Friday, March 28, 2008


How is it possible to 'save' money that you don't have? The legislature seems to think by not paying for something, they have no money for, that it is saving money. I'll never understand how this works. If they have no money in the first place how is not paying something to be considered saving?
Check this train wreck way of thinking.... Story Here
Yumul Identifies $12.6M in Potential Savings:
Rep. Ray N. Yumul
said the government stands to save at least $12.6 million for the rest of the 2008 Fiscal Year if three recommended courses of action are implemented at once.
Here-in lies the big problem, did these idiots EVER do ANYTHING 'at once'? This will take two or three arguments over Stanley TLC's cooler, a week debate on the venue for the "we're still broke" message, a generator for the legislature, surely they can't work or accomplish anything without that, and 10 or more rescheduling of the session. What did I miss?
The House Way and Means chairman said he and his team of analysts have reviewed and analyzed the governor's recommendations and have come up with the following estimated cost savings that the government would realize if immediately put into action:
1- Reducing employer contribution to the Retirement Fund from 18 percent to 11 percent as requested by the governor. This is estimated to save $6 million on personnel costs;
OK, The government is not paying this now, so how is it saving money by continuing to not pay it? Count back since they stopped paying at all and you will have alot of money saved. Maybe the retirees can collect this non-existing cash for their non-existing retirement payments.
2- Passage of cost-cutting measures through the restoration of nine austerity Fridays ($2 million savings) and suspension of the remaining four non-paid legal holidays ($1.6 million savings) for the remainder of the fiscal year. Total estimated savings on personnel costs amount to at least $3.6 million;
Again there is no money for these salaries and costs, so where are the savings coming from?
And 3- Capping all government expenditures (remaining budget authority of about $105 million for the fiscal year) by prohibiting departments from spending all their allocations. At a minimum, this will save the government at least $3 million.
A-ha: The true form of saving money here, don't pay anything at all, and you will save it all, damn they should'a thought of this before. I want you to tell me how they figure this crap.
The only way I can see any benefit to these schemes is it may keep the 'o7 deficit from being $20 million and reduce it to $8 million, and keep the governor from balancing the budget for the 3rd straight year. What a shame to ruin his perfect balanced budget record. The light at the end of this tunnel is only an oncoming train....


Anonymous said...

I recently met up with a new member of the legislature and he told me that his having to lease two small cars, rather than a large SUV, saves money because he now has two cars for the price of one.

WTF? Where is the savings since the two costs the same as one and the gasoline expenses is now doubled?

What minds do we have running our government?

glend558 said...

You go figure. It's high math, you gotta be 'high' to understand it.
Seriously, I can't figure it out either, the reason for this post.
Here's a little scenario I posted before.
You have $20 dollars.
You want a pair of shoes that cost $40 dollars.
Instead you buy a pair of shoes reduced from $60 dollars for $20 dollars thus saving $40 dollars.
Now can you take the $40 dollars you saved and buy the orgional pair of shoes with the savings?

Does your world work that way? Mine don't.