Leaving Children Behind

[Michael Hardner]

Paul Krugman Column

Texas likes to portray itself as a model of small government, and indeed it is. Taxes are low, at least if you’re in the upper part of the income distribution (taxes on the bottom 40 percent of the population are actually above the national average). Government spending is also low. And to be fair, low taxes may be one reason for the state’s rapid population growth, although low housing prices are surely much more important.

For months, Gov. Rick Perry had boasted that his “tough conservative decisions” had kept the budget in surplus while allowing the state to weather the recession unscathed. But after Mr. Perry’s re-election, reality intruded — funny how that happens — and the state is now scrambling to close a huge budget gap. (By the way, given the current efforts to blame public-sector unions for state fiscal problems, it’s worth noting that the mess in Texas was achieved with an overwhelmingly nonunion work force.)

So how will that gap be closed? Given the already dire condition of Texas children, you might have expected the state’s leaders to focus the pain elsewhere. In particular, you might have expected high-income Texans, who pay much less in state and local taxes than the national average, to be asked to bear at least some of the burden.

But you’d be wrong. Tax increases have been ruled out of consideration; the gap will be closed solely through spending cuts. Medicaid, a program that is crucial to many of the state’s children, will take the biggest hit, with the Legislature proposing a funding cut of no less than 29 percent, including a reduction in the state’s already low payments to providers — raising fears that doctors will start refusing to see Medicaid patients. And education will also face steep cuts, with school administrators talking about as many as 100,000 layoffs.

What happens when people run out of scapegoats ? When the rich are paying lower taxes than average while the poor pay higher than average ?

What happens is: medicaid gets cut.

[Shady]

Instead of just asking "won't somebody think of the children?" Let's also ask how the problem of illegal immigration fits in?

In Texas, where the state comptroller estimates illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006

USA Today

[punked]

Instead of just asking "won't somebody think of the children?" Let's also ask how the problem of illegal immigration fits in?

That is it 1.3 Billion dollars? You don't think they don't pay that in sales taxes every year Shady? Seriously 1.3 Billion dollars that is where you find the savings? Sales tax is 6.25% in Texas these illegals pay that 1.3 Billion and more just in the sales tax alone. Mind you I am defending Illegals I am saying they really aren't the cause here.

[Bitsy]

That is it 1.3 Billion dollars? You don't think they don't pay that in sales taxes every year Shady? Seriously 1.3 Billion dollars that is where you find the savings? Sales tax is 6.25% in Texas these illegals pay that 1.3 Billion and more just in the sales tax alone. Mind you I am defending Illegals I am saying they really aren't the cause here.

The states sales tax is 6.25% but most cities also impose sales tax up to 2%, which is the maximum allowed, for a total combined rate of 8.25%.

[punked]

The states sales tax is 6.25% but most cities also impose sales tax up to 2%, which is the maximum allowed, for a total combined rate of 8.25%.

Well then this seems to be simple math which Shady hates and will run away from. Most estimates puts the number of illegals at 1.6 million in Texas. Meaning health care in Texas is about 112.5 dollars for each illegal. So to get that from sales tax each Illegal would need to spend around 1500 A YEAR on anything. So Shady thinks Illegals live on less then 1500 a year in Texas otherwise they aren't draining anything. The reality is they don't use a lot of services because they can't so they end up paying more into he government then they could ever get out.

What is up with Right wing people and not knowing anything about simple math or Shady do you think Illegals in Texas spend less then 1500 dollars year in the state? HAHAHAHAHAHA

[Michael Hardner]

Instead of just asking "won't somebody think of the children?" Let's also ask how the problem of illegal immigration fits in?

Illegal immigration is causing this ? Seems like a pittance to me.

[Michael Hardner]

Meaning health care in Texas is about 112.5 dollars for each illegal. So to get that from sales tax each Illegal would need to spend around 1500 A YEAR on anything.

The quality of scapegoats is indeed decreasing.

[Shady]

The quality of scapegoats is indeed decreasing.

Yes, a multi-billion dollar drain on the state health system is a pittance. Keep up the good work Michael. "Won't somebody please think of the children!"

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, a multi-billion dollar drain on the state health system is a pittance. Keep up the good work Michael. "Won't somebody please think of the children!"

It seems like it's about $1.3B out of $15 B or $ 27 B. At least, it's not a significant share.

Edited March 1, 2011 by Michael Hardner

[Shady]

It seems like it's about $1.3B out of $15 B or $ 27 B. At least, it's not a significant share.

That's $1.3 billion in 2006. I'm thinking it's probably somewhat higher now.

[punked]

That's $1.3 billion in 2006. I'm thinking it's probably somewhat higher now.

But Shady they pay for it. You act they steal this money that 1.3 billion is easily made up in sales tax. You ignore that because like most right wingers math escapes you.

[Shady]

But Shady they pay for it. You act they steal this money that 1.3 billion is easily made up in sales tax. You ignore that because like most right wingers math escapes you.

Your assertion is ridiculous. Most of the money made by illegals is sent back to Mexico, to their families. Aside from that, you're assuming that they're not using any other social services. Like education, welfare, etc. According to your premise, if Texas just allowed hundreds of thousands of more illegals into the state, their health care shortfall would be fixed.

Paul Krugman Column

What happens when people run out of scapegoats ? When the rich are paying lower taxes than average while the poor pay higher than average ?

What happens is: medicaid gets cut.

Also, I noticed that Krugman conveniently skipped any mention of the new Obamacare regulations and unfunded mandates that are crippling state health budgets. But it's all the fault of those damn taxes right? Run out of scapegoats yet?

[Pliny]

Paul Krugman is always worth a laugh.

He said this:

(By the way, given the current efforts to blame public-sector unions for state fiscal problems, it’s worth noting that the mess in Texas was achieved with an overwhelmingly nonunion work force.)

Did someone say that public sector unions were the cause of State fiscal problems. Is someone blaming the public sector Unions? I think the problem was the economy which shrunk and Government loss of revenues can no longer sustain the high cost of itself. Public unions being a part of government and Education being 40% of the budget - something has to give and the Unions are balking. The high cost of government is what needs trimming.

America seems reluctant to go down the socialist road and solve the problems of government with increased taxation. Anyone with a little economic sense knows an economy doesn't fair well with high taxes in order to meet the expediture level of government.

Government budgets develop a tendency to just get bigger.

As for the math, the numbers can be worked according to which ones one chooses to use. Krugman is an excellent example of an abuser of numbers, skewing them to his advantage.

Let's take the example of illegals here in this thread. The numbers are that illegal immigrants cost hospitals 1.3 billion in 2006. Is that number a part of the total cost of hospital care for them? Or is it just lost revenue, a write off. The truth is no one pays that 1.3 billion dollars. Is that the total cost to health care? No it is the cost to hospital care. I suppose illegal immigrants would use the hospital since they won't be going to their family physicians which would likely be less tolerant of non-payment.

So in fact the 1.3B is what is not paid to hospitals by illegal immigrants and is a savings to them. Let's see, that would be a saving or benefit of $112.5 for each illegal immigrant. The thing is that the loss to hospitals is not recovered through any taxes. It's a loss.

The $112.50 punked calculated they had to pay in sales taxes has already been applied to costs.

No one knows how much they paid in sales taxes and has already been applied to government costs.

The $112.50 is how much "more" each immigrant should have to pay to make up the shortfall and that is just the shortfall on their hospital care not for other government services.

Thanks for doing the Math for me.

When the cost of some government program is criticized as being too expensive or inefficient then the left wing attempts to hang some evil slogan on it. For example if medicaid is too expensive and cuts are suggested the left is accusing those making that claim of "hating chldren" or "killing the elderly". Allan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida (Former congressman or Senator, I forget which) said that the republican health care plan was to "die early". Hardly what any rational person would wish for someone else, even a right winger, but that's how he equated attacks on Obamacare. He lost his seat in the mid-terms as who could support this sheer lunacy.

Any way, Michael give up on any credibility for Krugman. He is a loon worth a laugh now and then but that's about it.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Pliny

[guyser]

Aside from that, you're assuming that they're not using any other social services. Like education, welfare, etc.

Education is paid thru property tax, ergo if they live somewhere they pay. Anything they pay for they pay taxes on.

They pay taxes on income earned,they pay SS and a myriad of other things. That the bosses dont forward that tax is the problem, and if they do, the state never pays out.

Funny how that works huh? ( <---pssst...thats rhetorical)

According to your premise, if Texas just allowed hundreds of thousands of more illegals into the state, their health care shortfall would be fixed.

Dont know where this ridiculous notion comes from, bu then again, some people like to pad things just to look silly.

[Michael Hardner]

Any way, Michael give up on any credibility for Krugman. He is a loon worth a laugh now and then but that's about it.

Hi Pliny,

Krugman doesn't advocate an idealistic form of government that has never been tried. He examines reality, and is intellectually honest. He's acclaimed in his field, so the tag of 'loon' is not apt.

Your post, by comparison, appears to equate tax increases with 'socialism' so I'm not sure that you have a good perspective on this.

[Shady]

He examines reality, and is intellectually honest.

He's rarely based in reality and/or intellectually honest. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

He's acclaimed in his field, so the tag of 'loon' is not apt.

Actually, sometimes that tag is very apt.

His latest loon-ish rants were that Sarah Palin was directly to blame for the Tucson shootings. And that the trillion dollar stimulus package wasn't big enough. Obama should have asked for double that amount.

[Michael Hardner]

He supports his arguments, though. Not like a loon would. Did he really say that Palin was directly to blame ?

You know that Republicans will yell about the evils of partisanship whenever anyone tries to make a connection between the rhetoric of Beck, Limbaugh, etc. and the violence I fear we’re going to see in the months and years ahead. But violent acts are what happen when you create a climate of hate. And it’s long past time for the GOP’s leaders to take a stand against the hate-mongers.

That doesn't attribute direct blame, but it says "these things happen when you do this". It's not the same thing.

[Shady]

He supports his arguments, though. Not like a loon would.

Yes, not like a loon. Where does comparing the Tea Party to the KKK rate on your loon scale? The man is a pure ideologue.

A note to Tea Party activists: This is not the movie you think it is. You probably imagine that you’re starring in “The Birth of a Nation,” but you’re actually just extras in a remake of “Citizen Kane.”

NYT

That doesn't attribute direct blame, but it says "these things happen when you do this". It's not the same thing.

Huh? Saying "these things happen when you do this" isn't attributing blame?

[Bitsy]

I suppose illegal immigrants would use the hospital since they won't be going to their family physicians which would likely be less tolerant of non-payment.

Why do you assume am illegal with a job, which most do, could not pay a medical bill at a doctor office or a primary care clinic? The only thing they are denied is the ability to purchase healthcare insurance.

Illegals are not a drain on Texas provided they stay where they belong in the house or the yard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110302/ts_yblog_thelookout/proposed-texas-immigration-law-contains-convenient-loophole-for-the-help

[Michael Hardner]

Huh? Saying "these things happen when you do this" isn't attributing blame?

No.

[Bonam]

What happens when people run out of scapegoats ? When the rich are paying lower taxes than average while the poor pay higher than average ?

This is a deceptively posed question. To the un-nuanced reader, it implies that the poor are paying higher taxes than the rich, which is not the case. The rich are still paying higher taxes, they just aren't higher by as much of a factor as they are in some other states in the country.

Anyway, raising taxes on anyone, whether rich or poor or middle class is a choice, based on the idea that the government needs to be doing more than it can do with the funds that it has. That is, you need to believe that a bigger government is necessary to want to raise taxes. The approach now being taken by many republicans in the face of decades of government growth is the "starve the beast" method. Since it is pretty much politically impossible to just repeal social programs to reduce the size of government, the only way to effectively do this is to instigate budget shortfall (by limiting tax revenues) until it is an economic impossibility to continue to provide these programs. And, maintaining or cutting taxes is a much more popular move, even though it is directly related to the much more unpopular cutting of programs.

This is what we are going to continue to see in the US over the foreseeable future. Federal spending is nearly double the tax revenues, and state budgets are also deep in the red, and the only thing to do will be to reduce the size of government, because doubling the taxes certainly isn't gonna fly.

As for the emotional "think of the children" argument: children are and should be their parent's responsibility.

[Shady]

No.

Looks like he's got a bit of a history of this...

"They use Paul Krugman as their shield, for their left-wing hate. This is because Paul Krugman, like a lot of I would say extremists on the right, only see their side. They have a close minded world view, and so Paul Krugman uses this tragedy to try to knock down his opponents on the right."

[Pliny]

Hi Pliny,

Krugman doesn't advocate an idealistic form of government that has never been tried. He examines reality, and is intellectually honest. He's acclaimed in his field, so the tag of 'loon' is not apt.

Krugman advocates total government control of the economy and that has been tried. He has examined reality and has decided government must run everyone's lives because most people are too stupid and the rest are mean and nasty so need heavy regulation. Intellectual honesty would mean he wouldn't be equating spending cuts with "leaving the children behind".

He talks about cuts to medicaid, health care and education. We could argue that they could use some improvement and the health care and education they are receiving is not quite up to par anyway. So the children will be getting a better deal in the future plus not have to pay for the previous generation's health care and old age security.

Your post, by comparison, appears to equate tax increases with 'socialism' so I'm not sure that you have a good perspective on this.

Krugman's article "appears" to equate spending cuts with "leaving children behind".

Tax increases can be for myriad reasons but most are to cover what government wishes to spend. So it depends on what they are spending it on. Spending it on Social engineering would qualify in my books as "socialism" - of the creeping variety.