Sunday, January 25, 2009

State Layoffs Target Wrong Areas


As Maryland continues to feel the effects of a revenue shortfall, some people will now lose their state jobs. Likewise, many vacant position will be eliminated altogether. Taking a look at the raw numbers, it appears the O'Malley administration really didn't put much thought into this venture.

First, Public Safety And Correctional Services loses 373 positions. Similarly, Maryland State Police will see a net loss of 21. Also, the Military Department can say goodbye to 14 people. Clearly, O'Malley envisions crime and unrest won't be an issue in the near future. Still, if that's the case, I am curious why he plans to increase the judiciary by 44? Keep in mind, judges in most jurisdictions don't hit the bench until after 9am and are done for the day around 4pm. And, let's not forget about their hour and half lunches.

Somehow, the Maryland Public Broadcasting Commission will keep all 155 of their jobs. Can someone please remind me why taxpayers continue to fund a television station in 2009? Also, the Public Service Commission keeps their 142 person department. I honestly didn't know it required that many people to man that useless entity. Perhaps, they should layoff all of them and pass along the savings directly to us. We could then use the money to pay the higher BGE bills routinely approved by these guys.

There's many more agencies that probably could've sacrificed a few positions. That said, I really didn't expect O'Malley to put much thought into this process. By the way, I notice that he also plans to increase his Executive Department from 86 to 89. Maybe one of these three new appointees can be responsible for doing a feasibility and productivity analysis for each state agency. If done properly, I am sure additional layoffs could easily be justified.

Crossposted

6 comments:

The Intellectual Redneck said...

Do all our Congressmen and Congresswomen own bank stock? Nancy Pelosi wants more TARP money than the 700 billion already wasted

Lisa Hofbrau said...

A cut is a cut. You want him to cut off programs that feed children ?

streiff said...

Lisa, try reading before commenting thereby avoiding the preventable heartbreak of self-beclowning.

Lisa Hofbrau said...

I re-read it and I still don't see what the writer proposes as preferable cuts. I admit I am a proponent of Justice and agree that money should be spent in the pursuit of the aforementioned, but where is there a problem with cutting costs regardless of the political impact.

streiff said...

then the problem seems to lie in your inability to read. Sorry to embarrass you like that.

Rex, your mom tells me that she's tried to get you to a doctor to get that fixed. Your mom says "hi".

Matt Johnston said...

I feel the need to stick up for judges here. As a practicing lawyer I can tell you that most counties in the state are experiencing severe backlogs on their dockets. With the increasing financial problems state wide, things like mortgage foreclosures, breach of contract cases for deals that go south, etc. will only increase in the short term.

Also, I know very few judges who only work 9-4 with a one hour lunch. While they may not be in a courtroom until after 9 and finish in the Courtroom at 5, I can tell you that most work a much longer day than that. Remember, judges are also critiqued on their ability to not only render justice but do so in an efficient manner.

I agree that cuts in public safety/police are very, very bad way to go (statistically, property crimes go up in a recession), lets not knock the judiciary. They may be the hardest working state employees around.

ShareThis