Posted on 01/16/2004 7:09:18 AM PST by John Jorsett
SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has repeatedly stressed that all Californians must pitch in to help solve the state budget crisis, has spared his own office and the Legislature from any fiscal pain for now.
In his proposed 2004-05 budget, Schwarzenegger does not cut his office's annual operating budget, freezing spending at $6.1 million. He wants to retain 86 employees – the same amount budgeted during the last two fiscal years under former Gov. Gray Davis.
The world-famous movie star is forgoing his gubernatorial salary of $175,000.
Schwarzenegger decided against challenging the Legislature's spending, offering lawmakers $215 million – a 4.5 percent increase from their current $205.7 million.
Administration officials said they are mandated by a voter-approved initiative to build in an increase for the Legislature, but critics say that provision sets a cap, not a guarantee.
Meanwhile, legislators will enjoy a long weekend to honor Martin Luther King Jr. Day without giving up daily expense money. By juggling schedules, lawmakers will still qualify for tax-free per diem checks that could cost taxpayers as much as $15,000 a day.
Schwarzenegger's budget plan proposes cuts in benefits for the blind, elderly and disabled. He wants to hike college fees. His budget would reduce the number of poor children who qualify for subsidized health insurance.
"There are certain things you have to do in terms of sacrifices you have to make. It's that simple," Schwarzenegger said Jan. 9 in unveiling his plan to close the $14 billion budget gap.
Administration and legislative officials described the Legislature's budget as a placeholder that would be fleshed out in negotiations.
"There are core functions of the governor's office that have to be maintained," said Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, in defending the decision not to make cuts. "There hasn't been growth in the governor's budget for the past few years."
Critics in the past have noted that the number of employees funded in the governor's budget – 86 – has not represented a true count. Davis routinely borrowed staff positions from other state offices to bolster his own team without adding to payroll.
Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, said the lower house will trim its spending by about $8 million this year – money to be returned to the general fund.
"It's important to take the lead and let people know we're going to tighten our belts," said Nation, who oversees Assembly spending.
Assemblyman Fabian Nunez, who will take over as Assembly speaker next month, defended the opening budget proposal.
"Our ability to solve the state's problems requires us to do things we haven't done in the past: more research, more qualified staff," said Nunez, D-Los Angeles.
Lewis Uhler, an anti-tax advocate and a leading critic of state spending, said it's disingenuous to authorize more spending, roll back some of the increase later and then sell it as austerity.
"It's articulated as a cut, but it's actually just a decrease in an increase," he said.
The largest proposed increase for the Legislature involves staff salaries and benefits. The Assembly's payroll could go up $4.6 million; the Senate's, $2.2 million.
As for the per diem, lawmakers are guaranteed expense money as long as they are not out of session for more than three consecutive days. The $125 per day is intended to cover the cost of maintaining two households.
Legislators usually do not meet Fridays. But they would lose their entire weekend's expense checks by taking off today and Monday. To keep the money flowing, legislative leaders declared special "check-in" sessions for today. As long as a majority of both houses checks in, all of the members will qualify for the expense money.
Lawmakers say it's unfair to criticize them because expenses continue even during long weekends. Many spend the break conducting legislative business in their home districts. Not including per diem checks, legislators are paid $99,000 a year.
Note: borrowed the positions, not the warm bodies. They all got their jobs to work for Davis full time.
The Los Angeles Times, Mar 08, 2003, published an article about Gov. Davis' staff. The article was written by Evan Halper, Times Staff Writer and is posted at
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/nw/nw003179.php3
"The Department of Child Support Services funds the $38,000 salary of the governor's "body man" -- an assistant who keeps the governor on schedule." [end excerpt]
The article is about what most knew. Davis' staff worked for Davis but were "employed" by the various state agencies. Beyond that (from another source)
"A California governor has power over 2,700 appointed jobs. Only 240 are currently open, but upon taking office Schwarzenegger can replace 1,400 employees who serve at the governor’s discretion."
Many of these are the hundreds of boards and commissions that are IMO little more than unemployment insurance for political hacks. In Davis' case many were expected to work for the governor.
If these 2,700 "jobs" are not substantially eliminated I am not likely to vote for the bond.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.