tangent4ronpaul
07-21-2009, 02:11 AM
Interesting article here, though the author has some serious flaws in logic.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm283.cfm
also note that it's from 2003...
May 28, 2003
What Unfunded Mandates? CBO Study Reveals Washington Not at Fault for State Budget Crises
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #283
States have successfully secured a $20 billion bailout from Washington to close their expanding budget deficits. Never mind that free-spending states created their own fiscal crises: General fund revenues have climbed 46 percent since 1990, but spending has climbed 50 percent - nearly twice the rate of federal spending. Total state government spending topped $1 trillion for the first time ever in 2000 and has continued to rise.[1]
Many state officials have claimed to be entitled to a federal bailout as reimbursement for a flurry of new unfunded mandates imposed on them by Washington. These claims were followed by several sympathetic media reports detailing state difficulties paying for expensive education and homeland security mandates. Many of these analyses seem to define an unfunded mandate as “any program that states wish Washington would pay for.” In reality, unfunded mandates must be both unfunded and mandated. Nearly all-recent federal education and homeland security laws have been either voluntary, or fully funded by Washington.
In fact, only twosignificant unfunded mandates have been imposed on state and local governments since 1996, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (see tables 1 & 2).[2] These two unfunded mandates cost the average state only $9 million per year, or 0.09 percent of the typical state’s $10 billion general fund budget. The CBO report shows that the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) has reduced the amount of new unfunded mandates placed on state and local governments.[3] Consequently, states cannot legitimately blame Washington for their spending crises.
[...]
continues at link.
-t
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm283.cfm
also note that it's from 2003...
May 28, 2003
What Unfunded Mandates? CBO Study Reveals Washington Not at Fault for State Budget Crises
by Brian M. Riedl
WebMemo #283
States have successfully secured a $20 billion bailout from Washington to close their expanding budget deficits. Never mind that free-spending states created their own fiscal crises: General fund revenues have climbed 46 percent since 1990, but spending has climbed 50 percent - nearly twice the rate of federal spending. Total state government spending topped $1 trillion for the first time ever in 2000 and has continued to rise.[1]
Many state officials have claimed to be entitled to a federal bailout as reimbursement for a flurry of new unfunded mandates imposed on them by Washington. These claims were followed by several sympathetic media reports detailing state difficulties paying for expensive education and homeland security mandates. Many of these analyses seem to define an unfunded mandate as “any program that states wish Washington would pay for.” In reality, unfunded mandates must be both unfunded and mandated. Nearly all-recent federal education and homeland security laws have been either voluntary, or fully funded by Washington.
In fact, only twosignificant unfunded mandates have been imposed on state and local governments since 1996, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (see tables 1 & 2).[2] These two unfunded mandates cost the average state only $9 million per year, or 0.09 percent of the typical state’s $10 billion general fund budget. The CBO report shows that the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) has reduced the amount of new unfunded mandates placed on state and local governments.[3] Consequently, states cannot legitimately blame Washington for their spending crises.
[...]
continues at link.
-t