Should Steve Poizner Work Free?
Should rich politicians be paid for their journey into public service?
The argument can be made that rich politicians go into politics to advocate certain ideas. These private sector warriors do this because they believe in their proven concepts, and that they will work for the improvement of society.
If these rich politicians didn’t believe in their ideals, they shouldn’t advocate them, nor should they leave the private sector to promote them for the mass of citizenship.
And if they do not support specific ideas, they shouldn’t be in politics. Just because they have been successful doesn’t mean they should be given the office on a silver platter.
Politics is about ideas, concepts and principles. It’s not a profession.
Taxpayers should not be paying for politicians to sit in an office all day and act like they are doing something, or for politicians to calculate their next campaign and fundraising event.
If one truly believes in an idea, one is glad to share this idea; discuss it with others in order to advocate its merit and implement its essence so to bring about change for the citizens of the state, district or community.
Again, rich politicians should not treat public office as a retirement plan to conclude their private sector joyride.
If you truly believe in your ideas, your resume in running for the office is due to success as a private sector businessman, or woman; should you then expect to be paid as an elected politician?
Most of us would loudly respond with a negative answer.
We tend to see public office as servant quarters – not a mansion of higher goals, perks and favors at the expense of the taxpayer.
It was on this premise that our current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, refused to take an annual salary of $212,000. Since his service as California’s Executive Director starting in 2003, Governor Schwarzenegger has saved the taxpayers of California over $1.2 million.
This past week, each of the Republican candidates were asked by Sacramento Bee reporter Jack Chang if they would cash the bi-weekly payroll checks if they became governor.
Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman said she will follow in the footsteps of Arnold on this point; Whitman stated that she will decline the $212,000 annual salary – that actually gets reduced to 170,000 after the 18-percent salary cut for state officials takes place in 2010.
Former Finance Director, Tom Campbell, responded with humor. When asked about his possible salary of $170,000 a year, Campbell said, “How else would I eat?”
Then there is the current Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner.
The Commissioner was asked about his intentions for the office of governor and its bi-weekly paycheck; Poizner, who has nearly a billion dollars in personal wealth, said he will accept the paycheck.
I asked the communications director and co-campaign manager for Meg Whitman, Tucker Bounds, for Meg’s response. “It’s about creditability. It’s inappropriate for a very wealthy governor to call for budget cuts, new efficiencies and layoffs, while drawing an unneeded paycheck from state’s coffers.”
The issue of creditability is a serious one; should we elect a candidate that refuses a paycheck on the grounds that it makes them creditable in the midst of an election cycle? Fair question.
Since 2003 we haven’t had to cut a paycheck for our governor – how has that worked out for us?
Should we place stock into Meg’s decision to not take a paycheck as a millionaire or should we consider that someone who embraces their pay knows their value?
My dad always told me, “Son, know your worth and don’t ever work for free. You have talents and gifts that God has placed within you to produce for you and your family. In America, find your value and demand your worth.”
But the question remains; does this apply if you run for Governor of California, knowing that $170,000 adds up when you consider the furloughed, unemployed and over-regulated small businessmen and woman of a state that spends more than it takes in, and has a current $38 billion deficit?
In the end, you the voters and the tax payers should make call.
I’d love you read your thoughts.
Anytime some one is willing to invest, beg and barrow tens of millions to run for Office and then work for free I become concerned. After the first year Arnold was not effective as Govenor but he did work for free. What did that get us? I lost all respect for Gov. Arnold long ago.
The only way Arnold could have won me back is if he would have 1. man-ed up and let the Government shut down until a budget was reached that made sense or 2. went down to the Central Valley with some bolt cutters and turned the water on to the farmers. A real leader would have risked going to jail to get water to those farmers though out the State of California.
We IE the voters have elected Tyrants and the ONLY way I see to stop the Government inside the State of California and in Washington DC is to CUT OFF THE MONEY. Until we cut of the money to feed the monsters/tyrants in our Government. They will not care two rips how mad we might be or what we who flip the bills might think. Turn off the money and they will wake up real fast.
No one seems willing to join me in this endevor and I need a few million of my closets freinds to fight back in order to make this effort work.
Seeing how everyone is so scared of the Government who is supose to work for the people. The only other thing I can see that might work would be to pay those in Government more-allot more. Whom ever should win as Governor of California should offer the theiving politicians in Sacramento another option. A commision on any cut in spending they can get passed. Maybe those whom write a bill to cut spending in order to reap the rewards of a commission can offer to split the commission with their pals in Sacramento to vote for the Bill. Yes, a legal bribe.
If these politicains would vote to cut 50 Billion Dollars from the Budget and they get to split 500 million. These folks would be rich beyond anything they ever dreamed and we the Tax Payers could get big wins.
If we the people could bribe those in office with cash from cuts in Government. We might be able to get this mess back under control.
I am sure those in Washington who are having to run the bribes though their campaigns would take notice to the legal theiving going on in in Sacramento and become some of the most fiscally responsible Office Holders we have had in a hundred years.
I for one do not think it is a badge of honor to work for free when it comes to being the Governor or any Government position. Actually I think it is the stupidist idea in quite sometime.
1. It devalues the position as not being worthy of a paycheck.
2. If the standard is to not take a salary, then only rich people will run and eliminates 99% of anybody else.
3. It is a cheap political stunt to look good to voters if you don’t take a salary when running against someone who does need to get paid.
4. The amount saved is a hole in the bucket compared to the real issues in this state and is a complete waste of time to even have this discussion.
5. By screening candidates on their ability to work for free we eliminate 100′s of well qualified individuals that would do some good becasue of the pressure to not take a salary. It eliminates grass root guys like myself that aspire to higher office– if the first question we will have to field is “are you going to take a salary?”
I believe this is one of the dumbest political strategies we as Republicans can have and if I ever get elected and am sure as hell getting paid because I am worth it! If we are now going to be governed only by the rich elite, then we are in one sorry state folks! When the Abraham Lincoln’s of this country can no longer run because they aren’t rich, the system has failed you and me!
I will not sit around and listen to this bunch of crap as it pertains to getting paid. The position expects and demands excellence and the person should be compensated for it. END OF STORY!
Paul Smith,
Our Government and those we have elected to work with in it seem more and more like the England we left long ago.
Can any see a difference between the King and Lords from England and the Government of States and DC who seem to know what is best for us little people as they allow us to eat cake?
I am thankfull the Tea Party of the past did more then march around with signs to show their displeasure with England. I hope the people of today will take the next step before it is to late. Cut off the Money.
Working for free? What is the catch, neither Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner have it right. I can’t imagine that either of them come close to what California needs. The Republicans are so out of touch on so many levels right now, Tom Campbell is no cure as well. The party is split, even the Democrats are split. I hope that an unknown wins this election and that no one votes for the rich candidates or the old ones that seem to always attempt to take over the government. It seems like the rich and the old politicians are run by a motor that no one can afford in California. Let’s get back to basics and start over with fresh candidates that want to just fix what has ruined their lives, ones that have seen the rough roads and wants to just make peace across the board with regular ideas and good fixes from the grassroots.
Meg has agreed to refusing her paycheck, as Arnold has over the years. Both Poizner and Campbell would take the pay.