Home Mobile Authors Say Anything Register Login

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Money for Nothing in North Dakota, South Dakota and OHIO

Hearing some fiscal conservatives take about wild spending in out of control the states of North Dakota, South Dakota and Ohio came up.

What do these 3 states have in common?  They are all static in population for the last 40 years but in real dollars for the last 40 years state spending had increased radically per person.  Or to put it another way, more and more dollars are spent on the same or fewer people.

Then the question is, are people in these states living large because of this largesse?  I don’t think so.  It’s simply redistribution of income without results.  It’s also a continuation of the growth of government to provide jobs for people so they don’t have to compete in the private sector.

Make work, CCC camps with white collars, WPS.  All the same.  This is happening everywhere.  It becomes easier to understand when you start to break it down into bite sized pieces.

Let’s take a small look.  In the Biennium ending in 2005 the total expenditure according to the ND state website was $5,059,000,000.  The total for the biennium ending in 2007 is $5,752,000,000.  That means with a static 650,000 people in the state an additional $1076 was spent in this biennium on every man, woman and child.  The percentages allocated to various departments is about the same, it’s just bigger and getting larger all the time.  And, there is no inflation; the value of the money being spent is about the same.  So don’t blame it on that.

And there are shell games.  Money for nothing is supposedly coming from Tobacco settlements, money coming from Oil Tax, money coming from the federal government; All that money WAS/IS your money.  There are no spending or allocations in a vacuum. 

Bill Guy was Governor in 1966, 40 years ago, the year I got married.  I have tried like mad to find the equivalent number from the 1966 budget and convert it into today’s dollars.  No luck.  Google is worn out.  But if I do, I’ll bet the expenditures per capita in today’s dollars in 1966 were HALF what they are today.  That’s the point.  We DON’T have better government but it costs much more.

Surpluses or not, Government spending, all government spending, state and federal is out of control and must not be stopped, it must be rolled back.  CUT! Slashed! Eliminated!

I know there are those in State government who will say to me, “You don’t understand, you aren’t seeing the whole picture”.  OK, show me the money, It ain’t there.  We are being screwed to the wall.  This is just as bad in Illinois, but not as bad as North Dakota.  Illinois only gets back 77 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington.  North Dakota gets a buck and a quarter.  I’m ok with that, but what ya gonna do when the well runs dry?

This is killing me.  And YOU!

Comments

Awesome post Gene.  But to hear about it the poor widdle government is starved for money.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 11, 2006 at 07:34 am

The fact that social costs keep going up is the sign that social programs don’t do what they promise to do.  If they worked, the need for them would be decreasing, and the costs would be going down.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 11, 2006 at 01:45 pm

I thought the promise behind them was to better the life of bureaucrats.  Of course they’re a miserable lot no matter what.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 11, 2006 at 02:01 pm

TW: Of course, that’s the reality.  I meant all the promises that those programs will “improve” society, like the War on Poverty, for instance.  Five trillion and counting, and no change in poverty.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 11, 2006 at 02:16 pm

I meant all the promises that those programs will “improve” society, like the War on Poverty, for instance.

You didn’t believe them did you?

wink


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 11, 2006 at 02:18 pm
Rob
Rob
17394 comments
Send a private message

Five trillion and counting, and no change in poverty.

Well, I think there has been a change in poverty.  The problem is the way we measure poverty.  We always talk about the “bottom 25% of Americans” or whatever, but the thing is that there’s always going to be a bottom 25% of Americans.  Always.

But if you actually look at that bottom 25%, they’re doing better than the bottom 25% from previous generations. They have more stuff (tv’s, cell phones, satellite tv, etc.), they live longer…

Granted, their live could be better, but thinking that we’re going to eliminate poverty is just nonsense.  It isn’t the war on poverty that has put these better in a better position but rather America’s booming economy.


When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on October 11, 2006 at 05:08 pm

I’d like to think that we shouldn’t have anyone that can’t get the basic (basic food, clothing and shelter) through no fault of their own.

I think we exceed that by far.

Rob, the one crucial thing is that in the US people can and do rise from the bottom tier.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 11, 2006 at 05:15 pm
Avatar for Bat One

Those on the Left like to invoke the habits and opinions of other people around the world, usually as a way of demeaning and belittling the policies of the Bush administration in particular and conservatives in general.  So…

Is there another country where the bottom 25%, or bottom 10% or 5% for that matter, enjoy as good a standard of living as they do here, with the same level of freedom and opportunity?  Is there another country where the economy is so dynamic and there is such a marked turnover in who sits at the tope and who rrests at the bottom?

And before we answer those questions too rashly, let’s be sure to include welfare, housing assistance, food stamps, Social Security and Medi-care (while they are still solvent) in the calculations.

Finally, let’s consider whether there is another country on the face of the planet that has an immigation problem of the enormity that we do here in the US, and ask ourselves just why it is that so many people are so desperate to come here.  I don’t think its to join an american labor union or see Nancy Pelosi become Speaker of the House.

Bat One on October 11, 2006 at 05:28 pm

Bat1:

In a word, no.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 11, 2006 at 05:31 pm

Rob: I should have sharpened that up a bit.  It’s quite true that the standard of poverty has risen considerably in this country since LBJ started the profligate spending program known as “The War on Poverty”, but that improvement in the standard of poverty isn’t due to any govt giveaway program, it’s due to the vitality of our economic system, which didn’t need the program in the first place.  An argument can be made that, if the five trillion had remained in private hands, things would have been much better economically than they are today, and I would accept that argument.
Because the govt is structurally unable to deliver what it promises, social spending is simply income redistribution of money from the private sector to the public sector, where it is far less productive, and in most cases, not economically productive at all.  Govt employment used to be based on political patronage, which meant that when the administration changed, we got all new govt employees.  Not so today.  With the creation of the Civil Service System(and its unions), govt employees are entrenched power, and answerable to no one, while being loyal to bureaucracy itself, and not the people who pay their inflated salaries.


If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

robert108 on October 11, 2006 at 06:55 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses. Confirm your email address here.