So what was the motive of the N&O behind publishing the names and salaries of judges who refused to go along with the pay cuts requested by Governor Perdue? Was it a desire to suck up by adopting the political ploy to threaten judges who didn’t comply? Was it anger and class envy on their own part because N&O/McClatchy employees have had to take their own pay cuts and furloughs (including the story’s writer, Rob Christensen)? Does he have his own axe to grind?

I have no problem with disclosure of public servants’ names and salaries. But this appears awfully selective, populist, and gratuitous to me. Rings similar to the AIG bonus outrage — a politically calculated move to redirect anger away from the decisionmakers.

Why does the fact that all the judges make (some barely) six figures, as David suggests, matter? What makes that salary level the one that should inspire indignation, as though there was some injustice? In my view, if the N&O or any other news organization were going to do something like this, then they should publish the names and salaries of all the judges (and throw in the untouchable Council of State while you’re at it) in the system, and then let the taxpayers make an evaluation. For example, do any judges make (God forbid!) $200,000 a year? And they oh-so-magnanimously took the asked-for pay cut? Well, what’s to say they shouldn’t “voluntarily” take more of a pay cut? They make WELL OVER SIX FIGURES! GIVE IT UP!!!

It all shows the stupidity and futility of this exercise. No one knows the unseen factors in the personal lives of the Perdue/N&O targets. Do any of these “wealthy” elected judges care for elderly, sick parents at home, who have extremely high health care bills? Do any of these “wealthy” elected judges have two or three children with college tuition bills to pay at the same time? Are any others in difficult financial straights that life’s circumstances have brought them to? Undoubtedly many lesser-paid state employees face the same kinds of challenges, and they must cope accordingly.

The authors of the state constitution for some reason exempted elected officials from being subjected to this kind of control and authority from the executive branch. They are entitled, by virtue of doing the hard work to get elected and the thankless task of exercising (theoretically fair) judgment in thousands of legal cases, to respectfully decline outsiders’ requests to take a pay cut. It’s in the law. If other state employees (or anyone else for that matter) want to enjoy that “benefit,” then they ought to go out and get elected as judges or Council of State officials themselves.

Meanwhile, the N&O and everyone else should turn their attention to the myriad stupid, wasteful and unconstitutional expenditures the state makes every year, including the ones that call for unneeded employees of the state. Certainly if those things were eliminated, no pay cuts or furloughs would be needed. But unfortunately that doesn’t score as many political points as populist rage.