Sunday, September 25, 2005
Local government seen in action, and lessons derived therefrom.
Reading the local NYC newspapers for just the last couple days one discovers ...
"Two-thirds of New Yorkers are unhappy with their public schools. By a 66 - 21 percent margin, New York City voters are not satisfied with the quality of public schools", according new poll released Friday.
But, hey, how could the schools possibly be expected to be good enough to please? Real per student spending has increased only 45% over the last eight years, to $14,642 in 2005. [NYC IBO] And city public school teachers are paid just an average $44+ an hour (compared to the average $36 an hour earned by nuclear engineers in the US, and $33 earned by computer scientists).
The important thing is, do the politicians have a solution to the challenge of getting these schools finally up to par? Why sure they do -- spending a whole lot more money of course!
Meanwhile, our judges are named by the indicted, literally.
A Daily News editorial writer visited a back room full of judges waiting to be named to the bench by indicted political bosses, and found that the soon-to-be-robed wouldn't even give their names to the press. "Why so shy?" asks the News. Were they embarrassed by something?
Then there's the rampant corruption in the state's Medicaid programs.
When the city's broadsheet of record resorted to using the Freedom of Information Act to conduct its own review of Medicaid records -- due to the lack of any such review by the government -- it found "numerous indications of fraud and abuse that the state had never looked into"...
Among those "world class cases" Spitzer has brought are, as we've mentioned before, his well-publicized prosecutions of the restaurant bathroom attendant industry, and of that hideous crime of the 1950s, radio payola. He has resources for those -- but not for his statutory duty of fighting Medicaid fraud.
Well, let's be honest, he wants to win an election and there are no votes in hassling anybody's Medicaid. Not for him or for Pataki either.
So, in just a couple days' casual perusal of the local papers we see school spending going up, up, up with no result but demand for more ... the judiciary being appointed by the indicted ... and a good 40% of Medicaid going to fraud and waste, with a governor and candidate for governor showing no interest at all in doing anything about it ...
Frankly, reading the local papers like this day-after-day as I've aged has by itself been quite enough to cure me of the idealistic Social Democratic dream of my youth of expanding the reach of government in all directions so that the wisdom of our politicians can bring greater justice and welfare to all. And it's had the same effect on most of my friends and associates of my age too -- no formal economic training or explanations necessary.
But then I stumble upon a blog exchange between two trained economists, the first of whom is shocked and aghast at the contention of the second that government is "inherently" less efficient at providing services than the private sector. What, the first fellow doesn't read the newspapers?
(Well, he is a big advocate of putting another 10 points of GDP or so under the government's control via nationalizing health care, so just like Pataki and Spitzer, it's not really in his interest to openly consider a 40% fraud-and-waste figure for government run medical care -- which also seems to exist in his own home state of California.)
The whole exchange seems unfair -- an argument the second fellow can't win. If the first isn't impressed by the facts in the newspaper every day, how can he possibly be convinced by abstract economic theory? (Arguing the power of natural selection to true believers in Intelligent Design is hopeless, here as elsewhere.)
It all brings to mind that old saying we've all heard -- if you're not a socialist at age 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socialist after age 35 either you have no brain or you're a tenured academic.
Reading the local NYC newspapers for just the last couple days one discovers ...
"Two-thirds of New Yorkers are unhappy with their public schools. By a 66 - 21 percent margin, New York City voters are not satisfied with the quality of public schools", according new poll released Friday.
But, hey, how could the schools possibly be expected to be good enough to please? Real per student spending has increased only 45% over the last eight years, to $14,642 in 2005. [NYC IBO] And city public school teachers are paid just an average $44+ an hour (compared to the average $36 an hour earned by nuclear engineers in the US, and $33 earned by computer scientists).
The important thing is, do the politicians have a solution to the challenge of getting these schools finally up to par? Why sure they do -- spending a whole lot more money of course!
Meanwhile, our judges are named by the indicted, literally.
A Daily News editorial writer visited a back room full of judges waiting to be named to the bench by indicted political bosses, and found that the soon-to-be-robed wouldn't even give their names to the press. "Why so shy?" asks the News. Were they embarrassed by something?
Then there's the rampant corruption in the state's Medicaid programs.
When the city's broadsheet of record resorted to using the Freedom of Information Act to conduct its own review of Medicaid records -- due to the lack of any such review by the government -- it found "numerous indications of fraud and abuse that the state had never looked into"...
"It's like a honey pot," said John M. Meekins, a former senior Medicaid fraud prosecutor in Albany who said he grew increasingly disillusioned before he retired in 2003. "It truly is. That is what they use it for."...Well, when the New York Times speaks of things like that the local politicians feel the need to respond. This week the Post reported that response...
James Mehmet, who retired in 2001 as chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said he and his colleagues believed that at least 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while 20 or 30 percent more were siphoned off by what they termed abuse, meaning unnecessary spending that might not be criminal. "So we're talking about 40 percent of all claims are questionable," Mr. Mehmet said - an amount that would approach $18 billion a year.
[Governor] Pataki, a Republican, and [Attorney General] Spitzer, a Democrat, have specific statutory responsibility to police Medicaid. But they say they don't have the resources to go after it. That's bipartisan baloney...... in campaign mode as his boss runs for governor as a crusading prosecutor.
Pataki's deputy health commish, Dennis Whalen, griped that the Times' story "does a disservice to the vast majority of recipients and providers who are using this program appropriately."...
"We have prosecuted world-class white-collar cases and set national recovery records," Spitzer's deputy, Peter Pope, bragged...
Among those "world class cases" Spitzer has brought are, as we've mentioned before, his well-publicized prosecutions of the restaurant bathroom attendant industry, and of that hideous crime of the 1950s, radio payola. He has resources for those -- but not for his statutory duty of fighting Medicaid fraud.
Well, let's be honest, he wants to win an election and there are no votes in hassling anybody's Medicaid. Not for him or for Pataki either.
So, in just a couple days' casual perusal of the local papers we see school spending going up, up, up with no result but demand for more ... the judiciary being appointed by the indicted ... and a good 40% of Medicaid going to fraud and waste, with a governor and candidate for governor showing no interest at all in doing anything about it ...
Frankly, reading the local papers like this day-after-day as I've aged has by itself been quite enough to cure me of the idealistic Social Democratic dream of my youth of expanding the reach of government in all directions so that the wisdom of our politicians can bring greater justice and welfare to all. And it's had the same effect on most of my friends and associates of my age too -- no formal economic training or explanations necessary.
But then I stumble upon a blog exchange between two trained economists, the first of whom is shocked and aghast at the contention of the second that government is "inherently" less efficient at providing services than the private sector. What, the first fellow doesn't read the newspapers?
(Well, he is a big advocate of putting another 10 points of GDP or so under the government's control via nationalizing health care, so just like Pataki and Spitzer, it's not really in his interest to openly consider a 40% fraud-and-waste figure for government run medical care -- which also seems to exist in his own home state of California.)
The whole exchange seems unfair -- an argument the second fellow can't win. If the first isn't impressed by the facts in the newspaper every day, how can he possibly be convinced by abstract economic theory? (Arguing the power of natural selection to true believers in Intelligent Design is hopeless, here as elsewhere.)
It all brings to mind that old saying we've all heard -- if you're not a socialist at age 20 you have no heart, if you're still a socialist after age 35 either you have no brain or you're a tenured academic.
