The idea that this is at taxpayer expense makes me grit my teeth. On the other hand, I would expect any employee who is laid off (or terminated due to lack of work) to get some sort of severance.
The law only requires severance pay in lieu of notice, and even then only if it's significant change in employment level. If there some minimum (30 or 60 days?) notice, then no severance is required. Many companies elect to give pay instead, fearing sabotage and the chilling effect on the moral of those not laid off of having them around for such a period of time.