WSJ editorial falsely claimed Virginia legislators "spent like crazy on social services and schools"
SUMMARY: A February 23 Wall Street Journal editorial bemoaned what it called "a $1 billion tax hike for roads and transit projects" proposed by Virginia's GOP senators, whom it accused of spending "like crazy on social services and schools," leaving the state's highways underfunded. In fact, in recent years, Virginia's spending on schools and social welfare has stayed below the national average, and in some cases, ranks among the lowest in the country.
A February 23 Wall Street Journal editorial, titled "How to Turn a Red State Blue" (subscription required), criticized Virginia's Republican state senators, who currently hold the majority in that body, for "writing an instruction manual on how to become a minority party" by "refus[ing] to take a coherent stand on taxes." The editorial went on to note losses suffered by the Virginia GOP in the last election, when Democrat Tim Kaine took the governor's mansion.
In its editorial, the Journal bemoaned what it called "a $1 billion tax hike for roads and transit projects" proposed by GOP senators, whom it accused of spending "like crazy on social services and schools," leaving Virginia's highways underfunded. In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, in recent years, Virginia's spending on schools and social welfare has stayed below the national average, and in some cases, ranks among the lowest in the country.
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. Also, 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 had already 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, 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]. Data from the United States Census Bureau show that in 2004, Virginia's total expenditures per capita ranked 40th in the country, and as illustrated by the graph below, Virginia's total expenditures per capita on education, public welfare, and health rank the state 12th among the 13 Southern states.
| State | Total expenditures per capita on education, public welfare, and health (amounts in dollars) |
|
West Virginia | 3,045.69 |
|
Mississippi | 2,984.14 |
|
Kentucky | 2,946.15 |
|
Alabama | 2,872.97 |
|
South Carolina | 2,788.30 |
|
North Carolina | 2,730.80 |
|
Tennessee | 2,680.69 |
|
Georgia | 2,637.82 |
|
Maryland | 2,585.98 |
|
Louisiana | 2,446.90 |
|
Florida | 2,361.16 |
|
Virginia | 2,225.81 |
|
Texas | 2,101.64 |
From the February 23 Wall Street Journal editorial:
As a high-tech state, Virginia has been a huge beneficiary of the expansion spurred by the Bush investment tax cuts. But the entrenched senate Republicans -- many of whom have been fixtures in the capital of Richmond for decades -- want to spend the tax windfall and then some.
A Virginia Institute for Public Policy study notes that, over the past decade, the state budget has swollen at twice the rate of inflation plus population growth in the state. That's an $11 billion bonanza for state agencies, or about $500 more spending annually per Virginian. It's true that roads have been neglected during these high-spending years, causing some of the worst pockets of traffic gridlock in the country. But that's because state pols spent like crazy on social services and schools -- though student achievement tests show virtually no gains.
[...]
Meanwhile, property taxes are rising and clueless Republicans haven't lifted a finger to cap assessments. Thanks to a housing boom in Northern Virginia, state property tax bills for median priced homes have risen by $2,000, or 85% in six years. The sticker shock has enraged homeowners and taxpayers are fighting back locally. Yet Republicans are proposing to raise taxes again anyway.
And that's how to turn a red state blue.















Stephen Moore? Wow! Keep up the great work, MMFA!!!
It's this:
As a high-tech state, Virginia has been a huge beneficiary of the expansion spurred by the Bush investment tax cuts.
How in the world has Virginia benefitted from Bush's tax cuts? If they were rolling in it from investment in high-tech, they wouldn't have any trouble funding state expenses, right?
The WSJ, like the rest of the right-wing press, just makes stuff up about how "wonderful" the Bush economy is.
Even WSJ notes that the VA budget has increased over the last "decade." I wasn't aware that GW was in office for the last 10 years...although sometimes it seems like it's been much longer.
I heard a part of an interview on NPR this morning with someone (didn't catch the name) suggesting a substantial part of the economic expansion may have less to do with tax cuts and more to do with the unsustainlable massive Federal spending. Anyone have good references/statistics supporting this? I couldn't find the NPR item at their website.
CD
As with the October item, neither WSJ nor MMFA makes a compelling argument. WSJ makes the unsubstantiated claim that VA "spent like crazy on social services and schools." Connecting the dots between total budget increases and flat education test scores requires some imagination.
However, MMFA's reference to the budgets of other states isn't particularly useful either. A comparison of per capita spending (i.e., spending per state pop) says nothing of how much is being spent per student or other recipient of services. Also, the reference to a March 2002 budget cut isn't illuminating...what happened to spending 2 1/2 years later?
As the quote goes "there are three types of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics." Both the WSJ and MMFA seem guilty here.
- The economic recession in 2001, driven by the decline of the technology sector... - mmfa
I agree with mmfa. The robust Clinton economy was fueled by the dot.com boom in the 90's and the crash of that overheated market fueled the downturn.
The U.S. economy has been quite remarkable since 2001...considering the dot.com bust and the World Trade Center Attack.
"The robust Clinton economy was fueled by the dot.com boom in the 90's and the crash of that overheated market fueled the downturn.
The U.S. economy has been quite remarkable since 2001...considering the dot.com bust and the World Trade Center Attack."
The "crash" of 2001 was very mild and we recovered from it quickly. Everyone knew the market was overheated - that's why Gore said NOT to bust the budget with insane tax giveaways to the super wealthy. But Bush knows where his bread is buttered.
The '90's boomed because of tech, but also because Clinton got the budget under control with modest tax increases on those who could afford them. That lead to lowered interest rates and increased investment.
Do you think the Chinese, Koreans, Saudis, etc. are going to keep giving us cheap money forever? Do you think the deficits that Bush and his cronies in Congress have run up have no consequences?
The economy has been anemic since 2001 - a few jobs, stagnating or, in some cases, DEFLATING wages, interest rate creep.
But hey, don't worry, be happy...
You really put a lot of importance on the dot.com phenomenon. I am sorry but the dot.com bs affected the economy very little. The stock market is a different story but I am guessing you think the two are interchangable.
You're right...I do put a lot of emphasis on the dot.com boom and subsequent bust. This is not an argument about spinning the political debate on the economy.
It is a fact...as reported by mmfa..."The economic recession in 2001, driven by the decline of the technology sector...".