The California Supreme Court handed down a stay of the Alameda County court's order blocking the furloughs. Here's the text of the order:
The petition for review is GRANTED. Because the issue whether the Governor has the authority to direct the unpaid furlough of state employees is pending before this court and is scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, September 8, 2010, in the related case of Professional Engineers in California Government et al. v. Arnold Schwarzenegger et. al., S183411, and without expressing any view on the merits of that issue, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant review in this matter and defer further action pending our resolution of the currently pending proceeding. Pending further order of this court, further proceedings in the Alameda County Superior Court in case number RG10494800 (and in consolidated cases numbered RG10507922, RG10507081, RGI0503805, RGI0501997, RGI0516259, RGI0514694, and RG10528855), as well as the temporary restraining order of the Alameda County Superior Court issued on August 9, 2010, are stayed. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard, Baxter, Chin, Moreno, and Corrigan, JJ.
What this means for the time being is that the upcoming furloughs, as defined by the Governor will go ahead until further notice. The Supreme Court will directly review the decision (bypassing the court of appeal) and render a decision, which you would assume would come in a fairly speedy manner.
Stay tuned for more on this, but this is a big win for Arnold's furloughs and will probably control through much of the budget fightin' season.
Well, this is a smack to the back of the head for Arnold and his short-sighted "furlough them all" policy:
An Alameda County judge has ordered furloughed state employees in nearly 70 departments to return to a regular work schedule next month, but he spared the state from immediately paying hundreds of millions of dollars in back pay while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger appeals the ruling.
Service Employees International Union Local 1000, the state's largest civil service union, figures Roesch's decision affects about 53,000 of its 95,000 members.
Judge Frank Roesch's decision this morning underscored his Dec. 31 ruling that Schwarzenegger should not have furloughed workers in 69 "special fund" departments. Those departments get a significant portion of their budgets from sources outside the state's general fund, which is the shrinking pot of money at the center of the government's serial budget crises. The judge later ordered back pay for the furloughed workers. Schwarzenegger asked Roesch to postpone implementation of the ruling pending his appeal.
Ruling this morning, Roesch said furloughs should end now.(SacBee)
The way the budget generally works is that most of the big ticket items come from the general fund, K12 and higher ed, much of our debt service, most social programs, etc. However, these special funds support a plethora of other programs where either voters (usually) or the Legislature has provided for a specific funding source. Most of these funds are doing ok. So ok that Arnold wants to raid those funds to cover for the general fund. Why not just have 3 headaches when you have one gaping axe wound from the head now, right?
Well, anyway, most of these funds are semi-sacrosanct. So, they aren't so easily tapped, at least without a vote of the people. And that's what much of this has to do with legally. At the very least, it's a slap on the nose.
For the duration of the furlough craziness, I've had a particular definition of "Stupid." (Capitalized, that is.) Specifically, the furloughing of workers paid entirely by federal dollars that ends up losing the state money.
Here's how it works in one example. State worker A reviews disability claims. Worker A is a state employee, but his or her salary is paid by the federal government. Arnold, concerned as he is for simplicity over touchy issues like "facts" furloughs Worker A despite the fact that the state saves no money. Further, the work that Worker A would have done would have pulled down federal dollars into the state, but instead they go unspent. See...Stupid.
Now, Speaker Pelosi weighs in on all that Stupid:
While California must make tough choices as it works to close its budget deficit, furloughing workers whose salaries are fully-funded through the federal government results in the loss of millions of dollars for our state while harming our neediest citizens.
The Social Security Administration's Inspector General has found that furloughs of Disability Determination Services workers would cost our state $30.6 million in lost federal funds while delaying $98.5 million per year in disability payments to disabled Californians. California is also dead last among all 50 states when it comes to paying unemployment insurance claims within 21 days, according to the Department of Labor.
The California Congressional Delegation and I met earlier this year with Governor Schwarzenegger and state legislative leaders to ensure that California will continue to receive the federal funds it needs. Enacting this bill, which passed the Legislature with large, bipartisan majorities, is one simple way to strengthen California. I hope the Governor will sign this bill and end all furloughs for workers funded by the federal government.
So, to summarize...state saves $0 Dollars. State loses $30.6 million. How is this helping the state? Now, the Legislature has approved a bill to end these furloughs. Of course, if Arnold had just not pushed for them in the first place, we wouldn't be in this position. Nonetheless, here we are. Arnold, sign the damn bill, and at least eliminate this one, small bit of Stupid.
In my long running series of anti-stupid posts, here is yet another remark on the stupid furloughs. You know, the ones that end up costing us more than we save. Yes, that kind of incredibly ridiculous stupid that can only come from the ideological black hole that seems to have taken up residence in the Horseshoe.
Furloughs of the state workers who carry out federally-funded benefit programs have delayed delivery of monthly checks to people with disabilities and impeded an already slow system for getting cash assistance to jobless Californians, according to a new report by the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes.
The oversight office found great frustration among federal officials, one of whom decried the furlough policy as a "ridiculous" impediment to benefits that can keep the most vulnerable Californians from homelessness.
The report analyzes the effect of furloughs on the unemployment insurance program and two Social Security Administration programs that serve people with long-term disabilities.
All three programs are paid for with federal dollars. So cutting by 14 prercent the pay of the state workers who administer them does nothing to help the state's general fund or cash flow. In fact, the report concludes, the three-day-per-month furloughs will cost California an estimated $18 million to $31 million in lost state worker salaries by July 2010, when furloughs are scheduled to end. (CapWeekly)
Of course, Arnold will come back with something like this: we can't shield state workers from the hard economy. Yada, yada, yada. Yet, this isn't about shielding anybody, it is about delivering services that Californians desperately need. And if these federally funded workers are furloughed, they can't provide these services.
We save no money, none, zip, zilch, by having these furloughs, yet we reduce the capacity of our state government. Sounding pretty Shock doctrine-y there, isn't it? Long story short, we have Arnold once again putting his ideology over the best interest of the state. Same ol' story, I guess.
While the CCPOA isn't always our favorite union, it is good to see Arnold take one on the jaw for these furloughs. Josh Richman has the story:
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association had argued that guards have been denied permission to take furlough credit days off, and that there's no feasible way for all the guards to take all their accumulated time before it expires.
And even if they could eventually get the time off, they're meanwhile having three days' pay deducted from each paycheck without a proportionate reduction in hours worked, the union argued.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch ordered the state Thursday to rescind parts of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2008 and 2009 executive orders imposing the furloughs and to pay the guards for all hours worked for which furlough credits haven't yet been used. (Oakland Tribune)
While the prison guards aren't the only ones with strange furlough patterns, theirs was really, really messed up. They couldn't actually get the time off, and were just expected to work for free. And then the time-off credit expires? That's just theft.
So, I'm not sure how much this case carries over to other furlough situations, but, hey, at least it is a set back for this ridiculous furlough scheme.
California needs a knight in shining armor to deliver it from the forces of budget shortfalls, program cuts, and sub-15% legislative approval ratings.
At first, I thought our hope was Gavin Newsom, but his departure from the Governor's race leaves a handful of candidates on both sides that seem inherently opposed to doing the one thing that could save this state: raising revenue.
So, who is going to carry the baton? Where is our saving grace, and when will he/she hurry their butt up and save us from sinking further and further into debt and depression?
One person who could posthumanly save the State of California is Saul Alinsky. Deemed by many as the "father of community organizing", Alinsky helped organize the Back of the Yards area of Chicago introduced to the national stage by Sinclair's "The Jungle".
Alinsky passed away in 1972 (in Carmel-By-The-Sea), but his revolutionary tactics for mobilizing the masses have time and time again generated the true catalyst for change: Friction. Given the current economic situation in this state, Lord knows we need something.
With news that the Frankenstein budget and budget revisions of 2009-10 are still generating deficits, it's worth looking at some of the effects of some of the cuts now that they've had time to sink it.
The Riverside Press-Enterprise reports that their projected furlough savings are approximately $4m short of their projections and that in some cases, the furloughs are actually driving up the costs of operation. And so, of course they are asking the workers to take a haircut.
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports that L.A. County Superior Court operations have been devastated by the cuts, and that civil trials may now take up to 4 years to go to trial. Lots of people laid off.
Under current court rules, most civil cases are supposed to be set for trial within one year of filing. This so-called "fast track" system created in the 1990s is now basically dead. The law requires that at trial begin within 5 years, though back in the pre-fast-track days, there were ways around this, such as empaneling a jury and then declaring a mistrial.
Leaving aside the lost jobs within the courts, this will lead to a serious lesson in "justice delayed is justice denied." The big guys can often stomach a fight for that long, but your average civil plaintiff may not. Along with this are hard to quantify costs that will be thrown out into the world due to litigation expenses when it would be so much cheaper to fully fund the courts.
Also, I have read that the courts have put on hold until the 2020s their effort to implement the kind of online filing and calendaring system that you might have expected in the 1990s. The federal courts have a somewhat decent system, but nothing like what could be set up in one night with a good LAMP server today.
I submit these two instances as further evidence of the penny wise pound foolish approach the dysfunctional California government has taken towards the budget.
There's lots of significant news in the Legislature's last week regarding various bills, and it's extremely difficult to keep up with it all, probably by design. I should point out that, while the legislative calendar has an end date, there's no actual reason for some of the forced bottlenecks that result in hundreds of bills being passed at the last minute. It creates a shroud of secrecy in which special interests rule, and saps the public trust. A Democratic leadership actually interested in positioning government as somewhat decent would remove these forced bottlenecks from the internal legislative rules and allow bills to be approved on a rolling basis. That said, this is the system we have now, and here's a bunch of news about various bills:
• A new bill would exempt non-General Fund workers from furloughs. This would reverse one of the dumbest provisions in the budget bill, the practice of forcing furloughs on workers not paid by state government, saving almost no money and depriving people of needed services. Of course, the Governor will probably veto this one, because he hates admitting how wrong he is.
• Democrats on that vaunted water committee have decided against floating a bond to pay for any restoration or overhaul of the Delta. This means Republicans won't vote for it, and very little will come of this very important committee thrown together at the last minute. Some conference committee reports are here, but a deal looks remote, as it would need votes from some of the empty chairs in the Yacht Party.
• One bill that has cleared both chambers would set up "Education Finance Districts", "in which three or more contiguous school districts can band together to try to increase local taxes." This is a small step to make it easier for districts to pass parcel taxes to fund schools, but at this point every little bit helps. The 2/3 rule for approving such taxes would remain.
• With all the talk of health care reform, it's notable that an anti-rescission bill has once again passed the legislature. The bill would also simplify insurance forms. Last session, Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. There's something you don't hear much about from the Democratic leadership - Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have banned insurance companies from dropping patients after they get sick. He sided with the forces of insurer-assisted suicide. This is your modern Yacht Party on this issue:
"Any of those who have read the various exposés in the Los Angeles Times and others . . . is aware that health insurers have admitted and acknowledged they engaged in a form of post-claims underwriting," said Sen. Mark Wyland (R-Escondido). "It is unethical and, considering what some of these people have endured, it really borders on the immoral."
However, Wyland said he would not vote for the bill because the Department of Insurance has proposed new rules to solve the problem, and he wants to see how they work.
Hey, give 'em a chance to see if the immorality stops! If not, we can think it over.
• The Legislature may extend a homebuyer's tax credit passed in a previous budget agreement that was nothing but a bailout for developers. It only credited new construction, and was structured only to benefit high-income households who could afford new construction. By the way, sales of new units have fell since this was enacted, so it's not even meeting its intended purpose. But it's a giveaway to a special interest, so off the money may go, even though we cannot afford it at this time.
• A bill to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from children's products was delayed after the Assembly couldn't muster 41 votes. The debate in the Assembly last night was pretty fierce.
• Cities and counties reacted angrily to a proposed bill to slow local government bankruptcies until vetted by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission. On the merits this looks to be a bill that would install more control on locals from Sacramento, although there are arguments on both sides. But mainly it's about the fate of union contracts in local bankruptcies, I don't think either side would deny that.
• A roundup of other bills passed yesterday can be found here.
Despite the assumed end to the prison crisis, there's still no bill to clarify the $1.2 billion dollars in savings assumed from cuts in the July budget. The Assembly passed a bill that fell $200 million dollars short and had almost no prison reform in it (some parole reform, but no prison reform), and the Senate has yet to take that bill up. After word yesterday that the Senate would do so, Darrell Steinberg backed away from it, seeking to give more time to the Assembly to add more reform and more cuts into the bill. Because the bill only requires a majority vote, it takes effect 90 days after passage. Which means that every day with no bill costs the state $3.3 million dollars. This is the consequence of so-called fiscal conservatives in the Yacht Party, as well as their higher-office-seeking bretheren in the Assembly Democratic caucus, wanting to look tough on crime. As the State Worker notes, this delay is taking a daily hit on the savings gained from furloughs:
Here's one way that furloughed state workers could look at this: The CDCR budget impasse is whittling away at savings from furloughs. If you take that $3.3 million and multiply it by the 70 days from July 1 through today, you realize the state has burned through $231 million.
A single furlough day cuts about $61 million from the state's payroll, although not all of that savings is in the general fund. (The rounded math: $2.2 billion divided by 36 furlough days in the fiscal year.) If you narrow it down to just salaries that the administration defines as being in the general fund, one furlough day equals about $35 million. (Double check our rounded numbers: $1.3 billion divided by the 36 furlough days.)
In other words, this budget-stalemate-in-miniature has squandered the equivalent of about four furlough days for everyone or nearly seven furlough days if you look only at general fund employees.
Other states have used smart on crime policies to reduce spending without any loss in public safety. They are taking new looks at non-violent offenders, relaxing draconian sentencing policies, targeting parole resources to those who need supervision and concurrently lowering recidivism rates through rehabilitation. Right now, California has the exact wrong set of policies on prisons.
In fact, California is nationally known "for having the most dysfunctional sentencing and parole system" in the country, according to Stanford University professor Joan Petersilia, a criminologist who has spent years working with state officials trying to implement reforms.
"We're too harsh and too lenient. Simultaneously," Petersilia said.
Our mix of tough laws and fixed terms doesn't give prison officials the flexibility to push low-risk offenders toward rehabilitation and keep dangerous criminals behind bars.
But reform efforts haven't gained public traction because we're too busy trying to keep people behind bars -- with Jessica's Law, Megan's Law, the three-strikes law -- to take a hard look at whether locking up more people actually makes us safer.
"The public doesn't understand how illogical the whole system has become," Petersilia said. "We think that somehow we've created something that is able to call out the most dangerous people, send them to prison and keep them in for a very long time.
"And the public is willing to pay whatever it takes to get that type of crime policy."
I disagree with the last sentence. The public is willing to be frightened into initiatives that do nothing for public safety and just spend money needlessly, because they've seen no leadership on the other side for an alternative conception of how to protect the public sensibly and best manage our cirminal justice system. Nobody has argued in public for a more intelligent system for so long, that the public willingness to believe in its possibility has atrophied. We can keep the lock-em-up policies or we can look to a better future. Either way, we're blowing $3 million a day while some Assembly Democrats go on a desperate search for their spines.
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 StupidTM. (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
This morning, my boss, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) sent the following letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, advising the Governor to reconsider the administration's furlough program. The letter comes after much information has come to light that shows that the furloughs are costing the state money and hurting the economy. Click here for "Preliminary Findings on State Employee Furlough Program."
September 3, 2009
Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
In the months since the furloughs began, the evidence shows that the policy is costing the state money and further hurting the economy. It is a significant district issue for me as I represent so many state employees.
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.
I offer these furlough fixes to help the General Fund.
First, the Legislature should enact AB 88, the bill that would implement the collective bargaining agreement that your administration reached with SEIU, Local 1000-the largest unit that represents state employees-which contains one furlough day that all agreed to. A 5 percent pay cut is a sacrifice for a state employee; a 15 percent cut is punishment.
Second, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and I will introduce a bill tomorrow to reduce the furloughs by one day. The union already gave us one day, now we ought to give them one back. I suggest that we pass urgency legislation to buy-out a day of furloughs with an across-the-board reduction on the state bureaucracy. This time, we ought to cut from the top down, not the bottom up.
Third, your Administration should get back to the bargaining table and hammer out agreements with the other collective bargaining units.
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.
I look forward to working with you on this issue.
Sincerely,
DARRELL STEINBERG
President pro Tempore
Sixth Senate District
For a few weeks, we've been highlighting some of the efforts of various lawmakers to highlight some of the out and out stupid with Arnold's furloughs. See, the thing is not the actual furlough policy: he's already pretty much wrapped up mostly winning that fight in the courts. The problem is that Arnold's blanket furlough process doesn't take the actual circumstances on the ground. Sen Ducheny pointed out that when you furlough the tax collectors, we take in less money and there is no net cost savings to the furloughs. Asm. Skinner points out that when you furlough workers that are entirely paid by the federal government, you get no cost savings and end up costing the state federal dollars.
And both of these are all kinds of stupid. Sen. Feinstein, seeing the problem that Asm. Skinner pointed out, passed along a letter from Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue raising concerns that the furlough policy was delaying payments.
Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue says disability claims are rapidly increasing and furloughs could postpone another $15 million in federal payments - worsening California's economic problems. ...
The governor will review the concerns in the letter, but furloughs need to be applied universally to generate savings, regardless of departments' funding sources, {Schwarzenegger spokesman} Cameron said. (AP 8/25/09)
Well, today we get the Governor's response (PDF) to Sen. Feinstein. It spouts some data showing that the delays are minimal and that California is right around average processing time. But what it doesn't address is how exactly furloughing workers.
I get that the workers can schedule their furloughs, and I suppose that is a step in the right direction, but that doesn't really address the issue that this a) saves us NO money and b) hurts California.
Arnold's only real defense for the general policy is that we need some kind of consistency across departments. That somehow if some departments avoid the axe we will be worse off, despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, he is spending money to shove the heel of his boot into the face of state workers. There will be discipline, and he will make sure of that. To prevent an unproven and probably unrealistic problem that one department would revolt if other departments get their furloughs reduced or eliminated.
See, but that is what governing is all about. Making policy decisions. As an elected official you must make decisions on what areas of government will get priority, and what won't. His blanket furlough system is just lazy governance. Instead of doing the work that would provide the best possible governance for California during the crisis, Arnold thinks it isn't really worth his time, so, on to the other issues.
It's great that Sen. Feinstein has chosen to address this issue, but it would also be great if she would keep up the pressure on stupid as we move forward. And California has a few other figures who could speak a little more loudly on the issue as well.
I was flipping through the channels last night, and came upon the Cal-Channel. Normally you just see some boring hearings on some bill that has some lobbyist up in arms. Ho-hum.
Not the case last night. Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego) was busy ripping into a pair of Arnold flacks. They have a tamed down version at the Bee:
That admission, made by Franchise Tax Board and Board of Equalization executives at a Senate hearing, left a Democratic senator angrily questioning whether the Schwarzenegger administration's plan to furlough state workers a third day each month is cost-effective.
"I don't believe the third furlough day is creating the savings (the Department of) Finance has said. Their projections are not credible," said Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, who chaired the morning hearing.
Finance Department official Chris Hill defended his department's numbers, touting an estimated $1.3 billion in savings from the three-day-a-month furlough program. (SacBee 8/26/09)
Now, this really didn't do the incident justice. Round and round Chris Hill went. I don't know how many times he talked about the $1.3 billion in savings without giving any rationale for those numbers. Instead of figuring out where we can get savings and where furloughs just don't make sense, we are doing this across the board. It's a rather clumsy way of doing this, and really hurts the state.
Ducheny pointed out one example of cost ineffective furloughs, specifically, prison guards getting overtime to work in the aftermath of the Chino riots. You can point to a number of others beyond the Franchise Tax Board. Take the one that Asm. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) has been using to keep the pressure up on stupid (Part 1), federally funded agencies that Arnold furloughed that actually cost the state federal dollars.
It's this kind of stupid that makes digging our way out of budget holes even more challenging. And for this stuff, we are just making it unnecessarily hard.
Over the flip find my very rough transcript from last night. It's really not that accurate, but it gets the general drift across.
One of the interesting stories to emerge from the Class of 2008 has been Asm. Nancy Skinner. In fact, a few weeks ago, she was named the "Rookie of the Year". The reason for this is fairly simple: She does stuff. She's held a series of press conferences and other assorted actions to call out some of the Extreme Stupid coming out of the Horseshoe these days.
One target of her ire has been the ridiculous furloughing of workers from the Employment Development Department (EDD) and a few others in the budget dispute. Now the Extreme Stupid comes in with the fact that these agencies have NO impact on the state budget. They are federally funded, and only state administered. Furloughing these workers not only doesn't save the state any money, it ends up costing the state in the end. We pull down fewer federal dollars and less money gets to where it should: the pockets of Californians who need it.
So, today she sent a letter to a former California Legislator who might be in a position to help: Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis.
The purported reason for these furloughs-that they are necessary to close California's budget deficit-- is found in the Governor's Executive Order S-16-08 (December 19, 2008) and Executive Order S-13-09 (July 1, 2009). As CUIAB and EDD personnel are federally funded, I question whether these furloughs save the state money, and whether they are in compliance with federal guidelines.
Skinner is requesting a meeting, but that's not really the point. The point is to call out a stupid policy that is hurting California.
Rumors ran rampant yesterday that state employees, pushed too far by yet another salary cut (totaling 20% over the course of the year), would potentially strike.
Doug Crooks, Director of Communications with the Service Employees International Union's local 1000, which represents more than 95,000 state employees, declined to confirm the rumor but said any decision would be made by the employees through an authorization vote.
"In the first place, that decision hasn't been made yet," said Crooks about the plan to strike. "That decision hasn't been made yet. We are definitely going to strongly oppose and do everything we can to prevent the governor from imposing a fourth furlough day. But check back with me Monday."
"The bottom line is we negotiated with this governor in good faith and we agreed on a contract that would save $340 million dollars immediately, and if applied to all state employees it would save the state a billion dollars. That's billion with a 'B.' And for the governor to undermine that contract now is beyond irresponsible. He's made the state employee a pawn" in the state budget negotiations.
"Well actually, it's a five percent cut on top of those three furlough days," explained Alicia Trost, a spokesperson for Senate leader Darrell Steinberg. "It's simply a scare tactic by the governor, yet another, and we feel the state workforce has already paid their fair share. What's worse is that it would have a horrible effect on the economy if state workers were to lose up to 20 percent of their buying power."
By the way, Mr. Stogie just lost a furlough case, with a judge tentatively ruling that he cannot furlough the legal staff of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, which has emboldened the larger pool of workers in SEIU. But more to the point, in the world of Arnold Antionette and the Yacht Party, workers making a median income getting 20% salary cuts while the largest corporations doing business in the state get a massive corporate tax break is considered "everyone paying their fair share."
Speaking of which, Lenny Goldberg offers the text of an initiative to repeal the negotiated-in-secret corporate tax cuts and save the state $2.5 billion dollars a year. Opponents typically respond with race-to-the-bottom rhetoric about businesses leaving the state, which isn't true, by the way.
UPDATE: Here's a study out TODAY from the PPIC confirming that the whole "the rich are leaving California" line is a flat-out lie.
Finally, a federal appeals court ruled that California cannot cut Medi-Cal reimbursements, in an opinion written by a George W. Bush appointee. The familiar pattern of breaking the law to cut the budget often runs up against judicial review, and so the criminals in Sacramento - considering what they're attempting, I don't consider that hyperbole - will have to try something else to achieve their long-sought destruction of the social safety net.
At some point, you'd figure, Arnold would take out his vengeance against some other group. Like, say oil companies or something. But no, Arnold is out for state worker blood.
The governor's latest budget proposal assumes almost 20 percent in employee wage cuts: 15 percent from the three-day furloughs that started this month, plus another 5 percent across-the-board whack.
"Three days (furlough) plus the 5 percent," said H.D. Palmer, Department of Finance spokesman when asked Wednesday to clarify the governor's budget proposal.
The Legislature won't go for the pay cut, but the governor can then add a furlough day for reasons we'll explain. (SacBee State Worker 7/9/09)
This will be a 20% pay cut. And let's be clear, while many of these employees make a decent living, it's not like any of these people were making CEO type salaries. These are people who put in their time, and do extremely hard work for the people of the state every day.
Slashing their salaries doesn't create any massive cost savings, it is essentially a tool that Arnold can use for negotiations. It's cynical and short sighted. If Arnold does get his way, services will be slashed down to the bone. It's impractical and doesn't actually solve any real problems. More of the same shock doctrine attitudes and goals from the Governor.
UPDATE by Julia let me also note that these state workers have already seen their workloads dramatically increase. Between all of the cut backs and unfilled positions, plus simply having 3 less days to do the same work these workers are overburdened and now facing huge cuts in their pay.
According to Mike Genest, the Governor's Director of Finance, the $24.3 billion dollar problem expanded by $2 billion dollars last night. He's not taking into account the interest on IOUs, of course, or the expanded borrowing costs. But he's factoring in the education spending that now cannot be cut below a certain level because of "maintenance of effort laws." Genest said that higher education has agreed to keep their books open an extra month, until July 31, meaning that the $1 billion in higher education cuts to the 2008-09 budget year could still be enacted. This is basically fuzzy math, since the additional expenditures due to the Governor's stubbornness do not get addressed.
What the Governor wants to do now, to recoup those cuts under Prop. 98, is to suspend the law. Once again, the reckless lawlessness of the Governor and his allies, out of an unwillingness to deal with budget reality, exposes itself. In addition, the Governor has backed off on the outsized budget reserve as well as eliminating vital programs like welfare, state park closures, children's health care and student grants. Of course, this has been replaced by unrelated items like cutting public employee pensions and social services fraud inspections, both of which would do nothing to the deficit in the near term.
The Governor has declared a state of emergency, under Prop. 58 rules. This means that the legislature has 45 days to come up with a solution on the budget, and if they fail to do so, they cannot adjourn or act on other bills. This is a moot point, since the Governor has vowed already to veto any non budget-related bill until a solution is reached. This just brings the legislature into special session (the fourth since December, I believe).
In addition, the Governor announced three furlough days a month for state employees to save cash, which amounts to a 15% pay cut. And IOUs will get issued tomorrow. They will have an interest rate for the banks which accept them of between 2-5%.
Late last week I received a statement from an anonymous state employee working at the Employment Development Department, which included some pretty stunning allegations about how Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature are dealing with state workers. For example, the Governor would reduce all state employee salaries by 5%, including ones not paid out of the General Fund but through other dedicated resources, including federal dollars. Our budget deficit is a General Fund crisis, not a crisis of those other resources, and so there is absolutely no necessity to reduce those salaries. In addition, the Governor has proposed furloughing such workers, an illegal action since state law excludes Special Fund workers from these types of job reductions. The State Compensation Insurance Fund just successfully sued the Governor over this matter.
Perhaps worst of all, the Governor and the Legislature have in recent years used special fund money to balance the budget. This is EXACTLY what Props. 1D and 1E would have done, moving dedicated funds into the General Fund. And yet the Governor and a compliant legislature goes ahead and does it anyway when the funds at risk are more murky and have lower-profile champions. This parallels the Governor, despite failing with Prop. 1A, budgeting a $4.5 billion dollar reserve for the upcoming fiscal year, despite the "rainy day" we're currently facing, essentially moving forward in violation of the will of the voters with a spending cap.
Democratic lawmakers are floating a plan to use that projected reserve, but resist augmenting that with new revenues, leading to $19 billion in additional cuts and borrowing from local governments, really a terrible plan considering the alternative options on fees. The unions are getting impatient with the lack of leadership, and advocacy groups seem more interested not in working with them but just going the heck around them. This note at the bottom of the LAT piece from Lenny Goldberg is the buried lede:
The next step for unions could be going directly to voters. One labor-backed group, the California Tax Reform Assn., has prepared a possible ballot measure to repeal the three corporate tax cuts Democrats agreed to in the last year to get GOP support for the budget.
"It's ready to go," said Lenny Goldberg, the group's executive director.
Reading the statement from the state employee, which I've posted on the flip, gives you some of the reasons why workers feel they have no allies in Sacramento anymore.
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?
Incredibly, forcing people to take off two days a month against their will not only lowered morale and increased inefficiency at state agencies, it didn't put much of a dent in the budget crisis. Revenues are still coming in short and will for the forseeable future. So the Governor put the hammer down.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will move to lay off as many as 10,000 state workers if lawmakers fail to pass a plan to close California's nearly $42-billion deficit by the end of the week, an administration spokesman said this morning.
Schwarzenegger's press secretary, Aaron McLear, said at a media briefing that the administration would send out pink slips Friday, absent a budget deal. The layoff process generally takes about six months for state employees due to union rules and other legal considerations, and bureaucratic procedures the state must follow. The move would save the state $150 million annually if the jobs are eliminated by July 1, according to McLear.
This would have been a good thing for the Governor to be working on, I don't know, yesterday, instead of jetting to Idaho. It turns out that Arnold was making a scheduled appearance at the Special Olympics - but he cancelled a similarly scheduled appearance at the Republican National Convention when budget talks were ongoing last year, and if anything the crisis is worse now. This is another case of Arnold making stern pronouncements in the media instead of doing his job. He is a failed governor and frankly the press are the only people who will listen to him.
...I should mention that George Skelton came out yesterday for lowering the 2/3 requirements for budgets AND taxes, albeit on the latter he added a caveat that tax increases can't be used to grow government above the rates of inflation and population growth. I'm not much for the caveat, but Skelton is a bellweather for the media elite in California, so this is important.
