Rob Schofield over at NC Policy Watch recently posted this pitiful tirade about North Carolina's current budget deficit. Being a long-suffering Detroit Lions fan (0-16!), the football reference in the article's title hurt a little bit, but otherwise he demonstrates once again how intellectually bankrupt he is.
As usual, Schofield takes aim at articles produced by those evil-doers over on "right-wing avenue," the Civitas Institute and John Locke Foundation.
the John Locke Foundation issued brief policy reports in which they
concluded, respectively, that a "rising tax burden" and "rampant
spending" were at the heart of our problems.
"General Fund spending rose a dramatic 47 percent over
the last eight years (FY 2001-02 to FY 2008-09). This represents an
increase of nearly $7 billion, and a per capita spending increase of 30
percent (not adjusted for inflation)."
According to Locke:
"As with previous budget crises facing the state of
North Carolina, the shortfall in FY 2009 and the projected shortfall
for FY 2010 are as much the result of rampant spending as of lower than
expected revenue. Revenue volatility is a long-standing problem in
North Carolina given the state's tax structure."
Then we get a dose of Schofield's "reality":
As has been explained at some length on this site on numerous
occasions, both Civitas and Locke are flat out wrong. First of all, for
any supposedly serious policy organization to hold up the absolute growth in state appropriations (without adjusting for inflation and population increases) as "evidence" of "whopping" growth is an absurdity of the highest order
Small problem, Rob. If you actually took the time to read the articles you linked to, you would find that we DID adjust for inflation and population growth. Click the link to my Civitas article. See the big chart? What part of General Fund Spending Per Capita (inflation-adjusted dollars) don't you understand?
Likewise the Locke report. "State government appropriations per person in fiscal year (FY) 2009 were $2,311; more than the $2,248 per person in FY 2000 after adjusting for inflation."
For any supposedly serious policy advocate to ignore clearly identified data contained in the very reports you linked is not only absurd but downright shameful.
Memo to Rob: If you are going to continue to spend most of your time attempting to critique our work, the least you can do is actually read it first.
If you adjusted for inflation, then what was the point of including this fact.
“General Fund spending rose a dramatic 47 percent over the last eight years (FY 2001-02 to FY 2008-09). This represents an increase of nearly $7 billion, and a per capita spending increase of 30 percent (not adjusted for inflation).”
Why is a 30 percent increase relevant if it is NOT adjusted for inflation? Because it is “dramatic?”
How can you compare states’ gas taxes among states when states have different level of responsibility for roads? North Carolina maintains a far higher percentage of roads than almost every other state.
And what good is a comparison of state tax rates if you don’t include all taxes? North Carolina might have some state taxes that are relatively high, but funds education at the state level, so property taxes are lower than many states who use property taxes to fund education.
Seems like a selective use of facts and taxes.
Porter,
Thanks for commenting – at least it appears you actually read the article.
To address your questions:
“If you adjusted for inflation, then what was the point of including this fact.”
Why not? I had the data and included it. Providing the 30 percent figure simply includes an extra data point that people can further relate to.
“How can you compare states’ gas taxes among states when states have different level of responsibility for roads?”
Yes, I know. If you check the source I used you will see that local gas taxes are accounted for in the calculations.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/245.html
(see footnote l)
“And what good is a comparison of state tax rates if you don’t include all taxes?”
You seem to answer your own question with your next statement. It wouldn’t seem logical to compare STATE IMPOSED tax burdens between some states that impose property taxes at the state level versus other states that impose property taxes at the local level. I was comparing apples to apples, not being “selective.”