As the state tries to close the $25.4 billion budget gap within the next 18 months, Governor Jerry Brown has taken to getting rid of state-issued phones for employees. The plan is a 50 percent reduction in state-issued phones, and is projected to save $20 million a year.
As the newly elected governor deals with the past financial failures of the state government, he is seeming to seek new and unique was to save the state money. Do you think that getting rid of state employees' cell-phones is a reasonable cut in the state's budget? Do you think that the government is going to far in its desire to bridge the budget gap?
5 comments:
In my opinion, cutting government-paid cell phones is not going too far. The governor needs to cut something to balance the budget, and it's better that he cut small trifles like these, which don't have an extremely significant effect on the majority of the people, and whose abatement will end up saving the state millions of dollars. I don't think that taxpayers' money is best spent on government employees' cell phone bills under the current economic circumstances. This is a good way to make California's government more efficient, and to cut the excesses.
I concur with Rashmi: these government issued phones are not necessary. I find it highly unlikely that government officials can't scrounge up enough money to afford cell phones for themselves.
One possible drawback to cutting the phones is that it could make it more difficult for the company to contact its employees, though it seems unlikely that something like this would happen in the first place...I'd be interested to know the reasons behind issuing these phones in the first place, because they seem so pointless.
If Brown really wants to close that gap, he's going to have to raise taxes, and that's something none of us are looking forward to, and I'm sure he isn't, either. Let's all hope he can find a solution that doesn't get him recalled...
The article states that cell phone bills cost $36 a month, on average. The article also states that up to 48,000 cell phones may be taken out of state bureaucrats' hands, and they will be forced to pay for their own cell phone bills. Jerry Brown also states that this will save the state $20 million dollars a year.
However, the statements made about contract terminations, in that "the state to avoid any early termination penalties that would exceed the potential savings", is unrealistic. The government likely has large contracts signed with companies to provide such a large number of its employees with phones. Think about it: the government is cutting off half of their contracts. It's not going to be cheap. There are already cancellation fees of hundreds of dollars for a 2 year contract for us laypeople. This injustice will simply put the state in a bigger hole.
Furthermore, much research must be done to determine which of the state's employees will get to retain their phones, making it infeasible for Brown to expect the phones to be gone by June.
And in a close to $90 billion dollar budget, $20 million would be an astounding 0.02% cut. The negligible amount of the cut does not justify the crucial role that cell phones are playing in our government, especially in this day and age. State employees must be given the resources they need to perform their jobs efficiently. In this regard, "Brown’s order comes at a time when government agencies are relying more heavily on smartphones to conduct business outside the office."
Brown's proposal isn't what we need. We need a recall. We need Meg Whitman.
Good for Jerry Brown! In a deficit like this, nobody likes it, but sacrifices must be made. Ryan, I am kind of confused by some of your arguments. For example, how would cutting the government-paid cell phones increase the deficit? I think the government would be smart enough to find a way to reduce or avoid cancellation charges. In any case, did you know that it is cheaper to end your cell phone service than continuing to pay the monthly bills? Also, I don't think that it will take "much research" to determine which state employees get to keep their cell phones. Brown clearly stated that he would get rid of ALL state-issued cell phones. Anyway, those who are losing their cell phones are still free to purchase their own.
Do you think Whitman would have done better? Personally I think that it is better to cut cell phones, a luxury, than taking food out of the disadvantaged people's mouths by cutting welfare. But that's just my opinion.
@Nichole:
With Verizon, for example, ending a contract incurs cancellation fees of hundreds of dollars, plus additional hundreds of dollars to pay for that "free" or "reduced price" phone you got when you signed the contract. The government isn't god. They may receive slightly reduced prices from vendors, (read: MAY) but they are normal clients as well.
You stated that "Brown clearly stated that he would get rid of ALL state-issued cell phones." This is just not true. Brown wants to get rid of half of the state funded cell phones, 48000 out of 96000.
Furthermore, cell phones aren't the "luxury" that you perceive them to be. In our day and age, they are a crucial factor in our being able to function efficiently: and that includes government employees doing their jobs efficiently. But hey, I already stated that, didn't I?:
"And in a close to $90 billion dollar budget, $20 million would be an astounding 0.02% cut. The negligible amount of the cut does not justify the crucial role that cell phones are playing in our government, especially in this day and age. State employees must be given the resources they need to perform their jobs efficiently. In this regard, "Brown’s order comes at a time when government agencies are relying more heavily on smartphones to conduct business outside the office."
And you didn't address the central point outlined in the quote above either.
But hey, that's just my opinion.
Post a Comment