God Bless Fiscal Responsibility:
Bay Area Counties Give so Rural Counties can Recieve
SACRAMENTO - A new report on who supplies - and who spends - California's public dollars shows an interesting disparity between the givers and the takers:
Counties that provide most of the state's revenue streams like income and sales taxes reliably elect Democrats, who traditionally want to take more of your money. And counties whose Republican representatives argue most vociferously for social services cuts draw, per capita, the most state aid.
The breakdown, prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office for the office of Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, puts another spin on what's emerged as the central issue in this year's fight over a $19 billion deficit. It also adds new color to the prevailing portrait of poverty for many Californians - it's not fundamentally an urban problem.
Instead, experts say, rural residents would be most affected by the drastic cuts being considered to health and human services programs. The report shows the Bay Area's blue counties are, in many ways, a revenue lifeline for the rural Republican red.
"Is there a disconnect here between political sentiments in rural areas and the demand or desire or need for public expenditures? I think there is," said Al Sokolow, a retired professor at UC Davis. "Leaders in these rural areas, while wanting more from the state, are also less reluctant to give in on the tax front."
According to the snapshot provided by Evans' office which compares per capita income taxes and sales taxes with spending on programs like in-home care for seniors, parole services, welfare, MediCal and others - seven of the top 10 contributors of tax revenue to Sacramento are Bay Area counties - all of which lean heavily Democratic. Marin County is No. 1, measured per capita, and Santa Clara County is fourth.
In contrast, the counties receiving the most cash from the state are those in California's impoverished north, like Del Norte and Yuba counties, and especially in the agrarian Central Valley, including Tulare County - the top recipient of state help - but also Kern and Kings counties. Many have more registered Republicans, or only slightly more Democratic voters than Republicans.
In San Mateo County, for example, Medi-Cal spending in 2007-08 was $257 per resident. In Lake County, the state spent $703. But per capita income tax and sales tax revenue in Lake County was only $879, while in San Mateo it was $4,232.
State-funded home care spending in Imperial County was $68 per capita but only $26 in Contra Costa County.
In some ways, that divide is intuitive, budget experts and economists say.
California's coastal counties are home to its biggest cities and most prestigious universities. They also are magnets for wealthy residents and industries that define California nationally: entertainment, technology and tourism.
But in inland counties, which are sprawling and sparsely populated, there are fewer opportunities for high-paying work. Agriculture is a key industry, but it relies heavily on seasonal and migrant workers. Additionally, Central Valley counties like Stockton and Merced - which hosted an influx of middle-class residents amid the housing boom - have been devastated by the housing bust.
While budget cuts would affect all Californians, experts say the fallout is compounded in rural districts.
Rural residentsalready struggle with a shortage of doctors who accept MediCal clients. Cuts to in-home care for seniors might force many into nursing homes in bigger cities. And sheriff's departments, patrolling massive counties, already lack staffing to personally handle every call.
But because some rural counties tend to lean libertarian, or because many of those affected can't afford the time or money to engage in the political process, that reality isn't always apparent.
"People don't understand how much they get for the money they pay. It starts with making communities more aware," said Connie Stewart, a former mayor of Arcata and the executive director of Humboldt State's California Center for Rural Policy.
To be sure, other measurements may show a less extreme imbalance. Examining the figures on a per-capita basis doesn't take into account the sheer volume of social services clients in places like Los Angeles County. It also doesn't account for uneven income distribution - poorer pockets like Oakland and parts of Los Angeles nestled into richer communities.
And, moreover, because the breakdown uses tax revenue totals from 2006 and spending from the 2007-08 fiscal year, the numbers may also have shifted.
But anti-tax advocates say that's not the point. Even if lawmakers from wealthy districts - and some of their constituents - support tax increases, that doesn't mean they're the right medicine.
"If you want to raise taxes to create jobs," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "that strikes us as flawed logic, to say the least."
But for Evans, whose office commissioned the data, it was a matter of reframing the budget debate to show what anti-tax rhetoric might really mean. Instead of asking how California spends its money, why not ask "where," she said.
"It tells an important story," she said, "and it really does start to change your outlook."
___________
My feeling on this? Ain't no surprise here, it fits in with the pattern across the country. Counties and states which are so-called blue states are capable of paying their own way with minimal social dysfunction. The heartland can't do the first and have massive amounts of the latter. But then the United States is basically a First World country sharing borders with evolving former Third World dictatorships, so......
Oh, and Steve_Potocin? Aw Hell Yeah Right-Wing freeloading whiners.
Will be X-posted to my own LJ and to The_Recession
SACRAMENTO - A new report on who supplies - and who spends - California's public dollars shows an interesting disparity between the givers and the takers:
Counties that provide most of the state's revenue streams like income and sales taxes reliably elect Democrats, who traditionally want to take more of your money. And counties whose Republican representatives argue most vociferously for social services cuts draw, per capita, the most state aid.
The breakdown, prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office for the office of Assemblywoman Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, puts another spin on what's emerged as the central issue in this year's fight over a $19 billion deficit. It also adds new color to the prevailing portrait of poverty for many Californians - it's not fundamentally an urban problem.
Instead, experts say, rural residents would be most affected by the drastic cuts being considered to health and human services programs. The report shows the Bay Area's blue counties are, in many ways, a revenue lifeline for the rural Republican red.
"Is there a disconnect here between political sentiments in rural areas and the demand or desire or need for public expenditures? I think there is," said Al Sokolow, a retired professor at UC Davis. "Leaders in these rural areas, while wanting more from the state, are also less reluctant to give in on the tax front."
According to the snapshot provided by Evans' office which compares per capita income taxes and sales taxes with spending on programs like in-home care for seniors, parole services, welfare, MediCal and others - seven of the top 10 contributors of tax revenue to Sacramento are Bay Area counties - all of which lean heavily Democratic. Marin County is No. 1, measured per capita, and Santa Clara County is fourth.
In contrast, the counties receiving the most cash from the state are those in California's impoverished north, like Del Norte and Yuba counties, and especially in the agrarian Central Valley, including Tulare County - the top recipient of state help - but also Kern and Kings counties. Many have more registered Republicans, or only slightly more Democratic voters than Republicans.
In San Mateo County, for example, Medi-Cal spending in 2007-08 was $257 per resident. In Lake County, the state spent $703. But per capita income tax and sales tax revenue in Lake County was only $879, while in San Mateo it was $4,232.
State-funded home care spending in Imperial County was $68 per capita but only $26 in Contra Costa County.
In some ways, that divide is intuitive, budget experts and economists say.
California's coastal counties are home to its biggest cities and most prestigious universities. They also are magnets for wealthy residents and industries that define California nationally: entertainment, technology and tourism.
But in inland counties, which are sprawling and sparsely populated, there are fewer opportunities for high-paying work. Agriculture is a key industry, but it relies heavily on seasonal and migrant workers. Additionally, Central Valley counties like Stockton and Merced - which hosted an influx of middle-class residents amid the housing boom - have been devastated by the housing bust.
While budget cuts would affect all Californians, experts say the fallout is compounded in rural districts.
Rural residentsalready struggle with a shortage of doctors who accept MediCal clients. Cuts to in-home care for seniors might force many into nursing homes in bigger cities. And sheriff's departments, patrolling massive counties, already lack staffing to personally handle every call.
But because some rural counties tend to lean libertarian, or because many of those affected can't afford the time or money to engage in the political process, that reality isn't always apparent.
"People don't understand how much they get for the money they pay. It starts with making communities more aware," said Connie Stewart, a former mayor of Arcata and the executive director of Humboldt State's California Center for Rural Policy.
To be sure, other measurements may show a less extreme imbalance. Examining the figures on a per-capita basis doesn't take into account the sheer volume of social services clients in places like Los Angeles County. It also doesn't account for uneven income distribution - poorer pockets like Oakland and parts of Los Angeles nestled into richer communities.
And, moreover, because the breakdown uses tax revenue totals from 2006 and spending from the 2007-08 fiscal year, the numbers may also have shifted.
But anti-tax advocates say that's not the point. Even if lawmakers from wealthy districts - and some of their constituents - support tax increases, that doesn't mean they're the right medicine.
"If you want to raise taxes to create jobs," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, "that strikes us as flawed logic, to say the least."
But for Evans, whose office commissioned the data, it was a matter of reframing the budget debate to show what anti-tax rhetoric might really mean. Instead of asking how California spends its money, why not ask "where," she said.
"It tells an important story," she said, "and it really does start to change your outlook."
___________
My feeling on this? Ain't no surprise here, it fits in with the pattern across the country. Counties and states which are so-called blue states are capable of paying their own way with minimal social dysfunction. The heartland can't do the first and have massive amounts of the latter. But then the United States is basically a First World country sharing borders with evolving former Third World dictatorships, so......
Oh, and Steve_Potocin? Aw Hell Yeah Right-Wing freeloading whiners.
Will be X-posted to my own LJ and to The_Recession