How do you feel about the Governors threats! (Sacramento, August: appointed, bad credit)

[Fighter 1]

Should the State employee's pay be cut or should the people that are responsiable for the budget (that is 23 day's late) have their pay cut . Aren't they the ones that are not doing their job? What do you think! Also shouldn't the Governors pay be cut , he hasen't done his job either he is in charge of those employee's ?

[NewToCA]

He is in a tough spot, the Legislature hasn't passed a budget that is now over 20 days overdue. They seem to have no urgency to do so, and he is trying to get them motivated.

Right now it appears that the Democrats have drawn the line on spending cuts, while the Republicans have drawn the line on tax increases. Something has to give in a compromise between the two parties.

My understanding is the State Treasurer will continue full payments through August, so perhaps a compromise can be worked out by the end of next month.

Also, from today's Sacramento Bee:

ARE LEGISLATORS GETTING PAID?

• State lawmakers, legislative staff, constitutional officers and their appointed staff don't get paid at all until a budget is in place. They recover those missed paychecks and per diems as soon as a spending plan passes.

[Kingsnkali]

I don't know what else Arnold can do.

The state is in a sea of red ink. 15.2 billion dollar deficit for this year alone.
We have a bad credit rating on Wall Street. Nobody wants to borrow us any money. We are like a 300 pound welfare queen with 6 kids spending her state welfare check at the casino on the first day of the month.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by Fighter 1

Should the State employee's pay be cut or should the people that are responsiable for the budget (that is 23 day's late) have their pay cut . Aren't they the ones that are not doing their job? What do you think! Also shouldn't the Governors pay be cut , he hasen't done his job either he is in charge of those employee's ?

I believe the Governor's salary is $175K/year. However, he refuses to accept it, so that isn't going to be much of a motivator. The real problem is the buttheads that we have for legislators. This happens almost every year because the system is set up so that the majority party needs a significant number of minority party votes. While this "balance" sounds attractive in concept, it always results in game playing.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by GLS

I believe the Governor's salary is $175K/year. However, he refuses to accept it, so that isn't going to be much of a motivator. The real problem is the buttheads that we have for legislators. This happens almost every year because the system is set up so that the majority party needs a significant number of minority party votes. While this "balance" sounds attractive in concept, it always results in game playing.

That's what I am talking about , do the legislators not get paid to do a job , and if you didn't do your job would you still have it? Your right ,every year it is the same thing . And yes they will not get paid untill they pass the budgetbut that doesn't and shouldn't stop some kind of penalty for failing to get the job done in the required time frame , They were well aware of it . Also it doesn't matter what party they are it all about the JOB THAT THEY GET PAID TO DO ! that they are not doing , it's that simple . If they can't do the job then let some one else do it , no excuses.

[wburg]

The problem is, the job they get paid to do is to represent their district, which to many means representing the political party in their district. Dems don't want to accept budget cuts that will upset their constituents, Reps don't want to accept new taxes that will upset their constituents. And if they upset their constituents, they *will* lose their jobs (in other words, they won't get re-elected.) So yes, to them that takes priority over approving a budget in a timely fashion.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by wburg

The problem is, the job they get paid to do is to represent their district, which to many means representing the political party in their district. Dems don't want to accept budget cuts that will upset their constituents, Reps don't want to accept new taxes that will upset their constituents. And if they upset their constituents, they *will* lose their jobs (in other words, they won't get re-elected.) So yes, to them that takes priority over approving a budget in a timely fashion.

I very well understand their position , that still does not resolve that in representing their constituents they ALL must come up with a budget and as long as we allow them the right to fail with the excuse as you stated they will do this . I say get it done on time ( it's not like they don't know how much time they have!) Can we say that I am sorry I can't pay my taxes because my wife and I disagree on which bill we will pay this month because we don't have that much money this month in OUR Budget??? we need to get real with these people . Yes things are tough now . Yes things need to be handled differantly. ANd yes the BUTHEADS need to go , end af the free ride.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by wburg

The problem is, the job they get paid to do is to represent their district, which to many means representing the political party in their district. Dems don't want to accept budget cuts that will upset their constituents, Reps don't want to accept new taxes that will upset their constituents. And if they upset their constituents, they *will* lose their jobs (in other words, they won't get re-elected.) So yes, to them that takes priority over approving a budget in a timely fashion.

Your analysis of the system is absolutely correct. Therefore, the solution is to change the system so passing the budget becomes more of a priority than "posturing" in an attempt to convince their constituents they are "fighting the good fight". It should be obvious that just delaying their checks is not enough motivation. We need a system in which it is PAINFUL not to pass the budget on time.

While we can certainly debate the specifics of any corrective action plan, here is an example of one I think would work:

1. Days 1 - 30 of a late budget: Legislators lose their pay, and they
don't get it back, even when the budget is passed.
2. Days 31 - 60 of a late budget: Legislators are personally fined $100
per day in addition to permanent loss of pay.
3. Day 61: Legislators are FIRED. A special election is called to replace
them, and they are not elgible to be re-elected for at least 2 years.

I'm sure some people will criticize the above as impractical, and others can come up with a better plan. However, the CONCEPT behind the change is simple. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!If you can't do your job, the voters will find someone who will, and we won't wait until the next election to do it.

[Fighter 1]

Originally Posted by GLS

Your analysis of the system is absolutely correct. Therefore, the solution is to change the system so passing the budget becomes more of a priority than "posturing" in an attempt to convince their constituents they are "fighting the good fight". It should be obvious that just delaying their checks is not enough motivation. We need a system in which it is PAINFUL not to pass the budget on time.

While we can certainly debate the specifics of any corrective action plan, here is an example of one I think would work:

1. Days 1 - 30 of a late budget: Legislators lose their pay, and they
don't get it back, even when the budget is passed.
2. Days 31 - 60 of a late budget: Legislators are personally fined $100
per day in addition to permanent loss of pay.
3. Day 61: Legislators are FIRED. A special election is called to replace
them, and they are not elgible to be re-elected for at least 2 years.

I'm sure some people will criticize the above as impractical, and others can come up with a better plan. However, the CONCEPT behind the change is simple. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way!If you can't do your job, the voters will find someone who will, and we won't wait until the next election to do it.

As I said THANK YOU!!

[wburg]

I've got a much simpler solution.

Require only a simple majority to pass the budget, instead of a two-thirds supermajority.

It will get passed on time every year.