It’s useful to remember that the ‘unemployment rate’ used by this, and the last several administrations in Washington, is not the actual unemployment rate. Since the 1970’s consecutive administrations have segmented out portions of the unemployed and removed them from the equation. Usually, these segmented lists are basically people who are no longer looking for work or who are barely employed. Of course, people who the government determines ‘can’t work’ are also removed (having had a number of relatives in this camp, much to my disgust, I think getting on this list isn’t particularly hard).
To wit:
“If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking — so-called discouraged workers — and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart.
This is the number we should use, since it is the actual number.
October 23rd, 2009 at 12:00 am
Sad that good men like Danny Gilmore are throwing in the towel. The absense and/or apathy of these solid leaders in our state takes us down a path that, once taken, we cannot return from. We’re facing loss of freedom, political corruption, and the economic downfall of the Golden State. It’s no wonder companies don’t like doing business here, with our high taxes and restrictive regulations.
In the midst of all this economic strife, the need for state and local governments to cut waste and spending is urgent. Why, then, is the LA County Board of Supervisors fighting to renew a contract with an underperforming and overpriced firm?
Last year, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) procured for vendor services to operate the county’s GAIN case management services – a program that helps welfare recipients find work. Two bids came in from the incumbent company (MAXIMUS, Inc.) and Policy Studies Inc. (PSI). The two companies were scored by a neutral third party, and PSI beat Maximus solidly in several categories, including performance and price. Maximus protested the scoring, but the findings were upheld on 3 levels and PSI was recommended by DPSS to receive the contract.
The Board of Supervisors disagreed. They rejected the recommendation with 3 votes. They claimed the process of consensus scoring somehow concealed bias from the DPSS, though no specific evidence of this bias was ever presented. Furthermore, this scoring process was documented as a valid process which had been used for years prior to 2008, and the same process whereby the incumbent Maximus had been recommended and awarded. The BOS then directed the DPSS to extend Maximus’ contract for 6 months while they reissue the RFP and devise a new scoring method.
The BOS also expressed some superficial concern that the cost of the contract may exceed county requirements (see County Prop A). Although language could’ve easily been built into the contract to ensure cost neutrality/savings, the BOS rejected that argument and asked DPSS to review their contract monitoring costs for possible reductions and eliminate or reduce pay for performance provisions that could drive up the overall contract cost should the vendor outperform expectations.
The reissue of this RFP makes no fiscal sense whatsoever, particularly given the dire state of California’s economy. What’s more, the state faces federal penalties to the tune of approximately $185 million if they do not meet a preexisting federal threshold. Why is the BOS insisting on spending MORE of our tax dollars in an effort to maintain their business relationship with Maximus – a company whose performance was scored lower and whose contract was priced higher than PSI? (The county has estimated the cost to reissue the RFP to be $250,000). PSI’s contract would save the county over one million dollars annually. What’s going on here?
An LA Times article from last year exposed just how entangled Maximus is with the BOS. In the first half of 2008, Maximus spent over $124,000 on two lobbying firms, more than doubling what they spent on marketing in year before. Perhaps even more troubling, Maximus donated $1,000 (the maximum allowed) to the campaigns to re-elect supervisors Don Knabe and Michael D. Antonovich. They even gave $1,000 to two members whose terms had 2 years left to run.
In these lean times, something else must be motivating the board’s decisions, because it’s certainly not the bottom line.