I spent a couple days up in San Luis Obispo last week interviewing for a job. Because I'm a longtime newspaperman I picked up a copy of the old Telegram-Tribune, now known simply as the Tribune. An editorial in that paper criticized local state Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee -- the new GOP minority leader -- for donating $11,620 of his salary to People First of San Luis Obispo instead of putting it back into the state's general fund.

Blakeslee is foregoing 10 percent of his annual salary of $116,208. But instead of turning the money over to the state, he will donate it to People First of San Luis Obispo, an organization that advocates for people with disabilities.

Here’s Blakeslee’s reasoning: By donating to charity, the money will directly benefit the local community, instead of reverting to the Legislature’s operating budget. That’s commendable, and under ordinary circumstances, we would do nothing but applaud such a generous gift to a worthy organization.

But let’s be clear: Redirecting a portion of his salary to charity does nothing to help solve California’s budget crisis.

True, a 10 percent reduction in salary — which amounts to $11,620 and change — is not going to make a dent in our enormous deficit. Then again, we have to start somewhere, and cutting the salaries of our top elected officials is a good place to do it.

So, the paper's editorial board is complaining that Blakeslee made the wrong symbolic move. They acknowledge the obvious -- the $11k back in the state general fund is a rounding error. But is that $11,620 a rounding error for People First? Undoubtedly it isn't.

If the primary concern among the likes of the newspaper editorial board and the people that have been protesting outside Blakeslee's San Luis Obispo office on a daily basis are cuts in programs for the needy due to the budget deficit, which is the better example? Having people put more money into the state general fund where millions is spent on lobbyists so that the most well-connected keep their funding? Or is it better to encourage the people who still have jobs to give directly to charities that help the needy, cutting out the government middleman?

The latter is obviously the best example to set. It may not help the state budget situation, but maybe the answer is to stop runaway government spending and the attendant fraud and waste in many of the social services programs and encourage the private sector to step forward.