Wash. Times blamed Va. budget deficit on "social welfare," but state's programs are among country's least-funded
An October 14 Washington Times editorial supporting Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry Kilgore's pledge to oppose tax increases misleadingly blamed Virginia's budget deficit on a "two-decade long windfall for social welfare programs and pork projects." But funding for social welfare programs in Virginia in recent years can hardly be described as a windfall.
As The Washington Post noted in an August 6, 2001, editorial, over the course of the preceding two decades, Virginia's state and local taxes as a percentage of personal income dropped from 39th to 42nd among states, which limited the state's funding of social programs:
The low tax level has had a predictable effect. State education spending is below the national average. Per-pupil spending in grades K through 12 is nearly 10 percent below the national figure, and in recent years has been allowed to decline in real terms.
[...]
State health and welfare spending as a percentage of personal income is below not just the national average but the level in almost every other state in the South. Virginia prides itself on its higher education system, but its spending even on that is no more than average in these relative terms. In all these areas -- public education, higher education, health and welfare -- poorer states such as Mississippi, Arkansas and Alabama make a greater effort -- meaning they divert a larger share of income to the public purpose -- than does Virginia.
Further, a study by the Public Policy Institute of New York State reported that in 1997, per capita state and local welfare spending in Virginia ranked 45th among the 50 states.
The Times editorial also suggested that a tax package pushed by Gov. Mark R. Warner (D), who was elected in 2001, was the only measure employed to combat Virginia's large budget deficit, when in fact, the state cut billions of dollars from its budget in 2002. Passed by the Virginia legislature in May 2004, the package increased the sales tax and the tax on cigarettes and eliminated some corporate tax breaks [Washington Post, 5/21/04]. However, those tax increases came after Warner cut spending on social programs to reduce the deficit two years earlier without raising taxes. The economic recession in 2001, driven by the decline of the technology sector, greatly hampered Virginia's economy, which relied heavily on the technology industry. In March 2002, the state "approved new spending plans ... that cut social programs and other services while increasing fees and college tuitions to close a budget gap estimated at $ 3.8 billion for the next 2 1/2 years" [Washington Post, 3/16/02].
From the October 14 Washington Times editorial:
Messrs. Warner and Kaine like to say that their tax increase restored the state's fiscal health, as if it was the only available option. But when revenues were projected to be $1 billion higher than expected, instead of returning to Virginians their tax-dollars, further spending projects were the end result. This is Virginia's underlying spending problem: A two-decade long windfall for social welfare programs and pork projects have made it impossible to pay for necessary expenditures like much-needed transportation improvements without raising taxes. Buttressed by tax-happy Republicans, what's to keep Mr. Kaine from altering the Warner record?
Ahh..
silly Washington Times.
Despite the Wash. Post's many mistakes and misleading reports, it's still a better paper than the Times. I guess they ran out of room for "Hillary Clinton gives birth to Al Gore's monkey baby" stories.
What a rag.
This MMFA story is misleading. The Washington Times editorial mentions an increase in social spending over time. MMFA "counters" by saying absolutely nothing about how social spending as increased over time, but instead comparing social spending in Virginia and other states now. (And indeed, MMFA uses spending "as a fraction of personal income", which will tend to make Virginia spending look lower, because it is a relatively rich state.)
The Washington Times story is factually correct as long as the Virgina deficit would be significantly lower if the state spent only what it did 20 years ago on social programs. That is almost undoubtedly true. MMFA is welcome to have a different opinion about what level of social spending is appropriate for Virginia, but the factual statement made by the Washington Times is not wrong or even misleading.
Not to many commenters follow this story, but out of interest I actually looked up the numbers.
From 1983 to 2003 Virgina's spending on Medicaid alone increased from 923 M$2003 to 3746 M$2003. (Those are constant 2003 dollars, so don't come complaining about inflation.) That's a 300% real increase -- a quadrupling. Virginia's 2003 budget deficit was 950 M$, so returning Medicaid spending alone to its 1983 level would move Virginia from a billion dollar deficit to a two billion dollar surplus.
Does this prove that social spending is too high in Virginia? No. That's a matter of opinion, not fact. But it does prove that the rise in social spending is large enough to account for the entire deficit -- and then some. And that is a fact.
Some people seem to object to the use of the word "windfall" to describe this increase. Certainly the use of the word is a bit of a rhetorical flourish, but is seems awfully pedantic to get worked up about that. "Windfall" is typically used to describe a large increase that is not attributable to any action on your part. Have Virginia's social service agencies done something to earn a quadrupling of their budget? Well, I guess that's another matter of opinion.
Statistics used here are from the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance (Medicaid spending) and the Steelworker's Union (State budget deficits).
Look at the loaded language used in this column: "...pushed through a historic $1.38 billion tax increase. Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, led the attack (emphasis added), followed by Senate Finance Committee Chairman John Chichester, a Republican..."
"So it is with great humor (emphasis added) that we learn from Mr. Kaine's (Lt. Gov. Tim Kaine) official campaign Web site that the Democratic gubernatorial candidate ..."
"As opposed to his record, we're a little happier with Mr. Kaine's tax-cutting proposals." Who's 'we'?
"As welcome as this is, it does little to comfort Virginia's beleaguered (emphasis added) taxpayers, who justifiably fear (emphasis added) further tax increases under a Kaine administration."
The main point: "This is Virginia's underlying spending problem: A two-decade long windfall for social welfare programs and pork projects have made it impossible to pay for necessary expenditures like much-needed transportation improvements without raising taxes."
First, the 'problem' is most likely not due to a single cause; second, we don't know the percent attributable to 'pork projects', much less in whose opinion those projects were 'pork'. Finally, the author doesn't say in what way the social welfare programs received a 'windfall', or what constitues a 'windfall'.
A lot of empty rhetoric in this column.
ichbin: The Washington Times editorial mentions an increase in social spending over time
Yes, your reading is perfectly accurate. Everyone uses the term "windfall" to refer to simple increase. And the most Holy Washington Times merely "mentioned" this item, like a petal in the breeze. It wasn't like the editorial made some strong pronouncement that "[t]his is Virginia's underlying spending problem."
While we're on the subject, ichbin, maybe you can delight us with your linguistic skills by detailing the difference between Bush merely "relating information that is not technically accurate" as opposed to "lying."
freeper - Tuesday October 18, 2005 03:08:23 PM EST
Why bother when he clearly did both. For instance he continued to say the Aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges long after the scientists of the DOE ridiculed the idea they could be used for GC's at ALL, while he might possibly have believed that. He also made up a 1998 IAEA report that never existed. While its possible (though not likely) to hold the definition of a lie to the extremely low standard in the first case, he MIGHT have believed every single scientist from the government office that actually uses Gas Centrifuges were wrong and the CIA analyist with NO expertise in this area was right. Making up a report that never existed, pulling it directly out of his ass, is a lie, with no wriggle room anywhere. Bush is a shameless liar, who lies like most people breathe on other issues like who benifited from his tax cuts, the cost of the prescription drug benifit, or even his OWN positions on policies. Why WOULDNT he lie about WMDs?
You have me all wrong, freeper. I'm not a fan of George Bush at all.
I would like to government massively pared down. Perhaps from the current ~30% of GDP back to the ~20% of GDP level of 1950. George Bush is doing his best to massively increase government spending, including spending on social programs (e.g. Medicaid drug benefit.)
"George Bush is doing his best to massively increase government spending..."
-----
I think he is doing his best to give our tax dollars to his friends. If he wanted to just increase spending he could be doing it in a lot smarter ways.