Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read an interesting article today, the state government has actually *SHRUNK* in Democratic hands, not grown, as Republican Susana Martinez has said. The numbers surprised even me! (I had thought government had grown, not by the percentage Martinez states, but still) Check it out, I thought the way the numbers were broken down was quite interesting.
There couldn't be more of a lie than this article being entitled Telling the Truth About Budgets. It doesn't.
Although the author implies that the numbers he's comparing are state budgets - they aren't. They are the general fund budgets, which is only about a third of what the state actually spends. The following was gleaned from the US census web site.
Actual NM State Expenditures, Total -
2002 -- $10.1 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $15.8 billion (+56%)
Actual NM State Debt --
2002 -- $4.5 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $7.8 billion (+73%)
Number of NM State employees (FTEs) --
2002 -- 45,500
2009 (last available info) -- 48,700 (+7%)
It seems that Susana Martinez is right on target with her budgetary comments.
There couldn't be more of a lie than this article being entitled Telling the Truth About Budgets. It doesn't.
Although the author implies that the numbers he's comparing are state budgets - they aren't. They are the general fund budgets, which is only about a third of what the state actually spends. The following was gleaned from the US census web site.
Actual NM State Expenditures, Total -
2002 -- $10.1 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $15.8 billion (+56%)
Actual NM State Debt --
2002 -- $4.5 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $7.8 billion (+73%)
Number of NM State employees (FTEs) --
2002 -- 45,500
2009 (last available info) -- 48,700 (+7%)
It seems that Susana Martinez is right on target with her budgetary comments.
I can't rep you again, but I wish I could. Any time you see a piece authored by an "AFSCME" member, you must be as skeptical as if the author was Vladmir Lenin, or Eugene Debs.
There couldn't be more of a lie than this article being entitled Telling the Truth About Budgets. It doesn't.
Although the author implies that the numbers he's comparing are state budgets - they aren't. They are the general fund budgets, which is only about a third of what the state actually spends. The following was gleaned from the US census web site.
Actual NM State Expenditures, Total -
2002 -- $10.1 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $15.8 billion (+56%)
Actual NM State Debt --
2002 -- $4.5 billion
2008 (last available info) -- $7.8 billion (+73%)
Number of NM State employees (FTEs) --
2002 -- 45,500
2009 (last available info) -- 48,700 (+7%)
It seems that Susana Martinez is right on target with her budgetary comments.
You're also forgetting population and inflation. Also, remember a lot of tht extra money is Federal money. Our state has grown tremendously, why should state government NOT have more employees? Are we to have the same number of state employees despite now having over 2 million people in our state? Fact is, the state serves its residents, and we now have more residents. Remember, since 2003, New Mexico has grown population wise.
I really don't think that abortion is a non-issue at the state level. The Governor could still restrict abortions to minors or even sign legislation that puts all kinds of restrictions on it. Can't ban it completely outright, but she can sure have a part in making it tremendously hard for a woman to attain an abortion. I might be a man and never have to make such a hard decision, but I do consider myself unequivocally pro-choice because it is such a hard decision and women don't need to be harassed for choosing to have an abortion. It might not be the biggest issue, but it's important to have people in office that understand women's issues.
You're also forgetting population and inflation. ...
state has grown tremendously, why should state
government NOT have more employees?
Employees --- up 7%
Expenditures - up 56%
Debt --------- up 73%
--------------------
population ---- up 8.7% ( using 1,848,986 and 2,009,671 as the population )
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBM
... a lot of tht extra money is Federal money. ...
How does that effect state debt?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBM
... most American politicians aren't anywhere close to socialist.
That word gets thrown about so much as a scare tactic. ...
Like the words racist, poor, oppressed/oppressive, just to name a few.
I can't rep you again, but I wish I could. Any time you see a piece authored by an "AFSCME" member, you must be as skeptical as if the author was Vladmir Lenin, or Eugene Debs.
I don't think that's an accurate comparison. Neither of those historical figures was disingenuous; you didn't have to doubt their numbers to disagree with their conclusions.
The best, and most, trustworthy articles to be found on the internet these days, are ones which invite a discussion including opposing viewpoints. The above NMPolitics.net includes that, making it a worthwhile read regardless of your politics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortimer
How does that effect state debt?
If your education budget is $X, and the federal government kicks in to education $Y more in 2009 than it does in $2010, then $Y contributes to the debt in 2010. Same for roads, police, or any other state activity that gets federal funding. You'll see a lot of opposition between federal and state politicians from the same state (and even same party) where the federal politicians throw money back at their home state for a particular purpose and the state politicians don't want it (or want it to go that place in particular).
No one is covering where the budget increases between 02-08 are coming from, so I thought I'd go over the bigger ones:
Education $3.5B-$5.0B
Public welfare $2.0B-$3.5B
These two items represent the biggest share of state government spending, amounting to about 55% of spending throughout the period.
$3.5B in 2002, with inflation, comes to $4.2B in 2008. Until the Fed decides it's not such a great idea to keep printing more and more money every year, the inflation part of the increase is unavoidable and stupid to argue against.
This leaves the last $0.8B for Education, amounting to a 19% increase in inflation-adjusted spending. During the same period, NM's population grew a fair bit less than that number. I don't hear teachers complaining about their pay near as much nowadays. In 2001-2002 average teacher pay was $36716. In 2008-2009 average teacher pay was $47602, a boost of 29%, most of which can be explained by the inflation number, but not all. It's reasonable to say that the growth in education spending is caused by, in order of importance:
1) Inflation
2) Increased Teacher Pay
3) Population Growth (single digit percentage)
Public welfare (I had to look it up) includes:
*Direct payments to people and groups that serve the poor
*Medicaid and other medical assistance
*Nursing homes, veterans homes
I haven't seen a cost breakdown, but I'd guess that increased medical expenses account for the lion's share of the non-inflation increase.
Let's compare NM spending to other states.
NM ranks 29th in teacher salaries, between Wisconsin and Alaska.
NM spends 22.7% of its expenditures on public welfare. By comparison, Maine spends 34.4% and Wyoming spends 16.2%. Again we appear to be in the middle.
I think, based on these numbers, the growth in the state government is largely the fault of the Fed (by inflating the currency), the fault of anyone who was born in, or emigrated to, the state between 2002-2008 (present company excluded), and the fault of teachers and medical care professionals for demanding (and getting) more pay. I'll leave it to the jury to decide if we're getting commensurately better teaching and medical care.
The Governor? The gov has less effect than the legislature, and even the legislature is pretty well blameless.
You just wrote that federal money adds to the debt.
Did I read that right? I'm guessing not.
"Money is not the root of all evil, lack of money is the root of all evil."
-George Bernard Shaw (probably misquoted)
Quote:
What I want to know is how federal money increased total state debt
by almost an order of magnitude more than population increased.
Pretty simple. When the government takes the punchbowl away, the state can either cut the budget by a commensurate amount, laying off teachers left and right, or run a deficit. They invariably choose the latter. Call it political patronage, cowardice or expediency.
The whole infusion of federal cash to state programs is a bit like having two accelerator pedals on a car, only one of which you control. Maintaining speed is really hard.
By no means was the federal government the lone cause of the debt increasing; declining tax revenues (both oil & gas as well as sales & income) and a timeless tendency to spend what is deemed necessary rather than what is deemed responsible have done their share as well.
Most of this was just to illustrate how federal spending, or the lack thereof, can contribute to state debt, not that all, or even part, is the case here.
You're also forgetting population and inflation. Also, remember a lot of tht extra money is Federal money. Our state has grown tremendously, why should state government NOT have more employees? Are we to have the same number of state employees despite now having over 2 million people in our state? Fact is, the state serves its residents, and we now have more residents. Remember, since 2003, New Mexico has grown population wise.
I see, the federal money just got picked off that tree that grows in Washington DC, so no one had to actually pay it. Unfortunately, some person, somewhere, paid it (or more likely, China or Japan loaned it to us) and Nm spent it.
Why should state government not have more employees? It shouldn't because there are too many state employess. The last time I checked, NM had the 5-6th highest number of state employees per resident in the US. So the right question is why doesn't the state have fewer employees?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
