Letter: Political budget cuts threaten public

Just a few simple observations about the “crisis” for government budget cuts.

If there is a percentage to be cut from each department’s budget, why start cutting the most important and required items first?

Cut the parties, trips and unnecessary conferences from all departments. Put a freeze on hiring. No bonuses or pay increases.

All of the above should continue until there is a reduction of at least 5 percent in each department.

Families in the private sector have had to make severe reductions in their budgets. The KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) method is most often used.

Do not threaten the public! Let the highly paid department heads trim the fat from their department budget and justify to the public any reduction in services.

K.J. Weber

retired administrative assistant

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by twinkie1cat - 09/03/2013

The one budget that needs to be cut is Jindal's departmental budget. Start with his travel expenses, especially for out of state travel. Continue by cutting his executive staff, especially the guys that prod the Republicans in the legislature to vote Jindal's way and that one that he is paying double. Then force him to participate in Obamacare and expand Medicaid using the federal money that will be provided. He is hollering that in 3 years the feds will no longer pay for all of it, but fails to mention that the state will only pay 10%. It's a great deal that even many of the other rightwingers are embracing. And reduce the tax breaks for industries that come here. Forget ending income tax. All that does is protect the wealthy from paying their share. Voila, balanced budget and nobody gets hurt.

2) Comment by prbeav - 09/03/2013

SuzanneMS, I agree. Jindal should be run out of office for the money he spends developing a team for his run for the US presidency. And the worst part of all is that he does not stand a chance, so the Louisiana taxpayer is a treble loser. (Just my opinion.)

3) Comment by SuzanneMS - 09/03/2013

Nimby?, name someone you consider to be "dead weight" or "fat" that needs to be trimmed. I'm sick and tired of you and your ilk slinging that term around as if just by saying it, you make it true, and insulting dedicated employees. The only dead weight I can think of right now would be Jindal, White, Nichols, the rest of his staff and a most of the legislature. The civil service employees I know are doing the jobs of 2 and sometimes 3 people, because of the hiring freeze. They have not had a single raise, not even cost of living, in 5 years. Yet Jindal manages to find hundreds of thousands for his minions and justifies it by saying that they are "taking on additional responsibilities." Well, what about the rest of the state employees? The clerks and assistants and teachers and cops and everyone else who has picked up the slack left when people leave and are not replaced? Let me try to put it in a way that you can understand, jdk944 (and you're right, you just don't know). There are fewer people working for the state of Louisiana today than there were when Jindal took office. However, there are more employees in the executive office than there were when Jindal took office. He has increased his own staff. Get it yet? And the amount being spent on salaries has increased. Get it yet? There are fewer people working for the state, but the state is spending more money on salaries. And that money is going primarily to new hires on Jindal's staff. As for dramatic -- you're the one with the affinity for exclamation points.

4) Comment by nimby? - 09/03/2013

governments , like any employers carry their share of dead weight . perhaps trimming the fat may lead to more efficiency ...

5) Comment by prbeav - 09/03/2013

Federally, they are used to force the people into surrender. Jindal uses cuts to impress the Wall Street Journal. In both cases, the public loses.

6) Comment by jdk944 - 09/03/2013

@SuzanneMS - while LA is certainly not at the top of the list in the # of State Employees, excluding hospital personnel, it is far from the bottom of the list of all states in the US. So I won't get all "dramatic" on us about this!!!

7) Comment by SuzanneMS - 09/03/2013

Yes, where has she been for the past 5 years? After 5 years of annual and mid-year budget cuts, we're down to the bone. What evidence does she have that millions of dollars are being spent on parties, trips and unnecessary conferences? Hiring freezes? So she's saying that employees are not important or required to provide the services she clearly values? Well, then, let's just fire everyone. That should take care of it. She can just show up and provide her own services. Although prbeav has it right that there has been an increase in the number and salaries of those in the executive office. It's been reported at least twice now that, while the number of state employees has fallen, the amount being spent on salaries has increased. Do families in Louisiana really not try to find additional sources of income when a wage earner is laid off or there is some other reduction in income? No one in the family takes a second job? Working members are not asked to contribute to the family budget?

8) Comment by [e-mail] - 09/03/2013

Weber is suggesting common sense, but that's in short supply when it comes to politicians spending taxpayer money. If I have less money in my pocket, I feel the lack because I have to spend less. They're insulated from such a reality when they spend other people's money so they don't feel it, that's why it doesn't bother them and that's why all their posing, game playing, and pure hypocrisy is so obvious to anybody who has to spend his own money.

9) Comment by InPVille - 09/03/2013

"Cut the parties, trips and unnecessary conferences from all departments. Put a freeze on hiring. No bonuses or pay increases." -[**]- Has the situation changed that much since I retired? Hiring freezes, staff cuts, and the rest was everyday life when I worked for the state. Bonuses? The department(and by that I mean the entire agency) I worked in might have one or two persons receiving a small amount a year. . . not much money to be saved there.

10) Comment by Bighug - 09/03/2013

Suggesting that our leaders do their jobs? What a novel idea!

11) Comment by prbeav - 08/03/2013

I agree. I especially object to Jindal paying his cohorts double the salary plus benefits for equivalent jobs in the private sector.