On Wednesday, Governor Schwarzenegger said that he thinks legislators should not be paid when the budget is late. Actually, many people have expressed that sentiment. This session, Republican Senator Jeff Denham carried legislation to do just that (it was soundly defeated in committee).
I actually disagree with the Governor, Senator Denham, and others who advocate this policy. The reason is that it seems to support the notion that any budget, whether good or bad, is better than no budget.
From the perspective of protecting taxpayers, like in this budget year, I don’t want conservative legislators who may not be able to afford skipping paychecks to be forced to choose between paying their mortgage, or voting for a bad budget with a tax increase.
If a proposed budget is bad enough, better to have no budget, I say. Fortunately, our legislators are being paid, so they can keep voting against tax increases until Christmas, if need be.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon,
I would agree in part, and disagree in part.
I agree that a bad budget is worse than no budget. However, everybody knows what the issues for the budget will be in January when the Governor releases his proposed budget (heck, some would say that the budgetary issues for the next year’s budget are known as soon as the previous budget is signed, but I digress). Going beyond the constitutional deadline, and then into the fiscal year without a budget is inexcusable, and needlessly paints everyone in Sacramento (Rep and Dem) as unable, or unwilling, to do their job in a timely manner. Rightly or wrongly, the Reps get stuck with this as well.