California Votes No!

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
Last time this happened Ronald Reagan rode the bandwagon and became President of the United States. Could this backlash against liberalism be happening again? :)


ANALYSIS
California voters exercise their power -- and that's the problem
Residents relish their role in the lawmaking process, but they share the blame for the state's severe dysfunction.
By Michael Finnegan
May 20, 2009
Californians are well known for periodic voter revolts, but on Tuesday they did more than just lash out at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature over the state's fiscal debacle.

By rejecting five budget measures, Californians also brought into stark relief the fact that they, too, share blame for the political dysfunction that has brought California to the brink of insolvency.
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-analysis20-2009may20,0,5578614.story
 
LOL

I voted No on all of them except Prop 1F, Proposition 1F, which prevents lawmakers from getting a pay raise when the state has a budget deficit. The proposition passed easily and early.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-officials-paycut21-2009may21,0,5100372.story

A state panel this morning slashed the salaries of the governor, legislators and other elected state officials by 18% -- a day after voters rejected a plan by the leaders to address the budget crisis. The cut will apply to officials elected next year.

Citing pay decreases and layoffs being imposed on rank-and-file state workers, the California Citizens Compensation Commission approved the reduction, which also applies to the state attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, controller, insurance commissioner, treasurer, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and members of the Board of Equalization.

But state Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), who will be termed out of the Legislature next year, called the decrease "excessive" and "punitive" and said it may discourage some people from running for state office. :crybaby:

Schwarzenegger is entitled to an annual salary of $212,000. The next governor will receive $173,840, which would no longer be the largest paycheck for a governor in the country. The current No. 2 in pay is the governor of New York, who receives $179,000.

Most state legislators currently are paid $116,208 annually in salary and $35,000 in per diem living expenses. The 100 lawmakers who will be elected in November of next year will receive the same per diem, but a salary of $95,291. Legislative leaders make more.

Even with the pay cut, California lawmakers will be the country's highest-paid. The next best compensated are in Michigan, which pays legislators $79,650.
 
webbway said:
LOL

I voted No on all of them except Prop 1F, Proposition 1F, which prevents lawmakers from getting a pay raise when the state has a budget deficit. The proposition passed easily and early.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-officials-paycut21-2009may21,0,5100372.story

A state panel this morning slashed the salaries of the governor, legislators and other elected state officials by 18% -- a day after voters rejected a plan by the leaders to address the budget crisis. The cut will apply to officials elected next year.

Citing pay decreases and layoffs being imposed on rank-and-file state workers, the California Citizens Compensation Commission approved the reduction, which also applies to the state attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, controller, insurance commissioner, treasurer, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and members of the Board of Equalization.

But state Sen. Denise Moreno Ducheny (D-San Diego), who will be termed out of the Legislature next year, called the decrease "excessive" and "punitive" and said it may discourage some people from running for state office. :crybaby:

Schwarzenegger is entitled to an annual salary of $212,000. The next governor will receive $173,840, which would no longer be the largest paycheck for a governor in the country. The current No. 2 in pay is the governor of New York, who receives $179,000.

Most state legislators currently are paid $116,208 annually in salary and $35,000 in per diem living expenses. The 100 lawmakers who will be elected in November of next year will receive the same per diem, but a salary of $95,291. Legislative leaders make more.

Even with the pay cut, California lawmakers will be the country's highest-paid. The next best compensated are in Michigan, which pays legislators $79,650.
Click to expand...
Damn. In CO we pay legislators squat. It's considered a "part time" position and you get about 35K per year...
 
Damocles said:
Damn. In CO we pay legislators squat. It's considered a "part time" position and you get about 35K per year...
Click to expand...

Same here in Ohio. Prevents professional politicians from corrupting the system. We end up with more professional and business types in our State Legislature then carreer politicians.
 
Mottleydude said:
Same here in Ohio. Prevents professional politicians from corrupting the system. We end up with more professional and business types in our State Legislature then carreer politicians.
Click to expand...
It is prohibitive to people who don't own their own businesses and are unlikely to be able to afford the loss in wages as no job gives you all that time off to legislate and then allows you to return. Suddenly you go to only 35K per year, if you don't own a business most people who are qualified are unlikely to be able to afford it.

I'd prefer a compromise. Say twice that amount and call it a full time job, expect them to be at their office or accessible the year round, they can use the time when not in session to research, work on writing laws that don't suck as much, and answering to their constituency for the decisions they made.
 
Damocles said:
Damn. In CO we pay legislators squat. It's considered a "part time" position and you get about 35K per year...
Click to expand...

California is a much bigger state. They meet in one continuous session for two years. Without the pay, only rich members would be able to shoulder the financial burden.
 
In New Hampshire, where members of the house of represenatives receive literally 100 dollars a year, the average age of a legislator is into the 60's. Almost all of them are retired seniors.
 
Ours is part time and dominated by teachers. Consequently, any substantial reforms of education in our state are DOA in the legislature.
 
Watermark said:
California is a much bigger state. They meet in one continuous session for two years. Without the pay, only rich members would be able to shoulder the financial burden.
Click to expand...
Which is one of the negatives here, only rich people can shoulder that burden. While it is considered "part time", in reality nobody holds a regular job and is in the state House or Senate.

Read a bit further and you will see I expressed that. It still doesn't mean that they need to be paid as much or more than the Federal Congress.
 
No, the backlash is against overspending and not taxing for it!

Californians wanted things on the cheap and you got it. I hope America looks to their failure in this area.

When you were willing to pay taxes you were the greatest thing going, advances in all areas, education, medicine, agriculture, but now, you California is just sad. The conservatives got to her!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top