Last week, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration, cut the furloughs for CHP dispatchers.  Apparently, the furloughs were causing extended delays in responding to 911 calls throughout the state.  In response, Arnold and his staff looked at the situation and determined that the furloughs were hurting the state.

Yet, still, the Governor insists on maintaining the otherwise blanket theory of furloughs.  Why just yesterday, he wrote a letter to DiFi saying how important the furloughs were, despite the fact that the furloughs in question were for state workers paid by federal dollars.

So, why the inconsistency? Why is it acceptable to make changes in the furlough policy for 911 dispatchers based on safety and not for tax collectors whose furloughs end up costing the state money.  This isn’t policy making, it’s just plain Stupid^TM. (Photo from WSJ. Arnold found some dumbbells in a burned out house…so he had to pump up a little bit.)

The Legislative Leaders have now submitted a kindly request to the Governor to cut one of the furlough days. You can read Senator Steinberg’s letter in full in this diary, he is simply asking for some reasoned policy analysis and to consider how it is affecting the state. It is a wonkish letter to be sure, but it highlights opportunities for cost savings and ways that the state can improve services to Californians. Of course, he is still a politician, and can finish with a rhetorical flourish with the best of them:

Information we have gathered indicates that California will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in our general fund at the state tax agencies alone. The current furlough policy has become a “penny saved, a dollar lost” approach that can be corrected immediately.

*** *** ***

You recently re-examined the furlough policy as it applied to dispatchers employed by the California Highway Patrol, and exempted these employees from the furlough.  I applaud you for that action.  Now is the time to re-examine the policy more broadly. Please find attached information the Senate has gathered on the furloughs.

On the flip side, the Governor’s policy goal seems to be simply punitive.  

“Senator Steinberg and Governor Schwarzenegger have a fundamental difference when it comes to furloughing state workers,” said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. “The governor believes they should cut back like all California families and businesses. Senator Steinberg believes state workers should be shielded from the economic realities the rest of the state faces.” (LA Times 9/3/09)

A few things here, first the role of government isn’t to punish its workers for the sake of punishing workers.  If we aren’t saving money with these furloughs, then why are we doing them? Why are we furloughing tax collectors, federally funded employees, and prison guards, when the furloughs will end up costing us more money in the long-run? This isn’t about shielding state workers, it is about providing services that Californians pay for. State workers don’t need to be taught a lesson that will cost the state millions of dollars to impose.

I would also point out that being a state worker is a trade-off. You take generally lower pay than you would in the private sector, but you get benefits and supposed job security.  Demonizing state workers will make it increasingly difficult to recruit quality state workers as we hopefully move beyond this crisis.

And beyond the fact that it causes inconvenience for Californians, it doesn’t really address the underlying problems with the budget: more money going out than coming in. We need a more flexible revenue and budgeting system to allow the state to respond to its needs.  But if we are going to furlough state workers, can we at least be sure that we are saving money in the process? Anything less would be, well, Stupid.^TM