NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model Is a Budget Casualty
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:05 -0800
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On Behalf Of
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:07 PM
To: 'geege'; email@example.com
Subject: RE: NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model
Is a Budget Casualty
> the point, again: per capita spending wrt to social services is a
> meaningless measure without
> reference to statutes - which are apples-to-oranges across states - or
> analysis of funding - when funding is a state budget shell game.
No, it isn't meaningless. We aren't talking about the efficiency of
social service delivery. We are talking about the investment in social
services in the first place.
I'M TALKING ABOUT HOW *YOU* DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A STATE'S INVESTMENT IN
SOCIAL SERVICES IS EXCESSIVE.
Excessively generous legislation is an explanation of the problem, not
"EXCESSIVELY GENEROUS LEGISLATION" IS A CONCLUSION DRAWN FROM A FAULTY
PREMISE, NOT AN EXPLANATION.
Now the primary comparison here wasn't per capita spending it was rate
of increase. In per capita spending you can point out that Washington
is a lot richer than Mississippi. In rate of increase comparisons,
unless the demographics are changing rapidly (say by illegal
immigration) that should factor out.
<YAWN> RATE OF INCREASE OF STATE DOLLARS ONLY.
Washington had a higher per capita income in 2000 than Oregon (31,230
vs. 27,660) and a slightly higher per capita income increase (Wa 2000
per capita was 304% higher than 1980. In Oregon it was 297%).
GOT IT, FROM THE FIRST POST. THIS WAS THE STARTING POINT.
[Mississipi was 20,900 in 2000. US average was 29,469 in 2000.]