When is a Cut Not a Cut?
Posted May 1, 2009

Two weeks ago, we reported on Governor Corzine's proposal to furlough state workers for one day in both May and June "as a cost-saving measure." As the governor's argument went, eliminating two-days' worth of salaries for state workers would save the state money. According to an article in the Courier-Post, however, a closer look at the furlough plan tells a different story.

The article notes that a significant percentage of the state employees slated to be furloughed are paid not from the state's general fund which the furloughs are intended to help balance. In fact, they're not paid from state funds at all but rather from federal funds. "Nearly 30 percent of the employees of the state government's executive branch are paid through off-budget accounts that aren't part of the standard, $31 billion state budget," writes Michael Symons of the Gannett State Bureau. "Among them are around 12,000, or 18 percent of the work force, paid through federal funds."

For example, Symons notes that of the approximately 3,700 employees of the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development, less than 8 percent of them draw their salaries from "on-budget funds." Despite this fact, all the department's workers are marked for furlough.

Not only does there seem to be no logical basis for furloughing workers whose salaries are not even paid using state funds, but beyond that, some note that furloughing federally-funded employees could actually make certain problems worse. Symons writes that according to Michael Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), furloughing SSA-funded state employees - such as those who evaluate applications for disability benefits - "will slow the processing of claims, delay benefits to new beneficiaries and reduce federal money flowing to states such as New Jersey."

Similarly, Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey area director for the Communications Workers of America (CWA), notes, "Places like Banking and Insurance, they don't save one nickel by shutting down. It's 100 percent paid for by the banks in fees.. The state saves not any money from doing that."

Likewise, the Press of Atlantic City reported Monday that furloughing the state's casino workers also will yield no state savings. "Contrary to the purpose of his sweeping state furlough program, Gov. Jon S. Corzine will not save taxpayers one penny by forcing hundreds of employees at two New Jersey casino agencies to take two days of unpaid leave in May and June," writes Press staff writer Donald Wittkowski. "That's because the operations and salaries at the Casino Control Commission and the Division of Gaming Enforcement are funded entirely by Atlantic City's $4.55 billion casino industry, not the taxpayers."

So, what is the purpose of furloughing workers whose salaries are not even paid using state funds? We'd love to know the answer as much as you.

Most New Jerseyans deserve an explanation of why this administration continues to propose non-solutions to our state's fiscal crisis while avoiding the structural spending cuts that will bring real economic recovery. It's what every New Jersey family that's coping with this economic downturn has to do, so is it too much to expect our government leaders to do the same?

Archive