|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 2, 2008 1:25:08 GMT -5
No one likes waiting on the phone for an overpaid state agency who treats you like they are doing you a favor. But, this is a bi-product of what happens when government becomes the number one employment industry in the country. That and cities having issues with the exorbitant retirement packages they offer, much like Vallejo and Santa Rosa.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 2, 2008 1:37:11 GMT -5
Now that is what I'm talking about!
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 2, 2008 2:35:33 GMT -5
I also noticed from further reading that the cut was not in wages, but a payment until the budget was signed, at which time the employees would receive back pay. This means these employees are not willing to sacrifice for the good of the state, like Obama is asking all of us to do.
Also, did the Starbucks employees have the luxury of suing their employer when they were laid off? No, but because it is government I am supposed to back the employees? Why is that? The bloated government is the issue here, not our governor. It does not matter if he keeps these people on or not, because it will not stop the bad service we already receive. How many people in private industry have the luxuries those in our government have? This is the problem with socialism as a whole, which is how our state has been run for sometime, at least in the employment aspect. Heck, there are union jobs out there that are not treated as well, simply because they are not government jobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 2, 2008 2:36:59 GMT -5
Remember one thing, California is not a right to work state. Let these people live in the real world for a change. In the long run it will be better for you and me if they get a taste of what the world is really like.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 2, 2008 11:14:29 GMT -5
Remember one thing, California is not a right to work state. Let these people live in the real world for a change. In the long run it will be better for you and me if they get a taste of what the world is really like. It isn't the wage slaves who work for the state that are the problem. Let the capons in both houses of the Legislature live in the real world for a change. Maybe we need to amend our state Constituion so that if a new budget isn't ready by the required date, the last budget is automatically put back in place with a 5% reduction in expenditures across the board. And, fine the legislators half their yearly salary - including per diems, franking, and any other extras they get. |
|
|
|
Post by ferrous on Aug 2, 2008 13:26:09 GMT -5
Subdjoe writes; "Maybe we need to amend our state Constitution so that if a new budget isn't ready by the required date, the last budget is automatically put back in place with a 5% reduction in expenditures across the board. And, fine the legislators half their yearly salary - including per diems, franking, and any other extras they get."
I'm not sure about the 5% reduction in expenditures across the board but I whole heartedly agree with fines directed at the legislature for failure to deliver a budget on time.
I'm surprised that a petition hasn't be circulated calling for an amendment that would financially penalized legislators for not taking care of California's fiscal responsibilities.
Maybe not half of their salaries, but a sliding scale that keeps getting more and more expensive to them as this delay goes on.
At some point, before workers are layed off and/or forced to work for minimum wages, the scale (or fine) would be that legislators would be forced to pay us for the privilege of representing us.
Then at this point, they would be forced to dig into their own pockets and feel the financial pain that the rest of the State workers are having to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Aug 2, 2008 14:32:40 GMT -5
perhaps the legislators should get paid $6.55/hr until they fix the problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Aug 2, 2008 15:38:30 GMT -5
Yes, let them include themselves too. That would be fair for everyone in the state!
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Aug 2, 2008 16:27:51 GMT -5
perhaps the legislators should get paid $6.55/hr until they fix the problem. Maybe we need to come up with a new legal phrase "contempt of the people" that we can charge these capons with. Hmmm....maybe not, sounds like something that came out of France in the late 1700s. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 3, 2008 5:50:13 GMT -5
They are currently in violation of the law. There should be a penalty that goes with that, just like what would occur on us if we did not pay our taxes on time. I like the idea of penalizing the legislature for each day elapsed for not bringing a budget to the table. I also believe we should make them use standard accounting practices in government, so we can audit where the money goes.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Aug 7, 2008 3:58:54 GMT -5
As I have pointed out, this is really about the budget. And what is the party that has had a virtual lock on this state proposed? More of the same class warfare, increased taxes and spending.
What have their counterparts actually offered?
Long-term reform measures such as a spending cap and creating a rainy day fund the state could draw on during lean years. Some GOP lawmakers want to mandate a state hiring freeze.
Yet none have embraced any of our Governors ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Aug 7, 2008 17:30:38 GMT -5
As I have pointed out, this is really about the budget. And what is the party that has had a virtual lock on this state proposed? More of the same class warfare, increased taxes and spending. Because the Democrats believe that your money is better off in the hands of government than it is in your hands. Pure and simple. Unless you happen to be a faithful reader of one of the few newspapers in the state that has the balls to report it, you'll have no idea. One reasonably worthwhile site I read at just about daily is CalNews[/quote] which is currently owned by erstewhile radio talk show guy Geoff Metcalfe. You get a lot more information there than you'll ever get out of the PeeDee. Which is about three to five years too late, IMHO. Of course not... they have to stand for re-election while Arnold is gone in two more years whether he likes it or not. |
|
