Posted on 05/20/2009 1:27:21 PM PDT by freespirited
A state panel this morning slashed the salaries of elected state officials by 18% -- a day after voters rejected a plan by the governor and Legislature to address the budget crisis.
Citing pay cuts and layoffs being imposed on rank-and-file state workers, the California Citizens Compensation Commission approved the reduction for the governor, legislators and other state officials elected next year.
"I think they should share in the sacrifices that everyone else has had to encounter," said Commissioner Kathy Sands, a former Auburn mayor, after the panel's 5-1 vote at a meeting in Burbank.
The commission had wanted to decrease current officials' pay, but the panel's attorney said California law does not allow that.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I can see why the LAO didn't use 1998 or 1999.
Since it was created after the 1990 election, the commission has increased the base salary of rank-and-file legislators by nearly two-and-a-half fold: from $ 40,800 to $ 99,000. It is the highest base pay for state legislators in the nation.So this pay decrease will take salaries back to below 1999 levels.
Do you mean balancing the budget?
The same thing anybody who's been to school understands: not allocating more expenses than the expected tax revenues. The myriad ways this requirement can be circumvented can be found by any one who cares to look at the record of the last 15 years.
To state the obvious, if violation of this Constitutional control were not a routine event, we would not be $21Billion in the hole!
If so, I will point out that it is the Governor’s responsibility to propose the budget and to approve the budget and he is given line-item-veto power to accomplish it.
Although there might be another explanation, I will simply say, masterful job of dissimulation.
Yes, the Governor makes up the budget, but he can't pass it until the legislature sends it back. Further, he is required to make the budget based on input from all the recipients of budget funds, with absolutely no control or requirement that the numbers provided not be fraudulent.
To make matters worse, the legislature has contol of the form and content of the information provided to the Governor.
So, what's doing their job?
At the very least, sending the budget back to the governor in the time the Constitution requires. If that has actually happened, even once in the last 25 years, I am unaware of it.
I must confess ignorance of the extent or limitation of the line item veto, but judging from some "facts" provided in this thread so far (such as the "this decade" fraud) I will have to look for myself. Half truths are as effective as lies every time!
ROFL! Yeah... he's just a poor victim. Now that is funny! Perhaps that line item veto could be used if he were truly interested in honesty. Nope -- won't happen. He's complicit in the crime.
Check out the LAO assessment of his latest criminal proposal: irresponsible borrowing, more deferrals, more confiscating of taxpayer money, more smoke and mirrors.
At the very least, sending the budget back to the governor in the time the Constitution requires. If that has actually happened, even once in the last 25 years, I am unaware of it.
Yeah -- you seem to be unaware of quite a bit.
Apparently it escaped you that the 2009-10 budget was actually enacted in February, months ahead of schedule. Was it a piece of garbage? YES. As they always are.
I must confess ignorance of the extent or limitation of the line item veto
Knowledge is a wonderful thing.
such as the "this decade" fraud
What absolute cr@p. I was referencing an LAO report and what I posted was fact, as they published. I was unaware, and the LAO did not report, what happened the decade before.
Two "labor" seats, and...
"The 'major corporation executive' seat is vacant (wasn't it Gomer who used to exclaim, "Surprise, surprise!").
On a quick look evaluation, it appeaers we have another "Commission" clearly skewed to favor the Tax & Spend policies of Sacramento, the public employee unions and our pathetic loser of a Governor.
Suspicions confirmed, I dare say...
If the salaries and benefits of the legislature were anywhere near those of the public safety workers in the administration (i.e. extremely overpaid), I would be in favor of a cut. But, I don’t think their salaries are above the level one would expect for a competent legislator in California (as long as they keep the full time legislature.) We need to get some good strong folks elected to fix the problems in California and I don’t see whacking their salaries to help that cause. Also, I think those conservative legislators that have been up there working as warriors to hold back the liberals from passing even worse laws are doing a GOOD job and exactly what we want them to do. Instead, folks on this thread are reveling in their punishment.
All that being said, I actually think this action was unconstitutional. There are three criteria listed in the Constitution that the commission is to consider in setting salary and benefits. NONE of those criteria provide for consideration of a) the State’s fiscal position or b) individual or collective job performance. But... I doubt any legislator will have the cojones to challenge it. Instead, we find the limelight/publicity-seeking turds like Maldonado volunteering to take the cut.
I could have been clearer. My comments had more to do with the makeup of the Commission than anything else (typical gaggle formed by the politicos to provide cover for actions for which they don't want to be blamed).
Which is why I find it amazing this Commission didn't raise the salaries.
That does it.
If the 2009-2010 budget was enacted in February, why are we having this conversation? Why were Props 1A-1E "necessary?"
Do you know the definition of "enacted?"
I'm done with the word games and the totally useless sophistry.
Have a nice day.
Don’t get all huffy just because you weren’t familiar with the details.
After passage of the 2008-09 budget last summer, it was determined that revenue was not adequate to sustain the authorized spending levels. A “fiscal emergency” was declared which forced the legislature into a special session. During that process, they decided to tackle changes to the 2008-09 budget and pass the 2008-09 budget at the same time. That budget was passed, including tax increases that covered both of those budget years. When they talk about “$42 billion deficits,” that is a 2-year number. What was on the ballot (prop 1A/1B) was the extension of those taxes into the following years (2010-2012) and required voter approval, as did the raiding of previously voter directed funds (Prop 1D/1E) and borrowing associated with the state lottery (Prop 1C). The budget had assumed successful passage of those measures. Since they did not pass, they will have to go back in and revise the budget.
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/11522/
02/20/09
Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Budget to Move California Forward
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/11510/
02/19/09
Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on the Passage of Historic Budget Package that Solves California’s $42 Billion Deficit
During that process, they decided to tackle changes to the 2008-09 budget and pass the2008-092009-10 budget at the same time.
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.