(California) Controller: legislators will not collect their pay (due to incomplete budget)

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

(06-21) 12:47 PDT Sacramento --

The budget passed by the Legislature on June 15 was incomplete and unbalanced and lawmakers will not receive any pay until they approve a balanced spending plan, Controller John Chiang announced today.

The controller's decision has been highly anticipated at the Capitol since Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a budget plan passed by only Democrats on a majority vote.

Chiang found that the budget authorized $89.75 billion in spending, but revenues totaled only $87.9 billion, leaving an imbalance of $1.85 billion.

"My office's careful review of the recently-passed budget found components that were miscalculated, miscounted or unfinished," Chiang said. "The numbers simply did not add up, and the Legislature will forfeit their pay until a balanced budget is sent to the governor."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/21/BAKI1K0N7P.DTL

---

Chiang invoked Proposition 25, passed by voters in 2010, which "strips lawmakers of their salary and any reimbursement for travel and living expenses if they do not pass a budget by midnight on June 15, the constitutional deadline."

[Donnachaidh]

1. Good.

Too many times it's the poor who take it in the neck, while legislators continue to get paid. Glad to see Californians turned that little grotesquery around.

[Unvanguard]

3. The poor are still going to take in the neck

and this balanced-budget rule will only help guarantee that that's the case.

Edit: It also helps reinforce the difficulties non-rich people have running for or serving in elective office.

[slackmaster]

6. The poor ALWAYS take it in the neck no matter who is in power or what the budget says

That's what being poor is all about.

[plumbob]

2. Now, THAT'S funny!

Pity more states don't do the same.

[David__77]

4. Chiang is clearly, definitely in the wrong legally.

The law says: "in any year in which the budget bill is not passed by the Legislature by midnight on June 15, there shall be no appropriation from the current budget or future budget to pay any salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses for Members of the Legislature during any regular or special session for the period from midnight on June 15 until the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor. No salary or reimbursement for travel or living expenses forfeited pursuant to this subdivision shall be paid retroactively."

To reiterate: "until the day that the budget bill is presented to the Governor." That has came and went already. The law does not require that the governor sign the budget, only that the legislature pass it.

[slackmaster]

5. The bill was bogus because its budget wasn't balanced as required by law

The legislature could just as well have submitted a booklet of Christmas cookie recipes and called it a state budget.

Good on JC for holding their feet to the fire.

[Xithras]

9. Exactly

Proposition 58 requires that all budgets passed by the Legislature be balanced. The budget they submitted wasn't balanced, which means that it was invalid and illegal. The fact that Brown didn't sign it was irrelevant to them getting their paychecks.

[Throd]

7. That budget was crap. I support Chiang on this one.

[savalez]

8. Who was the chimp that didn't foresee the possibility of a veto?

Why didn't it read like this?

"...until the day that the budget bill is signed by the Governor"

That said, Republicans are making it hard for a real budget to be passed by refusing to support tax measures.

Brown said, "I am, once again, calling on Republicans to allow the people of California to vote on tax extensions for a balanced budget and significant reforms" (Medina, New York Times, 6/16).

Read more: http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2011/6/17/brown-vetoes-state-budget-plan-renews-push-for-tax-measures.aspx#ixzz1PxWorH5s

The article also mentions that Repub's want meaningful pension reform (ring a bell?). Those California employees who "think" they are Republicans should be thanking their lucky stars that Meg Whitman did not win.

[Big_Mike]

10. On the face of it yes, but you have to rememer Prop 58, the Balanced Budget Amendment

Chiang stated that in order for the budget to be properly submitted, it must be balanced. What the Legislature submitted was off by $1.6b, so it failed to meet the Constitutional requirements and was declared, rightly I think, null and void from the Prop 25 perspective.

Forget the tricks and gimmicks legislators, and do some simple math.

[Devil_Fish]

11. Ah yes, the one proposision that passed that year. Awesome, I knew it would bite them in the ass. NT

[bemildred]

12. If it pisses off the "leaders" of the state legislature, it must be good.

They and their stupid games are the problem.

Next, the balanced budget provisions will force those swine to raise taxes as they ought to have done 30 years ago.