On Is state handling furloughs wisely?

Posted on August 19 at 10:53 a.m. ( Suggest removal )

How can anyone really view this as good public policy? The furloughs amount to a payroll savings of $224 million, which sounds like a lot at first, but is small potatoes when compared to the entire size of the state budget: over $40 billion. That $224 million, when divided among all state taxpayers over the course of the two-year budget cycle amounts to a savings of approximately 75 cents per week per taxpayer. In order to give us this huge savings, 69,000 families who are supported by state workers are docked three weeks' pay. This is on top of pay increases over the last ten years that have not kept up with inflation. In real terms, I am making less money now than I was in 2000.
Of course various pet building projects in legislators' districts got millions in funding in this same budget. If there really is such a big emergency that 69,000 families have to take a loss in income, why aren't these projects being put on hold for two years?
There is no "budget emergency." This has been predicted for years. For the last two decades the legislature and three governors have kicked a structural deficit in the state budget down the road, with the result that that deficit has gotten bigger and bigger, and the wise folk in the Capitol knew that if the economy ever hit hard times, disaster would result-- and here we are.
The furloughs save everyone almost nothing but hurt the families of state employees quite a lot!