January 2, 2005
-
Topic: The Fiscal Survey of the States
So… I was asked to check out some state budget reports, and surprisingly, they’re not nearly as complex and scary as I thought. With all the emphasis on the president and the federal gov’t, it’s interesting to think about the role of the state government, which in my mind isn’t as much a spectacle as the rest of politics.
I’m interested to see how those who oppose federal gov’t, feel about state gov’t, all the way down to local gov’t. What are the arguments for opposing a big federal gov’t, but supporting a strong state/local gov’t, in terms of having a big budget to provide public services?
According to the fiscal survey of the states, a report produced by the National Association of State Budget Officers, state spending is expected to increase 4.5% this year, compared to 3% the year before, and almost no growth in ’02 and ’03.
http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/fiscalsurvey/fsfall2004.pdf
Where is the money going?
According to the Nat’l Conference of State Legislatures, 33.6% of that goes to K-12 education, the largest piece of the budget pie. But, the fastest growing part of the pie is Medicaid, at 16.3%. Also in the mix is higher ed at 11.0%, down slightly from previous years, 5.9% for corrections, which is slightly up from previous years, and “other” at 33.2%. (Other consists of transportation, public assistance, parks and recreation, state police, arts programs, economic development, the environment, info technology, and employer contributions to pensions and benefits).
I am still trying to develop a point of view related to all this, but don’t have one yet…
I was reading an article in “The Progressive” magazine today about the state of urban Milwuakee (pronounced, “mil-ee-wauk-ay” Algonquin for the good land…name that movie for 10 bonus points…click here for answer) about how that city has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, around 40%, mostly blacks. It also has a crime rate of about 40%, not surprisingly, almost all blacks. Clearly, it’s a crumbling city, and there’s others like it. But, who to blame? Federal gov’t or state gov’t? A Ballot measure in Florida established a minimum wage of $6.15 per hour, and a ballot is upcoming in Nevada to increase their min. wage to require employers to pay an extra dollar to $6.15 an hour if they don’t provide their employees with health insurance.
Question: Can we create progressive states within a non-progressive nation?
Comments (6)
There are, and always have been progressive states. Generally those are what we now call “blue states.” Those are opposed by what I call “the hand-out states.” Those that have been created almost solely through the transfer of cash from the blue states. New York with it’s (relatively) extravagantly funded higher-ed system, mass transit systems, highway systems, and tradition of municipal services: California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, the New England states are all “high tax/high service/high wealth” states. Opposing them are the states the live by selling off their resources (Texas, Wyoming) and those states created by federal wealth transfer programs (Florida, Arizona, Tennessee stand out).
Interestingly, though population continues to flow to the Red States, wealth continues to flow to the blue. That’s because those states tend to attract success through successful educational systems and other services the pull-in that “creative class.”
My guess is that over the next 20 years the “big government” blue states will increasingly balk at the wealth shifts essential to maintaining life in the red states, and this is what will lead to the break up of the country. The last two times this transfer was approved (the 30s and the 60s) there was a shared sense of sacrifice and a commonality of ideas, but I don’t see either of those things right now.
Alice Cooper in Wayne’s World – when Wayne and Garth go backstage after he sings Feed my Frankenstein. That’s when they do the best “we’re not worthy” sketch ever!
Rock on Dan!
but beware of averaging state budget figures, they’re all so radically different. New York hides half its spending in all those “authorities” that circumvent both elections and the constitutional prohibition against states signing foreign treaties. Almost all K-12 education spending in Michigan is now listed as “state spending” because local stuff covers capital budgets only.
I like your ramblings and cool links.
The best thing about you though is how you’re so level headed but you romanticize travelling and other cultures… I think that’s awesome. Best wishes to you this year!!
1. No matter how brilliantly designed a federal government program may be, it creates a uniformity among states that is harmful to creativity and improvement. Getting the federal government out of the picture would allow states and local governments to create better ways of addressing education issues and problems.
2. If education were left at the local level, parents would become more involved in reform efforts. Differences in school effectiveness among states and communities would be noted, and other regions would copy the more effective programs and policies.
3. Since most information about the problems and challenges of education is present at the local level, Congress simply does not have the ability to improve learning in school classrooms thousands of miles away. These problems are best understood and addressed by local authorities and parents.
4. The previous points touched on this, but I really want to emphasize that the best thing about state control is accountability. The less direct accountability there is, the more problematic and wasteful a system develops. The inevitable pattern of bureaucracy is to grow bigger and bigger. The Department of Education, as recently as the Carter Admin a HHS subdepartment, has become a $47.6 billion/year boondoggle. Amazingly, it has managed to set new records in waste, as reading scores have not improved since it was created. This is aside from the $450 million the department reported losing track of during three consecutive General Accounting Office audits.
Just a note on reading scores: Reading scores have “not improved” because of three things: (a) a far higher percentage of kids take the tests now than did pre-Carter (I was never once given standardized reading tests in elementary school, no one who had trouble reading took those tests back then). (b) the tests themselves have become far more difficult in most states (though Texas made their’s easier so Governor Bush would look good, a grand example of state control at work – Texas’ 8th Grade test is the same as New York’s 4th Grade Test). (c) Politicians have pushed conservative educational prinnciples to the detriment of education. This is largely due to the absurdities of trusting educational decisions to locally and state elected morons and not to the professional educators the more successful nations depend on.