budget on time.

The idea was a colossal failure. The budget began coming in later and later. By 2001, the third year of this no-pay plan, the state almost didn’t pass a budget at all. Only the September 11th terrorist attacks prompted a final spending plan.

Part of the problem was press scrutiny. When April 1st hit, reporters would dutifully report on the financial pressure suddenly facing lawmakers who were about to go without pay. That simply provided lawmakers with the opportunity to achieve mini-martyrdom – by trying to prove they’d hold out and do the right thing rather than cave in for a paycheck.

Behind the scenes, some lawmakers were scrambling. Legislative leaders sometimes helped arrange short-term loans to help lawmakers short on cash bridge the period between April 1 and the eventual budget. This was also a risk-free chance for banks to help lawmakers, because the paychecks were still being earned even when they weren’t being handed out.

But plenty of lawmakers didn’t have any trouble getting by without their paychecks because Albany work is very much a part-time job – just 63 days over five months. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver has a lucrative law practice and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno does quite well in private business. They have little immediate need for their legislative pay but have all the control during budget season. Why should 210 lawmakers with little influence have to suffer while the top two lawmakers dilly-dally?

Eliminating the no-pay-without-a-budget provision would have been politically impossible during the era of late budgets. And eliminating the provision last year after just a single on-time budget would have been embarrassingly self-congratulatory. Now that lawmakers have two on-time budgets under their belts, they should seize the opportunity for normalcy.

Restoring their paychecks even when the budget is past due is just a start. Lawmakers should end the charade of periodically haggling for raises by giving themselves annual cost-of-living increases – thus freeing the thorny issues of legislative salaries from the general political process.

A new round of raises this year is tied to the tangentially related issue of pay raises for judges and the entirely unrelated issue of charter schools. There is unfortunate precedent for this bundling of unrelated topics. Lawmakers deserve the same annual raises other state workers expect, and unrelated topics deserve independent consideration.

For now, we are where we are – and for this year at least, tradition governs. And that tradition brings us back to 1998. Lawmakers received the governor’s blessing for a 38% raise in exchange for approving a limited number much-needed charter schools. The state’s needs for a new round of charter schools could once again wind up winning lawmakers more money.

Any consideration of legislative pay must go beyond raising the $79,500 base salary all 212 lawmakers receive. Most also earn additional pay known as “lulus” – ranging from $8,000 to $43,000 – for committee and leadership roles. Also, lawmakers receive a $143 per diem for food and lodging each night they’re in Albany, even if lobbyists pay for the meals and they stay in $55-anight motels.

Along with granting themselves raises, lawmakers should switch to a corporate-style reimbursement system that pays them back for money they actually spend. Instead of receiving lump-sum per diems regardless of their actual costs, lawmakers should submit receipts for their food and their lodging up to a $143 limit. There is no reason taxpayers should subsidize tax-free bonuses for lawmakers who pocket a good chunk of their overnight grant.

The budget is now passed but not yet done. Lawmakers approved the spending plan a week ago, and Governor Pataki is using his ten-day veto period to negotiate changes with Messrs. Bruno and Silver. Even as these negotiations enter their final days, we still don’t know how much the budget will actually cost. The Assembly, Senate and governor each has a different estimate ranging from $112 to $115 billion. State Comptroller Alan Hevesi has already certified the budget in order to free up lawmakers’ paychecks. The least he can do is give us a price-tag.

Over the next few months, we’ll probably hear a lot more talk about how much lawmakers earn. In all likelihood, though, there won’t be a final resolution until after all 212 lawmakers face re-election in November – because it’s politically more palatable to give themselves raises two years before the next election rather than just months before they face voters.

This is too bad. Lawmakers should pledge now to make a decision on raises before the election. Simply putting off the issue for a special session in the fall is as much a gimmick as going without pay while the budget is late. Lawmakers deserve their salaries even when they can’t agree on a budget. And voters deserve to know what their representatives will earn before election day.

Mr. Goldin’s column appears regularly.