The Orange County Register has an excruciatingly well-researched front page story today about how members of the California Legislature use (or abuse depending upon your outlook) so called away from home "per diem" tax-free payments that are intended to defray expenses of being away from their main homes, (presumably in their legislative districts) while tending to state business in Sacramento.  One of the starkest examples provided was that of millionaire Orange County Congressman John Campbell.  Campbell has a mansion in Irvine.  But according to the report by reporters Brian Joseph and Molly Zisk, while in the state legislature Campbell charged the taxpayers $167,070 in addition to his salary, for away from home "per diem" expenses.  In this five-year period, he purchased a home in the Sacramento suburbs for $300,000.  He paid cash for the home.  When he was elected to Congress, he sold the home for $665,000.  The Register article claims Campbell tripled his personal investment by leveraging tax-free taxpayer supported per diem payments.  My friend John Coupal of HJTA, when pressed by reporters, apparently didn’t want to criticize his friend John Campbell, and called the transaction "prudent investment."  I think Jon won’t mind if I express my own opinion of the "elephant in the room" reality.  Why does John Campbell, who is a millionaire, lives in a mansion, and has campaigned for fiscal integrity, need per diem?

   The Register suggests that legislators can manipulate conflicting state and Federal laws to grab extra tax free money for per diems by claiming to have a residence in the district for state legislative per diem purposes but perhaps claiming a primary residence in the Sacramento area for tax purposes.  Another example used is that of Assemblyman Van Tran, who has a home in the Sacramento area but claims residence at his parents home in Westminster for per diem purposes.

   Van Tran has a family to support.  His lovely two children need to go to school and also be near their parents.  The Legislature makes demands that require Van be in Sacramento most of the work week.  In the current system of a so-called "full-time" legislature, middle-class legislators who are not millionaires cannot look at the per diem system as an investment opportunity.  Rather, it is a necessity for keeping their families together.  Some legislators can get away with bunking together in rental apartments, but those with children to raise are really confronted with bad choices under the current system, which is perhaps emblematic of California’s famously so-called "dysfunction."

   I believe the answer is not to take the per diem away.  I also think the answer is not to blame legislators who actually need the money for taking the per diem.  Rather, I think the answer is to make the California Legislature a truly part-time legislature.  Then legislators could spend most of their time in their districts and would be less reliant on per diem and have less need for moving their families.  Polls indicate a majority of Californians favor a part-time legislature, which offers a solution to California’s dysfunction by having less, not more, of permanent Democrat control evident in the Capitol.  An initiative intended to force a statewide vote on a part-time legislature sadly just failed to qualify for the ballot a couple months ago.  However, a new initiative is in circulation to force a vote on the November ballot.  The deadline for collecting signatures is March 29, 2010, and the proponent is Gabriela Holt, of Los Angeles County.  About 700,000 signatures are required.  My friend Jon Coupal has written that "changes are in order" to the current full-time system of the California Legislature.  I agree, and I suspect HJTA will be in the forefront of that reform when it is on the ballot.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 21st, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.