If legislators don't pass a budget on time, shouldn't they be punished?
I've always argued that you shouldn't be rewarded for not doing your job, yet we pay our state lawmakers even if they don't pass a budget on time, which is just about every year. They're on track again to miss the July 1 deadline. What are we going to do with these people? Not pay them? Suspend them? Make them listen to CDs of their own speeches?
My column today predicts we'll be in the same predicament two decades from now unless something dramatic happens to force the Legislature to be more accountable to the public. The best first step toward reforming the Legislature is taking the redistricting process from lawmakers. They draw the lines of their own districts now, and make sure they get re-elected in the process. An independent commission should be doing the map-drawing.
There's a measure on the November ballot to change the redistricting process. Voters should support it. But the politicians will be doing all they can to mislead voters about what the redistricting measure will do. Don't fall for the political spin. The politicians only want to save their jobs -- not represent the public.
Comments
Legislators "should not be rewarded for not doing
"their job passing the annual budget on time..."
"Not pay them?" That's an excellent idea. And legislators should not be allowed to draw the lines of their districts. Though perfectly legal, it is a defacto conflict of interest. Let geography be
the criterion for drawing those district lines.
Please, let us start using the term punish less lightly, and more judciously. We have become such a punitive culture, which tends to give the impression that we are driven by fear. The founders of the nation envisioned justice, domestic tranquility, the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Posted by: Isabell Lawson | June 22, 2008 9:06 PM
They like the sound of their own voices to much for it to be punishment to listen to their own speeches. They have to be hit in the wallet like we are. Take away their govt cars and state credit cards and take away their pay for each day they don't pass the budget.
Of course we have no power to do that so as usual we just have to put up with inefficient behavior.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | June 22, 2008 9:12 PM
Not paying state legislators if a budget is late is a terrible idea.
It presupposes that a bad state budget is better than no state budget, which is a terrible place to begin.
I come from the perspective of a conservative who believes that state government is too big, too fat, and too bloaded. We need both spending and tax reductions.
That said, I am PROUD when Republicans hold the line, as long as necessary, to force any spending or tax reductions.
Suspending legislative pay for a late budget simply puts undo pressure on those legislators who cannot afford to go without paychecks to support a budget that they feel is a bad one.
Posted by: Jon Fleischman | June 23, 2008 6:54 AM
RE: J.F.
Wow! What a heavy response to something I am sure was said with tongue in cheek.
Posted by: Isabell Lawson | June 23, 2008 8:22 AM
Should they be punished? Of course! What happens when you don’t do your job in the work-a-day world? Duh!
Will they be punished? It’s never going to happen! Guess who controls the "means" to discipline? I’ve said it before, California is ungovernable.
Well, as H L Mencken said, "The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable."
Posted by: T C Morgan | June 23, 2008 11:03 AM
It would hopefully make them more open to stay at the table and reach an agreement acceptable to both parties.Even when they pass it late it is usually a bad budget so whats the diff.
Posted by: Jackie Krage | June 23, 2008 11:39 AM
Whoa, TC quotes H.L. Mencken?...that's either tongue-in-cheek or our beloved Mr. Morgan is finally coming around.
Posted by: swift | June 23, 2008 1:09 PM
Swift:
Hey, I even quote, on occasion, Ayn Rand. Deal with it! That’s what free speech is all about! That’s the trouble with libs - they would even like to censor who you quote.
Posted by: T C Morgan | June 24, 2008 10:52 AM
Regarding legislators being paid for not doing their jobs: What about Sen. Hillary and Sen. Obama being paid while not even showing up for work while running for president?
If you or I didn't show up would our jobs be held until we decide to return?
Dolores
Posted by: Dolores Armo | June 24, 2008 11:35 AM
Not to mention Sen. McCain who is also running for president while serving in the Senate. . .
Posted by: Jim Boren | June 24, 2008 11:44 AM
It is not a pre-requisite for government to be "...dishonest, insane, intolerable..." (H.L. Mencken). His style is public opinion hawking.
And there was H.D. Thoreau, long before Mencken. "Civil Disobedience" conveys the flaws and failings of government, yet does not generalize. Thoreau's
diction is the best the English language has to offer. And having read Thoreau is to never forget,
whether or not we agree.
Posted by: Isabell lawson | June 24, 2008 1:50 PM
Re: Dolores and Jim...
Any public "servant" (isn't that an oxymoron for someone who receives a paycheck?) should have to resign his/her elected position in order to pursue another elected position. That would also be a demonstration of his/her committment to his/her cause. I guess there would have to be an exception for re-election.
Meanwhile, back to the topic:
What does the state constitution say about forming a budget on time? You can't punish anyone for something that's not illegal. The voters could pass a referendum or initiative, but the lawmakers would just challenge its constitutionality in the courts and strike it down.
What if in the next election, nobody voted for anyone? We could clean house in a hurry!
Posted by: Matt McIntyre | June 24, 2008 3:36 PM
People have been running for one office while holding another in this country at least since 1796, when Vice President John Adams ran successfully for the presidency. This is nothing new at all.
Posted by: Mike D. | June 24, 2008 4:40 PM