Some Furloughs Save No Money Yet Still Hurt the Economy

Even if you were to posit that furloughs were beneficial for the budget and preferable than the threatened layoffs, some make absolutely no sense. Julia described the situation of a state agency that reviews federal disability claims and is completely paid for by the federal government. Yet despite the fact that not only did we not save money from the furloughs, but actually lost federal dollars, Arnold stuck with his edict.

The Feds are now calling this for what it is: stupid.

The official, Michael J. Astrue, the commissioner of Social Security, said Sunday that “governors are hurting their own states, their own citizens, and increasing the backlog of claims” by furloughing workers who make disability decisions.

“The states’ response is completely illogical,” Mr. Astrue said. (New York Times 4/13/09)

The article specifically names Schwarzenegger, and Govs. Corzine (D-NJ) and Patterson (D-NY). So Arnold gets to have his word in the article, but, being as objective as I can, really makes no sense.

Aaron B. McLear, a spokesman for Mr. Schwarzenegger, said: “The governor has not made exemptions to the furlough order because he believes that the state government needs to cut back, just as every California family and business is doing. We hope the furloughs have a minimal effect on state services, but understand that services very well may suffer.”

The problem with this: it does not cut back.  To run with McLear’s analogy furloughing these workers would be the equivalent of a California family rejecting one of those government coupons to get a new digital TV converter. The little boxes cost around $40, and the feds give you a coupon for $40.  Should I say no to the coupon, because I shouldn’t get anything new during the recession? Or should I just take the coupon and go get the converter so I can watch TV?

The answer seems clear to me, you’d take the damn free converter box.  Yet, the Governor is saying no to getting services for the state that are totally and completely paid for by the federal government. Not only does furloughing take those services away from the state and not save money, but it actually costs the state.

This is just Arnold making the state pay so that he can really make his point. It is bad for the state, the state budget, and for Californians who need those services. Sometimes it is ok to admit a mistake and fix it, rather than squandering our resources to make a point.  Point taken, now let’s get to making this state work, please?

One thought on “Some Furloughs Save No Money Yet Still Hurt the Economy”

  1. My agency, part of CalEPA, is almost entirely funded by special funds, meaning money collected from polluters, generators of waste, and the Feds. We bring more money into California government than we expend. In business this would be called a profit. Yet we are subject to the furloughs, meaning 10% less environmental action, and no savings to the General Fund. A clear waste of money and a bureaucratic idiocy.

Comments are closed.