Editor’s note: Dan Logue is such a grandstander he might as well have built a car in the Nevada City Soapbox Derby and then bragged about it in the newspaper. (How much of that money will actually wind up improving Pioneer Park, though?) In Sacramento politics, it was a Democrat, state Controller John Chiang, who decided California lawmakers must forfeit their pay until they pass a balanced budget. While much of the pundits have focused on the Democrats, I wonder if Chiang will force the Republican lawmakers to get off the “No” pot and do something. It reflects that a growing number of Californians are independent minded voters, registered as DTS, who swing the elections. They’ll applaud this and Chiang and Jerry Brown know it. Good going John Chiang!
“Adding a fresh twist to the California budget saga, California lawmakers must forfeit their pay from June 15 until they pass a balanced budget, a state official ruled Tuesday.
“The decision by state Controller John Chiang (D) was a first test of November’s voter-approved Proposition 25, which mandates that state legislators pass a balanced budget by June 15 or lose their pay for each day of delay.
“In fact, the Democrat-controlled Legislature did pass a budget by the June 15 deadline – the first on-time state budget in 25 years. But Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed it, saying it was filled with gimmicks
“Controller Chiang in effect agreed Tuesday, saying the budget did not balance expenditures and revenues and therefore did not meet the requirements of Prop. 25.
“Several political analysts say Chiang made the harder of two choices, alientating his fellow Democrats and putting political pressure squarely on them.
“’John Chiang made a gutsy but popular decision today,’ says Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies. ‘He recognized that this budget really wasn’t balanced and was only strung together to meet the deadline
‘He will not be a welcome guest in the Capitol, but most of the state will applaud this move since most Californians don’t believe the legislators should be paid for anything they do.
“The decision is sure to face a legal challenge from Democratic lawmakers, who say the law does not adequately define a ‘balanced budget.’
The rest of the article is here.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Yeah, ain’t it grand?
Kate
Good for John Chiang! He’s a smart guy and I believe he is doing what he believes the voters intended. I think anything that will force the two sides to work together, and no paychecks until the job is done is a good “anything”, is going to get us a better, more realistic budget, faster. Maybe we will finally see the Republicans something done on the revenue side.
I don’t wanna rain on anyone’s parade (ice, too close to Ronnie’s Trickle Down BS), but it would not surprise me one bit if the uber rich would bail any republican out if they were in dire financial conditions due to the hold up of paychecks. If the person has an account with a credit union (thinking Golden One) they might spot them the bucks like the do often with State Employees when paychecks have been held up. It does make for great press, though, and that is the real battle.
I also wonder if a legislator or group of them will sue Chiang’s office for back salary and challenge his interpretation. I support Chiang’s position, but also think there are those who will challange him.
I think not Dave. They certainly could–its a free country…but would be ill-advised to do so…Chiangs words, but smart ones.Kate
I am not so sure this is a good law. In the short term it may push a budget through, but what about the long term.
How many of us can afford to forfeit pay? Will it encourage reps to force decisions based on what’s best from them and their family rather than CA?
Will it discourage good people from running for office?
This law seems to be about punishing people in office and then expecting good results. Tthis law is more an expression of our anger than a solution to the problem.
Tim,
There is a bit of irony here: The pay provision was the sweetener added to Prop 25 to make sure that it passed so the Democrats could pass a budget with a majority vote. I am also opposed to cutting their pay for the reasons that you outlined.
Now the Democrats have to live with the results, AND the unexpected passage of Prop 26 that took away their ability to raise taxes if they did not call them “fees.” I think this one managed to pass because the folks that opposed it in the past were so busy making sure that they stopped Prop 23.
John
Here’s what Barry Pruett writes on his “revived” blog. Barry thinks the problem is only limited to Democrats. This is funny and sad at the same time.
“The Democrats in California need to move from their extreme leftist position and agree to maintain our current tax levels. California, much like the United States federal government, has a spending addiction. Politicians spend on their pet projects in order to get votes. If you support more spending, you inadvertently support the status quo and government corruption.
In order to remove corruption from government, we have to take the money away from the politicians…it really is that simple.”
Just more of the same… all from a guy that has tried awfully hard to become a politician (in multiple states).
The perpetrators become the party of no, and play to the fears of the populace. Watch clips of ‘ol Newt and the boys in ’94, this is straight from the playbook. Then when we get a guy like Brown (and Obama, to some degree) actually making the tough calls and attempting a salvage job of the loser’s creation, similar to what Clinton faced, and then they obstruct.
It won’t work – or it will, and we are all (more) screwed.
And as for his ‘blog’ – really? First off, the name – ‘Inside Nevada County Politics’ ?!? WHAT?
from someone who hasn’t held office or worked in any aspect of the system?
who affiliates with only the disenfranchised?
As far as I can tell, the closest he’s come to actual experience in elected office is being married to a staffer of one of the biggest partisan tools in the House, as counsel to multiple companies engaged in specious lawsuits involving millions in public funds, and failed attempts at toppling popularly elected officials through an endless stream of personal attacks… and losing spectacularly.
Funny that he hasn’t even answered George’s softball from days ago re: McClintock’s theory o’ abundance on the water issue. I bet it’s because he can’t. I looked on the OC carpetbagger’s own site, and could not disseminate actual policy theory through the rhetoric.
And the funny part is, I don’t think the Dems are all that great either, these poseurs just beat ‘em to the bottom.
J Cutter,
You wrote: “And the funny part is, I don’t think the Dems are all that great either, these poseurs just beat ‘em to the bottom.” Well said.
The only thing “simple” that I can detect is Barry…hey, I thought Pruett might have been on the “half-governor, half-nation, half-wit bus tour with Brayin”…how ever did it go so wrong?….ah, heck, blame it on the wine kewlers…Kate