Text 7891, 64 rader
Skriven 2010-05-17 19:42:22 av Bob Ackley (1:300/3)
   Kommentar till text 7884 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: The Greek Misery
========================
Replying to a message of Robert Bashe to Bob Ackley:

 RB> Bob Ackley wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday May 16 2010 at
 RB> 06:42:

 BA>> In Iowa (and in Nebraska) the legislature only meets for
 BA>> the first 3 or 4 months of the year. Once they adjourn
 BA>> they're gone for the rest of the year.

 RB> And they get _paid_ for that? I think if I were you, I'd run
 RB> for a seat - sounds like a soft job.

The Nebraska unicameral (the only one-house state legislature in the country)
meets for 90 days at the beginning of each year.  All of the legislation to be
considered must be submitted within the first few weeks of the session.

 BA>> The governor cannot unilaterally increase taxes, so he
 BA>> didn't have that alternative, he *had* to cut spending.

 RB> If he can't unilaterally raise taxes, and the legislature
 RB> only meets when the fish are not biting, how can he
 RB> unilaterally cut spending?

Because the governor runs the administration.  He cannot cut some things, but
he *can* lay off workers and slow down or shut down most programs.

 RB> Seems to me something is wrong
 RB> with the system when the legislature only has to agree to
 RB> tax rises, but not to cuts in programs that some
 RB> legislators (and their constituencies) might think
 RB> important.

Not sure about Iowa, but Nebraska's governor can call the legislature back
into session in an emergency.  IIRC it's only been done a couple of times
in the past quarter century or longer.

Oh, a lot of Iowa's legislators got to posture and bloviate when the governor
announced the 10% across-the-board spending cuts (which, incidentally,
included his own salary - I think he'd've been lynched if it didn't <g>) last
year, but they couldn't DO anything about it.  Best of both worlds for the
politicians, no responsibility either for the overspending or for the required
remedy (spending cuts) for that overspending.

The only alternative to the governor's 10% spending cut was to let the state
run
out of money, at which point the state could not write *any* checks and
spending
is cut 100% - including payrolls.  That would have meant - among other things -
no paychecks for the state's employees from about the middle of November
through
December 31st.  Also no unemployment or welfare or Medicaid checks...

Unlike the national government, the state governments cannot print money -
although
California has on a couple of occasions issued 'warrants' instead of checks
when it ran
out of money.  Those warrants were (theoretically) useable just like cash (but
only
within the state) and could be redeemed for cash when the state got enough
money
to do so.

---
 * Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)