NVR Logo
Schwarzenegger orders cuts amid fiscal crisis
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Save and Share Share
1:30 p.m.SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Thursday, trying to avoid a “full-blown” financial crisis in California, eliminated thousands of part-time and temporary positions and ordered that up to 200,000 state workers receive the federal minimum wage.

His signing of the executive order had been expected since last week but is a stark illustration of the cash problem facing the nation’s most populous state.
Lawmakers have yet to agree on a spending plan a month after the state’s fiscal year began, leaving California without the ability to pay contractors, the higher education system and legislative employees.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers remain divided over how to close a $15.2 billion deficit, with Democrats favoring $8.2 billion in new taxes on corporations and the state’s wealthiest residents. Republicans want a spending cap and oppose tax increases.
Adding to the fiscal mess has been an unprecedented number of wildfires this year, costing the state far more for emergency response than it had budgeted.

“Today I am exercising my executive authority to avoid a full-blown crisis and keep our state moving forward,” Schwarzenegger said. “This is not an action I take lightly.”
Yet the governor said he is responsible for making sure California has enough money to pay its bills and that the executive order will lead to immediate savings.

The order exempts public safety agencies but will have an immediate effect everywhere else: Hiring, overtime and contracting will be halted, and tens of thousands of employees will feel the squeeze.

It covers 22,000 retired state employees who work under contract, temporary and part-time workers such as those who fill in at the Department of Motor Vehicles, seasonal employees and student assistants. But Schwarzenegger’s finance team said of that total, just 10,300 would receive pink slips immediately. The others are workers who might be exempted from the order because they are deemed crucial to public safety.

Schwarzenegger also cited a 2003 California Supreme Court ruling allowing him to slash the pay of regular full-time employees when the state lacks a budget. By law, those workers must be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $6.55 an hour and would be reimbursed once a budget is approved.

Whether that provision of the order will ever be implemented is in doubt because the state controller, who cuts the checks, has said he will not comply with it.

The administration estimates that immediately terminating the contracts and suspending overtime would save the state as much as $80 million a month. The deferred wages for full-time employees would take several weeks to implement, saving the state anywhere from $300 million to $1 billion a month starting in late August, depending on how many employees are determined to be essential to public safety and would be exempt from the executive order.

Department heads were ordered to develop a list by Friday of exempt employees.

Before he signed the order, Schwarzenegger said he understood the effect it will have on thousands of people and apologized to state employees.

“It is a terrible situation to be in,” he said. “I don’t think any governor wants to be in this situation.”

But the governor also said he was left with no other option, saying the state was running out of cash.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said she was disappointed with the decision to defer the pay of full-time employees until a budget is signed.

“It is an unwise and unfortunate move to cause economic strife to public servants and their families who are working hard and playing by the rules,” the Los Angeles Democrat said in a statement.

Yet she added that the action would not deter legislative leaders from working on the budget. Bass said she hoped they would submit a spending plan to Schwarzenegger “in the next few days.”

The governor’s order came under immediate challenge.

State Controller John Chiang, a Democrat, sent a letter to Schwarzenegger on Thursday saying he will defy the order and issue employees their regular paychecks.

He said the governor’s executive order was based on “faulty legal and factual premises.”

Chiang said the 2003 Supreme Court ruling did not specify the actual amount of the salary his office could pay state employees during a budget impasse.

The controller and the Republican administration also differ over the state’s financial condition. Chiang maintains that California has enough money to meet all its expenses through September.

If it’s later determined that California has insufficient money, Chiang said he is authorized to borrow until a budget is approved.

Chiang’s refusal to comply sets up a potential legal skirmish between his office and Schwarzenegger’s.

The governor was asked during a news conference whether his administration would sue the controller’s office if it did not comply with the executive order.

“If that’s what it takes,” he said. “I’m here to make sure that our state functions, and whatever it takes, I will do it.”

Schwarzenegger signed the order Thursday because it’s the first day of the August pay period. The first paycheck to be affected by the minimum wage order would be the one state employees receive in early September.
23 comment(s)

antipc wrote on Jul 31, 2008 12:48 PM:

" Now that's what I call a "Terminator".

Just when I thought Arnold had no spine he shows great potential for leadership.

John Chiang is in his last term as controller. "

Amelia wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:40 PM:

" Let the lawsuits begin "

Dwayne wrote on Jul 31, 2008 1:41 PM:

" The pay for the legislator's should be halted before the innocent rank and file takes it in the shorts.

'Course we all know this is just for show, and wasn't intended to be a reasonable solution. "

carno75 wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:02 PM:

" before you start saying who is in his last term, you should read the full letter Chiang sent to the goobernator and not rely on the exerpts from the published newspaper articles. And last time i looked (yesterday) Chiang signs my paycheck! "

psychochik wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:18 PM:

" I was under the impression that state legislators do not receive pay if they dont balance the budget on time ?? Am I wrong in that ?? "

Cadence wrote on Jul 31, 2008 2:38 PM:

" I'm related to two state employees. The two have more paid days off than Carter has pills! They have Presidents' Day, Lincoln's Birthday, Columbus Day, Chavez Day, Veteran's Day, etc. etc.
These are in addition to vacation days, sick days, family days, personal days and whatnot.
If the cut stuck (it's temporary at best), it would simply reduce my sibs' pay to pretty much what everyone else in like but non-state positions earn, once the many, many paid state holidays are taken into account. "

tiredofcomplainingnapkins wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Its either raise taxes and let the entire state band together and deal with this crisis, or lay off 20,000 and cut wages to unlivable amounts to thousands more. I guess its everyone for themselves instead of helping out your fellow man "

Di wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:41 PM:

" What no one seems to realize is that cutting state employee's pay will impact everyone in the long run. When state employees are unable to make their mortgage payments, loan payments, etc.; it will in turn raise interest ranges for all. Instead of helping the State's situation; it will in effect worsen the economy by leaving a large number of state residents unable to meet their fiscal responsibilities. "

Amelia wrote on Jul 31, 2008 3:48 PM:

" Cadence:
The state doesn't create the holidays or the national days of observance. The federal governmant does that. The people who work for the state do not get a choice whether or not they can work the holidays. And I'm pretty positive that whereever you work, if you could get those same days off, you would. "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:17 PM:

" Gee, and I thought the gubernator was there to make sure we didn't have a fiscal crisis to begin with.

Isn't that how he got elected?

So, the republicans want to see state employees suffer while gas companies continue to make record profits. I tell you, something major stinks here. "

realist2 wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:40 PM:

" Let the lawsuits begin??? Good idea because that certainly won't cost the tax payers any money. Who cares how many days they get off?? I get all the same holidays and I am not a state worker. I also get six weeks paid vacation but that doesn't give anybody the right to cut my pay, ruin my credit, put me into hardship and debt because the people responsible for passing the budget can't do THEIR job.

"...the governor said he is responsible for making sure California has enough money to pay its bills..." Hey Arnold, paying state employees is part of paying the bills. "

Grits wrote on Jul 31, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Amelia, you sure got that right! Envy is such an ugly emotion! "

Raven wrote on Jul 31, 2008 7:12 PM:

" the legislators are not being paid according sen. perata "

russ wrote on Jul 31, 2008 8:10 PM:

" We have a financial crisis because we have too much government, too many people, too many benefits, too little productivity and too many politicians with too little guts. The deficit is back because Arnold has become a Liberal like the Legislature.

della, wouldn't it be smart if the State learned from the profitable & productive oil companies.

Just think of the fact that oil companies pay lots of taxes, sales and property taxes, they pay employees well, so that they pay income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes. Oil companies pay their suppliers and pay earnings to folks like you and me in our 401k plans.

Take it easy on the oil companies. How much profit is too much? They would make more profit if they cashed out and put the money in a long term CD. "

kevin wrote on Jul 31, 2008 9:38 PM:

" Let's see how long the Dem's in Sacramento hold out on the budget now, with thousands of their constitutents pay being cut. If Arnold gets his way, I bet the budget will be settled very soon... "

dellasumbrella wrote on Jul 31, 2008 10:08 PM:

" Okay Russ, I'll take your question seriously, even though I'm unconvinced that the oil companies are necessarily profitable or productive in a way that best serves the consumers or the workers as much as it serves investors. So I'm looking in the phone book, under State Gov't Offices, to see which I think would work better as "for-profit" agencies. I won't go through them all; there are too many, as I'm sure you would agree, since you believe we have too much government. I'll just pick a few I know something about. California Conservation Corps: They do a lot of work around the state, clearing brush, digging ditches, etc. I'm not sure who would invest in them; since their office is at Napa State Hospital I imagine the employees have to deal with some pretty testy volunteers, so whatever they earn I think they deserve. Anyway, the only people I can think of who might buy their services are state & federal agencies, so if they keep raising their rates the way oil companies do, end of ditches.
Employment Development Dept: Can't imagine their clients, those laid off from large corporations or bereft non-profits etc., being able to pay a lot for their services. So I guess it's up to us taxpayers to make them profitable. Want to invest more in the unemployed? I'm sure you don't.
Forestry & Fire Protection: Um, I guess we could charge everyone whose house is threatened by fire their life savings. Would that be profitable?
Highway Patrol: I dunno, maybe they could start an auto recycling factory...that'd be profitable if they appropriated every car they stopped for a violation.
Public Utilities Commission: I just wish they'd recognize that Berryessa shouldn't be in climate zone 2.
Close to 300 words; gotta go... "

LMW wrote on Aug 1, 2008 12:09 AM:

" and the housing market and our economic downturn continues its ripple effect....to homes, to banks, to lenders, to investors, to our cities, to our state and so on and so on!!!!!!!

A vision they should of forecasted, before the 17 in a row rate cuts began.

Time for community building:)))) Who else is going to look over your city. Assisting ourselves.

Sad news for many families. "

asahigo wrote on Aug 1, 2008 4:20 AM:

" I've always thought politicians make too much money. They're supposed to be our representatives and serve our best interests. If I was ever gullible enough to become a politician, I would do the job for 65% of my predecessors pay. All politicians need to take a minimum 15% cut in pay immediately and permanently. Check out their salaries and tell me they don't make too much. Keep in mind these are just the salaries, not any other benefits or kickbacks they may receive. http://www.dpa.ca.gov/salaries/elected.htm "

Cadence wrote on Aug 1, 2008 7:51 AM:

" Amelia, Maybe the feds determine days to observe, but the state - typically under pressure to sign another union employee contract - chooses to give the employees the day off with full pay. The feds do not give their employees Columbus Day and Lincoln's Birthday.
Problem is, Amelia, the economy's in lousy shape and prices are up. Your extra nonproductive days are simply another expense that is too much right now. You really think we civilians should pay more taxes on top of everything else we're paying more for to ensure your extra days off? Really?
The unions' Dem-sanctioned stranglehold on the state treasury is a huge part of this fiscal problem.
Smug worked really well for the UAW, didn't it. "

cathyodom wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:14 AM:

" I went to the DMW yesterday, and because of the governor, they closed the doors at 4:45 and let people go early. They used to be open late on Thursday nights, but no more. It will be harder for us working folks to get government services if they close their counters early. "

bornin74 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 9:55 AM:

" I have a good friend who is now in dire straights as he is being told he will be making $6.55 per hour until a budget is approved. He lives in Napa and works for the State at the vet's home. He will now have to work 2 hours a day just to pay for gas to get to work each day..... not to mention bills etc...

Then when a budget is approved we must factor in "reimburement for all state employees........
So we are now in the business of robbing from Peter to pay Paul, this cycle will never end. This type of thinking will not create fiscal bliss, but a perpetual cycle of paying it forward


what a mess..... I feel for the State workers....

I know my friend has alot of days off, and vacation hours saved... and he has told me he is just going to use all of it now..... why should he go in to work??? when he can stay home and make $6.55 an hour......watch.... state services will be ghost towns......just wait "

Amelia wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:05 AM:

" Cadence:
State workers do not receive Columbus day off. And typically half of the state workers are not able to take off the holidays that others are because they have to work. Who would watch the inmates, the mentally disabled at the hospitals, who would protect us if we needed it? Granted, is it in excess? Yes, but the holidays do not make California go into debt as you are implying. Oh and another thing, I'm not a state employee so I don't get those days off. "

Reality1 wrote on Aug 1, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Hey, Cadence, ask your state employee friends how many years they got vacation time instead of a pay raise. Some people whine about the benefits of public employees, but their pay tends to lag behind private industry. Because the state is ALWAYS short of money, it tends to give some benefit, like more time off, instead of an annual pay raise. The employees don't ask for this, they'd rather have a pay raise. If your employer offered you a benefit, such as more vacation time, instead of a pay raise, and you had no other choice, would you turn it down? It is too bad that the state employees are at the mercy of politicians like this. It's very obvious that Arnold is going to hold them hostage to force the Democrats to see things his way. There ought to be a law... "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy