Ahhh. (was RE: NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model Is a Budget Casualty)

geege geege@barrera.org
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 02:04:49 -0800


http://www.researchcouncil.org/Main/aboutthe.htm
a council with a mission.  "Research is based on facts from reliable data
sources and informed by economic analysis with an appreciation of the power
of free markets." as represented by their dues-paying, "non-compensated"
board of trustees.

but there's hope for washington:
http://www.researchcouncil.org/Briefs/2001/PB01-23/HouseholdIncomeEstimatesU
nreliable.htm

and check out the policy research links:
http://www.researchcouncil.org/Main/links.htm#Policy%20Research
cato, anyone?



-----Original Message-----
From: johnhall [mailto:johnhall@isomedia.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:38 PM
To: 'geege'; fork@xent.com
Subject: RE: NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model
Is a Budget Casualty



> From: geege [mailto:geege@barrera.org]
>
> GG: the "data" is inadequate to the task, which is the conclusion
drawn
> from it.

It was quite a bit more data than your original article included.  You
felt that was adequate to the task.

> Why, exactly, is it not insightful to note that vastly increasing
> spending (like Oregon) is likely to get you in lots of trouble some
day.
> GG: because it's half-assed analysis?  the trouble starts at the
federal
> level?

The state of Washington and the state of Oregon don't share the same
Federal Government?  And if they do, why is such a drastic difference in
increased spending not noteworthy?




> States that didn't go as hog wild on spending as Oregon aren't in the
> same fix.
> GG: OH REALLY.

Spending per person fell in some of the states over the same period.

> GG: specifically what initiatives?

http://www.researchcouncil.org/601/601LMT.html

> what system is in place to evaluate success, long-term, wrt client
> outcomes - you know,

I don't think anyone has a system like that.  Either high expenditure
programs or low.

> Don't you think the slower rate of spending growth might have
something
> to do with things?
> GG: OF COURSE IT DOES.

I thought you were denying it.

>
> > ... these are the same folks who shrug off a ballooning national
> > deficit (mantra of explanation: 9/11, burst
> > bubble, "slow" recovery, war imperative)
>
> You have CATO confused with someone else.  Or perhaps you don't know
> what Cato thinks on those things.
> GG: The deficit isn't yet indefensible to cato.

CATO opposes the war.  Some of their research articles favored using the
projected budget surpluses to privatize social security rather than for
tax cuts.

They usually list a lot of spending they would cut out.  Ethanol
subsidies usually top the list, followed by much of the rest of the Farm
subsidies.

> Why do social problems have a propensity to increase?
> GG: under the referenced circumstances - read to the end of the
sentence.

If social problems increase due to recession that doesn't explain the
explosion in how much they cost before the recession.