CA Assembly Speaker Perez Gives Staff $132,000 in Annual Raises
Last week, incoming Speaker of the California Assembly John Perez ordered the Assembly to reduce its overall budget by 15 percent, which would total $22.4 million next year. Today, news broke that, on the very day that Perez was sworn in as the new Speaker earlier this month (March 1), he gave members of his staff $132,000 in pay increases. Of the eight staff members who received the raises, Sara Ramirez received the largest bump, from $125,256 to $190,008 for acting as Perez’s chief of staff. That’s a raise of $64,752 per year.
People who defended the pay increases claim that the hikes are justified because of the increased duties that come from being an aide to the leader of the Assembly. Even if that were so, which I clearly do not believe is the case, that would not explain why outgoing Speaker Karen Bass provided pay increases or promotions to 20 members of her staff on February 26, her final day as Assembly leader. If the assertion is that staffers deserve an increase in pay when they work for the Speaker, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that they would deserve a cut in pay when they are no longer working for the Speaker and are, once again, simply working for one of 80 members of the Assembly? Apparently, Bass seems to think staffers deserve raises either way.
But it seems like it’s not only Democrats who are susceptible to giving raises to their staffs. New minority leader Martin Garrick gave his chief of staff, Mike Zimmerman, a raise of $45,216, bringing his annual salary up to $111,996.
Cumulatively, the 28 raises or promotions tied to the change in Assembly leadership will cost the state about $216,000 per year. Admittedly, that is a very tiny portion of the lower house's $149.4 million annual budget. But for the leadership of the Assembly to be handing out such generous pay hikes to their staffs at the very same time that many state employees are being forced to take unpaid furlough days and many teachers are receiving layoff notices is yet another example of hypocrisy being displayed by our elected officials.
These politicians either don’t seem to understand that their actions will be viewed unfavorably by the public or they simply think the electorate is too ignorant to see what they are doing up in Sacramento. Eventually, we are going to have to start holding these people accountable for their actions by voting them out of office and replacing them with honest and trustworthy people.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California State Senator Roy Ashburn
I will call out any elected official who gratuitously demonstrates hypocrisy, no matter what their party affiliation is.
California State Senator Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield) was arrested on March 3 on suspicion of driving under the influence. Ashburn took a breath test that showed his blood alcohol level was 0.14 percent, or 0.06 percent above the legal limit. The next day, rumors began to spread that the Legislator had visited a gay nightclub in Sacramento before his DUI arrest and that he had an unidentified man in the passenger seat of his Senate-owned vehicle when he was stopped for driving erratically near the Capitol. Then on March 8, Ashburn, who has consistently voted against gay rights measures during his 14 years in the state Legislature, came out of the closet and admitted that he was gay in an interview with KERN radio in Bakersfield. The 55-year-old divorced father of four said he had tried to keep his personal life separate from his professional life for a long time.
This is yet another case of blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy being displayed by an elected official. Ashburn has voted against a number of gay rights measures, including efforts to expand anti-discrimination laws and recognize out-of-state gay marriages. Last year, he opposed a bill to establish a day of recognition to honor slain gay rights activist Harvey Milk. Equality California, a group that advocates for expanded gay rights and other issues, has consistently given Ashburn a zero rating on its scorecard. For a gay man to vote so consistently against so many issues that are important to the gay community is an outright exhibition of hypocrisy.
Ashburn has attempted to deny that he has been a hypocrite by saying that his votes reflected the way the constituents in his district wanted him to vote, not necessarily his own views. This poses an interesting question about what the duty of an elected official is. We don’t really live in a democracy. The people do not vote on every issue. Instead, we elect representatives to vote on the issues for us in the state Legislature. Ashburn’s statements assume that it is the role of an elected representative to vote the way that the people of his or her district want them to vote on each and every single issue. If that were true, there would be almost no reason to have an elected representative in the first place. If that were the true function of the elected representative, then we could bypass the representative system entirely by simply having the people vote on each and every issue. That would be the surest way to ensure that the “will of the people” is carried out. And if time constraints were so prohibitive as to preclude the people from voting on every issue, then polls could be used to determine how a representative should vote on any given issue. A scientific poll could be taken to monitor the pulse of the electorate right before any bill came up for a vote, and the elected official would simply be charged with voting in accordance to the results of that poll (akin to a pledged elector), basically rubber stamping the will of the people from the district. At that point, the elected official becomes irrelevant.
I would argue that the proper role of an elected official in the Legislature is much different than the way Ashburn portrays it. There is no way that any elected official is going to be able to march in lock step with the will of the people of their district on every single issue. Instead, I believe a candidate for office should honestly tell the electorate exactly how he (or she) thinks and what sort of vision that he has for how government should interact with the people. That will allow voters to have a good idea on how a politician would vote on any given legislation that might come up for a vote. The voters then choose the person from amongst the candidates who they believe best represents the way that they think. Sure, there might be some disagreements on certain issues, but we are looking for a best-fit situation when it comes to our elected officials. The candidate who winds up getting elected should then legislate in a manner consistent with the way he portrayed himself to the voters. The elected official should be able to clearly and articulately explain to the voters the reasons for any deviation of their legislating behavior from that which was promised during the election campaign. (This accountability has the added benefit of exposing any changes in voting patterns caused by special interests.) If the elected official deviates too far from the way he portrayed himself to the voters, then he should be voted out of office in the next election. Or if the will of the people changes so that a different candidate is more in line with their views, then that other candidate should be elected in the next election. And if the electorate finds out that the candidate outright lied to them or was dishonest during the election campaign, then a recall effort should be initiated.
To me, this is the plain and simple way that elected representatives in the Legislature should behave. But, apparently, my view of how elected representatives should operate is completely different than the way Ashburn tried to communicate in order to cover up his hypocrisy. At least we can take comfort in the fact that Ashburn had previously announced that he did not plan to run for any public office after his State Senate term ends this year. Assuming that the seat he currently occupies is not then filled by another hypocrite, that should mean we will have one fewer hypocrite in office in the California Legislature at the end of 2010.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
Mr. Shahab Goes to Sacramento
A few hours ago, former Democratic Party chairman Paul Kirk Jr. was sworn in as Senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Kirk is a temporary replacement for the late Edward Kennedy. He will hold the Senate seat until a permanent replacement can be selected in a special election to be held on January 19, 2010. The appointment of Kirk gives Senate Democrats a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.
The mainstream media seems to be ignoring a large component of this story, the glaring hypocrisy on the part of the late Senator Kennedy and the Massachusetts state legislature. Back in 2004, Mitt Romney, a Republican, was Governor of Massachusetts. Massachusetts’ junior Senator, John Kerry, was running as the Democratic candidate for United States President. Had Kerry won the presidency, Romney would have had the power to directly fill the seat. In that year, Senator Kennedy, the lion of the left, fearing that Romney would fill the seat with a Republican, urged the Massachusetts legislature to strip the Governor of his power to appoint a successor. Instead, Kennedy urged them to require a replacement to be named via a special election to be held within five months of any Senate vacancy. The state legislative Democrats, holding a wide majority in both houses, then went on to do exactly what Kennedy had urged them to do, changing the succession law.
Fast forward to 2009. Senator Kennedy understood that he was gravely ill and that his Senate seat would become vacant in the near future. Kennedy wrote a letter to the leaders of the Massachusetts legislature urging them to change the law requiring a special election. With Duvall Patrick, a Democrat, sitting in the Governor’s office, Kennedy wanted the state legislature to grant the Governor the power to make a temporary appointment to the Senate until the special election could be held. Of course, Kennedy understood that Governor Patrick would appoint a Democrat to fill any vacant Senate seat. Two days ago, the Massachusetts legislature approved the bill to allow Patrick to make an interim appointment until the special election is held. Normally, legislation faces a 90-day waiting period before it can go into effect. But yesterday, the Governor sent a letter to the Secretary of State declaring an emergency that would allow him make an appointment without having to wait the 90 days. He then named Paul Kirk, a close friend of Ted Kennedy and huge donor to the Democratic party, as the successor. As I stated earlier, Kirk was sworn in as a U.S. Senator today.
The hypocrisy is so thick that it is sickening. For Kennedy to not want the Governor to make an appointment if he is a Republican but then to later change his opinion and want the Governor to make a temporary appointment if he is a Democrat is an example of hypocrisy at its worst. It’s political gamesmanship, plain and simple. The media should have excoriated Ted Kennedy and the Massachusetts state legislature over this. But the criticism never materialized in the headlines.
Where is the outrage? What ever happened to the notions of right being right and wrong being wrong? This sort of political manipulation of the law in order to push through a favorable agenda is exactly what is wrong with politics and government today. Don’t we have any honest politicians left in this country?
Back when I was in high school, in an 11th grade American History class, I watched a movie called Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I don’t remember all the details of that movie, but I do remember walking away from it with the crystal clear realization that there are dishonest and corrupt individuals in government. Instead of doing what they feel is right and in the best interests of the country, they do things in order to obtain more power for themselves and for their friends. I have never gone through life thinking that it was okay to act in such dishonest ways, and I have absolutely no respect for people who behave in that sort of way.
Thinking back on it now, I feel some sort of connection to the Mr. Smith played by Jimmy Stewart in that movie. And I truly believe that it is important for me to succeed in my campaign for State Assembly. The people of the State of California and United States of America need to send Mr. Shahab to Sacramento.
Please visit my official campaign website at:
www.Shahab2010.com
California Assemblymember Mike Duvall
News broke yesterday that a second term Republican State Assemblymember from Southern California had been caught in a recording bragging about sexual relationships with a female lobbyist and with another woman. Mike Duvall (R-Yorba Linda), who is married with two adult children, has since resigned. On July 8, he was caught on an open microphone during a break at an Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing.
There seems to be an obvious conflict of interest surrounding the fact that the female lobbyist worked for the utility industry while Duvall was Vice-Chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. So far, there are no allegations of criminal behavior in this case. State law prohibits lobbyists from giving legislators a gift valued at more than $10 per month, but Assembly rules do not expressly prohibit fraternizing, dating, or having sex with lobbyists. Legislators cannot legally sell their vote for sexual favors or other things of value, and misusing the Capitol for improper sexual conduct by a public official is also illegal.
People cheating on their spouses is not a new phenomenon in America, nor is it new in the world of politics. The main problem that I have with this case is that Duvall tried to establish himself as a family values candidate. His votes on family oriented legislation earned Duvall high marks from conservative groups. For his votes to “preserve and protect family values”, the Capitol Resource Institute awarded him a perfect 100 percent rating during the 2007-08 legislative session.
If we want people to respect the what the government does, we need our elected officials to behave in morally upright ways. The hypocrisy of trying to pass oneself off as supporting family values and then proceeding to have multiple affairs is absolutely ridiculous. The electorate needs to do a better job of sniffing out these people before they ever get into elected office. And when such a hypocritical official is discovered, he or she should be pressured to resign as soon as possible. If they refuse to resign, then ethics charges should be brought against them, and they should be removed from office.
Hypocrisy
In light of recent events, it has become clear to me that my first entry about issues should not be about a specific issue. Instead, I must speak about the rampant hypocrisy that is going on in this world. More specifically, there is a whole lot of hypocrisy going on by government officials.
If you support legislation to prosecute prostitutes or people who solicit prostitutes, then you should not solicit the services of prostitutes for yourself. If you support legislation that makes it difficult for the average citizen to obtain a concealed weapons permit, then you should not seek out a concealed weapons permit for yourself. If you preach the evils of illicit drug use, you should not use illicit drugs in your own life. If you warn others about the evils of homosexuality, you should not engage in homosexual behavior in your own life. And if you tell your constituents that family values are important, you should not cheat on your spouse. This is not a difficult concept. And yet, I find examples of this sort of behavior being displayed by many elected officials.
The “do as I say, not as I do” mentality does not work. Even if you don’t break the law, engaging in such hypocritical behavior causes a person to lose any sort of moral authority to speak on that issue. Everyone will see your hypocrisy, and nobody will listen to what you have to say. At the end of the day, you must be able to look at yourself in the mirror, to be able to look yourself in the eye, and be comfortable with the way you have behaved. Hypocrites cannot do this.
It is not difficult to avoid hypocrisy. As long as one is willing to say what they actually believe, to genuinely speak their true mind on an issue, hypocrisy can easily be avoided. Those who say one thing and do another are only doing so because they do not want to lose the support of those whose beliefs are contrary to their own. If someone wants to be a true leader, that person must be willing to take a stand on an issue. Furthermore, in addition to stating what they believe in, they should also be able to express why they believe the way they do. Whether people agree with you or not can then be addressed; a process of debate can then take place. But this entire process cannot be conducted properly unless one’s true stance is clearly stated in the beginning.
As such, I live my life by not being afraid to admit what I believe in. I hold myself to a high standard. I never ask of other people anything that I am not willing to do myself. If anybody ever finds my own behavior to be contradictory to what I say, then please draw my attention to it.