GovernorSchwarzenegger had the nerve to suggest that legislators take a paycut as a symbolic gesture and to save the state some money. As heput it in his State of the State address on January 15, “if youcall a taxi and the taxi doesn't show up, you don't have to pay thedriver.”

In other words, thecitizens of California should not have to pay our legislators forfailing to do their job.

So how much cab fareare we talking about? Members of the Legislature receive from$116,000 to nearly $134,000 in annual salary, plus generous expenseallowances and excellent benefits according to public records. Thegovernor’s salary is more than $210,000, butSchwarzenegger takes neither salary nor expenses, which is laudable,but not surprising given his wealth and money-making ability once histerm ends.

But our legislatorshave not embraced the governor’s suggestion that they take apay cut in light of the poor job they have done. In fact, that storyhas died in the media – hence no further coverage of theGovernator’s challenge to the legislative branch and theresponse of these public servants.

And why would anyoneconsider the issue relevant? We Californians constantly reduce theworkload of our legislators, even as we raise their pay. As I notedin an earlier CAIVP commentary, our citizens already make many of thetough legislative decisions through our overwrought voter initiativeprocess, which frequently puts out of the reach of politicians majorfunding issues such as education.

The whole idea ofcitizen-legislators – part-time and paid enough to coverexpenses – has morphed into a full-time political class. Eventerm limits have not succeeded at sucking the security out ofpolitics – it has instead allowed politician to move upward andonward to higher, or just different, political positions. Politicaloffice has become the ultimate government job. The success rate forincumbents ranges from around 80 percent throughout California andthe nation, and the ability of incumbents to gerrymander theirdistricts into permanent safe houses has magnified this problem.

And don’t getme started on the unethical electioneering practices that have madethe marketing of candidates far more misleading than the marketing oflaundry detergent. At least with products, there are watchdogagencies and powerful consumer groups with their eye on the problem. With politicians, we have good ol’ boys appointed bypoliticians keeping a close watch on their friends who also happen tobe politicians.

So it really isn’tsurprising that our California legislators aren’t jumping forjoy at the thought of reducing their “raid the larder”approach to governing. This is, after all, their job – the waythey make a living and feed their families. They are no differentthan teachers, factory workers or CalTrans employees. It’sjust a job.

And isn’t thatexactly the problem with turning politicians into a political class? Maybe we need more than just a salary reduction – maybe we needto redefine the role of lawmakers and return to the idea ofcitizen-politicians with other jobs to go back to. Then the workwould have to get done more quickly, and accountability would be moreclosely monitored by fellow-citizens. So, governor, maybe you justdidn’t ask for enough.