NYTimes.com Article: A Prescription Plan Hailed as a Model Is a Budget Casualty

geege geege@barrera.org
Thu, 6 Mar 2003 19:24:05 -0800


-----Original Message-----
From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of
johnhall
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 12:07 PM
To: 'geege'; fork@xent.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
an excuse.
"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.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

[Mississipi was 20,900 in 2000.  US average was 29,469 in 2000.]