More state budget cuts coming
Gov. Martin O'Malley inaugurated his new MPT "Ask the Governor" series last night with more ominious talk about Maryland's budget situation, saying he expects another $200 million in cuts to the current fiscal year's budget. That would bring the total O'Malley has trimmed since taking office to somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion.
O'Malley said on MPT that the revenue estimates the state will adopt in December appear likely to be even worse than expected, and expectations weren't great to begin with. It's not yet clear whether the reductions (which would be done through the Board of Public Works) will come in December or in January. But either way, they're likely to be much tougher than the ones O'Malley has made so far. He's now talking about employee furloughs as one of the last options left to him, and that means some painful conversations with state worker unions, which supported him in the 2006 election and have generally felt well taken care of by the administration. It'll be interesting to see whether the goodwill he's stockpiled by pushing for living wage laws and other labor-friendly initiatives will get him through.
Another interesting thing about the budget cutting we've gone through thus far is that nobody has really tried suggesting eliminating state programs that flat out don't work or that we can't afford anymore. Even the Republicans, as they've offered budget reduction proposals, have opted against making specific suggestions and instead have advocated for an across-the-board spending freeze. You'd think that surely in a $30 billion budget, there's got to be something that we don't need to do. Any suggestions?
Comments
Suggestions:
No more hotel allowances for legislators within 60 miles of Annapolis.
Let them drive like the rest of us!
6 percent paycut for those in government making over 100 grand per year starting with OweMalley.
Eliminate Lt.Governor's staff he can piggyback on OweMalley's.
Eliminate Mrs. OMalley' staff
she does not need a press secratary.
Reduce spending on Governor's residence by 40 percent!
Cut support staff in Annapolis by 10 percent.
Stop putting current governor signs and pics up everywhere waste of money.
Posted by: jay | November 25, 2008 1:21 PM
Yes! Delete all funding of religious and other non-public schools from the state operating budget. That would provide around $4 million all by itself. Don't provide public funds for private or religious colleges. Eliminate much of the pork barrel program (especially that portion of the bundled "state debt" bills that proclaim they're serving a secular purpose when the reality is that they're promoting somebody's religious institution or program). Save money on the powerless waiting post lieutenant governor's office by eliminating it as a paid elected office. Instead let the governor designate prior to his or her election a successor (who would serve only until the next election and for no more than two years). Show me the operating and capital budgets and I'm sure I can find other expenditures than can be productively deleted.
Posted by: Ken Stevens | December 3, 2008 3:39 AM
Since the State has to cut budgets why not offer a 4 day work week for those employees who can take a cut in pay. This would cut 8 hours of pay a week for state employees who could afford it. This would only be a option for those who like this option. This would save a lot of dollars.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 6, 2009 10:17 AM
In order to somehow alleviate the present dilemma in economics, the government must allot budget according to priority. Less priority programs must ave less budget for their operation. State budgets are hurting in the U.S. Some state budgets have reached a crisis stage, such as in California, where the state is over $40 billion in the hole. In order to stem the amount of spending, and in order for the states to avoid getting massive personal loans, they’ve decided to let go of some segments of the prison population. The worry is that the release won’t have any good effects, and that more money will be spent on recidivism, or offenders re-offending and retuning to prison upon release. Officials insist that they will only be releasing prisoners who are the least likely to re-offend, and can be better monitored from home. If this does result in a new crime wave, it won’t be saving any state budgets, or the jobs of the people that released the prisoners.eased the prisoners.
Posted by: Diego Y. | March 16, 2009 3:42 AM