Why do people keep coming back with this dumb idea that if a budget is not passed on time, legislators should not be paid?
This kind of proposal presupposes that a bad budget is better than a late budget.
I obviously look at ideas like this through the prism of a conservative — but if I have like-minded legislators in Sacramento who are holding out against a bad budget (a myriad of things, like tax increases, could be what makes a budget "bad"), why would I want them to get pressured into voting for it by preventing them from paying their mortgage or rent?
These kinds of "sounds good" proposals aren’t going to solve our problem in Sacramento.
The reality is that the biggest problem that we have in the State Capitol is not structural, it is ideological. For decades now, liberal Democrats have been in charge of the State Legislature and they have over-spent us into oblivion.
The "reform" we need is pretty obvious – Republican majorities!
March 11th, 2010 at 12:00 am
A budget not passing on time costs the state millions of dollars because of the states financial ratings.
This is not a liberal or conservative proposal. You could just as easily argue that the majority would be penalized because they were spending too much to get the votes they needed. You could argue it either way.
I also would have thought conservatives would respect the fact that the Speaker was trying to move beyond the current system where a Sacramento Bank makes 0% interest loans to legislators for exactly the amount of their paychecks, so that legislators don’t suffer any of the pain average taxpayers suffer when they can’t pass a budget on time.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Flash Report has little interest in a part time legislature to take lobbying money out of politics as well as eliminate career politicans jumping from one house to another or electing their incompetent spawn once their days are numbered.
We have a spending problem. We have a leadership problem….we need a Patton solution…part time legislature…..
We got spirit how bout you?