Do an internet search on “will not take pay raise” and you will get a lot of results. One of my first search results on this phrase came right close to my home state of Michigan: it was something on the newly elected Michigan governor Rick Snyder:
Republican Gov. Rick Snyder today pledged to take a $1 salary this year as the state wrestles with a budget deficit.
The promise was reminiscent of former Flint Mayor Don Williamson, who also had pledged to take $1 a year when he took office.
Snyder is unveiling his proposed budget to the Legislature this morning.
He listed "shared sacrifice" as one of the budget's guiding principles, which is when he announced his salary plan.
Scott Walker, the incoming governor of Wisconsin in 2010, wasn’t a self-made millionaire like Snyder, so he didn’t have the financial resources to do the same. But does the automatic pay raise which went to his position when he started merit a “False” ruling from PolitiFact Wisconsin because he technically didn’t give it to himself?
The question should be is it true that there was a pay raise for the governor’s position—regardless of whether it’s a Democrat or Republican taking that position. The answer is yes, it’s true.
And can the governor through the majority Republican state congress, re-set his pay? YES. Can the governor return the $7,300 as a symbol that he is sharing the burden with state employees? YES. Can he give $7,300 to charity as a symbol of shared sacrifice? Yes. And, if he was a millionaire like Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, could he give himself a $1 annual salary until he brought Wisconsin out of its financial doldrums? I’m sure he could.
It’s not true that he rewarded himself, or that he “gave himself” a raise. But technically, he received a state-approved increase to his salary over the person who held it previously. I don’t know how that can be deemed a false. Even the ruling says: (emphasis added)
Walker took office in January and was paid $144,423. That’s $7,331 more than his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle. State law calls for the pay of the governor, other state constitutional officers, and members of the Legislature to be set before their terms of office begin.
In Walker’s case, the higher salaries were proposed by Doyle’s administration and approved by state lawmakers in 2008.
So Walker received one level of pay when he took office. Under the state constitution, that pay will not change for the duration of his four-year term.
Critics have noted that Walker will be making more than Doyle (true), that as Milwaukee County Executive he gave back some of his pay (true) and that he could choose to do the same as governor (true). But that’s not what the party said.
“That’s $7,331 more than his predecessor….so, what does “more” mean? Isn’t getting a raise mean getting “more” money? In certain respects, the previous governor was a known entity, while the new governor is inexperienced: that means the increase isn’t even justified, because in business, you need either better performance or, if the person is an “unknown entity” there must be some factor in the supply/demand curve for state executives that merits an increased wage (which is probably the other way around these days). In this case, it was sort of a COLA increase (cost of living). But it was a raise.
What if Walker had made this an issue during his campaign? What if he had said he’d refuse the wage increase in order to “freeze” Wisconsin budgets at their (then) current level? And if governor salaries are taken up by the Wisconsin legislature for the next term, can a temporary pay cut be enacted? I mean, Walker obviously had to cut the budget, and he did it by cutting the pay and benefits of state workers…except, it appears, for himself. Why was he an exception? This certainly flies in the face of the spirit of what he was trying to do—no wonder Wisconsin citizens got so upset and began to protest.
The State Democratic Party of Wisconsin certainly doesn’t deserve a “True” because Walker never gave himself a raise. In a previous ruling on "Bloggers", this was how it was put; here, it was “rewarding himself.” But a “False” is sort of going to an extreme. PolitiFact Wisconsin's James Nelson almost treats his increase in pay as “beyond reproach” as if it’s set in concrete and cannot be reversed, which is simply not true. At most, this statement is partially accurate (his position did get a raise) but leaves out important details (it was mandated by law, and he did not give it to himself). In other words, this was more like a Half True than it was False.
No comments:
Post a Comment