Layoffs for NH state workers (home, purchasing, schools)

[BF66389]

Question about the "17.5% increase in budget"...

What years was that between?

I just looked at the operating budget for '06, '07, '08, '09 and its 13.2% for the operating budget increases (total from '06-'09), since information is provided in then-year dollars we then have to adjust for inflation (ie, $1 in 2006 does not equal $1 in 2009). Assuming 3.5% inflation (reasonable per OMB, and on par with the CPI) this works out to an operating budget increase of -.8% when adjusted for inflation.

I'm going to take a stab in the dark here (and I retain the right to change this once I actually have longer than an hour to look at numbers) but my guess is that there are three issues at play:
1) The "budget increases" in the papers are not inflation adjusted
2) The economic crisis is resulting in cut federal funding for '09 vs. prior years
3) Starting in '07 it appears that the state has to dump a lot more into Pease then it had before, since it was closed in '91 this is roughly 15 years after closure; or- when BRAC funds go away. This was the "big" anomaly/increase I found in a single line item (so far).

I think it is critically important that inflation be taken into account when looking at cost estimates, budgets, etc. An good example is military programs: A program for a new tank is proposed with an estimated total procurement cost of; we'll say- $100M and final delivery in 1990. the program gets delayed due to, whatever, and the deliveries are pushed back to 2010. The cost at this point is $160M. On paper this is a 60% growth in cost, right? WRONG, it is a 0% increase in cost (you HAVE to adjust for inflation since the Tank doesn't control inflation but it must fund accordingly). But that's not how it will be reported in the newspaper...

Again, this is not an argument against cost control. This is an argument for making sure you compare apples-apples. I still do not know if that's the case with the supposed 17.5% increase though but it looks like it might be apples-oranges.

[CometVoyager]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Front page of the newspaper today: State worker layoffs inevitable.

So we have a govenor and a state legistlature that raised the budget by 17.5% and now they have to lay people off? This is simple incompetence. Imagine a corporation that spends money to grow by 17.5% and then finds it is not profitable so it has to lay off workers which costs more money in separation costs.... That CEO would be fired...

If I become New Hampshire's Governor I will lay off no less than an addtional 35% of state workers and help them get private sector jobs!

[Brave Stranger]

The general operating budget in NH went up 17.5% in the past 2 year budget. You can find the breakdown at the Cato Institute.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

If I become New Hampshire's Governor I will lay off no less than an addtional 35% of state workers and help them get private sector jobs!

That is harsh

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by seamusnh

Front page of the newspaper today: State worker layoffs inevitable.

So we have a govenor and a state legistlature that raised the budget by 17.5% and now they have to lay people off? This is simple incompetence. Imagine a corporation that spends money to grow by 17.5% and then finds it is not profitable so it has to lay off workers which costs more money in separation costs.... That CEO would be fired...

I'm not unsympathetic to state workers in New Hampshire who may be laid off. However,

1. With the current economy, and as many private sector jobs as have been lost in just the last 6 months, state layoffs are indeed inevitable in many, perhaps even all, states.

2. No, not simple incompetence. This recession/almost-depression came on us very quickly, and I don't know of any state or local government that hasn't felt adverse effects. My state of Virginia laid off some state employees last fall, and it looks like more layoffs are coming.

3. "That CEO would be fired" .... maybe. But on Wall Street, and in banking, recent experience would suggest the CEO would get a bonus!

4. It's from last June, but it shows that state employee layoffs are unfortunately all too common at this time, and perhaps New Hampshire has been extremely fortunate to have avoided them up to now.

State, city layoffs: 45,000 and counting - CNN, June 23, 2008:

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a public employees union, says about 45,000 government layoffs have been announced this year.

There are 29 states, including California, Florida and Ohio, facing a combined budget shortfall of at least $48 billion in the fiscal year that starts July 1, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank.

There are nearly 20 million state and local government employees in the country. So a 1% decline in employment at cities, towns, schools and states would result in a job loss of almost 200,000 people, a much larger amount than we've seen from battered sectors such as automakers or home builders in the past two years.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by CometVoyager

If I become New Hampshire's Governor I will lay off no less than an addtional 35% of state workers and help them get private sector jobs!

With the current economy the way it is I don't think we should be laying off nearly half of all state workers. We need more efficient government. I would only cut positions in programs we absolutely don't need, or ones that are actually overstaffed.

[Alex Libman]

Good. The fewer government workers the better.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Alex Libman

Good. The fewer government workers the better.

The private sector is doing far worse at the moment. Therefore, it would be the inappropriate time to fire lots of state workers.

[seamusnh]

More details:

"New Hampshire passed a two-year state budget. The budgets as passed are maintained on the Legislature's own Web site under the Legislative Budget Assistant tab. The budget passed in June 2007 had general fund spending that was 17.54 percent higher than the budget passed in June 2005. This is a direct comparison of the exact same row of numbers from one budget to the next. When compared to biennium over biennium increases for each budget in the last 20 years, 17.54 percent is higher than any other budget and significantly higher than the average of around 10 percent.

The three previous increases of the state's total general and education funds averaged 5.5 percent. The 2008-2009 increase was budgeted to be 13.8 percent. So by this measure as well, the current state budget was the largest recent increase."

UnionLeader.com - New Hampshire news, business and sports - The state simply has to cut spending immediately - Wednesday, Oct. 15, 2008

The references to inflation are interesting. No employee at my company had raises of 3.5% in 2007 and 2008. We've been trying to keep as many employees as possible during this downturn. It is time for the state government to tighten its belt just like the private sector and the citizens...

[Alex Libman]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The private sector is doing far worse at the moment. Therefore, it would be the inappropriate time to fire lots of state workers.

Don't worry, the private sector can take care of itself. It's the government thugs that are the problem.