This week voters in California said no to multiple proposals intended to close our astronomical budget gap, but on one subject they were totally in agreement: legislators should not get pay raises when the state has a budget deficit. My only question is, why is this not obvious? Is it even worth putting ink on the ballot (OK, fine, it's digital in most districts) to ask the question?

This reminds me of the response of Wall Street to questions about multimillion dollar bonuses to executives who had essentially driven their companies off a cliff. The constant refrain was that the corporations would "lost talent" if the disappointed execs didn't get these bonuses. My response? Great! Don't let the door slam you in the butt on your way out.

I've been a business owner and I know that the first thing that needs to happen when a company is losing money is that the people running the show have to take responsibility and cut their own paychecks. So I'd vote no in a heartbeat to increases for any politicians who aren't doing a good job, and doing a good job means keeping the taxpayers out of debt. There ought to be some kind of system of accountability, maybe even on a case by case basis. For example, if a senator voted to spend billions of dollars on no-bid contracts, taxpayers shouldn't have to pay his salary in addition to paying for his mistakes. If a president's bad decisions cost us billions and billions, we shouldn't be paying him a pension.

State government should work the same way. In fact, I recommend a pay cut for Gov. Schwarzenegger. He should be grateful we're not insisting he personally repay the car tax he cut, thereby costing the state $3.6 billion a year. When our leaders start to feel the consequences of their inattention or pandering or bad decisions in their own bank accounts, we might start to see more accountability.