Tuesday, April 14, 2009

More on Prop 1F

This just in via the West Coast Libertarians Yahoo Group. The Republican Liberty Caucus of California's recommendation on Prop 1F:
This "feel good" proposition pretends to freeze legislator's salaries, but it does nothing of the sort. It pretends to be an incentive for responsible budget reductions, but it only guarantees more tax increases when legislators insist that they have to spend more. It does nothing to cut legislator salaries, nor those of the exploding state bureaucracy. This is a con game, to top off the shell games and slush funds of the other propositions.
Looks to me like the RLC is doing the same as so many others are in this upcoming special election and lumping all the propositions as a con game to rip of the people of California. I don't understand where they're coming from or why they're saying the prop pretends to freeze legislator's salaries. Maybe they've read something I haven't?

I don't know, but I suspect this is just another anti- Sacramento temper- tantrum rant. We shall see as more information comes out.

I've said before that I think Prop 1F is in a different category than the others. I stand by that, at least for now, but it will be interesting to see what the ballot arguments in the voter information pamphlet says. For now, I'm voting for it.

Labels: , ,


At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Read the Legislative Analyst's commentary and you won't vote yes.

At 2:24 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I'll be reading it as soon as it comes in the mail. In the meantime, if someone had a valid argument against the measure, as opposed to just throwing a temper tantrum against politicians, I would of thought the pertinent section(s) of the Legislative Analysts commentary would be floating around by now. I haven't seen them...yet.

At 2:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred: go here - http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_1F_(May_2009)

Then tag on the links to the intitive, the analysis and the arguments for and against.

I am voting for it!

At 2:52 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Thanks for the link.

What I found the argument included against 1F interesting:

* The $116,208 annual salary of a legislator "is solidly middle-class compensation" considering average salaries in most regions of the state.
* Compared to how much executives are large companies typically earn, the salary paid to state legislators is "a terrific bargain."
* It is false to believe that legislators are influenced by how much they make, rather than by their underlying political beliefs.

What do those arguments have to do with this? This doesn't cut anyone's pay.

Comparing legislator's pay to the private sector is irrelevant to this issue, imo, as this supposedly only stops the legislators from getting a pay raise if we don't have the money for it. That seems like common sense to me.

Lastly, I'm not sure there's a big problem with legislators being influenced by the size of their paycheck so I'm not sure that's all that relevant, either.

Most of the concern about legislators being unduly influenced involves influence from outside interests. You know; those notorious Special Interests?

The guy making the argument seems to be missing the point and doesn't understand the issue.

At 2:53 PM, Blogger Fred said...

BTW; If any of you are having problems with the URL to the ballotpedia page, here's a tiny url version:

At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Mr. Nice said...

When is the last time legislators have gotten a pay raise in a deficit year? This seems like another Arnold Schwarzenegger trick to mask his people's inability to come up with a budget compromise for months on end.

The lp justification of "worth supporting because currently politicians suffer little more than bad publicity from their ineptitude" seems petty to me.

I'm voting no on this out of spite for stupid Schwarzenegger propositions. No on all of his ideas across the board, just like California has always done. I don't see how we elected this guy in the first place besides Grey Davis being such a tool. We would be better off with Mary Carey or Gary Coleman.

At 6:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, and all remember to come to the Tea Party noon tomorrow at the court house.

At 8:17 PM, Blogger Fred said...

"I'm voting no on this out of spite for stupid Schwarzenegger propositions. No on all of his ideas across the board, just like California has always done.".And you seem to me to be doing the same stupid stuff that California's always done.

"We would be better off with Mary Carey or Gary Coleman.".Maybe so, but that sort of thinking is just the same sort of thing we've already been doing.

I can't help but thing you've always voted for your incumbent, or you haven't voted at all.

Whether you're part of the problem, I don't know.

At 8:24 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Mr Nice wrote, "When is the last time legislators have gotten a pay raise in a deficit year?".

I suspect not that long ago, as we've been in a deficit for over a decade. I believe, if memory serves me correct, that some legislators gave the pay raise back last time around, though.

Seems I read something about some of them backing off from the last one, because of the deficit. I think I also read that our State Assemblyguy, Wes Chesbro, had his last $5000 raise sent to some charity.

At 11:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I suspect.."
"Seems I read..."

That's why I keep coming back, for the hardhitting investigative journalism.
If you are claiming CA has been in a deficit for a decade, then the 12% salary increase in 2005 qualifies. Comeon, did you just move to the state?

=Ted Williams (anonymous)

At 7:12 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Did you?

At 7:32 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Mr. Nice writes, "... No on all of his ideas across the board,".

Yep. A nice little anti- Sacramento temper tantrum will really show them.

At 10:30 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred just google Legislative Analyst's Proposition 1F and you can go directly to it. I could not get the link to copy but here is the fiscal effects section of it.

Cost Savings From State Officials’ Salaries
During Certain Deficit Years. This measure
would prevent the commission from approving pay
increases for state officials in certain cases when the state General Fund is expected to end the year with a deficit. Under current practice, the commission might have otherwise approved pay increases in those years. The commission does not grant pay increases every year, and the level of pay increases granted by the commission is not always the same.

Since January 2000, the commission has raised the
pay of elected officials four times. Over this period, the total pay increases for each official have been equal to or less than the rate of inflation. Currently, a 1 percent raise for the elected state officials costs the state about $160,000 per year. If, for example, the commission were inclined to grant the officials a 3 percent raise but were prevented from doing so under this measure, the state would save less than $500,000 that year. Consequently, savings in any year would be minor.

May Contribute to Different Budget Decisions
by the Legislature and Governor. The Constitution
already requires the Legislature and the Governor to adopt a balanced budget each year. When the budget falls substantially out of balance during the course of a fiscal year, the Constitution allows the Governor to declare a fiscal emergency and call the Legislature into a special session to address the emergency. The Constitution, however, does not require the budget to end the year in balance. This measure may have the effect of influencing the Legislature and the Governor to make different budgetary decisions— decisions, for example, that reduce a projected state deficit or make it less likely a deficit emerges in the first place. These impacts, however, are not possible
to estimate.
analysis by the legislative analyst

At 10:47 AM, Anonymous Mr. Nice said...

Schwarzenegger continually backs special interests while simultaneously blowing hot air about getting special interests out of California politics. Schwarzenegger has tried to take control over CA politics by pushing ballot initiatives that suit his agenda. He is an actor and it shows. Ballot initiatives are meant for direct citizen control over laws and statutes, not as political favors for legislators who sell votes.

I'm not going to support this 1F measure just because the LP website says that I should. I don't consider what it will do as a big issue when compared to stopping Schwarzenegger from gaining any more power.

If you must know, I didn't vote for the incumbent or against the recall, I voted for Iris Adam. I voted for Dennis Peron in 1998. The only incumbent I've voted for in any election that I can remember was Roger Rodoni. I would rather write a name in than vote for someone who I don't agree with.

At 7:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you?Oh snap!
If I'd just moved to the state I'd have a blog about it wouldn't I?
But seriously, as americans aren't we all californians? Who hasn't made sweet love to the dulcet tones of The Beach Boys, felt our heart throb with pride watching Mel Gibson bayonet that heartless Jason Isaacs, touched ourselves during Baywatch reruns? California is who we are! Which is obviously why CA state legislators earn three times as much as any other state legislator.

-All the leaves are brown
-and the sky is grey

Just sayin' you could do a little research before posting. There's this thing called 'The Google', you might have heard of it, apparently it has all sorts of information about a wide variety of stuff.

-Ted Williams (anonymous)

At 12:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

10:47, I sure mis the hell out of Roger.

At 5:53 AM, Blogger Fred said...

"Just sayin' you could do a little research before posting.".You may think you're quite important, but I don't make posts here to satisfy you. I post here for my own enjoyment and to communicate with others, not you.

If there's not enough information for you here, there's millions of other blogs you can check to find the right information.

At 2:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually realized how bad this proposition could be for our state AND our country.
In 1990, didn't we vote for Prop 112 to handle the salary issue? This is another case of passing another law without looking into why the prior law didn't work the way we thought it would. I do not believe this new amendment will help the situtation, and in fact, I believe it will only make it worse for our state and other states.

As I see it, this was a backroom deal that is likely to happen again and again. I don't doubt for a minute that this happened with Snow, Spector, and Collins. This could spread like wild fire through other states - ie: "If you agree to vote against what your party and constituents want, you will get rewarded with something you want." In this case, Maldonado apparently was given this Proposition and another one that will be on the June 2010 ballot. We know this happens all the time, but I believe this time, it is so obvious what happened that other politicians will see how easily it worked and jump on board with this tactic. I believe it sets a very bad precedent.

I say obvious, because, why else do you have 100% of the legislators AND the Governor signing on board to it.

I say instead of voting for this, kick them out and get honest people in. Fight them other ways, not by awarding Maldonado a win for what was an obvious backroom deal.

At 2:40 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I don't see how this will do anything to make things worse. How can legislators not being able to give themselves raises when the budget is in deficit make things worse?

And as a far as kicking them out and getting honest people in, the people have made their choices by voting for incumbents time after time.


Post a Comment

<< Home