Opinion: Should Arnold and the Legislature give up their pay...

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

...if they’re late on the budget? Don’t they do that already?

In case you missed it, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger included in Thursday’s State of the State address a pitch for a new law that would require him and members of the Assembly and Senate to give up their pay permanently for every day they run past the constitutional June 15 deadline to pass a budget.

They almost always blow that deadline. They’ve nailed it only four times in the last 20 years.

When they’re late, though, don’t they always bend over backwards to point out that they’re not getting paid? What’s the deal?

Here’s how it works now....

The state controller has to send them their paychecks whenever there’s an appropriation, so that generally means through the end of the budget year -- June 30. They also get a $170 check daily for expenses, regardless of whether they have any (it’s known around Sacramento as the ‘per diem,’ which is Latin for ‘entitlement’). When there’s no budget and no appropriation, there can be no pay or per diem for elected officials or their staffs. Once the budget is finally adopted and signed, though, they get all their back pay.

Schwarzenegger has something different in mind. Under his suggestion, they would lose that pay permanently.

There have been numerous initiative petitions to make the governor and members of the Assembly and Senate lose their pay permanently for every day they are late on the budget, but those measures haven’t made it to the ballot. Most recently, Brad Morisoli of Livermore has proposed an initiative that would go, ahem, a step further: If no budget has been passed by June 15, terms would simply end for the governor and lawmakers.

Read last week’s Times editorial on Morisoli’s proposal. We said ballot measures like these are part of what got us into trouble in the first place, and we don’t really take this one seriously -- but that in the absence of a budget, in the midst of a fiscal emergency, it’s starting to look not so bad.

Take a look at the 99 reader comments as well. Many do take Morisoli’s plan seriously and say that it’s a great idea. Many raised practical objections -- who would run the government?

The editorial focused on just one part of Morisoli’s proposal. Here’s the rest: 25% of the Legislature’s and governor’s pay is held back each year, and doesn’t get released until the following year’s budget is adopted. If they haven’t passed a budget by June 15, their terms end. If the budget isn’t legally in place by June 30, their terms end. They can’t hold office again for at least two years. The previous year’s budget will roll over to the current year, adjusted to reflect any changes in revenues.

By comparison, Schwarzenegger’s proposal is tame. My main criticism is that it deals only with the kind of money you and I use. Elected officials thrive on something entirely different: political money. If they were banned from raising, seeking or accepting political donations while the budget is late, well, that may begin to catch their attention.