Hooray For Open Government!
Jun 29th, 2009 by MariaEvans
resolutedetermination over at Resolute Determination has this inspiring report up:
I just called the Division of Research at Legislative Hall to get my hands on a copy of the budget. I was told that the public has no right to review the budget until after the General Assembly passes the bill.
So how can any Delawarean make suggestions about what should be cut from the budget if we can’t see the budget? Get it, noman?
So how can any Delawarean make suggestions about what should be cut from the budget if we can’t see the budget?
Good point. Yet if I wanted to find gratuitous uninformed demands about what should be cut from the budget, this site would be my first stop.
I don’t think suggestions about cutting state employees are “gratuitous” considering the gratuitous increase in state workers over such a short period of time.
Maria is right. She and I are not even saying that we are suggesting it, but it does bring up a vital point. Why haven’t we reviewed state government with an eye out for reducing it over the last 6 months? Positions should be shuffled in light of the hiring freeze to fulfill needs. Some offices have 1 person doing the work of 7 (and it isn’t getting done) while others are full staffed and people are taking it easy. There seems to be a management problem.
What about the ugly side of these wanted-layoffs, though, and I will use Bruce Rogers’ eff-’em letter as the example?
From Jud’s Coastal Network distribution:
What about those 2000, though? I agree government is bloated and I don’t want my taxes to go up, but how about those bennies, eh? I am referring to the impact on the jettisoned employee who obviously won’t be able to afford COBRA, especially on the joke that is unemployment. The scream is “cut cut cut,” but are you going to do anything to even attempt a soft landing for those who are cut? Sorry, but no one seems to want to tackle the unanswerable question there. Just to say “retraining” is a dismissive attempt of avoiding the reality. 2000 cut + unemployment + no health bennies = just as bad as proposal today.
See the long picture, not just tomorrow.
Oh, and to the topic, it is bullshit that the budget, regardless of yours or noman’s opinion, is not available for public review. That’s a public document that affects the public. It should be available on-demand.
Until someone can answer my question about why we need 50% more government employees than the average state, anyone who wants to can say we should cut 500, 1,000 or 2,000 state jobs.
Smitty, when you have average Delawareans struggling to make ends meet as it is, can you really ask them to sacrifice more in taxes and fees so every single state employee can keep their job and continue riding the state pension gravy train?
Especially when the jobs that should go are all administrative positions above $50K.
I agree the govt is bloated and needs to be pared, but what happens when the impact of 2000 suddenly unemployed and uninsured hits? That can’t be ignored, either. It’s a consequence that isn’t even considered, just as was bloating the government payroll long ago.
Smitty, the state government doesn’t exist to be an employment agency, and if that’s their purpose, then they can immediately hire the thousands of Delawareans who are out of work and struggling to find jobs, never fire them, and give them pensions.
I don’t know about 50%, Dave, but economy of scale for the larger states is definitely a factor.
Picking up on Smitty’s thoughts, there are better ways to cut jobs than to cut people. By that I mean:
* Eliminate jobs not needed, and transfer these displaced people to jobs that are open instead of firing or hiring new.
* Transfer displaced people to lower level jobs at reduced pay.
* Reduce pay across the board, as the 8% now 2.5% cut. As a better alternative, make the pay cuts progressive, so the higher paid get cut by a higher percentage, but all must sacrifice something.
(The private sector should use similar thinking.)
The point is to preserve jobs. Then folks still have an income and benefits, and will not have to come back to the state for unemployment, medical care, food and shelter, or live on the streets.
To me this is both a humane and financially prudent way for the state to reduce expenditures on state jobs.
The idea that some people think the state cannot fire even ONE unnecessary or inept employee is absolutely amazing to me.
We held high paying state jobs open for state employees who were sitting in prison for molesting children. We’ve given high paying state merit jobs to unqualified people. And now we have to insure that every single state employee, whether they are necessary or not, whether they are inept or not, keeps their job regardless of the sacrifices other Delawareans are forced to make in a horribly bad economy.
Words cannot describe how ridiculous that is.
Maria, I was not talking about “inept” employees, and you know that!
I am simply saying: Let us not shoot ourselves in the foot by firing thousands of competent state employees and putting them literally out on the street and onto a dependency on the state. That makes no sense to me, either in humanitarian terms or in fiscal terms.
The budget has been introduced and ‘posted.’ Ignore the fact that they left 99.8% of the actual document off the internet.
I never said they must be retained, either. I guess now that I am out all my words are poison and liberal, too? BOOOOO!
What I said is beware of the mistaken utopia of simply slashing these hypothetical 2000. That ‘fixes’ the budget, yes, but what then happens afterwards, when the unemployment rolls get fatter and all the newly uninsured effects start to ripple? How is the Republican Party all for making the undeserving-to-be-unemployed even more desolate? They’re not, so I don’t get the logic there of “who-gives-an-eff.”
Nowhere did I say the jobs should stay. I’m pointing out unintended consequences due to the failure of thinking it out. Those unintended consequences are exactly how we got here today. You don’t fix that with more of it (unintended consequences).
“That ‘fixes’ the budget, yes, but what then happens afterwards, when the unemployment rolls get fatter and all the newly uninsured effects start to ripple?”
The unemployment fund is actually fairly well stocked and could absorb a significant infusion of people. It would tax the fund, but it could handle it. It would be a step worth taking.
we have three times as manny state employees than we had when Mike Castle handed over the keys of the Gov’s Mansion to Tom Carper.
is the state three times better?
are we three times safer?
is the econ dev dept bringing in 3 times the new employers?
is public education 3 times better?
Thanks, FSP.
Onto the next point:
What about (and we all know this is true) them in no way being able to afford COBRA? That will be another consequence.
Smitty,
there is no pain free solution.
raising taxes spreads the pain further and reduces our competativeness for new jobs, making the pain last longer.
In my professional career I have both laid people off and been laid off. Neither is fun, but it is neccesary.
If the will to downsize state government exists… we could then talk about how to structure it, where to make the cuts and what a severence package would look like.
yes it would have been easier on all involved if State Government was right sized durring the last boom…. bbut my time machine is broken, and even if it were working the leppers in Dover would not have listened.
Smitty is COBRA somehow easier to afford when you get laid off from the private sector?
It is when you didn’t have insurance to begin with. Then you don’t even get COBRA.
(And I’ve been on COBRA before. Paying through the nose for COBRA beats not having insurance at all.)
But annoni’s right. There is no pain-free solution. But laying it all on the private sector will simply lead to a downward spiral that will see fewer revenues come in, followed by higher taxes, followed by fewer revenues…
No Maria I don’t think COBRA is different for anyone, and like Dave, I have also been through COBRA, but fortunately for me, it ended up only being for a few weeks.
You should know that I don’t think private sector layoffs are any different. I just try to think of full-impact. It’s also why I think it is perfectly fine to shudder at the thought of the hypothetical 2000 government employees getting an axe soley for budget purposes as it is for private sector. Of course, in the private sector, when you get mass layoffs like that, meaning a big company/corporation, save for bankruptcy, there are usually packages or attempts to do something to soften the blow. You know damn well that would not be the case here. Pretty much because I don’t think anyone gives an eff.
“Of course, in the private sector, when you get mass layoffs like that, meaning a big company/corporation, save for bankruptcy, there are usually packages or attempts to do something to soften the blow. You know damn well that would not be the case here.”
Most large private companies may give you a few weeks of severance pay, if you’re lucky, unless you’re an executive. After your week or two of severance, you’re on unemployment.
If you work for a smaller company you’re on the street with nothing.
To prop up thousands of unnecessary state jobs with money from taxpayers, many of whom are cutting back drastically to stay afloat themselves, is wrong.
And if your argument is that we can’t layoff state employees when the economy is bad, does that mean we’ll lay off unnecessary and/or inept state employees when the economy starts to recover? Yeah, I’ll hold my breath for that….
COBRA is not a bad option these days with the new 65% Federal subsidy (thank you, President Obama and Congressional Democrats!).
Smitty, we are not talking about severence for state employees, not because we don’t give and ef, but because it’s waisted effort until we see some indication that anyone in Dover is serios about shrinking government.
But as I have time to waste these days, here goes:
The severence package under the annoni plan will come in the form of a flexible spending account. The individual will choose whether to take their severence as lumpsum cash, weekly payments, health insurance premiums, Pension good service years, education/training fund, 401K (if the feds allow it) daycare subsidy and anything else in the state employe flex acccount plan. Mix and match.
There are strict limits on seniority “bumping”. So no assistant director will be allowed to bump the guy on the mower and collect his six figure paycheck while cutting grass.
in addition to the flex severence, each former employee will get a set number of free courses and priority seating at DelTech. (we give High School Seniors two free years, why not former employees)
The formula will be weighted towards the mid level/mid career employees, (hey Perry, does that count as “progressive”?)
the cost of this program will be paid out of the rainy day fund.
ofcourse before any of this matters, we need to identify the programs and departments to be reduced or eliminated…. yeah, like that is ever going to happen.
“COBRA is not a bad option these days with the new 65% Federal subsidy (thank you, President Obama and Congressional Democrats!).”
Yeah, because that money comes from the magic money tree! Yay!
When your family needs health care the magic money tree looks pretty good.
Annoni, not bad!
What Repubs forget or ignore, but not annoni and Smitty, is that when you hire someone, assuming you have carefully vetted and selected the person, you (whether government or private) have a commitment to that person, and the reciprocal is true too. That means that firing people has to be absolutely the last resort, and it means to keep your job you will do anything that the boss needs done for the state or for the business.
In other words, not only money, but core values come into play re these hugely important decisions.
PS: Smitty, don’t be ashamed if you happen to have a “liberal” thought!
we have three times as manny state employees than we had when Mike Castle handed over the keys of the Gov’s Mansion to Tom Carper.
is the state three times better?
are we three times safer?
is the econ dev dept bringing in 3 times the new employers?
is public education 3 times better?
Yay, anoni (#26)! Thanks for getting my point and not purposely translating into something I repeatedly point out I don’t say. To answer your second go-around of questions (#30): no, no, no, no. To my point, one of temperment, it’s not these employees’ on the bloated rolls fault that they were hired, so to simply slam their asses with the door with nothing but a slip for the unemployment line and a COBRA form truly isn’t a Republican way, either. That’s why I pose these questions, because it just seems the consequences don’t matter, if they extend beyond 24 hours.
Most large private companies may give you a few weeks of severance pay, if you’re lucky, unless you’re an executive. After your week or two of severance, you’re on unemployment.
I know plenty of people who were below middle-management of different large companies who received severance based on their time of employment. I know what you say exists, too, but that’s not the only case.
If you work for a smaller company you’re on the street with nothing.
Agreed, but we are talking in a scope of a hypothetical 2000 employees, which goes beyond a small company.
To prop up thousands of unnecessary state jobs with money from taxpayers, many of whom are cutting back drastically to stay afloat themselves, is wrong.
Again, I never made any statement to say every worker should be retained. I am asking how do you handle the landing of those affected by attrition? You can not ignore that effect if you are talking the big numbers spoken here.
And if your argument is that we can’t layoff state employees when the economy is bad,…
Again, I never said that. My focus is on the handling of the hypothetical 2000 that would slam the unemployment/uninsured statuses. No one seems to give a rat’s ass (aside from anoni in #26), but if you think that won’t affect the state at all, you aren’t thinking down the road enough.
as I said, it’s not that no one gives a rat’s ass about what happens after the theoretical downsizing of 2,000 (or 2) state emplyees… it’s just that we all know that no one is loosing thier state job, not the A players, not the C players, not the walking dead, not even the half wit cousin of one of Minner’s cronies.
So don’t loose sleep worring about how the theoretical “they” are going to pay their COBRA, “they will all be at work.
By law a balanced budget must be passed by both house 24.5 hours from now. The leppers will break the law and pass the budget in the early morning hours of July 1st, like they always do.
MY PREDICTION!!!!!
The new budget will be bigger in total dollars than last years budget.
Already strapped Delawareans are going to get socked with a tax hike of over $200 million without cutting one state employee’s job unless it’s by attrition, even if a state employee’s job is unnecessary…think about that for a minute…it’s just wrong…it’s not fair or responsible to non state employee Delawareans…and it’s exactly the budget we have right now while we’re sitting on an $800 million dollar deficit. That is reckless.
I think our legislature is Hell bent on raising money through taxes, fees and now expanded gambling, in hopes that the economy will turn enough so they’ll NEVER have to make those “tough decisions” that they all pretended they could make during the November 2008 election season.
Jack Markell promised to thoroughly vet programs, services, departments etc. to drub out waste. That will include axing jobs. He said that there wasn’t time for his administration to develop recommendations this year in order to meet this deadline.
If he does not do so throughout the following year…for instance study and implement such waste as the top heavy staff of DOE…he will have broken his campaign promise.
DE self-insures layoff; there’s not much short-term savings with axing jobs because we are responsible for the unemployment insurance. I would hope that this is a long-term goal.
I do think that a lot of jobs can be eliminated through attrition. I believe that a smart earlier retirement program could help as well. There is no point doing it until there is plan in place.
To RSmitty, off topic
I found the auto track proposal for Sussex that you saw.
DustPan’s Howard wrote about it. It’s for a Delmar area tract.
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2009/06/save-start-sending-bill-to-developers.html
David, the state payroll is so bloated, all of the suggested ways to target reductions are welcome. We’ll need attrition, early retirement and a comprehensive weeding out.
Maria, you are brutal on this state jobs issue, you really are!
As I have already pointed out, there is a values issue involved here as well as the fiscal issue. The values issue involves preserving commitments and sharing pain. The fiscal issue of course is saving money.
I tried to address both in my #29, and my solution in my #11. Annoni gave his approach in #26. In my view, here is where the debate should be centered.
Your response: Ax the jobs, as in your #34 and others.
Did it ever occur to you, Maria, that state workers are also Delawarians just like you, and subject to all the fiscal grief that we all suffer at this time. Yet you want to add to their grief unfairly.
None of us likes this pain, Maria! Let us not make it worse on some folks!! The pain must be spread among us all.
PS: I am really upset at how the over $160k income folks are spared the personal income tax increase in the budget bill. Where did this idea come from???
“PS: I am really upset at how the over $160k income folks are spared the personal income tax increase in the budget bill. Where did this idea come from???”
They’re not spared. They have the same increase as the $60,000-$150,000 group. They simply didn’t have an additional increase put on them at $150,000.
Perry I’m not being “brutal” I’m being realistic. Delaware can’t afford a bloated government payroll, Delaware should not have this bloated government payroll, and every Delawarean is going to have to suffer because of the bloated government payroll.
Our governor, again, ran on his ability to make “tough decisions.” He also ran, as Nancy pointed out, on going through the government department by department with audits, and cutting the waste. That is the responsible thing to do, and I would have liked to see that happen before raising our taxes and fees and bringing more gambling into the state.
Again, instead of cutting the size of our government by eliminating waste, our government is going for the huge money grab from a population that is already suffering from over a decade of extravagant governing.