Skip to main content

The cost of putting off tough discussions and tough decisions

Hube has this "Dopey WNJ letter of the day/week/month/millennium" feature, which generally does crack me up, but--just occasionally--one of those letter writers actually gets it.

Such is the case with Roger C Williams of Bear:

I am outraged at New Castle County leadership and their plan to raise taxes by 25 percent while cutting services across the board.

We pay for services to be provided road maintenance, parks, libraries, police and fire protection, etc.

We are also responsible to pay for the head count needed to provide those services and upkeep for them. However, personnel costs are over 75 percent of the county’s budget. At this level, the personnel budget is clearly disproportionate to spending in other areas.

If that comes in the form of a enormously bloated payroll, I am perfectly fine with laying off employees.

This may sound heartless, and it is tragic for the hard-working people. They are victims of terrible management of county head count and capacity, that went unnoticed during the boom in the earlier part of this decade.

County Executive Chris Coons has got it all wrong.

Don’t cut spending on things taxpayers are paying for. Cut spending on the positions we never asked for and probably never needed.


The key figure here is 75% of the county budget being employee costs, as opposed to 46% for the State. Obviously, the New Castle County budget is way out of whack here, and needs to be trimmed.

This raises the tough issue that Chris Coons and Jack Markell continue to try to avoid: should we continue to pay for positions that are unnecessary because the government has suddenly decided that its primary function is to keep as many people employed as possible?

Putting off this discussion will not do anybody any favors. The WNJ editorial this morning notes:

Yet even when the budget goes into operation July 1, the financial crisis threatening Delaware won't be solved. In fact, if unemployment continues to rise and revenues dip ever further, the budget will have to be made even tougher.


At some point the decline in revenue will make the decision to maintain all government employees--regardless of salary and benefit cuts--financially unsupportable.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Easy to say, Steve, when the job cut is not your job!

There are alternatives, like reduced hours and reduced pay. At least then folks will have some income and benefits, while not on the unemployment roll, while continuing to perform public service.

What is wrong with that?

Perry Hood
Perry
My job and my wife's are both at risk; we are both State employees.

So don't give me that "easy to say" crap.

"What's wrong with that?"

Perry, either you did not read the previous FIVE posts explaining in detail and with numbers what's wrong with that, or you are only interested in parroting talking points.

Which is it?

You can disagree with my position all you want, but don't ever suggest that I didn't provide detailed information to support it, when that information is openly available for you to read.
Anonymous said…
Like I said, Steve, "when the job cut is not your job".

I hope for your sake that you and your wife do not lose your jobs.

You did not answer my specific question. Unfortunately, if you did address it in one of your op/eds, I missed it or do not remember it. Sorry!

I maintain that the alternatives suggestion makes sense.

I did not mean to suggest that you did not already answer my question.

Anyway, did you specifically address this suggestion in one of your op/eds?

Perry Hood

PS: The "talking points" are my points which I put forward for discussion purposes.
Anonymous said…
Steve, just for the record, I agree with the sentiments you expressed here:
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/03/as-gloves-come-off-in-delaware.html

That said, my suggestion on alternatives would not be confined to the $40k folks, nor did I say so!

In fact, I would support a progressive approach to reducing salaries, and eliminating upper level jobs that are unneeded. I do think job/public services preservation must be high priority, otherwise we could cause more problems by invoking unintended consequences.

Perry Hood

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...