Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Maybe This Year for Zero-Based Budgeting?

You gotta pity poor Martin O'Malley and the Two Mikes in Annapolis. Really, you do.

Now that tax increases seem to be off the table, there's some real budget cutting that's got to happen. Call out the usual suspects: we're going to have to cut education, public safety, health services, you name it. It's the typical scare tactics they trot out every time.

Not this year, they won't! It won't fly.

The Governor is already saying that there is likely going to have to be layoffs of state workers. That's a real kick in the teeth for the folks that put him there, just like the furloughs were. Now, there are going to have to be job cuts, too.

Well, there are a couple of things to consider in trying to fix the budget mess. It's not an exhaustive list, by any means, but it's a couple of steps in the right direction.

1) There are phantom employees budgeted in a number of State agencies. A phantom is a worker whose salary is in the budget, but there is no employee doing any work. Let's say that our agency, the Bureau of Obfuscation, budgets 20 employees for the year, but we only really keep 18 filled. With 2 unfilled positions now we have money that *would* go toward salary and benefits if there were employees in those positions.

If each of the spots would pay $30,000, then that's $60,000 in "extra" money we can move around because we know we're not going to fill them in the first place. We don't have to put $37,000 in the budget for project X that we really want because we can take money from "salaries" and move it to X, and we'll still have $23,000 left over! And our Bureau isn't the only one in State government that has them.

Sure, but now the situation is dire enough that, even after you lay off all the phantoms, there will still be real people losing their jobs and benefits.

2) However, there's something even more galling, and both State and Federal departments do this. Our Bureau of Obfuscation got a $10 million appropriation for this year. We spent our money fairly wisely, and we still have our two phantoms, and now our total spending was $9 million. Uh oh!

We need to spend the other $1 mil and do it quickly, before the end of the fiscal year! Why? Because if we don't, those who make the appropriations process will see that we didn't spend all of our money, and they'll think we won't need $10 million or more for next year. I've mentioned this to friends of mine who actually are government employees, and they vouch for the fact it happens all the time.

Now, we go into panic mode and start ordering anything and everything we can. We stack our office supplies room to the ceiling with boxes of paper; grosses of pens, pencils, and highlighters; millions of binder and paper clips and other things. But we've only spent $100,000. What to do? What to do?

Well, we have to go on a spending spree! That office furniture we bought only two years ago is looking kinda rough. Suzie Q down the hall complained that the fabric was frayed on her arm rest. Get her a new ergonomic one, right away! The carpet in our posh lobby from last year has a tiny worn spot in it already, and the copiers we bought three years ago have been worked to death. Or have they? But, if we replace the carpet and buy two new copiers for each floor, we might get close to spending the entire $1 mil left in the budget. We'll get our appropriation for next year, and we can do it all over again!

Oversimplified? Yeah, admittedly. But a lot closer than you'd like to believe.

There's an alternative, though. Sooner or later, the State is going to have to look at it. Could this be the year? Under this Governor?

It's called zero-based budgeting. Instead of looking at what your budget was last year, you start at zero. How much are we going to need for real employees? Add it in. How much are we going to need for office supplies? Add that in. What's our phone bill? Add it in. And so forth.

Now, how much do we need for the programs we actually administer? What are the historic costs we've incurred in administering this program, not what number have we decided to pull out of the air because it sounds cool? Are there inefficiencies we can correct to save even more money?

Do we let our lights burn all night instead of shutting them off when nobody's in the building? Is our HVAC system set so that it doesn't provide the heat or AC to keep the mice nice and comfy at night, but is good for working hours? Do we shut our computers off at night, keeping only the essential servers going?

OK, you want to add $1.5 million in the XYZ program. What does the XYZ program do? How much did we spend last year? Why? How effective was the program, how many people did it help? How will the new money be spent? What is your budget for XYZ? Basically, you justify your expenditure proposal. It could happen.

Let's say your 12 year-old child comes to you and says, "Mom, when we go shopping today, would you give me $20.00?" Your first reaction isn't going to be, "sure, honey, here it is. Enjoy. Buh-bye."

At least that's not what MY mother would have said. (If you would say it, could you adopt me, please???)

No, you're going to ask why the child needs the $20.00, what she intends to buy with it, why she needs the item, and you'll probably have a whole host of other questions.

In this period of budget crisis, and even in good times, we should do no less with government budgets.

What can we do about it? Contact your legislators, both your Senator and your Delegate(s), and let them know you want a different approach to budgeting! You can find out who your folks are by going to the General Assembly website at: http://mlis.state.md.us/ and put your address in the "Find Your Legislator" box.

And, while you're at it, why not drop Gov. O'Malley a little note asking the same thing? http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail/

1 comment:

  1. There's an episode of "The Office" about this topic. The Surplus. It isn't just the government who does this.

    ReplyDelete