Next time you take a trip to Fantasyland — aka the State Capitol — in Sacramento, check out the vehicles coming and going from the underground garage that connects to L Street.
You will notice a dearth of state vehicles and those leased by lawmakers on the taxpayers’ dime that are not powered by fossil fuels.
One would think since many of the 120 men and women in the California Legislature believe they have dual roles of guardians and prophets they would refuse to even take an Uber ride if it wasn’t in an electric vehicle.
It is the legislature, after all, that laid the foundation for the banning any new vehicle powered by fossil fuel from being sold in California in 2035 and beyond.
The legislature’s ranks include more than a few that remind us there are experts warning greenhouse gas will trigger a climate change Armageddon even before 2035 arrives. They parrot such dire pronouncements to push a wide array of aggressive — and borderline militant — green regulations and laws.
Yet, they opt not to lead by example
Yes, those jaunts to Hawaii to discuss California issues such as members of the legislature did in 2019 years back with PG&E were essential and couldn’t have been done in a conference room at the Capitol so therefore accelerating the climate collapse was necessary.
Hypocrisy and double-standards reflect business as usual in Sacramento.
Even Gorge Orwell in his “Animal Farm” masterpiece couldn’t have envisioned the twisted logic delivered with faces straight out of central casting for Pinocchio.
As for their ability to connect the dots in a world where everything has a ripple effect, the legislature makes someone blowing a 0.40 trying to walk a straight line after being pulled over for suspicion of driving under the influence come across as channeling a successful high wire act.
The most egregious example of double standards and their inability to correctly add 2 plus 2 during the past week centers around the $302 billion state budget proposal.
More precisely, they are the wages of fast food workers and state employees represented by the Service Employees International Union Local 1000 bargaining group.
The bargaining group represents prison librarians, janitor staff, as well as educators at the state’s schools for the deaf and blind.
Lawmakers are working to undermine voters in advance of the 2024 election when a measure killing legislation giving a state commission the power to take the fast food wage minimum wage up to $22 an hour will appear on the ballot.
The court — as they have historically done in California regarding ballot initiatives — ordered the law setting the stage for wage increase for fast food workers up to $22 an hour held in abeyance after enough signatures were gathered to qualify a measure for a statewide vote.
There are lawmakers that want to revive a long-dormant regulatory body known as the Industrial Welfare Commission that’s been on ice since Democrats pulled the funding in 2004,
They’ve inserted funding in the budget that would bring the commission back to do their bidding for $22 an hour fast food wages without requiring the recent law they passed that is being challenged in the 2024 elections.
Why, you might ask, didn’t they just revive the commission‘s funding in the first place?
The answer is simple. Sacramento passes so many laws and creates so many agencies to regulate California that politicians have no inkling as to what is in place or most of the laws on the books.
The double-standard that lawmakers are advancing?
They are uncovering every legal rock they can to foist a 41.9 percent pay increase on fast food concerns and using the budget process to try and make it happen.
Yet at the same time they are countering a request for a 30 percent pay increase for lower-end state SEIU state employees over three years by offering 6 percent in the same budget.
How are fast food workers and state employees different, you might ask?
The answer is simple.
Increasing fast food wages to $22 an hour won’t come at the expense of $450 million in state funds to improve infrastructure in downtown Fresno or an array of other pet projects of individual legislators up and down California.
But giving state workers of Local 1000 anywhere close to the same generous pay bump the legislature wants the private sector to give fast food workers would have to come at the expense of the $450 million tax transfer to Fresno as well as other pet projects,
That’s because the legislature is trying to cobble together a spending plan that accounts for a $32 billion deficit.
The legislators clearly know that a 30 percent wage increase over three years for state workers is unsustainable and unrealistic when it comes to state finances.
But when it comes to a 41.9 percent increase taking the minimum pay from $15.50 to $22 an hour being unsustainable for the private sector, they don’t care.
One can debate the vicious cycle of raising wages and price inflation all you want.
The question isn’t whether either pay hike request is justified, its why the 120 people that hold the fate of both in their hands opt to treat the private sector different than the state.
And it’s just not the employees.
Lawmakers are telling the private sector economic realities be damned.
But when it comes to the state’s business, there are ”realities” such as the political cost if Fresno doesn’t get its downtown infrastructure funding and other pet projects are axed due to a lack of funding.
.
This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at dwyatt@mantecabulletin.com
