Arizona governor (Napolitano, D) is on to something

[pazarus]

She decided against getting a $65,000 pay raise... and now the rich Republican opposition won't stoop to challenging her. What do they want with a job that only pays $95,000 a year?

Personally, I think she's on to something. Rich Democrats have historically been willing to risk higher taxes for the greater good of society, while greedy conservatives loath the idea. What if every Democratic public office holder was willing to take a pay-cut? How many Republicans would be willing to run for a job that pays them half what their current job does? Public service jobs shouldn't be left to those who are there for the money. The pay should be reasonable but low, so only people who are truly interested in the job and love the work will take it. It looks like Napolitano loves her job, and she just made what could be a very shrewd move to keep it.

Taking pay-cuts across the country would fit into the Democratic ideology, it would look good to voters, it would make a statement about fiscal responsibility, and it keeps greedy candidates away.



link to article

[ewagner]

1. Interesting idea

I've thought about putting the "service" part back into public service by making it almost a sacrifice to serve.

For instance, if the pay for serving in Congress was, say, $25,000 per year or less, and there was a requirement that all Senators and Congressmen had to live in Government supplied Dorms or Apartments, take public transportation (for free maybe) and eat in Government owned cafeterias, would that be more of an incentive to vote in the public interest?

Of course, there would have to be 100% public financing of campaigns or else it still wouldn't work.

If the perks were less, the "rich" guys wouldn't want to run and the only people who would run would be those with a true "calling",.

Thoughts?

[pazarus]

5. That would certainly change the game.

But I think people don't exactly want their leadership in the poorhouse. Also, if it's too much of a sacrifice, only the ones who can afford to have no income (previously wealthy) would then take the job. It might get the results, but it seems very theoretical.

But it definitely shouldn't be the way it is now, with huge salaries and huge kickbacks for the ones that support corporate interests. I hope other Democrats are willing to take it in the pocketbook for political gain, I think the Republicans are just too greedy to compete with that.

[doodadem]

2. Arnie gave up his governor's salary

when he took office. It was chump change to him anyway. He said he could "live" on the $8M a year he made from magazine endorsements. Well, now he's lost that too because it turned out to be a conflict of interest.
Do you think it will make him sell one of his Humvees?

[liberalitch]

4. JFK gave his up too, probably for different reasons

There are more important things in life than money

[readmylips]

6. That photo breaks my heart....

someone deliberately killed this beautiful family.

[liberalitch]

3. I'll cost you taxpayers half of what my opponent will cost you...

probably in more ways than one.... ;-)

That could be the rallying cry.

[Peace Patriot]

7. Recommended! I love this idea! I remember ALL the arguments over

the years for higher and higher and higher and HIGHER government salaries, especially in the top brackets--that we have to pay more to legislators and administrators so they won't be bribed and become corrupt (har, har); that gov't has to "compete" with big business for top talent; that we want "top notch" people riding herd on corporations...blah, blah, blah.

It reminds me of the arguments that got the Lottery passed in California, way back--that the money would be used for EXTRA school programs in science and art.

And the arguments used when they FIRST started charging "fees" at the U. of California--"it will never become tuition."

God, what a load of bull we have been sold over the decades!

I think that if Democrats gave more than lipservice to the real PAIN that ordinary people are feeling financially, we might begin to have some REAL representation in government--provided we can achieve transparent elections (elections that are not tabulated with secret, proprietary programming code by major Bush donors...jeez!).

---------------

On a related topic: If we are at war, why are the rich getting tax breaks?

I wish top Democrats would say this every day, when they get out of bed in the morning, all day, through lunch, work, dinner, to everyone they see, at the beginning of every speech or press conference (no matter the topic) and to any reporters, colleagues or Bushites they may chance upon in the hallways, and shout it off their balconies before they go to sleep at night.

Really. You want a war for oil and for global corporate predators--YOU pay for it.

[pazarus]

8. She should win handily and spread the idea.

It's all part of a bigger picture of responsibility that comes with wealth and power, and how society needs to work.

And you are right that the Democrats need to start asking: where is the sacrifice? Where is the restraint, the common sense, where are the priorities of the Republican tax cuts? Moves like this one of Napolitano's really expose the Republican's for their greed, and other similar moves could help solidify the argument.

I think it's a winning platform with personal financial risks. I hope other people see the thread and consider the strategy.

[ncteechur]

9. Great idea. NC pays its governor a crazy sum!!