Here's which councilmembers are accepting or rejecting raises amid $44 million city budget deficit
SACRAMENTO — While the City of Sacramento considers a wide range of cuts to address a $44 million budget deficit, the mayor and city council are eyeing pay raises.
An independent commission met last week, voting to raise the base salaries for Mayor Kevin McCarty and council members.
The mayor would get a 12% increase, raising his salary from $164,000 to $184,000, while council members would get 8% each, raising their salaries from $102,000 to $111,000.
Since that vote, some have weighed in on whether or not they would be rejecting a pay increase.
"I'm waiting to see how it all works out," Mayor McCarty said. "We have a month to decide."
Among the councilmembers, Lisa Kaplan confirmed to CBS13 that she will accept the raise. Roger Dickinson will also be taking the raise, but his office says he is exploring ways to redirect his salary increase to support his district directly.
Councilmembers Mai Vang and Rick Jennings are rejecting the increases, citing struggling constituents and the budget deficit.
We're waiting to hear back from the others.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
WIRED
19 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
Washington Post
20 minutes ago
- Washington Post
MLB acquires stake in Jomboy Media to expand digital presence
NEW YORK — Major League Baseball has agreed on a strategic partnership with Jomboy Media and will acquire a stake in the company. The two sides announced the deal on Tuesday. Jomboy Media will be used across MLB's digital channels. MLB will also help grow Jomboy Media's other shows, including 'Talkin' Baseball,' 'Talkin' Yanks,' and 'The Warehouse Games.' Both sides are also expected to collaborate on IP growth and ad opportunities around MLB's key events, including the All-Star Game and Home Run Derby. According to the release, Jomboy Media set revenue and profitability records last year, and had more than 93 million engagements on social media. Jomboy Media was founded by Jimmy 'Jomboy' O'Brien and Jake Storiale in 2017. 'We have long admired the passionate fandom of Jimmy O'Brien and his unique ability to connect with baseball fans,' Noah Garden, MLB deputy commissioner, business and media, said in a statement. 'This partnership will ensure that Jomboy Media will have the resources and access to MLB intellectual property necessary to help it continue to grow. We are looking forward to bringing baseball fans more entertaining content to help further expand baseball's online presence and deeper the connection between our sport and its fans.' Jomboy Media's key property is 'The Warehouse Games,' a league modeled after classic backyard games. The series has nearly 400 million all-time views. 'I continue to be amazed by what our community enables us to do through their endless support. When we started talking about baseball on the internet, it was just a fun hobby. Our community is the reason we've been able to turn this from 'just a hobby,' into something bigger than we ever could've imagined,' O'Brien said in a statement. 'Partnering with MLB marks a huge moment for Jomboy Media, and through this partnership, we'll be able to give back to our community with storytelling that's deeper than ever before.' ___ AP MLB:
The Verge
23 minutes ago
- The Verge
Meta is reportedly making a $15 billion bet on AGI
Meta is close to finalizing an almost $15 billion investment in Scale AI, the tech giant's largest-ever external investment, which would give Meta a 49% stake in the company, according to The Information. As part of the deal, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is personally assembling a team of about 50 people to help Meta supercharge its AI goals — specifically, to achieve artificial general intelligence — and Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang is set to join that group once the deal is final, according to Bloomberg and The New York Times. AGI is the concept of AI that equals or surpasses human cognitive abilities, and it's something that nearly every AI industry leader is currently racing to achieve before their competitors. Bloomberg was first to report on the planned multibillion-dollar investment. Scale, the AI giant that provides training data to industry leaders like OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, and Meta, in April reportedly expected that its 2025 revenue would more than double year-over-year to about $2 billion. It's also currently planning a tender offer for employees and early investors at a $25 billion valuation. Meta has been concerned about falling behind in the AI race as competitors like OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Microsoft pull ahead. In May, Meta delayed the launch of its new flagship model, dubbed Behemoth, amid concerns about its capabilities compared to competing models, The Wall Street Journal reported. The company's investment in Scale AI is likely a bid to catch up as competing tech giants each choose one or more AI startups to back for greater chances of AI success, whether internally or externally. Amazon has invested at least $8 billion in Anthropic, the AI startup founded by ex-OpenAI research executives, and Anthropic's tech now powers Amazon's Alexa Plus. Google has given at least $3 billion to Anthropic, and the two companies share a significant cloud contract. Microsoft has famously invested at least $13 billion in OpenAI and currently gets a share of the company's revenue. Besides its forthcoming deal with Meta, Scale has spent the last few months leaning hard into deals with governments across the world, like a five-year deal with Qatar to provide automation tools for civil service, healthcare, and more. The company has said its work with countries in Asia and Europe could account for a big piece of sales coming up. And in March, Scale signed a multimillion-dollar deal with the Department of Defense for a flagship AI agent program for the U.S. military.
