Jerry Brown Confiscates 48,000 Cell Phones

Hugh Pickens writes "The Sacramento Bee reports that California Governor Jerry Brown, in his first executive order since taking office, has ordered the collection and return of 48,000 state government-paid cell phones — half of those now in use — by June 1. 'It is difficult for me to believe that 40 percent of all state employees must be equipped with taxpayer-funded cell phones,' says Brown in a written statement. 'Some state employees, including department and agency executives who are required to be in touch 24 hours a day and seven days a week, may need cell phones, but the current number of phones out there is astounding.' Brown's cell phone order directs state agency and department heads to retrieve the cell phones and the governor says he plans to continue reducing cell phone usage in months ahead. 'In the face of a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, a cell phone may not seem like a big expense,' adds Brown. 'But spending $20 million, and perhaps far more than that, on cell phones can't be justified.'"

Re:YRO?

[GeorgeMonroy]

It has absolutely nothing to do with any rights.

I am Governor Jerry Brown

[gbjbaanb]

hang on, I know Arnie's left office but surely I haven't slipped back in some timewarp to the 70s?

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/deadkennedys/californiauberalles.html [azlyrics.com]

obviously they missed the verse about restricting communications :)

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[sneakyimp]

Actually he's a pre- and post-reagan *democrat* who was famous for balancing the budget back in the 70s by refusing to cut taxes.

Re:Some state workers are on the road all the time

[wickerprints]

He's not getting rid of phones for ALL state employees. Just the ones that clearly don't need them. It's funny how this is being criticized...everyone has a personal phone. If it's REALLY important, they can still stay in touch. It's also false to bring out the claim that landlines are more expensive, because if you are a state employee with a desk and you sit behind it most of the time, you already have a landline, and it's not going away.

You know, as hard as it may be to believe this, there REALLY was a time when mobile phones did not exist. And the government did not collapse for want of them. There really was a time when people weren't able to get in touch with each other 24/7. Society did not collapse for lack of Twitter, Facebook, SMS, and email everywhere you go. And it's not like taking state-owned mobile phones away is going to kill these employees or put undue burden on them. They still have their personal phones they can use if it's necessary to do so.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[DragonWriter]

Except meanwhile, nothing is being said about Calif's runaway pension obligations.

That can't generally be done for represented employees except via labor agreements; one of the last things the previous governor did was negotiate labor agreements with many bargaining units that both reduced pensions for new workers and increased pension contributions for all workers in those bargaining units. It seems likely (given that his proposed budget includes cuts for those units that have not yet reached new agreements that mirror those under the agreements reached by the previous governor) that Brown will seek similar provisions for in contracts for the remaining bargaining units.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[corbettw]

who has had trouble in mainstream politics due to being honest and uncompromising

That would certainly explain his previous two terms as governor, plus his term as State Attorney General, plus his time as Mayor of Oakland. Yep, just a perennial loser in politics.

Re:Six months, really?

[h4rr4r]

They are not returning them, they are just not extending contracts. That means they have to wait until it ends as they would rather not pay the early termination fee.

Re:So what about...

[HuckleCom]

48,000 * 70 = 3,360,000 (3.36mil/mo).
3,360,000 * 12 = 40,320,000, or $40.3mil/yr.

Or average the two (20,70) you get 45...

48,000 * 45 = 2,160,000 (2.1mil/mo).
2,160,000 * 12 = 25,920,000, or 25.9mil/yr.

So it's 0.2% of the deficit, or .04% of the budget.

Re:Cool - a fiscal conservative

[fermion]

It really depends on where you are. In Texas the liberal areas, often cities, tend to me more fiscally conservative while the outlying areas tend to more conservative and likely to spend other peoples money. At least in Texas, the money is often concentrated in the city. For instance, in this fragile economy, the conservatives want to continue to build a road around the Exburbs of house. Sure this will be good and will create jobs, but spending half a billion of discretionary funds when the state deficit has been officially stated at at least 30 billion dollars seems fiscally irresponsible. Such money wasted on a road to nowhere is a conservative plan and benefits only the conservative rural area.

And of course it is the conservatives in Texas who don't want an income tax. The problem is that Texas depends on sales tax, a tax which is not collected due to everyone ordering product from out of state. Of course the conservative legislature could create a new enforcement squad to collect these out of state taxes, thus destroying legitimatize businesses, or they could acknowledge a failed taxation model. Right now the sales tax is 6.25% If this tax was eliminated and replaced by a fixed income tax, say 3-5%, local business would no longer be at a huge disadvantage to Amazon and the like, and the average person, who spends all their income on goods, many taxed, would be no worse off. Of course, because conservative are more interested in dogma rather than conservative fiscal policy, this can never happen.

Re:YRO?

[erroneus]

You think for even a moment that a huge customer like the state of california would have to deal with cancellation charges? I have dealt with groups as small as 50 users and was able to leverage better terms and conditions than that before. The utterly massive sway that such volume could command would keep me in free lunch and phone service for a very long time while being immune to such consumer abuses as cancellation charges and the like.

Re:YRO?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Indeed, I have a personal interest in good governments. I remember reading news about how California was going bankrupt, and how Schwarzenegger was planning severe all kind of budget cuts to education and other welfare. Now I read this and I wonder: why didn't he confiscated all these phones before doing that?

Probably because he was looking at a $25 Billion shortfall, and figured the $20 Million savings weren't worth wasting much time on.

After all, when you suddenly realize that you've no money to pay the rent on your apartment, "Damn, I shouldn't have bought that soda this morning!" is probably the last thing you'll be thinking...

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[careysub]

... the Feds could eliminate every single program other than Social Security and defense spending and STILL be over budget...

Let's see: 2010 revenues $2,217 billion; Defense spending $663.7 billion; Social Security $677.95 billion [wikipedia.org].

$663.7 billion + $677.95 billion = $ 1341.6 billion < $2,217 billion

Is it to much to to ask to run one Google query and do one addition problem before bloviating about the federal budget so that it is not nonsense?

Re:YRO?

[jgagnon]

Here's the law from California that says they must (section 2802): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2800-2810 [ca.gov]

I'm sure MANY other states have similar laws, though I'm not exactly willing at this moment to spend the time to provide you with a full list. :p

Re:YRO?

[FooAtWFU]

A large part of the California budget crisis can be squarely blamed on the pension system. For that you can blame Sacramento and the public-employee unions' lobbyists. Here's a snazzy little summary. Emphasis mine.

In 1999 then California Governor Gray Davis signed into law a bill that represented the largest issuance of non-voter-approved debt in the state's history. The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries. The California Public Employees' Retirement System sold the pension boost to the state legislature by promising that "no increase over current employer contributions is needed for these benefit improvements" and that Calpers would "remain fully funded." They also claimed that enhanced pensions would not cost taxpayers "a dime" because investment bets would cover the expense.

What Calpers failed to disclose, however, was that (1) the state budget was on the hook for shortfalls should actual investment returns fall short of assumed investment returns, (2) those assumed investment returns implicitly projected the Dow Jones would reach roughly 25,000 by 2009 and 28,000,000 by 2099, unrealistic to say the least (3) shortfalls could turn out to be hundreds of billions of dollars, (4) Calpers's own employees would benefit from the pension increases and (5) members of Calpers's board had received contributions from the public employee unions who would benefit from the legislation. Had such a flagrant case of non-disclosure occurred in the private sector, even a sleepy SEC and US Attorney would have noticed.

-- Dow 28,000,000: The Unbelievable Expectations of California's Pension System [wsj.com]

Not that this is the only problem with California, but it's a nice $3-4 billion chunk of the current $28 billion hole and is only set to grow bigger.

Re:He is not taking privately held phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget interest on debt.

Also, does that Defense number include the "emergency" appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[dubbreak]

Legalize and tax pot, and 90% of pot smokers are still going to buy it from the same guy they buy it from today.

Just like you are still buying your booze from bootleggers?

A fact I also base on nothing at all.

Obviously.

Taking liquor (or tobacco) as an example: the govn't licenses who can produce the product and they control who can distribute it. Marijuana would be no different.

Big producers wouldn't risk their license selling on the side, little producers are either priced out of the market (thanks to economies of scale) and those who aren't licensed are heavily fined and/or face jail time (just as they do now).

Dealers become completely unnecessary when you can buy at the store just like liquor or tobacco. If they can even source product at a competitive price to sell it's not convenient and the dealer is taking on needless risk (unless they are a licensed distributer equivalent to a dial-a-bottle service, in which case tax is being applied).

Legalizing marijuana will generate tax money and it will eliminate the need to jail users. The only people jailed will be those trying to avoid the system by producing or selling while not licensed to do so.

Re:Need a bigger knife

[Natales]

Your comments are absolutely spot on. My wife teaches High School Physics and Biology here in California, and the amount of hours she ends up putting in the job are just ridiculous, not to mention our personal resources.

Nobody considers correcting papers as part of the working hours, or parent conference calls, or after hours meetings, and yet, everybody expects them. Setting up labs takes additional time. Keeping up to date (in particular if you teach Science) takes a lot of extra time. If I wouldn't be a Science geek myself, I'm not sure our marriage would have lasted 10 years. Occasionally, the pressure of the whole system affects her so much that she wants to quit. We could be OK only with what I make, luckily, but I'm a big believer that if you really have the love for teaching the next generation as well as the capacity and will, you have to do everything you can to stay on it.

Every once in a while a student from years past shows up at school with tremendous gratitude and fantastic stories. Those days you know you made a difference at least in one life. That keeps you afloat.