If you have been paying attention, you have read that I recommend changes to New York State’s Medicaid program to create incentives to reduce spending.  I propose similar changes in incentives to reduce spending in the state’s public schools outside New York City, partially balanced by increased spending in districts where spending is low, particularly New York City – but a smaller increase than proposed by the plaintiffs in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.   The tax surcharge-based disclosure of the cost of retiree health benefits, pensions, and debts I have suggested are intended to limit, in the long term, the hidden growth of employee compensation and the interest burden of excess debt.  One might conclude that my proposals would lead to lower taxes.  And in the long run, when state and local taxes are combined, that could be the case.  But not in the short run for state taxes alone.

If you have been paying attention, you have read that I recommend changes to New York State’s Medicaid program to create incentives to reduce spending.  I propose similar changes in incentives to reduce spending in the state’s public schools outside New York City, partially balanced by increased spending in districts where spending is low, particularly New York City – but a smaller increase than proposed by the plaintiffs in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.   The tax surcharge-based disclosure of the cost of retiree health benefits, pensions, and debts I have suggested are intended to limit, in the long term, the hidden growth of employee compensation and the interest burden of excess debt.  One might conclude that my proposals would lead to lower taxes.  And in the long run, when state and local taxes are combined, that could be the case.  But not in the short run for state taxes alone.

If you have been paying attention, you have read that I recommend changes to New York State’s Medicaid program to create incentives to reduce spending.  I propose similar changes in incentives to reduce spending in the state’s public schools outside New York City, partially balanced by increased spending in districts where spending is low, particularly New York City – but a smaller increase than proposed by the plaintiffs in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case.   The tax surcharge-based disclosure of the cost of retiree health benefits, pensions, and debts I have suggested are intended to limit, in the long term, the hidden growth of employee compensation and the interest burden of excess debt.  One might conclude that my proposals would lead to lower taxes.  And in the long run, when state and local taxes are combined, that could be the case.  But not in the short run for state taxes alone.

New York State’s politicians have found a magic way to reward their supporters lavishly without everyone else noticing how much they are being hurt:  they borrow the money, and put off the cost to a future they don’t care about.  Every year the debt rises, and our future is diminished.  It may be that the state budget wouldn’t pass otherwise, because it is only by finding an unseen victim that everyone who matters can be more-or-less satisfied.  But New York’s debts have grown so large that at this point current New Yorkers aren’t much better off at the expense of the future, they are simply less worse off as a result of the past, as the result of borrowing more.  The bomb has been timed to go off during the next administration. 

New York State’s politicians have found a magic way to reward their supporters lavishly without everyone else noticing how much they are being hurt:  they borrow the money, and put off the cost to a future they don’t care about.  Every year the debt rises, and our future is diminished.  It may be that the state budget wouldn’t pass otherwise, because it is only by finding an unseen victim that everyone who matters can be more-or-less satisfied.  But New York’s debts have grown so large that at this point current New Yorkers aren’t much better off at the expense of the future, they are simply less worse off as a result of the past, as the result of borrowing more.  The bomb has been timed to go off during the next administration. 

New York State’s politicians have found a magic way to reward their supporters lavishly without everyone else noticing how much they are being hurt:  they borrow the money, and put off the cost to a future they don’t care about.  Every year the debt rises, and our future is diminished.  It may be that the state budget wouldn’t pass otherwise, because it is only by finding an unseen victim that everyone who matters can be more-or-less satisfied.  But New York’s debts have grown so large that at this point current New Yorkers aren’t much better off at the expense of the future, they are simply less worse off as a result of the past, as the result of borrowing more.  The bomb has been timed to go off during the next administration. 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  a statistical artifact…where studies on the remaining population are fallaciously compared with the historic average despite the survivors having unusual properties.  Mostly, the unusual property in question is a track record of success.

It is a mantra among conservative commentators, when pushing privatization and other business provision of public services, that private businesses are more efficient than government agencies.  Let’s leave aside the fact that, based on my experience with the matter, one of the things private businesses do efficiently is rip off the taxpayer.  The presumption of private sector superiority is based on survivorship bias.  Certainly Enron, and the hundreds of thousands of other private companies that go out of business each year, are not more efficient and competent than the typical public agency.  While some such companies can do a lot of damage prior to bankruptcy, however, eventually that damage ends, leaving more efficient and competent businesses as the predominant type operating at any one time.  Private sector efficiency, therefore, is not a result of inherent competence, but of trial and error.  In the public sector, and in certain private industries that rely on public funds, on the other hand, organizations and their employees are presumed to have a right to their current situation, regardless of the value they produce for others.  Since most of the services and benefits produced by the public sector are necessities, rather than mere wants, the least competent and efficient organizations grow, using more resources over time, in an attempt to get the necessary work done.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  a statistical artifact…where studies on the remaining population are fallaciously compared with the historic average despite the survivors having unusual properties.  Mostly, the unusual property in question is a track record of success.

It is a mantra among conservative commentators, when pushing privatization and other business provision of public services, that private businesses are more efficient than government agencies.  Let’s leave aside the fact that, based on my experience with the matter, one of the things private businesses do efficiently is rip off the taxpayer.  The presumption of private sector superiority is based on survivorship bias.  Certainly Enron, and the hundreds of thousands of other private companies that go out of business each year, are not more efficient and competent than the typical public agency.  While some such companies can do a lot of damage prior to bankruptcy, however, eventually that damage ends, leaving more efficient and competent businesses as the predominant type operating at any one time.  Private sector efficiency, therefore, is not a result of inherent competence, but of trial and error.  In the public sector, and in certain private industries that rely on public funds, on the other hand, organizations and their employees are presumed to have a right to their current situation, regardless of the value they produce for others.  Since most of the services and benefits produced by the public sector are necessities, rather than mere wants, the least competent and efficient organizations grow, using more resources over time, in an attempt to get the necessary work done.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  a statistical artifact…where studies on the remaining population are fallaciously compared with the historic average despite the survivors having unusual properties.  Mostly, the unusual property in question is a track record of success.

It is a mantra among conservative commentators, when pushing privatization and other business provision of public services, that private businesses are more efficient than government agencies.  Let’s leave aside the fact that, based on my experience with the matter, one of the things private businesses do efficiently is rip off the taxpayer.  The presumption of private sector superiority is based on survivorship bias.  Certainly Enron, and the hundreds of thousands of other private companies that go out of business each year, are not more efficient and competent than the typical public agency.  While some such companies can do a lot of damage prior to bankruptcy, however, eventually that damage ends, leaving more efficient and competent businesses as the predominant type operating at any one time.  Private sector efficiency, therefore, is not a result of inherent competence, but of trial and error.  In the public sector, and in certain private industries that rely on public funds, on the other hand, organizations and their employees are presumed to have a right to their current situation, regardless of the value they produce for others.  Since most of the services and benefits produced by the public sector are necessities, rather than mere wants, the least competent and efficient organizations grow, using more resources over time, in an attempt to get the necessary work done.