Does Your State Government Cost You $16,000 Per Person?

Sat   22 Mar 2008   9:13 by Kevin McGehee 49° and fair in Coweta County, GA 4 comments [Alaska]

One of the things that always flabbergasted me about living in Alaska was the exorbitant per capita cost of state government. The state Senate is getting ready to consider a $10 billion state operating plan that’s arrived on the floor about a month earlier than last year. The proposal, introduced on Friday, uses about $4.2 billion in general funds, $4 billion in other state funds and $1.7 billion in federal funds. It spends about 11.5 percent more than last year from the state general fund but less on agency programs than Gov. Sarah Palin has proposed. Senate Finance Committee co-chairman Bert Stedman, R-Sitka, said lawmakers tried unsuccessfully to bring the rate of growth to less than 10 percent. “At this rate of change, in seven years the operating account is going to double to $8.4 billion. That is unaffordable and unsustainable,“ Stedman said. “We need to work collectively to bring that rate of change down even further.“ » Lawmakers move forward with $10 billion budget A state with about 600,000 people has a total state budget that is worthy of a Dr. Evil pinky kiss—and this is after they’ve been fighting to reduce it!

 

CGHill said: To answer the direct question: no. The FY 2009 Oklahoma Executive Budget calls for expenditures of $7,322,110,571.  Given a population of just under 3.6 million, we’re looking at per capita expenditures of a shade over $2,000. There are of course obvious differences, notably that if you start at any point in the state it’s a day’s drive or less to the Capitol.  (You can’t drive at all to the Alaska Capitol, I understand.) » Sat   22 Mar 2008   10:03 Old Grouch said: Another fun comparison:  Cost per square mile.  If I pushed the buttons right… Alaska (656,425) - $15,240 Oklahoma (69,903) - $104,750 Here are mine (Indiana): State expenditures[1], FY2007:  $12,359,000,000 Population:  6,080,500 (2000 census) Area:  36,420 mi2 $/person = $2033 $/sq mi = $339,350 [1] Which doesn’t include county/local government, or about half of the primary/secondary school costs, which fund locally. » Sat   22 Mar 2008   10:57 Kevin McGehee said: For purposes of comparison, it’s worth noting that many functions funded locally by counties in the Lower 48 are handled directly by the state in Alaska—however, there are municipal governments serving the overwhelming majority of people up there. Schools are funded locally (to the extent that schools are funded locally anywhere, these days) in areas with organized boroughs, which are Alaska’s county analog. Defenders of Alaska’s bloated budgets point to all of the factors that have been mentioned so far in this thread, and more—but they then argue that Alaskans should have to support this leviathan with direct taxes in addition to the various levies that fund state operations under current law. As long as they’re talking about a state that costs that much per capita, they’re going to meet stiff resistance from the electorate for direct taxes until costs have been cut further. Instead, as the linked article makes clear, the cost of state government is increasing out of all proportion to population growth. » Sat   22 Mar 2008   11:49 Kevin McGehee said: (You can’t drive at all to the Alaska Capitol, I understand.) Yes you can—Anchorage is on the road network. </old Alaska joke about the location of most state offices> » Sat   22 Mar 2008   14:17 You must be registered and logged in to comment.