The state's spending, along with its accounting practices, is screwy. Take this for example:
They include the proposal to save $3.3 million by ending Medicaid and state coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs, something the federal government stopped doing in 2005. It's unclear how many residents this would effect.How is it that they can claim that ending state coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs will save the state $3.3 million if they don't even know how many residents the policy would affect - if you don't know how many people are taking advantage of the drug policy, how can you divine a cost? It's almost as though the state is simply taking a Ouija board to come up with the figures, which makes sense since much of the state's spending priorities is little more than voodoo economics.
Among the biggest ticket items is a payroll tax hike that would mean an increase of about $80 per employee on the payroll per year. Small companies would find that their struggles are magnified as the state takes a bigger bite out of their dwindling revenues.
Further, there's absolutely no mention of cutting the bloated state workforce or eliminating programs that have failed to accomplish their goals since they were instituted. It's funny how that works.
No comments:
Post a Comment