Spence, What is your Platform? Part 1: Government Spending

Since some of the folks visiting this blog are not members of the campaign Facebook group, I decided to post a brief synopsis of my Platform (a.k.a. my mission statement for if I were to be elected to the Legislature).

This post is the first of numerous in the series that will go through my position on each topic I hold near and dear to my heart.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

The bureaucratic machine that is the Texas State Government is bloated and redundant. Too many jobs are underutilized.

I will work for a 100% hiring freeze for 3 years for all State positions. With a standard average of 3-5% attrition/year (retirement/termination/job change), costs will decrease while productivity per position will increase. Those in non-essential/redundant positions can be shifted to cover those that are immediate due to the attrition.
---------

Lets dissect this. A hiring freeze is utilized by many companies as a way to trim costs without a drastic step (like a lay-off, or department/branch closure). This allows the employer (in this case, the State itself) to maintain costs and gradually lower them while evaluating what other steps can be taken to trim the budget (such as cost overflows and reconstructing a spending plan based on realistic numbers).

A 100% hiring freeze means that the State will stop accepting new applications for the majority of jobs. This does not mean that absolutely no-one is hired...if an essential position is not filled, and CANNOT be filled by a lateral move or promotion from WITHIN, then the State would be forced to hire; the catch being that the decision to make that position available would rest with the Legislature (or a subcommittee thereof), and not branch heads or supervisors.

Doing a hiring freeze accomplishes a few things. First of all, it allows a real-world test of what jobs are functioning at peak performance, and what ones are not. As employees retire/terminate/transfer, work load will increase. As work load increases, additional strain will fall upon the remaining folks. A ratio of acceptable work-to-employee will be established, and thus equilibrium can be found. No more 'loafing' positions that have IRS-style redundancy (where 2 and 3 people do the EXACT same job, so the work load is hilariously light), but people actually working to capacity for their pay.

Another benefit of a hiring freeze is a period of evaluation on budgeting. Without an influx of new employees, costs will drop to a more realistic level, as will resource consumption. An appropriate level of workers allows for an appropriate level of supplies, and thus costs will shrink in the bloated departments, and balance out in the understaffed ones.



CONCLUSION


This discussion may sound overly simplistic, but the point is to show the platform and the overview of the goal, not the exact intricate workings (which could take weeks or months of work amongst a committee to flesh out properly).

The bottom line is this: A temporary hiring freeze allows the State to appropriately analyze how the money is being spent on salaries, and what departments are bloated. It also allows for internal transfers to undermanned departments, and helps create a situation as close to equilibrium as possible. With the cost of staff on the decline during the freeze, other costs can be 'right sized' within the budgetary framework of the State, and thus another step towards State Government responsibility and PROPER, lower taxation can occur.