CA hired more workers despite budget cuts

[Project Grudge]

Source: ABC News

A Sacramento Bee analysis of the last nine months shows the state hired roughly an additional 2,000 people outside public safety, even as the budget deficit ballooned and the California faced a huge cash crunch.

The state employed 204,525 full-time workers last June. By November that number jumped to 206,251. It dipped slightly in December, before jumping back up to 206,650 in January 2009. The number of employees went up in 66 agencies.

Read more: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/politics&id=6713257

---

I'm so glad I don't live in California; the state is screwed up beyond belief. This defies logic and pragmatism. It seems to be completely impossible for any California lawmaker or state agency to live within his or her budget. The rest of the us manage to do it; why can't this state?

[tomm2thumbs]

1. interesting article

some from added staff to handle rising unemployment and other related stuff - but they said "surprisingly, the U.S. Census Bureau found California has one of the leanest state governments. "If you figure out the number of workers per 10,000 people, we rank 49th out of 50 states. For most of the last 10 years, we rank 50th. We do not have an over-bloated state work force," says Professor Tim Hodson, from the Center for California Studies." Why is it the government is so lean but the taxes are so high?

not sure if the article makes a case either way

[EFerrari]

2. Republican obstructers want to make a mess

as if that will get them more seats in the legislature. They are one trick ponies and apparently have no other strategy.

[EFerrari]

3. We're too busy polishing our beamers?

Careful. CA is a predictor.

[haele]

4. Hiring is good. Their wages and costs are offset by the revenue

that their spending and taxing will give back. Stimulus, as it were. These jobs will in turn create revenue not only from the various taxes these employees will be paying, but from the use fees that the public will pay for thier services. Each dollar that the state spends on these state employees will probably recoup closer to the dollar spent - certainly more than the dollar given to a most likely out-of-state-based-to-lower-taxes corporation to do the same job.
I'll almost guarentee that these permenant people are probably desperate for a public sector job that pays less than the same work in the private sector - or they're back-filling for work that used to be done by private for-profit sector for a lot more long-term and uncontrollable cost outlay to the state. So my guess is that the state determined they are probably going to be spending less over the next 5 - 10 years for those employees than they would if they "privatized" that particular critical job.

Haele