Advertisement

Capitol Journal: Bad policy, but it may work

Share
Capitol Journal

Cutting off legislators’ pay because they passed a cruddy budget may be good populist politics, but it’s lousy public policy.

It may not even be good politics in the long term.

State Controller John Chiang’s conclusion that the gimmicky budget passed by the Legislature and vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown didn’t merit legislative paychecks heaped pressure on the lawmakers to quickly pass an honest spending plan. Absent a sudden Republican epiphany on taxes, that almost certainly will result in more sharp cuts to public schools.

That, in turn, will infuriate the teachers unions whose financial backing Chiang will need if he ever tries to run for governor. State employees unions also will be livid if there are deeper program cuts and layoffs.

Advertisement

The unions most likely would look around for another Democrat to back if Chiang, 48, attempted to move up the political ladder.

“He’s got a great message” about honest budgeting and holding lawmakers accountable, “but he’s only going to have two cents to spread it across the state,” says one legislative advisor, who asked not to be identified because he didn’t want to join those beating up publicly on a fellow Democrat.

Right now Chiang is a statewide hero. And some of the legislators’ vitriol is making them sound even less sympathetic.

“It’s always been an easy move to bash the disliked, but the truth is that such demagoguery is rapidly becoming cliche,” freshman Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Silver Lake) said in a written statement. “I now have to explain to my wife and daughter that we won’t be able to pay the bills because a politician chose to grandstand at our expense.”

Gatto should have written that for his own catharsis and promptly ripped it up. There was no demagoguery in Chiang’s statement, unless someone might consider this to be: “The [budget] numbers simply did not add up.”

And, frankly, it’s inconceivable that Gatto’s constituents would really give a hoot about his having to explain the family finances at home.

Advertisement

Then there was Sen. Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) who noted that “the controller has never before had a role in crafting the budget.”

She added: “He has inserted himself into the legislative process and precipitated a constitutional crisis, one where the balance of powers in our constitutional form of government has shifted considerably and the separation between the legislative and executive branches of state government has been breached.”

OK, she has a point, but constitutional crisis? “Crisis” must be the most abused word — along with “reform” — in the political lexicon. The only people feeling a crisis here are legislators, and not even all of them.

It was California voters, moreover, who inserted the controller into a budget role.

Last year, they passed Proposition 25, which granted Democrats their decades-long wish to pass a budget on a simple majority vote, rather than two-thirds. But to secure voter approval, sponsoring labor unions sweetened the measure with a clause decreeing that if the unpopular lawmakers didn’t pass the budget by their June 15 constitutional deadline, they’d lose pay and expense money for each day they were tardy.

And Proposition 58, approved in 2004, forbade the Legislature to pass — or the governor to sign — an unbalanced budget.

Last week, the Legislature passed an unbalanced budget, the governor vetoed it and the guy who writes the checks — the controller — said that in good conscience, he needed to cut off the lawmakers’ pay. It amounts to roughly $400 each per day, or around $3,200 as of Wednesday.

Advertisement

We’re in unchartered territory here. Never before has a governor vetoed a whole budget, at least that anyone can find. And a controller never has refused to pay legislators.

But the “no budget, no pay” provision is terrible policy.

Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) makes a valid point when he calls Chiang’s action “a dangerous precedent.”

“If the executive branch of government can force elected [legislators] to make a choice between their own welfare and the welfare of their constituents, that ought to be an unacceptable conflict of interest,” Steinberg says.

“Think about the reaction there’d be if any member of the Legislature voted for a bill in which they had a direct financial interest. It’s a line that should never be crossed.”

He adds: “It’s odd enough dealing with members of the same political party. But imagine a situation when the majority party in the Legislature is different than the party of either the governor or controller. The mischief that could and undoubtedly would occur ought to concern anyone.”

Threatening to seize a legislator’s pay unless he votes for a balanced budget — even if it means shortening the school year by two weeks (a very strong possibility now) or denying care for the elderly disabled (already happening) — is simply legalized extortion. Or bribery.

Advertisement

It also affects legislators differently, depending on whether they’re well-heeled or living paycheck to paycheck.

Some Republicans pride themselves in never having voted for a budget. But since they line up at the same pay window as Democrats, you’d think they’d all be feeling the same financial pressure and be a bit more inclined to cast a budget vote.

Not many citizens fret about the constitutional separation of powers, I suspect.

But they are sick of Sacramento politicians mucking around in a perpetual budget hole.

Perhaps the paycheck prod will pry them out. Would the end then justify the means?

Hate to admit it, but sadly yes. It is lousy policy, but the Capitol has produced a lot of lousy policy in recent years. The state is in a lousy fix. And no other means has worked.

george.skelton@latimes.com

Advertisement