Governor's Budget Disses State Workers
In Texas [or Rhode Island], we do not hold high expectations for the [governor's] office; it's mostly been occupied by crooks, dorks and the comatose. Molly Ivins.
Newport Daily News columnist Joe Baker slams the Guv's budget balancing plan calling for state workers to take pay cuts. He points out that the pay cut for this year would take place not spread out over a year, but only a few months (for this year) if the Lege approves it.
"But what about average state workers, most of whom got a 3 percent pay raise this year? A person making $35,000 would lose $350, spread out over a couple of paychecks. That could mean real hardship. Some actually may have trouble covering their bills.
He also questions about the Guv granting large pay raises to his recent appointees. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it ? Do as I say, not as I do.
Joe takes issue with the so-called "progressive" nature of the pay-cut.
" But I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying a 1 percent cut has a more significant real impact on people making $30,000 a year than those making more than $100,000. We sometimes hear how difficult it is to attract and keep upper-level management types in state government unless we're willing to pay them. Last year, we also were treated to the argument that unless we cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, they would flee Rhode Island like rats from a sinking ship. Hey, here's an idea. Let 'em go. Whatever happened to the idea of community, anyway? Shouldn't those at the very top recognize that when the water's rising, it is those on the lowest decks who are likely to have to start treading water first?"
I publicly stated that I would support getting rid of the tax break for the wealthiest. It's just plain stupid when the state is facing such large deficeits. And where is the follow-up legislation overseeing that the tax break actually delivers what it says it will? There are no studies proving such policies actually work, and the info that I've read indicates the opposite. Remember, every time that a tax break is given, somebody has to pay for the lost income. Guess who that would be?
"And this doesn't even touch on the question of how this would impact union contracts - and future negotiations. Even if the General Assembly doesn't go along with Carcieri's plan, will unions be forced to include provisions in future contracts protecting the raises they get in those negotiations? A contract is a legal handshake. Carcieri is apparently now saying to unions, 'Sorry, I had my fingers crossed.'
"If the governor wanted to exert real leadership, he would get his department directors into a room and tell them they weren't getting any pay raise next year. Then he could look union leaders in the eye when he asked them to take one for the team."
You tell 'em, Joe. And we elected this Guv for 4 more years. Why? He has yet to submit to the Lege a budget plan which is actually workable. Every year he counts on one-time fixes or Unions agreeing to negate their contracts & take less. Smart enough politically, though. He then leaves it up to the part-time Lege to take any political fall-out with the real work of budgeting. The Guv is all talk with little action. Not much imagination here. It's all about public image.
The link is only good for a week.
Newport Daily News columnist Joe Baker slams the Guv's budget balancing plan calling for state workers to take pay cuts. He points out that the pay cut for this year would take place not spread out over a year, but only a few months (for this year) if the Lege approves it.
"But what about average state workers, most of whom got a 3 percent pay raise this year? A person making $35,000 would lose $350, spread out over a couple of paychecks. That could mean real hardship. Some actually may have trouble covering their bills.
He also questions about the Guv granting large pay raises to his recent appointees. Doesn't seem quite fair, does it ? Do as I say, not as I do.
Joe takes issue with the so-called "progressive" nature of the pay-cut.
" But I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying a 1 percent cut has a more significant real impact on people making $30,000 a year than those making more than $100,000. We sometimes hear how difficult it is to attract and keep upper-level management types in state government unless we're willing to pay them. Last year, we also were treated to the argument that unless we cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, they would flee Rhode Island like rats from a sinking ship. Hey, here's an idea. Let 'em go. Whatever happened to the idea of community, anyway? Shouldn't those at the very top recognize that when the water's rising, it is those on the lowest decks who are likely to have to start treading water first?"
I publicly stated that I would support getting rid of the tax break for the wealthiest. It's just plain stupid when the state is facing such large deficeits. And where is the follow-up legislation overseeing that the tax break actually delivers what it says it will? There are no studies proving such policies actually work, and the info that I've read indicates the opposite. Remember, every time that a tax break is given, somebody has to pay for the lost income. Guess who that would be?
"And this doesn't even touch on the question of how this would impact union contracts - and future negotiations. Even if the General Assembly doesn't go along with Carcieri's plan, will unions be forced to include provisions in future contracts protecting the raises they get in those negotiations? A contract is a legal handshake. Carcieri is apparently now saying to unions, 'Sorry, I had my fingers crossed.'
"If the governor wanted to exert real leadership, he would get his department directors into a room and tell them they weren't getting any pay raise next year. Then he could look union leaders in the eye when he asked them to take one for the team."
You tell 'em, Joe. And we elected this Guv for 4 more years. Why? He has yet to submit to the Lege a budget plan which is actually workable. Every year he counts on one-time fixes or Unions agreeing to negate their contracts & take less. Smart enough politically, though. He then leaves it up to the part-time Lege to take any political fall-out with the real work of budgeting. The Guv is all talk with little action. Not much imagination here. It's all about public image.
The link is only good for a week.
No comments:
Post a Comment