Contact
The myth of bloated government
Carter Bundy
Last column I posted a very detailed and transparent account of the size of New Mexico state government in dollar terms, with the data showing conclusively that the state’s current FY ’11 budget is virtually identical to the FY ’03 budget, which was Gary Johnson’s last one.
There was no serious attempt to dispute the numbers in the column, from readers here, the state Republican Party, Susana’s campaign or anyone else.
That’s only the money side of the story. If you listen to the GOP and their leader, Susana Martinez, you’d think that not only is the budget bigger than under Gary, but that we have 5,000 more state employees than we had before the current administration.
Nope. In fact, the opposite is true. Larry Barker does a fine job finding handfuls of jobs that might not pull their weight, but that’s true in any administration. The big picture is that state government is leaner than it has been in decades in terms of staffing.
According to the State Personnel Office, at the end of Gary Johnson’s last budget, there were 22,612.38 FTEs working for the state. That doesn’t include K-12 or higher ed. Using the census data for the end of FY ’03, that’s 1.21 state employees per hundred New Mexicans.
The July 1, 2010 FTE count is 23,890. Conservative estimates are that with the (near total) hiring freeze, the state loses between 100 and 200 employees per month. Let’s be conservative and say 100 per month. By the end of FY ’11, that means 22,690 FTEs — and that’s a high estimate (again, if someone can defend different numbers, I’ll listen, but ask anyone in state government, and the shrinkage is real).
Using the above population estimates based off of the Census Bureau, that’s 1.10 employees per hundred New Mexicans — a 9.1 percent decrease in employees per capita from the Johnson administration. That’s using a pretty friendly assumption toward Johnson, Susana, and the Republican Party that we’re only losing a net 100 employees per month.
More conservative assumptions
Even if the state started going on a hiring spree and replaced every person retiring, dying, quitting, resigning, being fired, or moving, and we end up with the same number of FTEs on July 1, 2011 as we have now (never gonna happen), that would mean 1.16 employees per hundred New Mexicans — still a 4.1 percent decrease in employees per capita. And that’s using an absurdly favorable assumption toward Johnson that New Mexico will go on a massive hiring binge in the remaining eight months of FY ’11.
Playing with numbers
One of the GOP’s favorite arguments is that New Mexico has a relatively high number of public employees per private employees compared to other states. It’s true, but also irrelevant to whether government is “bloated” or “too big.” Using that one statistic as a proxy for government waste or for political philosophy doesn’t hold water.
In what is becoming an annual ritual, I have to point out the incredibly obvious statistical and analytical errors in the Rio Grande Foundation’s analysis.
The big drivers of the public employee to private employee ratio are concentration of population, private sector employment, and poverty. The Rio Grande Foundation has claimed that New Mexico is disproportionately heavy with public employees, using that one statistic of public to private workers.
New Mexico has the 2nd highest ratio. Does that mean anything? Well, it’s not hard to break out the list of states by political leanings of liberal and conservative. I used the 2008 presidential election as a proxy, because it is one of the few times when there were roughly the same number of states voting for each party, and where there was a clear ideological choice. Generally it’s fair to say that the more liberal states went for Obama and the more conservative states went for McCain.
I also chose a presidential election because it’s recent and is a better measure of liberal/conservative than using the party affiliation of some state races (for example, in recent years, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, California and Hawaii all had GOP governors, while Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, Oklahoma and North Carolina all had Dem governors).
Measuring how conservative and liberal each state’s combined legislature, governor, city councils, county commissions, school boards and university presidents/regents are is a lot less reliable an indicator of the conservative or liberal nature of a state than a clear ideological difference like we had in the ’08 presidential race. For example, Massachusetts wouldn’t and shouldn’t be considered a conservative state just because Mitt Romney – who signed a statewide version of health care reform almost identical to Obama’s – was governor recently.
It’s easy to look up, using RGF’s own table, the ranking of the states in terms of public to private employee ratio. Remember, the RGF is for all intents and purposes the Republican Party’s research and message think tank in New Mexico, so they have no reason to skew data against Republican states.
Of the 15 “worst” states with the highest public/private employee ratio, two voted Democratic (NM and WA) and 13 GOP. Of the 15 “best” states with the lowest public/private employee ratio, three voted Republican (FL, TN, and MO) and 12 voted Dem – including such liberal Democratic bastions in the top six like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Illinois.
Further, the 15 “worst” are overwhelmingly rural, and contain an oversize share of conservative, inter-mountain, plains, and southern states. In order, they are: Alaska, New Mexico, Wyoming, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kansas, North Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Montana, Idaho, Washington and Arkansas.
Reading with a critical eye
So is the RGF’s thesis now that Republicans, southerners, rural people, and mountain west folks are for big government, while New Englanders, Democrats, and city folks favor small government? Is the Rio Grande Foundation really saying that Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Illinois are great small government states, and that Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota are bloated big government states?
Of course not. What this does tell you is that the RGF is using a statistic that it knows full well is meaningless as a way to try to scapegoat public employees and this administration for a national recession. Guess what party controlled Congress and the White House for the strong majority of years leading up to our crash?
In addition to being meaningless on its face, the statistic is riddled with underlying problems. One is the assumption that if the private sector isn’t strong, that’s the fault of government employees. While government policy can indeed help with private sector numbers, there is nothing showing that there is any correlation between good private sector jobs and a government employee statistic.
Private companies locate to states for a variety of reasons: well-off consumers, well-educated and trained workforces, quality of life, existing businesses, government tax breaks, good schools for their kids, safe neighborhoods, transportation and other infrastucture, ease of access to national and world markets, etc. I don’t think many businesses relocate to a place (or start in a place) because there are a certain number of, say, firefighters in the state (if anything, good public safety and good teacher to student ratios are a plus).
The upshot is that the public/private ratio has nothing to do with whether government is bloated. If one looks at the states with “good” and “bad” public/private ratios, you conclude that there is nothing substantive that can be derived from that statistic. In fact, if there’s any correlative conclusion, it’s that states which invest in the public sector have an even more thriving private sector. It never hurts to read the data from ideological and nakedly partisan organizations like the Rio Grande Foundation with a critical eye. When you do, it’s easy to dispel the myth of bloated government.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in New Mexico. The opinions in his column are personal and do not necessarily reflect any official AFSCME position. You can learn more about him by clicking here. Contact him at carterbundy@yahoo.com.
10 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
@ Dr. J:
I agree. This is not the place to address Carter’s partisan premise of government size. To do so, would require getting into the cost components of size, such as future unfunded pension liability exposure, the ROI on public-union employees performing a service vs. private-sector outsource effectiveness. Regarding Carter’s accusation of the RGF being “the Republican Party’s research and message think tank in NM” – look no further than the Op-Ed in today’s Journal by Paul Gessing, president of the RGF, praising Richardson for his tax cuts to dispute Carter’s statement. When was the last time Carter praised a Republican for anything? Another component other than ROI on services delivered, is collective bargaining in the public-sector vs. the private-sector. Dr. J, you may find this report interesting by former AG Hal Stratton on why there is no such thing as collective bargaining in the public-sector.
Some good points Mr. Molitor. But the size of government, in absolute or relative terms, or the growth therein, is not the most relevant factor. The bottom line is how well does the government fulfill its’ roles and responsibilities relative to what the citizens can afford to pay. In that regard NM government is woefully inept, unprofessional, and lacking in so many areas there is not enough room here to list them. So any arguments about whether or not government has grown, relative to any factors, is immaterial and a distraction from solving the problems we face.
The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is the second-largest labor union in the U.S. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AFSCME is the United States’ largest single contributor to political campaigns, contributing almost exclusively to Democratic Party campaigns; since 1990 the ratio of Democratic to Republican contributions by the AFSCME has exceeded 98:1.
Carter, following your own line from above, for all intents and purposes you work for the “drink tank” in New Mexico (as in political contributions swallowed) for the Democratic Party. Clearly, you have no standing in discrediting any organization on the grounds of partisanship. 98:1, Carter!
That aside, my point below was about non-partisan statism. Growing state government under either political party is not a sustainable model for America.
Perhaps, when people express their belief that government is bloated;
what they are expressing is their feeling about the weight of the government
on their shoulders; if if were half as large, it would still be too big.
Mr. Bundy, after the hundreds of thousands of $$ your employer has poured into the Democratic Party in NM the last few months (to elect politicians who will do your bidding when elected), can you expect anyone to view your data and pronouncements that government is just fine as it is in NM (in spite of the sorry state of our state and the heavy welfare-government entitlement culture almost devoid of a healthy private, free enterprise segment) with anything other than a jaundiced eye? I have no horse in this race, but I am intelligent enough to know that NM is NOT in good shape, is not using tax money wisely as the resuts are so poor. So why should we elect those you pay off to continue doing the same things that have been done the last 8 years? That is the point of your “article”, isn’t it? You aren’t just informing the ignorant populace of interesting “facts” that have a neutral political implication. You have an agenda to promote. But honestly, do you logically think all of us in NM, not just your union members, would be better off with another 8 years of the Democratic Party status quo and La Politica machine? That is where your motives overcome logic.
Thanks, Stever, I appreciate the explanation. I do hope you’ll look at the numbers and decide for yourself.
I’m a little disappointed in Mr. Molitor for the ad hominem attacks, but that’s a good sign that he can’t dispute the data. I have no doubt that Mr. Molitor and I have different views of things like K-12 education, public universities, health care for poor kids, interstate highways, clean water, waste removal (solid and water), corrections, other law enforcement, and the judiciary (I’ve just described the vast majority of what constitutes our state and local taxes). He’s more than entitled to scoff at those services. I wish he would provide substance rather than the personal shots that have become a staple of his work, both for my sake and his. Kind of shows his confidence (or lack thereof) in his ability to argue the actual facts.
And, Mr. Molitor, just to clarify, I don’t think that the only people in America who add value are owners and executives of companies who sign checks. Many of us work hard and contribute something of value (at least in someone’s eyes) to collect our paycheck, and frankly it’s more than a bit condescending to imply that only those who sign paychecks are worthy of commenting on public policy. Further, for what it’s worth, I’ve never worked for the public sector or taken a dime of taxpayer money for any work I’ve done. I’d rather stay on substance, but if you’re going to make a series of false or ill-informed allegations, I may as well clarify while I’m here.
@ stever: you are absolutely right.
Bundy loves to blind us all with his numbingly partisan statistics
The fact is, he makes his living with his union snout down in the public trough.
There is no left/right paradigm.
The left argues for regulatory democracy.
The right argues for for military democracy.
Each side’s perspectives include a maximum of statism.
One side emphasizes the legislative function, and the other side emphasizes the Pentagon.
The leftist and the rightists are equally state-oriented. Only classical Jeffersonism stands on the other side, arguing for less state involvement both legislatively and militarily.
I bet Bundy has never signed the front of a paycheck in his life as a public-sector employee.
Carter to be clear I am not questioning your integrity and I apologize if I gave that impression. I don’t write for a living and am prone to a lack of clarity in addition to bad grammer and spelling.
Not just me, but several others also had the same problem getting the published numbers make the transition based on the rationale you used. In any case the impression many people have, not created by me obviously, is that state government has grown too much. I would acknowlege the truth is probably between two political extremes. I just want to post disagreement, you are good at stating your point of view and my willingness to engage is in part due to knowing you read and respond to comments.
Cheers
Stever, with all due respect, I don’t think I could have been more transparent about my numbers. Can you explain what part of inflation and population growth you didn’t follow? You simply assume that there’s been massive growth, but the data show the opposite. And the RGF has badly misinterpreted data, and I think I made a pretty clear case for that.
Respectfully, rather than just questioning my integrity, which is your right to do but doesn’t really add to the substance of the conversation, it might advance the discussion more if you could specifically point to flaws in my methodology or numbers. Instead, I fear it is you who have drawn your conclusion (“the massive growth in state expenditures”) from political sloganeering rather than looking at the real numbers. There’s been real contraction in state (and local) government over the last few years, and just because you haven’t seen it or ideologically are hoping to make the opposite case doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The problem Carter is you work from the answer you want backwards into the data. When most people look at the data first, they come up with a different answer.
The last time we went through this, no matter how many ways you tried, I could never figure out how the massive growth in state expenditures in the last 8-10 years could only be explained by population growth and inflation.
Same story second verse.