Author: Larry Littlefield

In my prior post here, I called for the Governor make the rest of the state face the truth about state education funding over the past 30 years, for him to say the unsayables. That New York City’s share of total education funding, including back door “tax relief” aid, has not only been lower than its number of public school children, and very low considering their relative needs, but also lower than city residents’ share of state income and sales taxes – the state has redistributed education funding AWAY from the city’s poor children. That no matter what happens how, the past cannot be undone, those passing through the city’s schools in the past can never recover, and the effect of past underfunding will linger on for many years. That as long as the city’s share of state education funding is less than its residents’ share of its residents’ state income and sales taxes, the rest of the state is doing absolutely nothing to help the city’s children – at best. And, that the money taken away from the city has been used to pay for extravagantly high spending in the rest of the state. But Spitzer hasn’t said those things, and the budget he has presented, net, hits the city hard. And the State Senate is predictably claiming the rest of the state is being cheated, and demanding that the city be hurt even more.

The Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau has released March 2006 state and local government public employment and payroll data for the United States and the states. I have downloaded this information, have done some calculations to make the data comparable, and have included relevant private-sector data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and New York State and New Jersey Departments of Labor. The results are in the attached spreadsheet, on the two pages that print, and are directly relevant to the budget negotiations ongoing in Albany. Based on what I see there, if I had to choose I've vote for the Governor's budget rather than that passed by the Assembly or State Senate.

New York’s powerful and advantaged interests like to compare this year’s spending with last year’s spending. This locks in the winners and losers, by making the privileges of the past the baseline for the future. I like to compare revenues, expenditures, employment and pay between places as well, to identify who the advantaged interests are. I also try to adjust for factors that might explain, and justify, any differences. But when the health care industry told the New York Times that Medicaid spending per beneficiary has been going down since 2000, and cited the Center of Medicare and Medicaid as a source, I decided to check my spreadsheets. I get total New York Medicaid expenditures per beneficiary at $7,646 in 2000 and $7,910 in 2004, a 3.5% gain. For Hospital services, spending per beneficiary rose from $7,861 to $8,364, a 6.4% increase. And for Nursing Home services for the aged, spending rose from $35,187 to $43,957, a 22.1% rise. In the latter two cases, I do not believe the funds that are part of the 2002 Health Care Reform Act are included, since these do not concern the federal government. That said, these are smaller gains than these industries are used to ordering people to provide. But they still aren’t losses. Perhaps the health care industry provided data based on expenditures divided by the number enrolled in Medicaid, whether or not they needed any health care. The Times should not have swallowed what they were told whole.

With 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East and the Greater New York Hospital Association running commercials attacking Governor Spitzer’s relatively small increase in Medicaid spending, and these commercials featuring nurses, I became curious how New York City’s nurses, and other health care workers, were faring relative to their colleagues elsewhere in the country. Curious enough to download and compile Occupational Employment Data from the New York State Department of Labor and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. After their nearly 20 years of ruthless pursuit of unenlightened self-interest with total indifference to other priorities and needs through naked political power, nothing I could find here would make me feel better about these interest groups. If the employment level, adjusted for population and overall employment, and average annual pay, compared with the average overall, for workers in health care occupations were above average, I would be upset that the rest of us were funding these excesses through higher Medicaid spending. If they were below average, on the other hand, I would be upset that we were paying so much more for Medicaid and yet our health care workers were understaffed and underpaid. And if they were about average, I would be outraged that Medicaid, a program for the poor, was being overcharged so private health insurance for the wealthy could carry less of the load. So they are guilty. But the data can help show what they are guilty of. It is attached, and described below.