Thursday, February 19, 2009

Doyle Favors Government Workers Regardless of Cost

Nice.

As Wisconsin prepares to receive billions of dollars in federal aid, Gov. Jim Doyle is trying to eliminate a law that requires a determination of whether it is cheaper to do work with state employees or contractors before outsourcing projects.

“Apparently, they just don’t want to be accountable,” said Sen. Rob Cowles (R-Green Bay), who helped write the law. “I’m just sort of amazed by the whole thing.”

The provision eliminating the balancing test is tucked into the 1,743-page budget Doyle unveiled Tuesday. Lawmakers will now debate and amend his spending plan, which raises taxes and cuts spending to resolve a two-year shortfall of more than $5 billion.

Doyle may have a tough time getting what he wants. Sen. Julie Lassa (D-Stevens Point), who sits on the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee, said she will try to remove the measure in committee.

“I really do think the cost-benefit analyses, when they’re followed, really do help to save taxpayer money,” Lassa said.

(11) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2210 hrs


  1. Read the article again Owen.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 19, 2009 at 2231 hrs


  2. From the same article that Owen links to:

    In one case, the Department of Transportation tripled its costs when it handed over the management of its road sign inventory to HNTB Corp. The department canceled that $165,000 contract in 2004 amid public criticism.

    In another case, state auditors discovered officials never independently analyzed a claim by Crowe Chizek & Co. that consolidating computer servers would save $15.6 million. The state hired Crowe in 2004, but fired the company in 2007 when it found none of the savings would be realized.

    The state spent $450 million on contracts for the fiscal year that ended June 30. That’s down from more than $700 million when Doyle took office in 2003.

    But even with that drop, the state still outsources in some cases when it would be cheaper to use its own employees. A Journal Sentinel review of state data in 2007 found the state hired contractors at least 74 times when it would have cost less to use state workers.

    Really, Owen, that was just pitiful.  You’re blinded by your hatred of all things union.  I guess that puts into doubt any of the “concern” you have for taxpayers.  It’s just irrational hate.

    Posted by capper on February 19, 2009 at 2248 hrs


  3. It would be interesting to know if the cost to use state workers is calculated using “fully burdened” costs. That is: are they using wage and benefits vs. hourly pay? Just asking.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 0744 hrs


  4. Mr. Galt, full benefits have to be counted in any government (except federal).  More oft that not, it has to be counted at a higher level than what is real due to the minimum set by the feds.

    Posted by capper on February 20, 2009 at 0815 hrs


  5. I also “shoot from the hip” and sometimes miss the target. In this case it appears that eliminating the cost-comparison is more likely a means of having “pay for play” contracts left unquestioned.

    Posted by James Pawlak on February 20, 2009 at 0827 hrs


  6. There is always a reason Jim Doyle does anything, and the reason is to benefit Jim Doyle. Personally, I m suspicious; especially considering Doyle’s pay-for-play history.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 0910 hrs


  7. Funny that both Republicans AND Democrats support current law and both may try to remove this provision from the budget. 

    So all this talk about “hatred towards the union” must obviously be shared by both parties.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 0921 hrs


  8. The law is dumb.  Doyle’s right.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 1007 hrs


  9. If the law is so “dumb”, why did Doyle sign it in January of 2006?  Was he dumb then or is he dumb now?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 1059 hrs


  10. Am I the only one that finds it disturbing that none of the Alleged 74 “cases where using state labor would have been cheaper” is notated?

    Now here is a really wild idea…..

    How about the State only pays for the contracted amount? None of this Lowballing by the private sector just to get the work and then sending the State a bill that far exceeds the amount contracted for.

    Would that be so tough?

    Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on February 20, 2009 at 1103 hrs


  11. If the law is so “dumb”, why did Doyle sign it in January of 2006?  Was he dumb then or is he dumb now?

    Beats me.  Ask Doyle.  Best guess is that he signed it in 2006 because he made a pandering election year decision.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 20, 2009 at 1128 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.