Deseret News | Reader comments: State agencies all facing deep cuts as budget talks begin

Reader comments
State agencies face cuts

Just Wondering | 12:13 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Last year we had the two tiered flat tax, most people making less than $250,000.00 still paid the traditional tax calculation. But those in the upper income levels of our state, would have received nice reductions in the amount of state tax they had to pay. Just wondering did our legislators take that into account when they look at our budget deficit? They lowered the sale tax on food in 2007, then reduced it even more for 2008, do they know the actual amount that lost in those reductions.

Wiser than this baloney... | 12:12 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

whoever is releasing these "scare tactic" details should be fired. It would be easy to reduce state spending by miles...if they had outsiders come in and review spending.
Reduce the transportation spent on State Vehicles, do not purchase any cars, pay mileage to those who need to travel. Get rid of all the subsidies on public transportation. If you ride, you pay!
Get rid of state planes, pilots, etc.
Pay state employees better and reduce the number by 50%. They fewer will accomplish the same or more.

Legislative watcher | 12:16 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

An unmentioned branch of government is the legislature. They have gown as much or more than the rest of government in the last few years. The legislature even hired a chief of staff. What are they going to cut out of their budget? Will they take their share? Maybe a factfinding trip to the orient could be foregone?

Comments continue below

Stewart | 12:31 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!!" Cried Chicken Little, and yes this article seemed to miss the expected longer lines at the DMV. I suppose it is like when you are told that you have lost half of your investment but then later told that you only lost 25 percent, you may actually feel good about how things turned out. This looks like an attempt to lower expectations so that citizens will accept the cuts that are actually necessary.

My suggestion would be to stiffen the employment laws against illegal aliens, and save jobs that Utahns may need later. There will be no tax loss because many of them are paid under the table anyway. Also if they leave and return to their country of origin taking their children with them, it would save millions in education and medical costs. The only ones that might suffer would be the cheap labor employers that use them in order to depress wages.

To to put up or shut up | 12:31 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

If our legislature is serious about cutting 15% out ouf the state budget, then let them be the leaders they claim to be, and start with themselves. Let's see a 15% cut, across the board, for the legislative branch. That means a cut in pay, food allowance, transportation allowance, etc. They have to cut 15% of the their paid employees. Come on, legislators, show us the money!

Just a thought | 12:34 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Cut the legislature's raise that they voted to give themselves.

Re: Just wondering | 1:08 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Yes it is important to cap the earnings potential of our citizens. Remember, this is the United States of America. The land where you are free to become anything you want - as long as you only want to be mediocre. We need to make sure that no one in our country excels too much before we yank them back down.

Richard | 1:20 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Why do our elected officials always go after public safety to cut budgets. The highway patrol and corrections are seriously understaffed right now, let alone, cutting more jobs. Cut Utah's population and interstate traffic, before cutting public safety. It is very incompetent to cut public safety.

Cut the Governors staff, state legistlators, parks and recreation, tourism budgets, eliminate state liqiour stores, historical budgets, DFS and things like those, that are counter-productive to our state. Take away all medical to prisoners, illegal aliens as well as housing subsidizes. No free rides! Raise fines and taxes on DUI, cigarettes, booze. Then, you can say you TRIED to drop spending, Not until!

Paul | 2:00 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Maybe we can save a few hundred thousand (millions?) by not providing free services for illegals. No driver's licenses means we need fewer people there. No free college for illegals can go along with the cuts in staff. Lots of areas where we can save some money.

Jim | 2:05 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

It is time for the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to sit down and starting working together. The Governor has proposed a 7% cut but the Legislative Leaders want to more than double the cut. "Cut for the sake of cutting." It does not make for good public policy in these tough economic times for grand standing.

Our state representatives need to serious look at the Governor's plan of using one time rainy day fund and a smaller cuts. Then worked together on the following year's plan.

Otherwise, we will all suffer needlessly from poor admistration of the public trust.

Save 15% ?? | 2:13 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

It is easy to do this. Stop giving illegal aliens food stamps, housing, re-structure medical services to make them accountable for paying their bills, stop educating their kids.

Has there been any research done on the costs of providing illegal residents this services. I know this would cut more than 15% in public education costs.

But it is probably better to cut jobs of legal residents??????

C.W. | 2:28 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Once again our legislature is making things harder than they need be!

Cut the salaries of EVERYONE who makes over 100,000 per year down to that amount.

Do whatever it takes so that we don't have to pay for education for illegals.

No one has any problem with state employees making a living wage, what we do have a problem with is people BECOMING WEALTHY while working for the state.
If the high paid bureaucrats CAN find work in the private sector, LET THEM DO IT. Over the years the salaries at the top end have gotten WAY OUT OF CONTROL.

Just like the legislature to cut UHP (who make money for us), cut programs for elderly, increase class sizes, while holding harmless dept. heads that make 150,000 per year!

Contact your legislator, and ask him/her why so many folks at state gov't make WAY MORE than 100,000 per year.

Save Money | 2:26 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

The Legislature wants to save money well let's see them put their money where their mouth is: 1. Cancel their raise 2. Cut their state health care and they can use their own private health care 3. They are all such dedicated public servants they don't need their retirement as they leave the legislature. They should join the average citizen instead of sitting in their elite club.

Anonymous | 4:26 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Why don't they start with eliminating the 5% pay raise all state employees received in July of 2008? Maybe then no one would have to be laid off.

Wake up | 4:29 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

To be accurate, the Legislative branch has grown much slower than the rest of state government over the last 20 years.

Furthermore, in the September Special Session, the Legislature did reject the pay increase that was scheduled to go in effect and they have included themselves in the 15% cuts.

In addition, the National Conference of State Legislatures rated Utah as the smallest staff per capita of any legislature in the nation.

Bad Attitiude | 4:36 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Eliminate double-dippers in state employment. Meaning, if you are already "retired" as a state government worker, you cannot collect a state employee retirement benefit and still remain employed in a position with a state agency. Also, get rid of all those government workers that are over their 30 years.

tim | 4:39 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Let's start cutting the budget by paying Coach Whittingham $1.2 million a year.

jumpin' jack | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Lets cancel the legislature for the next year or 2. Really, what good do they accomplish anyway?

Bob | 5:25 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Maybe, just maybe we could look at repealing the tax exemtptions given to large corporations. These are nvere mentioned or dicussed as a way to overcome the short fall.

Maybe the legisalture could stop scoffing when the idea of taxing services comes up.

Just a few ideas that will never see the light of day in the legisalture.

JN | 7:04 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

Let's cut the amount of legislator in half. Who need more than a hundred of them anyway.

Confused | 9:09 p.m. Jan. 12, 2009

C.W.
The only State employees who get paid more than 100,000 is the Doctors who are hired for the State hospitals and Prisons.
Most of the State Employees are under that amount.

What the State really need to do is:
1- Get rid of the Workers Comp Fund as the primary insurance for the state. If they dropped them and put it out to bid, they could save about 1-2 mil a year.

2- Look at the Organization charts of each agency. DTS would be the first one I would look at. They have built a management structure that is way heavy at the top. While telling line workers that a good portion of them are going to be layed off.

3 - Stop with all the State Vehicles for every manager. Let them drive their own car to meetings.

I love people who have posted that we should drop 50 percent of our staff. They are the same ones that complains for the long lines at the DMV, Health, Services.....

Re: Confused | 1:43 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I feel the need to correct you on your number of State employees that are paid more than $100k. According to utahsrightdotcom there are by my count 214 State employees that are making more than that amount. Not even a quarter of them are Doctors. The Govenor himself is # 147 on the list! I work for the State in youth corrections and last year made under 25k. I love my job and being able to help transition troubled youth back into society. My job might be one of the first to go. My fear is that with the economy falling there will be more and more youth getting into trouble and the budget cuts will start at the bottom with myself and other lower paid staff. I mean come on, do we really need 14 assistant attorney generals making over 114k.? For myself its not about the money, its about the job. My challenge is that I'm willing to take a 15% cut in pay and living on the $21250. as long as the guy making $120k. is willing to make the same cut and live on $102k. I'm even supporting a missionary...

Jodie | 5:42 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I believe that all government leaders should take a cut in pay, drive their own cars, and pay for their own meals. I have to, so why not them. This goes for the governor and everyone at the top of the ladder. The people holding the ladder (the little people) are the ones doing most of the work. Without them nothing would run.

Albemar | 7:21 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Easy Fix...

1 - Get rid of Utah's family welfare system by eliminating the per child tax exemptions for large families. Families with large numbers of children, pay little taxes, consume the largest portion of public services and demand that everyone else pay for their children's education. Time for them to get off the dole!

2 - Roll back the regressive flat tax that benefits Utah wealthiest (who send their kids to private schools). We cannot afford welfare for the rich and connected right now.

These are easy fixes, but Utah doesn't like accountability for the rich and large families. Instead they will finance it on the back grandparents, younger people, single members of society and those who choose to have smaller families. We didn't choose to have them and we all shouldn't have to pay more than our share to educate them!

Rick | 8:01 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Just make sure the cuts are permanent. Cap government spending with more cuts required every year. I'm sick and tired of my paycheck being sent to the government for various "programs". I honestly don't care who benefits from the programs. If other people want to fund them, let the money come from their paycheck.

Confused | 8:23 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

RE:Confused: You are correct about the Lawyers. I try to foget about the AG's office.

The problem in State Government is the Management Structure. DTS is a great example of how to do it wrong.

Most Employees (at least the front line workers) are willing to take a cut in salary in order to help others keep their jobs.

That is not what the Legislature wants, they want to get rid of people anyway they can and using the economy as an excuse fits the bill.

JayneB | 9:33 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

One of the least effective ways money is spent is in the high schools. Many kids are held captive an extra year or even two! They take Calc their jr year and can write at least at the level of freshman college English, yet they must stay an additional year. There are no high school CLEP tests that lets them out early based on their ability. I think there are a lot of changes that need to be made.
Provide a 3 year high school option -
9th - bio, Eng, Alg 2, For Lang
10th - chem, Eng, PreCalc, For Lang
11th - Physics, Eng, Calc, For Lang
Take college readiness test that allows you to opt out of a senior year of high school if capable. Reward these kids with a scholarship that will be millions less than high school expenses.

Even if they go part-time high school/part-time college, it can save UT millions.

They don't waste their time anymore...UT doesn't waste millions of unneeded expenses.

Reward the high achievers... not the prisoners by letting them out early/less supervision.

Ed Meyer | 9:34 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Let's see if I can summarize the comments that I've read. Most people think it would be easy to cut the budget.... then the masses proposes a zillion different ways to do it! Let's face it. This won't be easy, but steps do need to be taken. The answer, however, does not lie entirely in budget cuts. For example, there are dozens of tax credits that reduce the state's income. Many of these could be reduced or eliminated. There are also money saving efficiencies that could be adopted. Years ago I attended a session at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. The attendees were all public officials and it was a time of financial crisis. At first the officials lamented their ability to function in such an environment. By the time the session was over, attendees came to the conclusion that a financial crisis was the best time to implement changes. They also concluded that their own employees were in the best position to make recommendations because they were the ones who really understood what was happening in their agencies. Utah's answers lie in the Legislature who defines goals rather than micromanaging and employees who find ways to meet them.

Re: confused CW | 9:38 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

The web site that shows the salaries of Utah gov't employees is a real eye opener and everyone should visit it. The point is though: the general public has very little faith in gov't anymore. Is it o.k. for state employees to make over 150,000 per annum, while telling depts. to "cut their budget". Do dept. heads ever actually have their time audited? If we can afford 150,000 for ONE SALARY can't we afford meals for seniors?

I am not a state employee but I am ALREADY hearing from neighbors who are, and the stories they tell are real eye openers. Things like "no break periods", working overtime with no pay, etc. are what they are being told by their bosses is going to happen. Some of it involves some real potential liability issues with state employees being put in dangerous situations (prisons).

State employees SHOULD contact their representatives to tell them to start cutting AT THE TOP not with the people who actually do the work!

And no, I'm not a union organizer just someone who knows right from wrong. The dept. heads seem to want to take their frustration out on the taxpayers and employees!

Robin | 10:17 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Watch the non-profitable programs that are social in nature and Government's reason for existance. But Utah will continue to pay Child Protection to grab kids for adoption because of federal guidlines for collecting Social Security and adopting children. Instead of teaching Texas how to make money off children. The result of 450 kids one is found to be married to the Prophet of God. However to continue the ruse the CPS accuses the whole world as negligent and therefore subject to kidnap.

Give me a break! | 11:06 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I am a current state employee and I get very frustrated with all of this talk about our "huge salaries". When I was first hired by the state, I qualified for state assistance (WIC, HEAT, etc). Although I never took advantage of these programs, nonetheless it is pathetic that a state employee qualified for state assistance! Some may say, "you should go back to school so you can get a better job". I have a Master's degree. I knew I would never make a fortune working for the state, however it would be nice to have enough to pay my bills. Myself and many others I work with have two or even three jobs to make ends meet. If you want to look for cuts in the state budget, how about having the state legislature forfeit their lodging per diem? On the news last night it was estimated that most legislators pocket the money and commute anyway. It is estimated that over $600,000 would be saved by this alone. We know that this will not balance the budget, however if each state agency is going to have to tighten their belts, let's start there.

ruralteacher | 11:12 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

No one has mentioned the 800 pound gorilla in the room. One way to cut back money in education is to eliminate athletics and activities ujntil the state revenue increases. Some students fron rural schools miss 1-2 days of school a week to travel to football, track, basketball, volleyball, etc. It takes time and money. Students miss class time. Teachers are out of school to be coaches. A new policy will limit students to missing 20 days of school in a year for athletics and activities. Twenty days is nearly half a quarter of school. Consider cutting back on activities and games to save money instead od cutting teachers and programs.

Observation | 11:39 a.m. Jan. 13, 2009

I have observed a lot of good ideas, and some that are just not reasonable. A few things to remember:
- State employees are human beings too. They need jobs, just like everyone else. There are not too many "getting rich" outside of the state. In fact, most of them are working at the state for the "stability", instead of for higher pay.
- Legislators do not practice what they preach. They want to cut employees, and "take it out" on the agencies, when they are not doing this themselves.
- Legislators do not have a handle on what is going on in state agencies. They do not know what it takes to run the government.

Just remember all of this and keep all comments with a grain of salt.

re: observation | 12:11 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

your comments are well taken, as a percentage of total state employment there AREN'T that many with huge salaries. HOWEVER - it tends to be very demoralizing to employees within the various depts. to see their "supervisor" or dept. head making large amounts of money, (especially when they seldom show up for work) and they're being told to cut back. Psychologically, if not fiscally, it would be VERY beneficial if the legislature would start at the top and work its way down.
Some of us see the legislature as an extension of the dept. heads who are only out for themselves.

Raising "new" revenue through cigarettes, or putting a service tax on the guy who changes my oil, or adding a "soda pop tax" is beside the point. State gov't should make the BEST use of the revenue it has, and needs to be more careful in the future not to start programs they can't afford!
To tell seniors we can't afford their meals, or to tell teachers we must eliminate a school day or make their classes larger while we have ANY "over the top" salaries in place is ludicrous!

Just so I understand: | 12:35 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

Its okay to educate all the illegals' kids at the expense of the taxpayers?
Its okay to increase class sizes,and or cut back school days?
Its okay to tell our senior citizens they can't have any reduced price lunches?
Anything else I forgot?
Oh yeah, prison guards who are told they have to "do more with less" (whatever that means).

This is all so we can maintain 300 or so VERY high paid positions at the state.

Whats wrong with this picture?

Maybe the budget choices should be part of the "ethics refom" the legislature keeps talking about!

Sounds Great | 12:47 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

So, lets assume that all 300 people making $100,000 or more a year are fired. That comes out to $30,000,000 (Thirty million for those who struggle with reading numbers). Where do you suggest we come up with the other $320,000,000 (Three-hundred and twenty million)?

Trevor Sladde | 3:02 p.m. Jan. 13, 2009

There is no reason to cut on education spending, already Utah ranks lowest in spending per pupil. Utah high school education STINKS, there is a reason why the majority of BYU students are from out of state. I think that we should increase education spending both for primary and secondary education. U of U is a great University with the ability to increase its national rankings in Engineering and business. I think that a 15% cut on education spending would be the greatest mistake Utah could ever make. I say we take advantage of the situation available to catch up to other state's education standards, and while other states cut their budget we should at least increase spending until we match the national average for spending per pupil!

Here we go | 11:17 a.m. Jan. 15, 2009

Our infamous legislators are sure to pass on the cutbacks to all state employees, while THEY continue to bask in wonderous lives of being pampered by state agencies to hopefully get a small portion back. Wine and dine legislators, you won't get your budget cut.....hmmm somethings sounds wrong with this. Maybe the state ought to look at purchasing policies which is a joke, we can purchase some items other places for cheaper, but no, we have certain rules to follow and you end up spending more....give me a break legislators, you're not there full time nor do you deserve full time benefits!

Taxpayer | 1:59 p.m. Jan. 28, 2009

Instead of cutting back on health care and education we should cut all government empire building.
First step:
ï¿½Be cost effective and efficient of staff.
ï¿½Take away the use of take home state vehicles.
ï¿½Make employees check out state vehicles as needed.
ï¿½Do not allow managers to have a state vehicle to telecommute back and forth to work.
ï¿½Taxpayers do not have the luxury of having a car provided for work.
ï¿½State vehicles should only be used, as needed not a perk.
Example of government inefficiency and empire building:
This division consists of 1 Division Director, 1 Deputy Director, 2 Assistant Directors, 5 Managers, 3, Supervisors (Senior), Executive Secretary, Administrative Consultant, 2 contract employees, and 39 staff employees. It appears that management is somewhat top heavy. Why do taxpayers need this fluffï¿½ï¿½ This is only one division!!!!
We are all feeling the crunch so I believe that state government should do their part in down sizing or evaluate what they can do without. Everyone is doing their part to cut back, I trust that state government would participate in this process like the rest of us.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.