Skip to main content

An expected piece of hypocrisy from Senator Nancy Cook ...

... regarding the JFC and the Delaware budget.

Of the proposed 2.5% State employee pay cut that the Joint Finance Committee is now pushing, Senator Cook says, according to the WNJ:

The only alternative to a pay cut, Cook said, would be layoffs -- something she is dead-set against. The JFC discussed furloughs, she said, but ruled them out because they couldn't come up with a way to do it fairly.


Two issues:

1) Several months ago, Governor Jack Markell warned us that the only alternative to an 8% across-the-board State employee paycut was ... layoffs. Now, suddenly, 2.5% is the magic number. Which means that Senator Cook is ... suggesting that the Governor was lying about the 8% being necessary, or what? And why, exactly, should we believe Senator Cook now when suddenly instead of $92 million, $29 million is the magic number?

2) The JFC--in what is supposed to be its last secret session ever (holding my breath and waiting for the court challenge in the off-season)--ruled out furloughs because they couldn't figure out how to do them fairly. Of course, if they had invited the State employees' unions to present proposals for doing furloughs fairly, they might have gotten an answer. But that would have meant actually opening up the deliberative process not just to transparency, but also to public participation.

Or they could have just asked DuPont. Dozens if not hundreds of DuPont employees were told they were receiving furloughs, given the total number of days they had to take, and allowed to work out their schedules on a department by department basis.

Why are furloughs the superior answer, Senator Cook, even if they might actually require (God forbid!) a little thought and work?

Because furloughs are not theft.

The State of Delaware made contracts will the unions representing all these employees. The contracts were promises to pay. Based on the surety of those contracts the employees went out and applied for mortgages and auto loans. Now the State is in the unilateral process of demanding the same work for less pay than it promised. If the State instead were to go with furloughs, employees would be paid the same rate for the time they work, and--instead of the paycheck--would be given back their time.

My next door neighbor is on furlough from DuPont just about every other Friday. Yesterday he used the time to replace some of the siding near the roof of his garage, a task he hadn't been able to accomplish for several months. So he didn't get paid, but he didn't get screwed out of both his money and his time.

It is the essence of hypocrisy for State legislators like Senator Cook to rehash the old line that this particular pay cut represents the only way to avoid lay-offs, when the number she is citing is completely different than the one the Governor cited to kick off the whole process.

It is worse than hypocrisy to admit that lay-offs are not on the table because our legislators are too damn lazy or too damn stupid to work out an equitable program and too jealous of their fleeting vestiges of secrecy to ask for assistance.

Comments

Mark H said…
"ruled out furloughs because they couldn't figure out how to do them fairly"

Steve, not sure they could figure how much 1+2 equals either :)
Although I've been a pretty vocal dissenter of the 8% paycut, I've always preferred furloughs to the paycut for exactly the reason you mention. I'd at least have the extra time to do with what I'd like.
G Rex said…
More like, ruled out furloughs because they couldn't figure out how to do it without sending some lawmaker's daughter son, nephew etc. home for the day.

In the real world, the first response to budget shortfalls is to cut available hours for hourly workers - see also; better than minimum wage earning college students who would otherwise be waiting tables - and put more work on the backs of salaried employees. If you did that at at DelDOE, for example, it would mean that all these overpaid administrators would have to do actual work.

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 ...