It's no secret I'm no fan of our Governor. From his "Vote for me because I'm Arnold" campaign, to his attempt at governing by decree (how else to interpret an attempt to sidestep the legislature by putting all the plans they've rejected onto the state ballot), his style tends to resemble his movies… a lot of noise and heavy on the action, but not the most thought provoking content. (And I like his movies — well, some of them at least.) He's a fan of the direct approach, which has probably served him well in his movie career, but seems to be a hard fit for the governor's mansion. (Arguments that 'being outside the system' brings a breath of fresh air and a chance for change have to be countered with the awareness that, while 'the system' may be burdensome and corrupt, not knowing how to effectively work that system is not going to benefit anyone.)
His latest baffles me. Not the idea that "we're in a budget crisis and I'm taking the action I need to keep the state running." I can accept that, if that's actually true. (Which doesn't seem to be the case today… Apparently the State Controller has informed the governor that he won't comply with his executive order, and says that the state has funds to meet its expenses through September. Perhaps that's small comfort … that's a little less than 2 months of solvency — but it does call into question the decision to take this action now.)
What gets me is how is this the only/best option open to him. I have to assume this has been discussed, but if you're going to cut anyone's salaries, how about the legislature, which seems incapable of EVER producing a budget on time. I would think that forcing those guys to try and live on $6.55 an hour would guarantee they'd find a way to solve all their budget problems REAL fast. And if, as the Controller opines, his plan to slash state workers pay is based on faulty legal and factual premises, then signing an order to slash the legislature's pay couldn't be any less groundless.
Putting that notion aside as equally simplistic (and of questionable legality), I'm back to wondering how bankrupting 200,000 state workers is going to do the economy of California any damn good at all. (And before anyone bristles at that thought, it's reported that workers affected by this pay cut can be making as much as $24 an hour, or more. Cut your pay by 3/4 and tell me how well you'll be able to make your bills.) Add to that the cost of longer lines for every job affected by the staffing cuts, the cost associated with having to rehire and retrain all of the people laid off when this debacle is finally resolved, and the very human response of "who gives a shit" slowdown that's got to be likely (again, cut my pay by 3/4 and see how my sense of urgency gets equally slashed) and you're left looking at a very expensive cost-cutting measure.
I don't know how this will all fall out. But I'm not buying into Arnold's "solution."
His latest baffles me. Not the idea that "we're in a budget crisis and I'm taking the action I need to keep the state running." I can accept that, if that's actually true. (Which doesn't seem to be the case today… Apparently the State Controller has informed the governor that he won't comply with his executive order, and says that the state has funds to meet its expenses through September. Perhaps that's small comfort … that's a little less than 2 months of solvency — but it does call into question the decision to take this action now.)
What gets me is how is this the only/best option open to him. I have to assume this has been discussed, but if you're going to cut anyone's salaries, how about the legislature, which seems incapable of EVER producing a budget on time. I would think that forcing those guys to try and live on $6.55 an hour would guarantee they'd find a way to solve all their budget problems REAL fast. And if, as the Controller opines, his plan to slash state workers pay is based on faulty legal and factual premises, then signing an order to slash the legislature's pay couldn't be any less groundless.
Putting that notion aside as equally simplistic (and of questionable legality), I'm back to wondering how bankrupting 200,000 state workers is going to do the economy of California any damn good at all. (And before anyone bristles at that thought, it's reported that workers affected by this pay cut can be making as much as $24 an hour, or more. Cut your pay by 3/4 and tell me how well you'll be able to make your bills.) Add to that the cost of longer lines for every job affected by the staffing cuts, the cost associated with having to rehire and retrain all of the people laid off when this debacle is finally resolved, and the very human response of "who gives a shit" slowdown that's got to be likely (again, cut my pay by 3/4 and see how my sense of urgency gets equally slashed) and you're left looking at a very expensive cost-cutting measure.
I don't know how this will all fall out. But I'm not buying into Arnold's "solution."
Comments
Don't blame Arnold. He's gone from being a Republican to being a Democrat and back again trying to do anything to get change through this legislature.
Unfortunately, the California state legislature is more of an inside club than any legislature in the union. And, Arnold is just not good enough/smart enough/lucky enough to get anything past them.
Admittedly, this cutback is another desperate attempt to move the legislature as well as to draw the state's attention to the fact that they suck out loud. But, it's not working. The California public still does not get it. And, as a result, we're going to get hit with a 1% sales tax increase within the next 3 months (mark my words).
Sacramento needs to be burned down, districts need to be redrawn, and the state employee unions (teachers included) need to be broken. THEN, maybe we could reform the state and get it working again. But, as things are now we are screwed.