A Few Words On Furloughs
The news that South Carolina’s Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) is requiring all of its employees to take five days of unpaid leave in an effort to save money isn’t surprising.
Multiple state agencies – including the Department of Education, Forestry Commission and Department of Juvenile Justice, to name a few – have implemented furloughs in recent weeks as South Carolina’s revenues continue to plummet after years of overspending.
The agency-level equivalent of across-the-board cuts at the state level (like this one), furloughs appeal to a sense of fairness, to the egalitarian presumption that all government employees – like all government programs – are created equal.
Here’s the only problem with that logic – they’re not.
Which is why no matter how hard bureaucrats like DHEC’s Earl Hunter try to spin them – furloughs are bad public policy.
Hunter makes a perfectly valid point that DHEC has 4,200 employees today compared with 5,100 a decade ago.
That has nothing to do with the efficacy of furloughs, mind you, but we’ll give him some credit for running one of the few agencies that hasn’t ballooned its bureaucratic roster in recent years.
Here’s the problem – we’ve still got far too many agencies working at cross-purposes in this state, particularly in our fractured, fraud-plagued and utterly failing health care delivery system.
Most states just have unnecessary employees – in South Carolina, we have unnecessary agencies.
Currently, South Carolina has no fewer than eight state agencies that provide health care services, and while you’d think that such duplication and overlap might get the job done, we’re actually the third worst state in the nation when it comes to keeping people healthy.
And of course this is the structure into which S.C. lawmakers want to pour millions in new cigarette tax revenue, despite a similar legacy of failure on that front.
Five years ago, Gov. Mark Sanford proposed merging our state’s eight health care delivery agencies into three Cabinet-level posts.
That plan – which predictably went nowhere in the S.C. General Assembly – would have saved our state $22 million a year in administrative costs, to which Sanford added another $10 million in annual administrative savings by proposing a consolidation of the state’s three main environmental agencies (that’s right, we duplicate those functions, too).
Oh, and for all you big government backers out there, Sanford didn’t propose pocketing those savings or even (gasp) giving them back to taxpayers, he actually wanted to apply the $22 million in health administration savings to matching federal Medicaid funds and use the $10 million in environmental administrative savings to fund the state’s Conservation Bank.
Basically, government wouldn’t have grown or shrunk under those proposals – it would have simply done its job better.
Of course lawmakers weren’t about to give Sanford that control, nor do they seem ready to give future governors that authority, either.
The legislature is in charge in this state, remember?
Which is why in an awful budget year South Carolina is having to fill full-time government positions at a faster clip than any other state in the nation, at least according to a recent report from the National Association of State Budget Officers.
Just as all state employees aren’t created equally, neither are all state agencies.
Particularly when your state has way too damn many of them.
Comments
By lou on December 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 am
Interestingly, when Department of Mental Health and the prison system and other patient care oriented state agencies furlough NURSES, they turn around and spend more money hiring Agency personnel to meet minimum staffing requirements . So the furloughs themselves end up costing more money than the employees working……..
we be smart in SC
By hmmmm on December 22nd, 2008 at 11:21 am
Could you provide a list of these 8 health care agencies and 3 environmental agencies? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks
By fitsnews on December 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Hmmmm …
No problem.
Health Care:
1-Department of Health and Human Services
2-Department of Health and Environmental Control
3-Department of Mental Health
4-Department of Disabilities and Special Needs
5-Department of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Services
6-Commission on the Blind
7-Commission on Vocational Rehabilitation
8-Lt. Governor’s Office On Aging
Environment:
1-Department of Health and Environmental Control
2-Department of Natural Resources
3-S.C. Forestry Commission
Oh, and some people classify the “parks” part of our Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism as an environmental agency, too.
-FITS
By Paul on December 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I see where you are going with this, but wouldn’t combining all these agencies into one “super” agency create even a bigger bureaucracy, and likely eliminate very little jobs, and at best may save the state some rent, but that is small potatoes as well.
By fitsnews on December 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Paul,
Well, if you read the story, back in 2004 it would have meant a combined $32 million in annual taxpayer savings on a recurring basis, which would have been reapplied to actually accomplishing the objectives these multiple agencies are still failing to accomplish.
Define that however you want.
FITS
By Joseph Reynolds on December 22nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Has any government produced “savings” plan ever actually “saved” any money?
Until they remove the regulations and governmental requirements that justify the existence of the agencies… there is no way to downsize enough.
…Id like to see that plan with the details spelled out.
By Paul on December 22nd, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I did read your article, and I see your savings comments, which may or may not be accurate, but I didn’t see where there would be employee shrinkage, essentially keeping that the same. I am just not sure that saving 32 million in a 7 billion dollar budget really gets you very far if your create an even larger bureaucracy of red tape. For example, if I used your proposal and offered this analogy – combine SLED, Corrections, Natural Resource officers, Juvenile Justice, Probation Pardon and Parole and Dept.of Public Safety beause they all provide some form of law enforcement, however they all serve VERY and EXTREMELY different functions even if they are related in some way shape or form can you imagaine the nightmare of running an agency that size. Because by this site’s previous comments we already pay people to much, but to get someone qualified enough to handle that enormity of an operation, would take a rather large salary at the very least, along with a very competent and able staff. If you want to run government like a buisness (which I disagree with, but has been touted by this site and the Governor) then you are going to have to pay like a business.
By fitsnews on December 22nd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
It’s a $6 billion budget. And please keep talk of “shrinkage” to yourself.
And yes, we could consolidate law enforcement, just as you could have consolidated VERY and EXTREMELY.
Get back to the legislative Christmas parties, dude.
FITS
By nope on December 22nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Aw, it’s cute how you always get so cranky when the world’s not quite as simple as you make it out to be.
I wonder if the simplistic thing also applies to this statement: “South Carolina has no fewer than eight state agencies that provide health care services, and while you’d think that such duplication and overlap might get the job done, we’re actually the third worst state in the nation when it comes to keeping people healthy.”
Maybe we have poorer health than most states because we have more ignorance and poverty, so our health care agencies have a harder row to hoe, which is why we need them in the first place, which makes them necessary and not wasteful expenses.
By Pat Hendrix on December 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Just out of curiosity, has “fits” EandC every drawn a paycheck from the government? Certainly the great Mark Sanford has been drawing one for the past what? 16 years? Before that, he made his money the old fashion way: He married it.
Yeah, this is the group that telling us how to run government. The people who brought us this economic miracle:
http://www.thestate.com/…/627124.html
and this http://www.thestate.com/…/628792.html
This is his response:
http://www.thestate.com/…/624907.html
Enjoy your time in the political wilderness. You’re going to be there for a long time.
By James the Foot Soldier on December 22nd, 2008 at 8:09 pm
All these musings miss the point of the post: Furloughs are the preferred tool that “leaders” use for dealing with a budget “cut”.
Here’s the unfiltered view from the front line: Furloughs are the COWARDS way of reducing spending.
Note to “leaders”: Get out of the corner office, walk amongst the cubicles, find the dead weight, and show them the door.
Morale will instantly improve since dozens of folks are fed up with having to pick up the slack from Dead Weight Drama-queen Debbie and Dead Weight Dufus David that show up and do NO work. Actual productivity will improve even though payroll is cut because the real workers won’t be so ticked off at management for allowing such dead weight to fester for years.
By Paul on December 22nd, 2008 at 9:11 pm
FITS,
I have yet to attend any legislative function or be invited to one, because quite honestly i wouldn’t find them fun in the least, or at least I wouldn’t think so.
You open your site to spout your opinions, often times of which I agree, and for people to comment, and obviously not everyone will agree with you. I appreciate you pointing out the grammar lesson, but what I would really like is a more educated response as to why we need to consolidate these agencies, other than we save $32 million, by your account.
Where would all those jobs go? Would they join the unemployment line costing us more money? Where would the savings be? Would it all be controlled by the governor? Would we have multiple “heads” running the divisions? Please lay out a plan for us to see other than spouting out what seems to the average Joe a quite simple solution, but in reality is complex. Or maybe that is just your intent all along, just confuse the public into believing of we listen to you (mouthpiece for Mark Sanford) on everything, then we would be the only state in the country NOT facing economic hard times.
By Fashizzle on December 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I love when morons use a condescending tone and then post hyperlinks that don’t work. Moron. South Carolina deserves you.
By Richard on December 23rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
I love it that we are talking furloughs and SClineans losing jobs when we have had a $3 billion dollar surplus the past few years. What great leadership we have! As coo-koo as the Governor is, fiscally he is right on. Oh, and running the state like a business, means being responsible with one’s money and the people with whom they employ. Another far cry for our Legislature.
By mijeel on December 23rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
I tend to agree with “James the Foot Soldier.” If the missions of the various agencies are so necessary and important, furloughing staff hurts the employees and those who receive the services of those agencies and merely preserves the bureaucrats (whose relative value is a topic for another day). If the agencies provide a “vital” service to the taxpayers, then leaders should do everything possible to keep them open and operating. If all staff are essential, then give all staff a temporary, across-the-board pay cut, and continue to fulfill the mission of the agency.
This, then, begs the question whether agencies provide a “vital” service. I believe a zero-based review of the mission of each state agency is in order to find and eliminate duplication of effort and unnecessary bureaucracy – which I believe will be substantial. In the case of health care alone, the $22 million in annual savings would be a start.
$22 million out of a $7 billion budget represents only .03%. While, on a percentage basis, this isn’t a big number, $22 million is still a lot of money in raw, taxpayer-provided dollars that deliver no real benefit to the citizens of SC.
By The Little Guy on December 23rd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Fits,
Let’s talk about the state employees who are being furloughed:
The SCDOE school bus mechanic who makes $13.79/hr. to repair 20 year old buses, or the DSS daycare inspector who is raking in a princely $13.36/hr. to face angry childcare center directors who balk at their fines…..or the thousands of other state servant/employees who are working in the 4th and 5th pay band world. These people are not overpaid or poster children for wasteful government spending.
Somehow balancing the budget on their backs seems immoral. What should we cut their pay to….$11/hr. or minimum wage maybe?
IF, we are going to balance the budget on the back of state workers….there’s a better way….have EVERYONE from the Governor to the most poorly paid state employee take a 4% paycut….make it fair….and allow Legislators feel some of the pain they have created…well, maybe just a little pinch!
Our agency will probably get additional days of Mandatory Furlough January 1st. Happy New Year!
By Gen. Longstreet on December 23rd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
In the four years + that I fought for the South, never once did I receive a furlough. Nary a one. Bobby Lee never saw fit to do so. Damn him to Hell.
By Ya Ya Sisters on December 23rd, 2008 at 8:46 pm
General,
We have been furloughed-a-plenty. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be!