Santa Clara County supervisors, in unanimously and quietly
approving raises for county officials despite a $127 million budget
shortfall looming next fiscal year, are using the same failed logic
that plagues Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
Santa Clara County supervisors, in unanimously and quietly approving raises for county officials despite a $127 million budget shortfall looming next fiscal year, are using the same failed logic that plagues Sacramento and Washington, D.C. They seem to believe that spending money you don’t have is justified if you believe the cause is worthy.
We don’t know if the the compensation package the county offers its top employees is competitive with similar public agencies. We do know that it’s beside the point. The county is spending more money than it receives, and it’s irresponsible to make that problem worse by handing out raises it cannot afford.
It doesn’t matter that county unions negotiated raises. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It doesn’t matter that some of the county administrators haven’t had raises in a year or so. The county doesn’t have the money right now.
Nevertheless, County Executive Pete Kutras will receive a 4 percent raise – $8,860 – that will bring his salary to more than $232,000 next year. That’s certainly an adequate salary for his position.
But that’s not all: 158 other employees in Kutras’ office will receive an average 3 percent raise, and three elected officials will receive 3 percent raises ranging from $4,612 to $6,672.
We don’t doubt District 1 Supervisor Don Gage’s defense of Kutras’ job performance: “For the job Pete is doing, this raise is well-deserved,” Gage said. “We’ve had significant budget problems and he’s getting them resolved. He’s done an outstanding job.”
We seriously question his apparent conclusion that it’s right to increase fees and taxes or reduce services for taxpayers – the only options open to the county – to pay for these raises and next year’s $127 million shortfall.
Our county supervisors are not alone in this problem. It’s all over Washington, D.C., which is posting record-setting deficits, and in Sacramento, which, despite the election of supposed-reformer Arnold Schwarzenegger, cannot get its chronic deficit under control.
In both cases, gerrymandering, which results in an overwhelming re-election rate for incumbents, plays a strong role. Incumbents simply don’t believe that their constituents will hold them accountable for their fiscal follies. And why should they? Not a single member of the state Senate or Assembly who sought re-election failed to win their seat.
We note that our local cities are in decent fiscal shape, bolstering our theory that the further the money gets from taxpayers, the less discipline elected officials exercise in spending it responsibly. Sadly, we used to consider county government to be local, but with the decision to grant raises while facing a $127 million sea of red ink, it’s looking a lot more like Sacramento.
Government spending has to change. Discipline and accountability must be restored. The only way that will happen is if voters demand it at the ballot box. Reducing the incumbent return rate is an excellent place to start.
The lesson is basic: If you don’t have it, don’t spend it.
When will Hedding Street, Sacramento and Washington, D.C., get it?
