Does Markells Budget Mean He Isn’t a Progressive?
There was a lot of talk during the election by people on this blog and others about Jack Markell’s progressive street cred. He certainly convinced a lot of progressive Democrats that he would represent their interests. He also convinced a number of moderate Republicans that he would represent them, as they changed party registration to get the chance to vote for him over John Carney. Some of his supporters are Republicans again, like Dominique.
Not much was made of this combination of strange bedfellows (Dominique, Jason, Dana Garrett Steve Newton and even Kilroy), but Jack’s first budget of his Governorship has some of them jumping out of bed like a man waking up after a night of drinking, with a woman he doesn’t know.
Personally, I don’t know what to think about it. Some of the most progressive people that I know are up in arms about the fact that the across-the-board pay cuts are regressive. Which is true if progressive/regressive is a binary choice. I want to believe that Jack is doing what he knows is right. He certainly has surrounded himself with a staff that I would consider progressive and smart.
But on the other hand, it is hard to argue that an 8-10% pay cut for someone making $150K is the same as an 8-10% pay cut for someone making $30K. Hopefully, some of this will be rectified in Leg Hall, but if that was Markell’s strategy, it is a pretty far from a bold new direction.
Tags: Delaware Budget, Jack Markell
Basically, the budget has to be solved in the next 60 days, with a machete if necessary, or Delaware takes a hit on its credit rating and then we are really fucked. Even if Jack wanted to, there isn’t time for a progressive reengineering of the tax code and worker pay.
Jack should be judged on what he does *after* this budget passes. Right now he is in firefighting mode.
Jack should be judged on what he does *after* this budget passes. Right now he is in firefighting mode.
Actually that was a little hyperbolic, but not much. Of course Jack should be judged on what he does while putting out the fires.
Note that while there is a “regressive” pay cut, I expect Markell’s budget to retain a lot of investments that will help in the future, for example in education.
What Liberalgeek said. I also heard John Kowalko speak eloquently in this topic.
(…and people say we are an echo chamber…)
But Markell says…
…and that all makes sense to me.
My Bottom Line: I’m not jumping out of bed.
I’ve been totally wondering the same stuff…
Lets submit out idea of progressive pay cuts to ideas.delaware.gov !!!!
It’s totally better to have a shared burden via a tiered pay cut rather go all Steve Forbes with a flat pay cut across the board.
But who cares, our economy is doomed anyway, get your assualt weapons while you can to protect your garden!
It isn’t a bold new direction. But I don’t think that Markell or Carney were thinking that they’d have to cut the budget back by 20%.
The across the board cuts are on salaries. And that is regressive. As you say, perhaps Lege Hall will change this formula. But I strongly suspect that layoffs (which I think is the next step if the economic numbers don’t get better) will be just as regressive and will make no one happy either.
I read someplace that State workers have not had a raise in three years. And I contrast that with the real vitriol that State workers are getting over their health care plan. There aren’t many private sector industries where there are no raises — certainly not for the past three years — but these critics believe that the fact that the private sector pays part of the medical insurance is reason enough to knock this benefit down for State workers. As if private sector pay structures are good enough for benefits but not for pay.
Pay cuts on that scale cause real financial pain for most families. And certainly these people have been doing the jobs asked of them so they are not contributors to the state’s financial woes. And the savings from the pay cuts represent about a third (92M) of the total cuts (331M) to the budget being made. What else is going away via the other cuts? For all of the emotion expended on the pay cuts, no one seems to have looked at the budget enough to know what else this budget may eliminate.
I don’t have any good suggestions to resolve this — 20% cuts is not a number that leaves much whole — but I do think that this is a good time to start talking about how poorly paid a segment of the State worker pool is. If a 8 or 10% cut is enough to slide a family into poverty wages, you are looking at the result of No Raises which functionally is wage cut for every year you don’t get one.
Additional 2% cut for people making over $149,000.
Going once…
going twice…
The left is as faithful to their hero as a football player is to a flunky.
David is jealous he only has sideshow circus freak Limbaugh to look up to… ewwww
And this from a guy who thinks Earmark Sarah Palin is a hero of something.
Delusional David strikes again.
I really think Jack is on the right track. He just got on the wrong train. He delivered the best of the worst pretty much knowing the Legislators would chew on it and spit something back that addresses the seriousness of our economic woes. For a first bounce, I think he did what was necessary in the hopes of getting the old guard to understand this isn’t Ruthie’s show anymore.
He has to “Get Real”, before he can get progressive.
It’s the turtle in this race folks, and I am far more concerned about building “a house of cards” budget on the back of expanded casino(like) operations. It’s the crotch shot of revenue intake, I’d rather stay away from–opting to develop more reliable, systematic, contributive initiatives to the economy and standard of living around here. Guys and Dolls the Delaware Way just kinda hits me the wrong way.
LG–is there a binary choice: progressive or regressive? Don’t necessarily subscribe to that, but I am less interested in Markell’s political attributes than the damage the government is doing to its own employees with this budget, and what it says about priorities.
Most of the jumping up and down that Dana and I have been doing is citing very specific reasons (with figures) that what he proposes is a very bad idea. I think debating that issue is more important than Jack’s ideological purity.
Equally important (and in reference to ‘bulo’s early challenge), I have provided multiple alternative suggestions for other cuts and changes that could be made, and other ways to do salary cost-cutting.
I honestly think that most of this discussion should be about the policy rather than the politician (although I am certainly not going to apologize for taking shots at a man I voted for who does not appear to be following through on his rhetoric).
Fair enough, Steve. I’m not demanding ideological purity. I am wondering how a progressive would respond to this issue, and how does that differ from what Jack is doing? Perhaps ANYONE in his position would do the same. Perhaps a libertarian in his position would be taking the same measures.
It is worthy of pondering.
Further, I heard Jack say that across the board cuts (he was talking about spending in general) were bad, since they punished efficient departments and rewarded inefficient ones. This does seem like it lacks the same nuance that Minner’s BS was missing.
“There aren’t many private sector industries where there are no raises — certainly not for the past three years…”
I haven’t gotten a raise in five years, except after receiving a promotion.
“Over a period of many weeks, they told me over and over again that they preferred that the sacrifice be shared by all”
I believe the sentiment was not “shared by all” but “shared equitably by all” from State employees. Although Steve and Dana have put it better that I could hope to, this is certainly not equitable. I would also contend that if asked, employees would prefer furloughs to pay cuts. At least if you give me every other Friday off, I’d at least could conceptually get something out of this 🙂
Another point to make is that once taken away, it’s going to be tough to get that money back.
I also believe that the 8% figure was made that high to get people close to retirement age to go ahead and retire, thereby giving some salary savings.
Last point. I could find you at least 1.5 million in Salary savings just in the RAM cronies getting other jobs in the administration, some that have been vacant for longer that 1 1/2 years.
Actually, Mark, I think the reason the 8% was so high is that Markell eventually plans to put it to the legislature like this: Want me to lower the salary cut? Then muster the courage to raise taxes.
On a political level I understand the dynamic.
“… I heard Jack say that across the board cuts (he was talking about spending in general) were bad, since they punished efficient departments and rewarded inefficient ones.”
Excellent point, and one that should emphasized more. On an individual level, that’s essentially why I advocate the laying off of non-performers first, based on their unsatisfactory evaluations, rather than screwing everyone *equally*. You’re right, under this plan, agencies (and individuals) who perform are being penalized.
I’ve read that in the long run, workers prefer layoffs to across-the-board pay cuts, Mis. I’ll bet that’s true, because usually the odds are that you aren’t the one getting cut, but someone else (e.g. a 20% staff reduction, you have a 80% chance of no cut).
I think Gov. Markell did not expect to have to make this level of cuts. Yes, I think they could be more progressive, but he certainly did spread the pain around.
Oh it better not play out that way Steve. I will take my contractual reimbursement cuts of 5-10%, and most likely see an increase in gross receipts tax. But an overall “tax raise”, will push me from being a good sport and team player for the greater good, to becoming park ape on Dover and this double jeopardy that will be dished out. So much for encouraging entrepenuership in this great state, as the proposed model. The taxes between gross receipts, and then personal income will hardly mitigate the risk from the reward. And then you have the municipalities presenting their accounting methods! I think all of us at this point can just take our licks as presented. Let’s not extrapulate this further.
Here’s the problem with the pay cut versus layoffs. If you believe that State Government is too large (and I probably subscribe to this belief) then this does nothing but delay the inevitable.
The basic problem with layoffs is that between bumping etc, it may take 6 months to actually see the salary savings. Let’s take a look at what happens if my position was eliminated (and assuming the layoffs are statewide). I would get 30 days notice and in my present job classification, I could bump anyone for instance in Kent County that has less time than me. I have 21 years so someone is getting bumped :). Then the person I’m bumping gets the same 30 day notice to bump someone else with lower seniority. As you might guess, this process could take a few rounds. Makes the pay cuts much easier to administrate.
You’re right Mark. Layoffs take a lot of time, plus you usually have to take a charge against it. Pay cuts (or furloughs) have immediate savings.
Markell played self-described progressives like a stripper running her fingers through a woozy customer’s hair.
Liberals who voted for Carney are not surprised by the incessant drip of neo-Castle policy, proposals and appointments.
Currently Superior Court jury members get paid $20.00 a day. Will Jack’s proposal reduce that to $18.40 a day (8%) as state employees or with his push to move away from nonstate employed consultants will there be a push away from jury trials to save money?
http://courts.delaware.gov/Jury%20Services/?juror_faq_ans.htm#juror14
And what do “liberals who voted for Carney” think he would have done instead?
I’ve asked myself that same question, Geezer. I’ve also asked what the conservatives who voted for Lee think he would have done instead. Chop the state police, DHSS and the prisons all in one swoop?
There’s just no way to fix the budget problem without (a) massive cuts or (b) massive revenue increases. Markell went for a middle route, trying to split the difference. People are still pissed. But really, what the hell did they expect? That he’d find a magical new source of revenue that no one else in the world has thought of? That he’d find some incredibly wasteful hidden program that has no constituency or support and costs $600 million?
Markell is in a shitty situation here because Minner and the legislature were both completely irresponsible over the last four years in particular. If they’d put just two percent of every budget into the rainy day fund, we’d be in decent shape – not perfect, but certainly better! Instead, they kept it at the minimum level required – two percent of the entire budget.
I’m really sick of hearing all this whining from both state employees and the public. Everyone’s in pain, and Markells’ message for the last two months has been that we’re going to have to make even more painful decisions. Anyone who didn’t hear that wasn’t listening. Yeah, I’d liked to have seen Markell raise taxes on everyone making above $150,000, leaving everyone else alone. But Delaware’s tax rates don’t allow for that.
“Yeah, I’d liked to have seen Markell raise taxes on everyone making above $150,000, leaving everyone else alone. But Delaware’s tax rates don’t allow for that.”
Delaware law does “allow for that.” Markell’s decision to leave this $ on the table – as opposed to Maryland’s creation, at the behest of Gov. O’Malley, of a higher rate for high incomes – is revealing.
A higher rate for high incomes would have displeased the neo-cons:
http://www.heartland.org/publications/budget%20tax/article/23325/Md_Millionaires_Hit_by_Tax_Bracket_for_Wealthy.html