home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: ne.politics
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!mv!world!lmh
- From: lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund)
- Subject: Re: Butt-Fucked in Massachussetts
- Message-ID: <By2xF2.714@world.std.com>
- Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
- References: <BxzHz8.HMq@world.std.com> <By1HqJ.EMt@world.std.com> <1992Nov21.170349.26652@siia.mv.com>
- Distribution: ne
- Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 18:45:01 GMT
- Lines: 36
-
- In article <1992Nov21.170349.26652@siia.mv.com> drd@siia.mv.com (David Dick) writes:
- >In <By1HqJ.EMt@world.std.com> lmh@world.std.com (Larry M Headlund) writes:
- >
- >
- >> Assuming you are refering to income transfer payments, the ratio
- >>of direct benefits to administration is more like 4 to 1. And if you reduce
- >>administration costs then you are also eliminating the oversite that
- >>catches cheats.
- >
- >*reducing* administration costs does not necessarily mean
- >*eliminating* the oversite that catches cheats.
- >
- >A better way to put it would be to say that some of the administrative
- >cost is necessary to catch cheating, in order to avoid either
- >higher total costs, or less of the funds going to the intended recipients.
- >
- I stand corrected, I phrased too strongly my point that
- administration costs != waste.
-
- By the way, I have seen both in this group and in the media
- statements to the effect that the anticipated $ 900 million deficit will
- be caused by the 13 % raise. Let us do the numbers:
-
- Number of employees subject to raise: < 70,000
-
- 900,000,000 /70,000 * 1.00/.13 ~ 99, 000 base pay
-
- The average base pay of state employees is 99K? Who is kidding who?
-
- What we are missing this year is the half billion windfall from the Feds
- the state got in 1991. Said windfall discovered by one of those evil
- state employees.
-
-
- --
- Larry Headlund lmh@world.std.com Eikonal Systems (617) 482-3345
-