The fundamental responsibility of state government is to provide
a social infrastructure for its citizens. This is accomplished by raising funds
via taxation and fees and then developing a spending plan to accomplish these
goals.
A budget represents the priorities of the citizenry and
includes various expenditures such as health and welfare, public education,
judiciary and regulation, administration and finance, public safety, and transportation.
(This column is full of numbers and percentages and
rankings. But this is what impacts your pocketbook and provides the services you
demand. So pour a cup of coffee and settle in).
It is interesting to compare the spending by the various
states (FY2015 – last year all data available).
Of the New England states, Vermont finds it necessary to devote
over $9,200 per person while New Hampshire gets along fine spending less than
half of that.
Per Capita National
Spending Rank
Vermont $9,265 11
Rhode Island $8,426 13
Maine $6,244 21
Connecticut $5,681 24
Massachusetts $5,372 29
New Hampshire $4,284 44
Rhode Island, while feeling that it can spend less per
citizen than Vermont, is still well above the national average of $6,900.
Massachusetts, on the other hand, is a decent bargain at 29th place
nationwide.
One of the brilliant features of our system of federated
republics is that the states act as a “laboratory of democracy”. We can see
what works and what doesn’t, learning from the best and avoiding the worst.
(This is why all Federal mandates have a built-in negative consequence –
eliminating the competition of ideas in that particular policy arena).
Vermont and New Hampshire have nearly the same area, though New
Hampshire has twice the population. Despite the disparity in per capita spending,
Vermont and New Hampshire both have high school graduation rates of 91% (excellent,
by the way). They both rank moderately high in happiness, 13th and
16th respectively. And they both have a high life expectancy of over
80 years.
In terms of total tax burden, Vermont ranks 12th
nationwide with a burden of 11% while New Hampshire comes in 49th at
8.5%. (Massachusetts is, again, quite frugal at 9.6%, ranking 40th).
Vermont and New Hampshire, while at opposite ends of the
spending spectrum, yield very similar quality of life results. There are likely
some lessons to be gleaned here.
Rhode Island is another case. Its per capita spending is
very high, ranking 13th in the nation. It also comes in 6th
in total taxation with a rate of 11.6%. So what are the citizens of Little
Rhody getting for their high tax and spend regimen?
Life expectancy is 79.9 years, only a touch below the New England
leaders. But the happiness index ranks 41st nationwide, a poor
showing in exchange for profligate spending. The average public wage is $56
thousand, the highest in the region, but the home ownership rate is the lowest
at 57%. And worse, the high school graduation rate of 84% is the poorest in New
England. It seems that if Rhode Island wants to attract new businesses and
skilled employees, they’ve got a bit of work to do.
Finally, in spite of a past legacy and reputation as “Taxachusetts,”
Massachusetts is doing a solid job of fiscal management for her citizenry.
Taxes are relatively low (as previously noted) and quality of life indicators
are good. Life expectancy is over 80 years, happiness ranks 9th
nationwide, and the high school graduation rate is over 89%. While there is
always room for improvement, these are respectable results.
What can you do, dear citizen, to determine how your money
is spent? Just two things: inform yourself and vote. You would be joining a
very small club of those who do both.
No comments:
Post a Comment