STATE’S JOBLESS FUND AS BROKE AS THOSE IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING
By Anthony Pignataro/CalWatchdog.com
Because of California’s disastrous unemployment rate—12.2 percent at last count—the State Unemployment Fund is in a precarious position. It actually went insolvent two years ago, and pays out benefits today only because of federal loans. Assuming the Legislature continues to do nothing to fix the mess, the fund will rack up a $13.4-billion deficit by the end of this year. Also, the state has until September to start paying interest on those federal loans, and has to pay them off by November.
Failure to pay back the loans and interest will cost California employers more than $6 billion in additional federal taxes in 2012. According to the state Legislative Analysts Office, approximately 30 other states have similar fund deficits.
I learned about this sorry state of affairs from reading the state Auditor’s new report (No. 2010-112) on the Employment Development Department (EDD). Put simply, the agency charged with getting people out of work and into jobs is a mess.
This comes at a time when the Great Recession and subsequent jobless recovery have more than doubled the state’s unemployed, from about 1 million in mid-2007 to 2.2 million today. And though the whole world’s economy has been a mess for the last few years, EDD’s troubles apparently go back even further.
A Decade of Deficiencies
“This report concludes that over the last 10 years the department has consistently failed to perform at a level the United States Department of Labor considers acceptable regarding its timely delivery of unemployment benefits,” Auditor Elaine Howle wrote in the report’s introduction. “The department’s attempts to resolve its performance deficiencies have had mixed results.”
The biggest problem is that the agency is just ridiculously slow. For years, the department apparently knew that its phone system was inadequate to handle calls from the increasingly irate jobless wanting to speak to a human being about benefits, but only put in a new system in December 2010. The department still takes four or more weeks to determine if an applicant actually deserves to get unemployment benefits, which means a month goes by before people who actually warrant benefits receive a dime. This has apparently been a problem since 2002, according to the Auditor’s report.
What’s more, while hiring additional staff to process the myriad claims did improve response times, many of the other corrective actions taken by the department—such as increased training for managers and improvements to IT systems—resulted in “negligible” and “minimal” results, states the report.
“In reviewing the corrective action plans the department submitted for federal fiscal years 2008 to 2011, we found that it has not fully implemented certain key corrective actions and that the impact of others has been minimal or remains unclear,” the Auditor determined. “We also found that its corrective action plans have not consistently included milestones that directly relate to specific corrective actions, nor have they included sufficient information to effectively gauge the corrective actions’ impact on the department’s goal of achieving the acceptable levels of performance related to the timeliness measures.”
In its defense, the last couple of years have been abysmal for the EDD. Until 2008, it paid out about $5 billion in unemployment benefits every year. But in 2009, the agency paid out an astonishing $20.2 billion in benefits, according to the official EDD response to the Auditor’s report. The next year was even worse, with $22.9 billion in payouts for 2010.
Four Recommendations
The Auditor ended up making four recommendations, all variations on the same theme: plan better for a future that will, in all likelihood, be pretty bleak for a huge portion of California’s population. That the department agreed with all four recommendations says a lot about how bad things have gotten there.
It also puts yet another nail in the coffin of former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s alleged “legacy.” Every time a new jobs report would come out—each progressively worse than the previous one—Schwarzenegger would repeat his promise to create “jobs, jobs, jobs” as though it were some sort of mystical chant, all the while ignoring the rot that permeated the state agency set up to help people out of work.
















8 Comments
A Republican-led group of California lawmakers announced Wednesday that they will head to Texas next week with Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to hear from businesses that left the state about ways to encourage job creation.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_17789431?source=rss&nclick_check=1
It looks like it is getting worse rather than better. So far this year, 69 companies have moved all or part of their California work and jobs to other states or countries, reports Irvine relocation consultant Joe Vranich.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/vranich-296360-jobs-moves.html
It’s the fastest rate of departures since Vranich started tracking the exodus in 2009, he says. There have been an average of 4.7 moves per week from Jan. 1 through April 12, compared to 3.9 moves in all of 2010.
The numbers are low, Vranich says, estimating that only one in five out-of-state moves is made public.
According to the 2010 Census results, only 57.5% of California’s 28,622,712 people over the age of 16 years are employed. Only 49.1% are employed in jobs OTHER than the government.
http://www.uscensus2010data.com/6-california-employment-statistics-and-income-demographics
Not everyone who is out of work is entirely interested in, you know, working. The best way to encourage them to work is to further limit their taxpayer-funded benefits. That we do not do so is but a part of the reason that our state’s unemployment system remains broken and insolvent.
Some who are not employed, claim to desire to work, but are not interested in applying for those jobs that are available. Whether because they feel some jobs are somehow beneath them, or because available jobs may offer less in compensation than they feel they deserve to earn, some of these folks fail to avail themselves of employment that is available. The best way to encourage such people to accept available jobs is to stop making unemployment benefits more lucrative than many of the jobs that are available. That we do not do so is but a part of the reason that our state’s unemployment system remains broken and insolvent.
Some workers collect unemployment benefits even though they are actually still working but have had their hours cut. This circumstance should not be the responsibility of the taxpayer to assist with, particularly when other employment is available to these workers. We should stop offering taxpayer-subsidized benefits to those whose work hours have been cut. That we do not do so is but a part of the reason that our state’s unemployment system remains broken and insolvent.
California consistently ranks either the worst or among the worst states in the nation for business.
http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications::Article&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=59FD13C5177B40B0B2D3EBA9E4384572&AudID=F242408EE36A4B18AABCEB1289960A07
We needn’t send taxpayer-funded delegations to Texas (consistently ranked the best) to learn why. All we need to do is read the available literature. Business leaders are more than happy to explain why they bail out of California for places like Texas, North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada:
“The leadership of California has done everything in its power to kill manufacturing jobs in this state,” observed another CEO. “As I stated at our annual meeting, if we could grow our crops in Reno, we’d move our plants tomorrow.”
How is it that the nation’s most populous state at 37 million, one that is the world’s eighth-largest economy and the country’s richest and most diverse agricultural producer, a state that had the fastest growth rate in the 1950s and 1960s during the tenures of Democratic Governor Pat Brown and Republican Governors Earl Warren and Ronald Reagan, should become the Venezuela of North America?
Californians pay among the highest income and sales taxes in the nation, the former exceeding 10 percent in the top brackets. Unemployment statewide is over 12.2 percent, higher than the national average. State politics seems consumed with how to divide a shrinking pie rather than how to expand it. Against national trend, union density is climbing from 16.1 percent of workers in 1998 to 17.8 percent in 2002. Organized labor has more political influence in California than in most other states. In addition, unfunded pension and health care liabilities for state workers top $500 billion and the annual pension contribution has climbed from $320 million to $7.3 billion in less than a decade. When state employees reach critical mass, they tend to become a permanent lobby for continual growth in government.
Bill Dormandy, CEO of San Francisco medical device maker ITC, summed it up: “California has a good living environment but is unfavorable to business and the state taxes are not survivable. Nevada and Virginia are encouraging business to move to their states with lower tax rates and less regulatory demands.”
To summarize, if we want to reduce our unemployment, we need to attract employers to our state and we need to encourage those who desire to start a business enterprise, not tax, fee, and regulate them into oblivion before they even have a chance to make a reasonable go of it.
This means we need to be rid of the people in Sacramento who have consistently and steadfastly refused to do what is neccessary to attract more employers to our state and then elect people who *will* do what is necessary.
To me, these solutions seem self-evident.
Too few voters in California, however, appear to be interested in listening.
The Hoover Dam was originally named in 1930. Then in 1933 when the Democrats took power they changed its name to the Boulder Dam. There was alot back and forth between the parties over the name change, and someone from the peanut gallery was asked about it, and that person said who gives a damn.
John,
Love your long speech, but do you really think 15% unemployed reflects people who do not want to work? Eventually we should just call retired people “people who don’t want to work.” (What % of the population are they?) I mean seriously, once we take away all forms of social security even the elderly will be realizing they need jobs(again).
Have you looked at the help wanted ads lately? There ain’t no there there.
…and then, try to be a recent college grad in today’s world. All the underemployed middle aged folks have taken their jobs. Basically that generation is even more screwed than mine.
Somehow in life you drew a lucky straw…. too bad you can’t see that.
You should be careful, pride comes before a fall.
LBCityGirl,
My thinking is about the weakness of business as usual. Did you see the scene of Nixon, (Anthony Hopkins), at the Lincoln Memorial.
Hi Ms. LB: I am not proud (except of my kids.) Because we have spoken personally on various matters of public interest, I should think you would know this about me. My family and I are blessed and I recognize and give thanks for the many blessings in my life every single day. Further, we consistently and voluntarily share the blessings we have received with others who are less fortunate than ourselves, because that is what our faith leads us to do.
I am not sure where you are getting your figure of 15% unemployed but both this article and the information I posted mentions 12.2%.
While I am pleased that you loved my long speech, you seem to have missed the parts throughout it where I used terms such as “not everyone” and “some”. This means I believe the conditions I described exist among a portion of the 12.2% of our population who is currently unemployed, and not, by any means, all of them.
Many retirees still work, Ms. LB. I happen to be among them. I am fortunate to be able to do so. I think there are other retirees who are not working but could be. Some, but by no means all.
I do not advocate that we “take away all forms of social security” and I never have. Stretching an argument to its furthest and most absurd extent and then arguing against that false premise serves no constructive purpose.
I have offered what I believe to be some very specific suggestions for addressing the unemployment challenges in our state. But they really boil down to two:
1. Cease and reverse the ever growing sense of taxpayer-funded entitlement that exists in our state, and
2. Elect people to state office who will do what is necessary to make our state more attractive to business, and particularly to manufacturing
I would be interested to hear your suggestions for addressing this challenge as well!