Many of us over a certain age will be seeing a little more in our Social Security checks beginning in January after the powers-that-be in Washington decided we’d see just a 2.8% cost of living increase.

For the average recipient, that works out to about $56 a month, before any deductions for Medicare Part B coverage, which total almost $18 monthly, effectively reducing the average increase to a whopping $38.

And by the time the first of those dollars start dropping into the pockets of our elderly, Pennsylvania’s 253 lawmakers will have received a month’s worth of a 3.25% COLA increase just because they’re in office.

It’s nothing the majority of current officeholders voted for themselves. But they’re the beneficiaries of a 1990s law that quietly adjusts their pay — without a recorded vote.

The numbers really aren’t that complicated. The base salary for each of the state House and Senate members will be $113,591 in 2026, up from $110,015 in 2025. Monthly, that breaks down to about $9,500.

From January forward, the average Social Security recipient in Pennsylvania will receive approximately $1,905.

So the people who write the state’s laws will draw a bigger percentage increase than the retirees who depend on federal benefits to buy groceries and medicine.

Complicating matters is that the state has one of the biggest and thus pricier legislatures. Our 253 General Assembly members make it one of the largest full-time legislative bodies in the country. Only a few states have more seats, and they tend to be part-time and lower paying positions.

Its sheer size magnifies every decision.

Think about it.

A 3.25% raise applied to 253 people making six-figure salaries — plus leadership stipends, staff and benefits — turns into millions of dollars in added costs year after year.

These are the same folks who took 135 days — nearly five months — to agree on a budget, making their pay harder to justify to families being told to tighten their belts.

But, as they say in the infomercials, there’s more.

Each of those lawmakers is entitled to a per-diem rate of approximately $225 a day for lodging and meals, with no receipts required.

Some don’t take that offer, choosing instead to submit actual expenses, a common practice in private business.

Some use a state-owned car, while others choose to take mileage reimbursements at the federally approved rate of 70 cents per mile.

For some members, those per diems can add tens of thousands of dollars on top of their salaries over a two-year session.

Those payments don’t show up as taxable wages, so they’re easy to underestimate when talking about what public service really pays.

To their credit, current officeholders are only doing what their predecessors approved in the 1990s. Back then, lawmakers tied their own raises to a federal index and removed the political pain of voting themselves pay increases.

Since then, salaries have inched upward, with the only dip coming in 2020 when lawmakers froze their salaries during the COVID pandemic.

In between, some legislators have tried to end — or at least soften — the automatic increases. Their efforts, however, have gone nowhere in an environment that benefits from doing nothing about an issue.

I’m not saying that lawmakers should work for poverty-level wages. Decent, reasonable pay scales might open opportunities for and encourage those who might decide to seek office.

But there’s a difference between reasonable and insulated. If retirees have to live with 2.8% COLAs, why can’t legislators who’ve been getting salary hikes automatically?

A few things might be done by lawmakers to equalize the situation.

First, tie the COLAs to Social Security. If our seniors have to live with 2.8%, why should lawmakers get more?

Also, maybe we can end the flat-rate per diems. Make receipts mandatory and limit any reimbursements to federal travel rates.

How about shrinking the size of the House? It would require a constitutional change, but could gradually reduce the number of representatives over several voting cycles. Salaries, benefits and staff costs would be a lot lower.

Perhaps we might go back to the pre-1990 situation where there would be no automatic raises and lawmakers would be forced to debate and approve any pay increases.

Are these things possible? Maybe. Are they probable? Maybe not.

The gap of income equality between the Capitol and the state’s elderly can’t be ignored — especially as the aging population is expected to increase in the coming years.

Serving that population should be considered an honor, not a taxpayer-funded privilege.

ED SOCHA | tneditor@tnonline.com

Ed Socha is a retired newspaper editor with more than 40 years’ experience in community journalism.