Barrel Room

My goals going into this were:

1.) To make sure the new district elects a Democrat.
2.) To shore up the three Central/Southern Georgia Democrats (especially Marshall and Barrow), not only for the incumbents but also Democrats in general if and when those seats come open.
3.) To create or expand our bench in our districts.
4.) To fuck with Phil Gingrey and John Linder to the best of my ability.
5.) To try my best not create an ode to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. 

To that end, I think I accomplished these goals.  My maps:

Atlanta Metro Area

1st District (Jack Kingston [R]) BLUE
New Demographics: 71.3% white | 20.8% black | .3% Native American | 1.1% Asian | 5.4% Hispanic | .1% other
Old Demographics: 72.8% white | 21.2% black | .2% Native American | .9% Asian | 3.9% Hispanic | 1% other
Old District: 72.6% white | 22.7% black | .3% Native American | .9% Asian | 4.1% Hispanic | .2% other
I used this as a dumping ground for Republican votes from the 8th and 12th districts while trying to remove Democratic areas for use in those districts.  Kingston gains several Republican counties to the north from the 12th, including much of Effingham County exchange for heavily Democratic Liberty County, some black(er) areas in McIntosh County as well as connectors in Chatham County.  He also picks up much of heavily Republican Laurens County as well as other parts from the 8th.  Surprisingly, the district gets a bit more diverse (and even more surprisingly, from Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans), but don't hold your breath; it's a very small increase.  Kingston will win in a cakewalk; our bench in the district is non-existent, at least at the state legislature-level.

2nd District (Sanford Bishop [D]) GREEN
New Demographics: 48.4% white | 45.2% black | .3% Native American | .8% Asian | 4.3% Hispanic | 1% other
Old Demographics: 49.7% white | 45.1% black | .3% Native American | .6% Asian | 3.3% Hispanic | .9% other
Old District: 51.4% white | 44.8% black | .3% Native American | .6% Asian | 3.5% Hispanic | .1% other
With some minor scandal involving Bishop and rumors of an adminstration post, I felt the need to shore up his district a bit, considering Bush won it in 2004.  Population loss/stagnation and losses of area to the 8th necessitated moving the district northward, taking up more of Columbus, as well as extending up to take on the swingy Meriwether County plus the heavily black parts of Troup County in and around LaGrange.  Essentially, I added state Rep. Carl von Epps' district.  This also helped offset the addition of very Republican Colquitt County.  The district goes from majority white to plurality white and is trending even more minority.  Bishop should have no trouble and his successor should be in a relatively good position. 

3rd District (Lynn Westmoreland [R]) PLUM
New Demographics: 71.3% white | 20.8% black | .3% Native American | 1.1% Asian | 5.4% Hispanic | .1% other
Old Demographics: 79% white | 16.6% black | .3% Native American | 1.1% Asian | 2% Hispanic | 1% other
Old District: 72.6% white | 22.7% black | .3% Native American | .9% Asian | 4.1% Hispanic | .2% other
The 3rd loses more of Muscogee County /Columbus to the 2nd and some of its Metro Atlanta area but now goes to the Macon area, making it more of a Central Georgia district.  Other than the peninsulas from the 2nd district, it's actually more compact than before. This area has diversified at a pretty good clip, but even running 80 MPH takes a long time when you're driving from New York to Los Angeles.  Plus, it's still demographically very similar to Westmoreland's old district.  Looks like we would have to deal with his "uppity" ass for a while.

4th District (Hank Johnson [D]) RED
New Demographics: 29.9% white | 53.4% black | .2% Native American | 4.3% Asian | 10.8% Hispanic | 1.2% other
Old Demographics: 31.3% white | 54.3% black | .2% Native American | 4.1% Asian | 8.1% Hispanic | 2% other
Old District: 35.8% white | 53.5% black | .4% Native American | 4.3% Asian | 8.5% Hispanic | 0% other
I undid the horrendous four-way cracking of DeKalb, replacing it with a two-way split.  The fourth occupies the overwhelming majority of DeKalb, having been moved completely out of Gwinnett and Rockdale Counties and absorbing DeKalb areas from the 5th, 6th, and 13th.  Even though North DeKalb is pretty white, the additions from Central and South DeKalb more than make up for it.  The district gets a little less black but even more minority than before.  Hank Johnson will win easily.

5th District (John Lewis [D]) YELLOW
New Demographics: 29.9% white | 57.9% black | .2% Native American | 2.8% Asian | 8.2% Hispanic | 1% other
Old Demographics: 31.2% | 59.6% black | .2% Native American | 2% Asian | 5.7% Hispanic | 1.3% other
Old District: 37% white | 56.1% black | .2% Native American | 2.2% Asian | 6.1% Hispanic | 0% other
Pretty similar to its current form, especially in Clayton and Fulton Counties.  It's still an Atlanta plus some inner-ring suburbs districts, taking in slighly less of Forest Park and South Fulton but a bit more of unincorporated Clayton and a bit more of Sandy Springs.  The big difference is it being reducing to about 45% of it's DeKalb area, including its portion of Decatur, and is basically left with the DeKalb portion of Atlanta plus some areas northeast of this area.  John Lewis has nothing to worry about.

6th District (Tom Price [R] vs. Phil Gingrey [R]) TEAL
New Demographics: 75.3% white | 9% black | .3% Native American | 6.3% Asian | 7.7% Hispanic | 1.5% other
Old Demographics: 80.6% white | 7.9% black | .2% Native American | 4.3% Asian | 5.1% Hispanic | 1.8% other
Old District: 85.6% white | 7% black | .2% Native American | 4% Asian | 4.5% Hispanic | .1% other
This is one of my "fuck with the Republicans" districts.  Like before, the district includes white, affluent, Republican North Fulton County (including Tom Price's home) and East Cobb (likewise white, affluent, and Republican).  However, instead of going east to take up North DeKalb County and north to pick up Cherokee County, it goes west to take up the northern half of Cobb County.  In the general election, this doesn't mean anything; it's still a heavily white, Republican district in which we have no bench (although there is some diversification and it now includes a major state university).  However, the district now includes Phil Gingrey's home between Kennesaw and Marietta!

7th District (John Linder [R] vs. ?) GRAY
New Demographics: 68.1% white | 10.8% black | .3% Native American | 6.1% Asian | 13.5% Hispanic | 1.2% other
Old Demographics: 79% white | 6.8% black | .2% Native American | 3.9% Asian | 8.7% Hispanic | 1.3% other
Old District: 85.2% white | 7.1% black | .3% Native American | 3.8% Asian | 5.4% Hispanic | .1% other
Same thing with as with the 6th.  Linder loses more of the diverse areas of Gwinnett County to the 14th, as well as the Newton, Walton, and Barrow County portions.  In return, he gains almost all of Forsyth County and the Southern half of Hall County.  Depending on who wins the Republican primary in the current 9th district, this may set up a primary in this new 7th.  Regardless, this will be a Republican seat for the foreseeable future.  However, it's rapidly diversifying with every minority group taking up a larger share than before.  I think Linder's days are numbered.  It may be a fairly big number, but numbered all the same.

8th District (Jim Marshall [D]) PERIWINKLE
New Demographics: 54.2% white | 40% black | .2% Native American | 1.1% Asian | 3.6% Hispanic | 1% other
Old Demographics: 55.6% white | 39.8% black | .2% Native American | .8% Asian | 2.6% Hispanic | 1% other
Old District: 64% white | 32.6% black | .2% Native American | .8% Asian | 2.8% Hispanic | 1.4% other
Basically, I shifted the district southward and worked to make sure it was more favorable on a presidential level in anticipation of Marshall's eventual departure for higher office.  So, this meant I had to cut almost all of Laurens County out of the district.  Marshall won it big, but Obama lost it big, and Marshall performed less strikingly there in the past.  I regrettably had to remove Dem-trending Newton County from the district, but the benefit from having it in the district was outweighed by the cost of having four heavily Republican counties in the district to connect Newton to the rest of the district, especially considering Marshall only barely won Newton and lost it in 2006.  While I was at it, I also cut out the whiter parts of Bibb County.  I also removed the troublesome Colquitt County, home of Saxby Chambliss and added a few blue and purple counties along the boomerang.  I also shifted down to add Valdosta, thus increasing our bench as all four members of the state legislature from this area are Democrats.  I would have liked to have removed the more Republican parts of Houston County, but I don't know where I'd make up the lost population, but, overall, I think I made Marshall's life much easier, as the district has gotten significantly more diverse and more Democratic. Maybe he can suck less.

9th District (?) CYAN
New Demographics: 85.2% white | 3% black | .3% Native American | .8% Asian | 10% Hispanic | .8% other
Old Demographics: 89.9% white | 2.6% black | .3% Native American | .6% Asian | 6.6% Hispanic | .9% other
Old District: 82.5% white | 13.7% black | .3% Native American | 1.2% Asian | 2.6% Hispanic | .1% other
I made this district more rectangular, removing the parts that dip into the Metro Atlanta area (for the past part), giving it Chattooga and the rest of Gordon Counties, and stretching it all the way to the South Carolina border.  So, now it borders four different states.  I don't know who it will be, but this district will elect a Republican.  We have no bench whatsoever, and this would be the whitest district in Georgia.  Not only is it the whitest district, but, despite some diversification, it's also the least diverse; the majority black districts are more diverse. 

10th District (Paul Broun [R]) HOT PINK
New Demographics: 77% white | 16.3% black | .2% Native American | 1.7% Asian | 3.7% Hispanic | 1.1% other
Old Demographics: 79.9% white | 15.4% black | .2% Native American | 1.3% Asian | 2% Hispanic | 1.1% other
Old District: 89.7% white | 3.4% black | .3% Native American | .7% Asian | 9.2% Hispanic | .3% other
Other than having the tentacle from the 12th come in, the new 10th actually has a pretty regular, compact shape compared to its predecessor.  It still has a lot of its area along the South Carolina border, including the white, Republican suburbs of Augusta, but now includes parts of the Atlanta and Macon exurbs.  It's actually ten points less white than before, but means it's now only 77% white.  In other words, don't expect Broun to go anywhere, unless he gets primaried, which may happen now that a lot of his Athens primary base is gone.

11th District (New Seat) [This would be my district, by the way] NEON GREEN
New Demographics: 79.5% white | 11% black | .3% Native American | 1.3% Asian | 6.8% Hispanic | 1.2% other
Old Demographics: 86.1% white | 7.8% black | .2% Native American | .9% Asian | 3.9% Hispanic | 1.1% other
Old District: 64.8% white | 28.5% black | .3% Native American | 1.3% Asian | 7.2% Hispanic | .1% other
The new 11th looks a lot like the old 11th but becomes more exurban and suburban.  It sheds Chattooga County and its portions of Cobb and Gordon Counties for East Douglas County , a sliver of Forsyth County, and Cherokee County.  I fear I may be switching one wingnut for another in redistricting Gingrey out of his district.  We only have one state legislator in the district and he would be an idiot to try for it.  This is a demographically unfriendly district, although there may be some solace to tke from its diversification.  Still, there's a long way to go before this one's demographics are promising.

12th District (John Barrow [D]) POWDER BLUE
New Demographics: 47.4% white | 45.8% black | .2% Native American | 1.6% Asian | 4.2% Hispanic | 1.2% other
Old Demographics: 47.5% white | 44.3% black | .2% Native American | 1.4% Asian | 3.2% Hispanic | 1.3% other
Old District: 50.8% white | 44.5% black | .2% Native American | .8% Asian | 2.7% Hispanic | .1% other
I removed all or parts of some troublesome majority white, Republican counties (Bulloch, Candler, Effingham, Emmanuel, Mongtomgery, Tattnall, Treutlen, and Toombs) leaving only the areas that were more minority and/or necessary to maintain contiguousness.  In their place, I added heavily Democratic Liberty County by wrapping the district around the coastal areas of Chatham County and using water continguousness.  On the northside, I added some more of Augusta, the blacker parts of Green, and readded Clark County,  The district gets a little blacker and a lot of the old, rural white voters are replace with white voters in a college county more apt to not only vote Democratic but to vote for a black Democrat if and when Barrow gets primaried by a black Democrat.  In becoming more Democratic, I was able to free up some smaller counties along the boomerang for Jim Marshall.

13th District (David Scott [D]) SALMON
New Demographics: 36% white | 46.6% black | .3% Native American | 3% Asian | 12.6% Hispanic | 1.6% other
Old Demographics: 47.1% white | 39.6% black | .3% Native American | 2.4% Asian | 8.6% Hispanic | 2% other
Old District: 47% white | 44.1% black | .3% Native American | 5.1% Asian | 10.1% Hispanic | .1% other
The 13th stays the same mostly.  I removed some of Northeast Clayton County and added more of Central Cobb.  I also added some of the relatively more minority areas of North Fayette.  Overall, Scott's district, once plurality white, is now plurality black.  He'll do fine.

14th District (New District) OLIVE

New Demographics: 36.1% white | 36.4% black | .2% Native American | 7.7% Asian | 18.1% Hispanic | 1.5% other
Old Demographics: 54.7% white | 24.4% black | .2% Native American | 6.4% Asian | 12.3% Hispanic | 1.9% other
Last and certainly not least is the new 14th district.  This district wraps around the southeastern quadrant of the middle ring suburbs, taking in the blue and blueing areas, including Morrow, Stockbridge, McDonough, Conyers, Covington, Norcross, Lilburn, and Lawrenceville.  It would be by far Georgia's most diverse district, having the highest numbers of Asians and Hispanics, the second-highest number of "others," is plurality black, and still has a respectable white population.  As you can see from the demographic trends, this one is getting even more diverse really quick.  This diversity is reflected in the state legislators whose districts are entirely or partially within the district which includes whites, blacks, and Hispanics.  If it doesn't elect a Democrat, then the Democratic Party has fucked up.

It's also interesting to look at the districts with the old numbers and see which areas are growing and which areas are stagnant or losing populations by seeing how under or over populated they are compared to the 2000-14 district average.  Judging from the numbers, the Southern and Central Georgia are rapidly atrophying.  The 2nd would have had 90,888 extra people!  The 1st would have 40,693, the 8th 55,570, and the 12th 67,639.  The third is pretty much stagnant, having just 2,366 extra people.  If this keeps up, I think we may be looking at the elimination of a district in Middle and South Georgia, and I think it would be a Democrat (my guess would be Marshall's district because of its centrality.

So, where are the people going?  To Metro Atlanta.  The 10th is 15,007 below average, much/most of which I suspect to be from the Metro portions of the district. The 5th is 22,014 under the average.  The 13th 26,921 under.  The 11th and 7th are under by over 60,000, 63,039 and 62,317, respectively.  The 14th is a whopping 120,767 under average.  Only the 4th and 6th are above average, to the tune of 36,782 and 11,235, respectively. 

 This commentary was written by Sarah Beth Gehl, deputy directory of the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, and has been taken from its original posting at GBPI's commentary site ...

In the coming days, the Georgia House of Representatives will debate and vote on whether to phase-out the state corporate income tax and create several temporary tax breaks for businesses. They will simultaneously work on passing a budget that provides fewer immunizations for infants and makes cuts to QuickStart, Georgia’s customized training program for economic development. These are just a few of the many cuts to vital services prompted by the precariously steep decline in state tax dollars.

 

 One legislator recently commented that Georgia can be a beacon for other states in this economic downturn by choosing business tax cuts over investment. Apparently, we are trying to be a beacon of irony.

 In the face of a historic budget deficit of $3.1 billion and with full knowledge of cuts to valuable services, certain legislators are contemplating tax breaks for businesses ranging from tens of millions of dollars in the short term to almost $1 billion in the long term, annually.

 Numerous states across the country are taking the opposite approach. They are delaying business tax breaks, halting the phase-out of certain taxes, and considering new revenues to balance the deepening budget cuts.

 Faced with an economy no one imagined a few years ago, Kansas’s governor, for example, proposed halting the phase-out of the estate and corporate franchise tax. Opposition from special interest groups in Kansas prompted the recent headline: “Business lobbyists seek deeper cuts to education, want to kill plan to stop phase-out of estate tax.”

 The headline points to the real choices here — tax breaks or services. States have the difficult task of balancing budgets, even during severe economic downturns. If lawmakers provide new tax breaks, they must cut a similar amount from our public services in order to balance the budget. For example, Georgia can either focus $10 million on businesses via the proposed fee exemption or pay for health coverage for 6,500 children through PeachCare. Georgia cannot spend that $10 million twice, as some legislators claim.

 Offering no research, study, or analysis, proponents of these tax breaks argue that the taxes will increase state revenue because they spur economic activity. We are supposed to believe this supposition, yet numerous reliable analyses refute it.

 For instance, California studied the same scenario and found that a $1 billion corporate tax cut would stimulate less than 1/10th of 1 percent employment growth after five years, with all of the new jobs being filled by workers moving in from other states. California would stand to lose $816 million in revenues, meaning no new jobs for current residents and fewer dollars for public services.

 Another argument by proponents is that eliminating the corporate tax finally stops the incentives game, where we chip away at the corporate income tax through job tax credits and other incentives. These proponents obviously have missed another key tax proposal: corporations would be permitted to take current Georgia income tax credits against payroll withholding.

 Thus, in addition to losing revenues from the corporate income tax, Georgia would also lose revenues from the personal income tax. Credible evidence in favor of the cuts and credits would have to demonstrate that revenue would be sufficient to replace both.

 Another point of irony lies in the fact that although “economic stimulus” and “stopping the incentives game” are false arguments, there are some valid arguments for doing away with the state corporate income tax, chief among them being that businesses regularly “tax plan” their way out of paying it. Numerous tax experts argue that the tax has become irrelevant because businesses find too many loopholes. Corporate income tax is the Swiss-cheese of taxes. What tax experts also confirm, however, is that eliminating the corporate income tax translates into less revenue for Georgia.

 If Georgia lawmakers perform a thorough study and find that the corporate income tax, or any other tax for that matter, is structurally unsound and beyond repair, then by all means, do away with it. But there must be companion tax increases to offset the revenue loss in an already low tax state that regularly performs at the bottom of most performance indices and is in the midst of severe austerity cuts. Otherwise, Georgia’s headline should read — “Georgia’s legislative leadership seeks deeper cuts to education…and healthcare, public safety, and services for the general public … prefers business tax breaks instead.”

Today, House Democrats introduced a new bill designed to begin the process of reforming Georgia's outdated tax code. I am honored to be the principal sponsor of HB 356, and wanted to start the conversation here by telling you what HB 356 does, and how it affects state government, local government, and taxpayers.

Most importantly, HB 356 is a revenue bill.  It brings in over $1 billion in new money to the state budget, and it does so without raising taxes one dime.  Right now, when you buy something and pay sales tax on it, far too often the sales tax you pay doesn't make it to the state's bank account.  In fact, the Department of Revenue estimates that we leave about $1.6 billion a year on the table in uncollected taxes.  Some of that money is income tax, but most of it is sales taxes that were collected at the point of sale, but not remitted to the state and local government.

Our bill changes that.  It puts the power to collect sales taxes in the hands of local government, and ends the state government's monopoly on collection.  Under our plan, local governments can contract collections out to private sector firms, lowering costs and improving efficiency.  Most importantly, it also brings in much of that revenue that has been left on the table and pumps over $1 billion into the state budget, at a time when we desperately need revenue to avoid crippling cuts to services like education, health care, and law enforcement, to name a few.

Our bill also scales back state government.  While localities will still have the option to use the Department of Revenue to collect sales taxes, they can also use other methods, including partnering with the private sector.  As a result, Department of Revenue can re-assign auditors to other critical functions, like catching income tax cheats.

Finally, HB 356 empowers local governments.  Democrats believe that the best government is the one that is closest to the people it serves.  Over the last few years, we've seen numerous attempts to vilify local government, and strip localities of power.  This bill gives local governments some of that power back.

HB 356 isn't a silver bullet, and it isn't going to solve all of our state's budget problems.  To do that, we need a new approach to budgeting and taxation.  But, our bill is a large part of that new Democratic approach.  HB 356 is the first step on the long road to reforming Georgia's tax code from top to bottom, to make it more fair and up to date with the 21st century economy.

You can read the bill here, and I hope you'll call your Senator and Representative and ask them to support HB 356.  It's the right step for Georgia – a fiscally responsible plan that puts money back into taxpayers pockets and into state and local governments' bank accounts.

Rep. Virgil Fludd (D-Tyrone) has served in the Georgia House since 2003.  He is the Chair of the Economic Development Policy Committee for the House Democratic Caucus.

There has existed an older generation of politicians and politics who have stunted the growth and progress of our great republic – politicians who just get by, their success buoyed by ideas as opposed to solutions, yielding little or no real results and rejecting any real accountability. While throwing stones at those who don’t concur with your political ideology or push your political agenda certainly riles up one’s base of supporters, it exiles others who may not agree with one’s political arc, augmenting their cynicism towards the political process.

The tapestry of our government has been pocked and rotted, in part, by “politicians” playing to their bases at the exclusion of others, effectively disengaging them from the political process. The 2008 election was a rejection of the politics of division and a resounding declaration that speaks to the best of who we are rather than playing to our worst. Barack Obama represents the beginning of the end of the politics of old.

 

The election and inauguration of President Barack Obama ushers an advent of a style of politics that finds common ground in both political parties – one that tries to figure out how policy can best benefit people and not politics. The conventional brand of “business as usual” government that has permeated our democracy for far too long is finally being deconstructed and replaced with a new establishment – one of inclusion and transparency. In a sense, Obama has “shaken up the plantation,” dismantling the structure that’s been put in place to isolate power and access to the few at the expense of the many, ensuring that every one stays in his or her “place”. Obama has helped us see that no one entity has a monopoly on the best ideas, using a new paradigm of government to create a new way of doing things. The dysfunction of the status quo, taking public education as an example, condones inequity and sponsors disenfranchisement. Obama’s vision challenges us all to be more thoughtful about how we craft public policy – it challenges us to defy the status quo that for too long has crippled our nation’s improvement.

The primary reason I ran for office was my commitment to empower people and get involved in the political process. Obama has thrust open that door of access, helping to create more seats at the table for anybody, ANYBODY, who wants to be involved in making the change they wish to see in our governmental system. Now is the time for us to celebrate this shift in our democracy where people feel a part of their own government again. The lessons of President Obama’s individual and collective triumphs are momentous– lessons that all public servants and all Americans alike need to learn in order to champion a “more perfect union.”

No man could orchestrate this moment in history that wakes up the sleeping giant in each of us for change, for openness and transparency, for inclusion and a pride that we longed to feel for our country. It is not he who is divine but this moment in time. President Obama is an inspiration, but not just because he’s attained the highest office in the land. This victory for our country spurs us all to take pride in our country again and moves us to believe that change and everything we put our minds to is possible. Obama inspires us all to believe in our own dreams again; the dreams we have for this country and the dreams we have for our individual lives. Obama inspires us to believe – that a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people can work for the betterment of all people. The politics of old simply aren’t going to work anymore. And I say, “Good Riddance.” I say hello to a new way of thinking, a new way of doing things, a new normal, a new chapter in our nation’s rich history. I say hello to a new America and a new day.
 

Yesterday, the special interest group "Center for an Educated Georgia" released a report titled "Return on Investment? Public Education in Georgia".  For a quick hit on why we should be immediately skeptical, take a look at Jmac's post yesterday.  I wanted a little time to read to it, and to digest the report and the conclusions it draws.  This is by no means an exhaustive critique, but I did want to offer some cursory views of the work.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it

-- Upton Sinclair

 First, I think it's fair to call out the sponsor’s motivation.  CEG is a special interest group that is pushing for a comprehensive private school voucher program in Georgia.  Any comprehensive program will not be funded by incremental or new spending in the state budget.  Rather, a proto-typical program envisioned by groups like CEG generally use existing education dollars, funneled in the form of a direct subsidy or "voucher", for families who wish to enroll students in a private school.

 

An academic report that argues increased per-pupil spending doesn't help attain higher rates of graduation - as this report does - would necessarily help them in future conversations about the impact of reducing the budget of public education.  Put simply, if increases in spending don't improve attainment, why increase spending?  This is the unwritten assumption of the report, and dovetails nicely with diverting education spending to a voucher program.

While Scafidi is obviously a very intelligent and seasoned expert on the issue, the fact that he is the director of CED, and he swims in the privatization ecosystem (e.g. Fellow with the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice), it's not surprising that his body of work would have a lean that creates opportunity for his cause.  That makes it easier to understand that the conclusions and the statistical data he has used, or perhaps more importantly, that Scafidi hasn't used, tells a story that looks convincing but is not as compelling as he would have you understand.

So, I don't really have the time to do a point by point review, but I do want to look at 2 of the major areas Scafidi addresses in the report.

Per Pupil Spending

I'm not going to try and challenge the factual assertion that we've increased per-pupil spending over the last couple of decades.  As Scafidi acknowledges in the report, the reforms undertaken by Governor Joe Frank Harris to standardize per-pupil spending (see: QBE), and a notable higher trajectory in things that drive cost (see: higher teacher pay) are hardly in dispute.  Those goals have been the stated policy direction of Georgia for years now.

The problem with using inflation adjusted per-pupil charts - as the sole baseline for comparative analysis - is that it leaves other dynamics that drive our spending decisions left unmentioned.  It's a misleading metric for analysis by itself.  For example, technology cost has grown and is now a major cost component of education.  The adoption of increased interactive learning tools like pc's in the classroom or interactive whiteboards have ushered in a higher embedded per-pupil cost.  It would certainly be cheaper to abandon these tools in the classroom, but even Scafidi is not arguing that those investments be rolled back.  Just because an abacus and a chalkboard are cheaper doesn't mean we should bring them back.

So clearly, we are spending more per-pupil, but Scafidi spends little time connecting the dots as to what increase in spending is creating a declining attainment rate.  He just throws out rising cost and declining graduation without informing or drawing any causality or linkage between the measurements.  So what good is that, really, in define the problem associated with declining graduation rates?

So in the alternative, perhaps it’s useful to take a look at least one other way of trending our total education spending.  Scafidi on a number of occasions refers to the 2007 Digest of Education Statistics, and I find it interesting that he left this exhibit out of his analysis.

 

Over the last several decades, our investment in public education has changed little relative to our national income (if you accept that gross domestic product is a general proxy for the measure).  As our economy has grown so has our investment in public education.  There is nothing alarming or out of proportion when we view our increased investment in public education against our increasing national means.  To the contrary, and on an aggregated national basis, one could look at the near stagnant rate of public investment against GDP and create an opposite question.  If educational attainment is such a high national priority, why have we not increased our investment as a percentage of the national economic output?  After all, GDP measures will be impacted by a well educated workforce (of lack there of).  How is this not a useful indicator of our spending patterns?

In a nutshell, sure, we have increased spending.  So what?  That fact alone is not surprising. Other comparative views from the same materials cited by Scafidi shows the increase as non-material when applied in a different context.

Educational Attainment

In his report, Scafidi makes a pretty outrageous claim that:

Thus, today’s young adults are the first American generation to have a lower educational attainment than their parents.

This is most definitely not as conclusive – or perhaps even notionally accurate – if data sourced by his own report is shown in a full light.  Again from the 2007 Digest of Education Statistics.

That represents persons over the age of 25 - charted by highest level of attainment.  It shows rising attainment over precisely the time period of increased spending.  That is funny, but probably not causal (I’m not going to draw conclusions not supported by the evidence like this author did).  But if anything, I think it shows what kind of hyperbole, unsupported by the evidence, Scafidi is willing to use to push his position.  Undoubtedly we have a drop-out rate much higher than is wanted, but the data suggests that over time our rates of attainment among adults are higher now than they have ever been.

Which gets back to my original point; this report uses a of a couple pieces of information and has then drawn conclusions without taking into account a myriad of other inputs that might lend itself to a different result.  Scafidi has used pieces of data that fit his presumptions, and he has ignored others that don’t help him.  Scafidi also uses other state averages to compare against Georgia specific rates, but as Jmac clearly pointed out, has ignored where other states have excelled with a much higher per pupil spending rate.

Lastly, in a “conclusion” that made me laugh out loud when I read it, Scafidi had this to say:

…it does not seem plausible that an additional massive increase in spending per student would lead to greater student achievement

Exactly who is advocating for a “massive” increase in spending?  So far as I can tell, what Democrats have argued over the last 6 years is that we should fully fund a statutorily defined per-pupil cost of education.  Somebody is chasing boogey men that don’t exist.

In order to be taken seriously, one would at least expect an academic like Scafidi to give mention to alternate views and data for the purposes of constructive comparison.  The fact that those things are absent from his report tells you all you need to know about the real motivations of CED.

---

Figure 1:  SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Statistics of State School Systems, 1965-66 through 1969-70; Statistics of Public Elementary and Secondary School Systems, 1970 through 1980; Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education, 1970-71 through 1986-87; Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary and Secondary Education," 1981-82 through 2005-06; "National Public Education Financial Survey," 1987-88 through 2004-05; Statistics of Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1970-71 through 1979-80; Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 1989-90 through 2003-04; Fall Enrollment in Institutions of Higher Education, 1965-66 through 1985-86; Financial Statistics of Institutions of Higher Education, 1965-66 through 1985-86; 1986-87 through 2004-05 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), "Fall Enrollment" surveys, 1986 through 1999, and Spring 2002 through Spring 2006 and Fall 2002 through Fall 2006; and Projections of Education Statistics to 2016.

Figure 2: SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Population, 1960, Volume 1, Part 1; Current Population Reports, Series P-20; Current Population Survey (CPS), March 1961 through March 2007; and 1960 Census Monograph, Education of the American Population, by John K. Folger and Charles B. Nam.

The first piece of legislation filed for the 2009 legislative session, HR 1, sounds like a dream.  If it passes, in December 2010, the state will freeze the value of your home (for property tax purposes), and the assessed value can only go up a max of 3% per year until you sell it.  Sounds great, right?  From now on, you’ll know exactly how much you’ll pay in property taxes, and you’ll never be surprised by a tax bill again. 

Wrong.

Read more: The Georgia Way

We are one week into the 2009 legislative session, and what have we seen so far?  The biggest issues this year all revolve around money. With a still faltering economy, addressing these issues will be more complex and cumbersome than in past years.

Read more: We've seen the cuts, but where's the vision?

 When the Georgia Chamber of Commerce mapped out its 2008 legislative agenda, two of its top four goals focused not necessarily on what the government could do to bolster business in the state, but rather what government ought not to do. It said it couldn’t raise revenues and that it couldn’t levy regulation or oversight over particular segments of the private sector because ‘competitive markets, free from unnecessary government regulation, best accomplish (the generation of economic development.’

Just a few weeks earlier, the Chamber handed out awards to a pair of legislators who it argued had promoted this positive, pro-business environment in Georgia. Sen. Eric Johnson was honored for his efforts to lower the tax burden on individuals and businesses, while Rep. Earl Ehrhart was recognized because he ‘has been a defender of free enterprise and an opponent of anti-business legislation.’

George Israel, the president of the Chamber, said …

These lawmakers have helped Georgia become one of the most business-friendly states in the nation. They work hard to reduce the regulatory burden on Georgia businesses and advance free-market policies that stimulate economic development and create quality jobs for Georgians.

By in large, we’ve been told to accept this type of economic philosophy as the principle way to attract industry, expand business and increase opportunity. That continued reductions and exemptions in a litany of state taxes and a steady pattern of deregulation, coupled with large financial incentive packages to help recruit prospective businesses, would yield a healthy, vibrant economy with competitive wages and tremendous profit.

It sounds right so, by default, it must be right.

The problem is, while there arguably are some benefits to such a strategy, everything from historical patterns to existing statistical data clearly suggests this method is inherently flawed.

The state of Georgia’s business climate

So, where are we now? Is Georgia as ‘business-friendly’ as Israel and others would have you believe? Well, it might just depend on what measure you use to gauge success.

A Georgia Budget and Policy report released last year provided a glimpse of our problems. Since Republicans have taken over control of state government, median household income, when adjusted for inflation, has not changed. A higher percentage of workers were underemployed (the unemployment rate, but also factoring in part-time workers who hold those jobs for economic reasons) in 2007 than in 2001. The poverty rate had risen from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 14.3 percent in 2007, and more Georgians lack health insurance today than they did eight years ago.

Likewise, the opportunities to remedy this situation, at the individual level, are scarce. While Georgia did experience a 2.7 increase in jobs from 2001 to 2008, such growth fell dramatically short when compared with the 16.4 increase in the adult population (ages 20-64). Furthermore, when compared with the job growth in other states in the South, the GBPI report found that Georgia lagged behind as five other similar states saw a 6.9 percent increase in available jobs.

For a bit of perspective, Georgia led all the Southern states in job growth and wage growth during the 1990s, but now ranks second-to-last in the 2000s.

Likewise, a recent study by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation determined that Georgia lags behind other states in being a suitable location for growth in the ‘New Economy’ which focuses on highly skilled workers earning competitive wages. Georgia ranked 21^st out of all 50 states on the State New Economy Index, which isn’t an awful position, but is three spots lower than its ranking in 2002.

Robert Atkinson, the president of ITIF, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that states like Georgia which ranked lower on the index did so because they employed an out-of-date model for economic development. Those states, he argued, used a strategy that stressed financial incentives designed to attract out-of-state employers that offered low wages. Such incentives provided short-term benefits, but are unsustainable in today’s global economy.

Those that succeeded, Atkinson argued, placed a premium on investments.

Investment over incentive

In 2006, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue proudly touted his administration’s efforts to land a Kia manufacturing plant in West Georgia. In addition, Kia promised to bring five of its parts suppliers with it to locate in the same vicinity, thus bringing with it an estimated 5,500 new jobs to the state.

What did it take to attract such an employer to our state?

In order to land this beneficial deal, Georgia offered Kia close to $260 million in various incentives, while the local communities put up a little more than $150 million. This amounted to roughly $75,000 per potential worker, which is a fairly steep per worker expenditure on the state and local governments’ parts. However, even that number isn’t entirely accurate considering the plants’ proximity to the Georgia-Alabama state line and the fact that roughly half of the workers in these plants live in Alabama.

The rationale behind incentive-driven packages is to develop ways for firms to keep their costs low and not have taxes cut into potential profits. A review of existing data, however, shows that this rationale is littered with flaws. For starters, state and local taxes constitute a relatively small burden on businesses. A report by Robert Lynch, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute, found that in 2000, state and local taxes paid by businesses equaled only 1.2 percent of their costs of doing business, and this ‘burden’ was reduced even more by the deductibility of state and local taxes at the federal level, thus accounting for only 0.8 percent of their costs.

And, while these incentive packages are often pricy per worker expenditures and offer an almost non-existent burden on business, they ultimately may not reduce much in the way of costs. In fact, there is considerable evidence to suggest they can increase costs through a reduction in public services, resulting in the private sector being forced to find a way to provide more costly, firm-specific offerings to compensate for the reduction in services.

Low costs cannot come at the expense of the necessary infrastructure that enables and encourages innovation through education, telecommunications, quality of life and transportation. If you merely believe that ensuring ‘low costs’ will drive the economy, then you’re completely missing the point. And it’s not just because providing these hypothetical ‘low costs’ leads to less wealth creation rather than more, but also the policies which drive the incentive-based approach result in a decrease in the investments that make prospective businesses consider locating in the state in the first place.

And our lack of attention to these investments, while it has been historically low, has bottomed out in recent years. The State Management Report Card for 2008, released by Governing Magazine, ranked Georgia 49^th out of 50 states in state spending per capita. Given the response to our ongoing economic crisis and budget shortfall and the governor’s call to trim state spending across the board up to 11 percent, it appears we could be on the continued path that is contrary to Atkinson’s suggestion.

Sarah Beth Gehl, the assistant director of GBPI, said …

If I had to find consensus among comprehensive business surveys and rankings (not just those that look at taxes) it would be this – taxes and incentives matter, but they do not matter nearly as much as a lot of people presume or purport.  An educated workforce, proximity to suppliers, adequate transportation, and other components rank much higher on a business’s list of concerns or needs than taxes or incentives. 

Roger Tutterow, a professor of economics at Mercer University, delivered a presentation on Georgia’s business climate as part of a leadership training retreat last fall. He had surveyed several business leaders who had located in the state or were considering doing so, and he asked them to rank what made Georgia appealing for investment and what made it unappealing. The positives tended to be fairly generic, non-specific answers such as ‘business climate’ or ‘location.’ However, the weaknesses of our economic development efforts, according to these business leaders, all pointed to areas where the state had a direct responsibility through its public services.

Close to 70 percent said the state’s public education system was a serious concern, while more than half of those surveyed said the lack of a well-trained workforce was a problem. In third place, with more than 30 percent suggesting it was a concern, was the state’s crime problem.

Georgia’s taxes and incentive packages, it should be noted, ranked low on both of Tutterow’s findings, and, given the state’s already dramatically low tax rates, such a non-descript ranking indicates that it doesn’t highly either way for investing businesses.

The traditional areas of public investment – education, job training, infrastructure, health care, etc. - however, are the pivotal areas that businesses evaluate when considering a relocation or expansion. And if Georgia has ignored these investments under the guise of fostering a low-tax environment to create a 'business-friendly' state, then all the incentives in the world won't attract these employers. 

But to make those investments, you have to have available revenue. However, in Georgia, revenue has been steadily decreasing in the name of promoting business.

The real impact of taxation

In today’s political environment, we almost reflexively react negatively to the proposal of any sort of tax increase, regardless of its size, targeted recipients or proposed use of resulting revenue. As a result, particularly at the state level, we find players in both parties angling to ‘out-tax-cut the other.’ And, adhering to general economic theory, substantial increases - across the board - in the income tax rates at the federal level can have a negative impact during times of economic crisis, as we’re in now.

However, state and local income taxes function differently. Not only are they dramatically lower rates, but there is also the ability to deduct at least a portion of those taxes from your federal income tax liability. In effect, then, the same amount of expenditure is made for the individual and utilized at the state and local level, but the same expenditure is then deducted from one's taxes, thus meaning there is no real increase in one's tax expense.

Given that Georgia is a balanced budget state, any reduction in taxation must be matched by a reduction in spending, and rather than focus any spending cuts on inefficient programs, they have recently been spread out across the board, impacting several areas where vital investment is needed.

Still, such realities are often ignored in lieu of the convenient sound bite, such as the flood of leaders from both political parties pledged to not raise taxes during the ongoing budget crisis. As a result, everything from an increase in the cigarette tax to affording local communities the opportunity to hold referendums on penny sales taxes for designated expenses are loudly denounced as being 'bad for the economy.'

Again, however, a review of available data offers a much more complex picture.

Targeted, marginal tax increases, however, can yield positive economic benefits across the board, including for those who are affected by the increase. A September 2008 study by Princeton University’s Policy Research Institute conducted an analysis of New Jersey’s decision to levy a 2.6 percent increase in its personal income tax on individuals making more than $500,000 per year. Rather than hinder business, spending or bring the state’s economy to a grinding halt, the opposite occurred. The number of those earning $500,000 or more in New Jersey jumped from 26,000 in 2002 to 44,000 in 2006, and few folks left the state, and those that did opted for neighboring states that featured higher income tax levels.

The same study found that in New York, where a temporary .85 percent income tax increase was placed on individuals earning more than $500,000 per year, such an increase did nothing to hinder the growth in the private sector as 127,000 new jobs were created during the time the increase was in place.

While it can be argued that a variety of other factors contributed to the growth in private factor, it cannot be argued that the increases dampened the economies of those states. The existing data shows that private sector growth in New York and New Jersey continued to march forward and, in fact, perhaps helped spur the generation of additional wealth.

Further evidence lies in the tale of Minnesota. The Property Tax Study Project of 2000 revealed that Minnesota, which has a higher tax burden on businesses than its neighbor South Dakota. However, rather than affect the state’s ‘business climate,’ there is considerable evidence to suggest the investments made in the state’s infrastructure bettered it ...

… Minnesota has had higher per capita income after taxes, higher average hourly earnings, higher average annual pay growth, higher employment growth, more high school and college graduates per capita, better maintained roads and bridges, less income disparity, and a lower business failure rate than South Dakota. Indeed, Minnesota can be said to have a good business climate in part because of its relatively high tax burden, while South Dakota has a weaker business climate in part because of its relatively low taxes. Taxes are necessary to pay for the high-quality public services that make a state a good place to do business.

What we know

We have these measures in place because of an effective public relations campaign waged by its advocates, one that has been in place for several years and are now repeated – and implemented – without question. For too many, such approaches should be employed because that’s how things should work, and whether or not they actually do is a question that can’t be raised.

However, as Lynch noted in his report, much of the existing data suggests these ideologically-based economic mantras lack the necessary legs to stand on …

Almost any time a tax increase on individuals or businesses is proposed, a politician or special interest invokes one or more of these arguments in order to assert that the proposed tax increase will seriously damage the economy and cause a significant loss of jobs. While (these arguments) are not totally without merit, they overstate their cases, ignore counter evidence and disregard the economic effects of spending alterations that governments take in response to tax changes. … There are significant weaknesses in each of these arguments, and excessive faith placed in any of them may undermine long-term economic prospects.

 The challenge Georgia faces goes beyond merely alleviating its immediate budget shortfall. It involves taking a comprehensive and, yes, mature look at the state's needs in areas like infrastructure, transportation, health care and education, and evaluating our levels of commitment to them. Because, as recently as two months ago, we have seen the negative consequences of our devaluation of investment.

The National Bio- and Agro-Science Facility - a divisive project to be sure - was awarded to Kansas rather than Georgia, and the reasons were many. One that should cause alarm, however, was the commentary on the lack of a properly trained workforce. While it can be argued that the incentive package offered by Kansas played a role in the decision to locate NBAF there, it could also be argued that Georgia lacked a comparable, available workforce.

And the education of our workers will be just one of many things state leaders might start hearing from prospective businesses, particularly given our ongoing transportation woes. Traffic congestion in our urban areas, particularly Atlanta, threaten to choke out any chance of remaining economically competitive in the long-term.

 The state's leaders convene underneath the Gold Dome today to kick off the 2009 session of the Georgia General Assembly, and they surely know the challenges facing Georgia today. However, whether or not they have the courage and conviction to examine the existing data and make the difficult choices to shore up our standing remains to be seen.

The past few years, and in recent months in particular, I've been hearing about growing traffic congestion, funding troubles, crumbling transportation infrastructure, and health problems attributable to same.  New terms and acronyms have been mentioned: congestion pricing, electronic and dynamic tolling, HOV, HOT.  If you haven't heard of these, you will have soon as the need to remedy our aging infrastructure, unsustainable usage habits, and funding are confronted by various local, state, and federal governments.

(Photo courtesy of citytransport.info)

The long free ride we've enjoyed in most of this country, slapping up new roads, expanding existing ones, encouraging suburban sprawl via policy and neglect, and giving little more than lip service to mass transit is coming to an end.  While no one can accurately say when, the days of digging up juicy dinosaurs and smooshed forests will run out.  We know the day is going to come.  We've got to find cleaner, more efficient, probably renewable sources of energy, especially for transportation.  The reason we need to change is that we must maintain and hopefully improve what we have while we work on an alternative.  It'll help us in the short run by relieving the stress, and hopefully time required, of the current daily commute by personal vehicle, and in the long run by getting a longer run from the non-renewable resources.

For the purposes of this diary, I wish to look at funding for transportation infrastructure.  Our pal, Flack, is researching how we currently fund this so I will defer to him and take the much easier job of briefly describing the alternatives currently being considered or in use in local experiments around the country.  Before we can do anything, we must restore funding sufficient to need.  Our current methods not only fail to do this, they fall further behind with each passing year, leaving us with more potholes, sagging bridges, congestion, and stress.  In Georgia, the situation is particularly acute because the funding mechanisms are woefully inadequate and thus far there has been no political will to make marginal improvements, let alone the sort that would result in sustainable improvement over the long term.  As Flack has pointed out, Georgia collects much less than most states via its fuel tax.  The mechanism is unreliable as well, if your goal is to collect sufficient to perform the tasks for which the tax is intended.  Further, this tax is only allowed to be used for activities directly related to roads.  While roads are the primary mode of transportation for most Americans, and Georgians, it strikes me that some of the tax collected could go a long way toward relieving congestion if it could be applied to mass transit and other modes people might use in lieu of cars were they available or relevant to their origins & destinations.  For example, I know there is popular demand to extend the North MARTA rail line to Windward Parkway.  MARTA owns property alongside GA 400 and currently uses it for buses.  However, MARTA is bound by the operating costs and the fact that currently, the development in that part of the world is not sufficiently dense as to make rail feasible.  There are other parts of Atlanta Metro that are sufficiently dense, or close to it that could benefit and get people out of cars if MARTA had sufficient, reliable funding to expand their operations.

The following information was gleaned from US Department of Transportation reports and information.  Here is a link that you are welcome to pursue should you wish to learn more about this topic.

http://financecommission.dot.gov/index.htm

HOT & HOV Lane (Photo courtesy of Communication Infrastructure Group)

At present, four principal types of pricing strategies are being studied, if not in place in the US.  These are variably priced lanes, variable tolls on entire roadways, cordon charges, and area-wide charges.

Variable priced lanes, also known as "High Occupancy Toll" lanes, or HOT, or Lexus Lanes, involve setting aside lanes on a public road in which commuters pay tolls to use them.  These tolls may vary depending on time of day or traffic load.  These HOT lanes may allow private vehicles, transit system buses, and emergency vehicles to use them at reduced toll or for free.  It is all a matter of how the government setting up the HOT lanes chooses to implement them.  Another way to implement these lanes is to require all to pay the toll.  This reduces the incidences of toll cheating and still encourages carpooling because each member of the carpool will share the cost as opposed to the single driver bearing it all.

Variable tolls on entire roadways are meant to bring better management of traffic flow.  This is achieved by varying the toll amount for use of the road, bridge, or tunnel depending on the time of day and traffic load.  This technique can be applied to currently free roads as a means of reducing congestion.  Before you pull the trigger and shoot this messenger, please remember I am only describing options already under consideration and in use in other parts of the country.  Thus far, the data says they are getting good results.

Cordon pricing is charging a fee to enter or drive into a dense, congested area, such as a city center.  One example you may have read about is London, England, where they implemented this idea in 2003.  In my experience abroad, several Dutch cities discourage or disallow driving in their centers.  The cities that do this have ring roads and there are parking decks along the road that one can pay to use.  From there, they can walk or use public transportation to get about within the center.  Were Atlanta to ever get a light rail system built & operating on the proposed Beltline, the city center might be able to use cordon pricing to turn currently pedestrian hostile Atlanta into pedestrian paradise.  Perhaps that is a bit much to hope for, but I like walking in the city, and at present, it is a challenge.

Cordon Pricing - Stockholm (Source: Stockholm Trial Expert Group)

Area-wide pricing, my to my mind, remains a bit vague.  It seems it could be a scheme similar to cordon pricing save that it may cover a much larger area.  It seems it may also be a replacement for fuel taxes when implemented as a per-mile fee.  There are experiments in the northwestern US that also include a form of congestion pricing to see whether or not it has a beneficial effect on congestion in high traffic corridors.

Of these, HOT lanes are probably coming to Georgia, specifically to Metro Atlanta.  HOV lanes are easily converted and they do not seem to be heavily used where they currently exist.  I would not be surprised to see them on GA 400, the stretch of I-285 between I-75 and I-85, and along I-75, I-85, and possibly I-20 within ten years.  I think the other options will have a hard time getting political traction here.  I like cordon pricing, as I said, if Atlanta can get a viable alternative into place for its center.  I think things will have to be much more difficult before we'll consider turning I-285 into a variable toll roadway.  Since it was originally intended as truck by-pass route and trucks must use it rather than going through the city, I don't know that it would ever work unless we build another truck by-pass route such as the outer ring Governor Barnes proposed.

We can do nothing and everything will grind to a halt with many tragedies along the way similar to the one in Minnesota a few years ago.  At that point, we will have to do something else since what we had been doing ceased to work.  Or we can start experimenting with alternatives now, observing experiments already underway.  I don't know what the best next step is and I doubt anyone else knows.  We must try things as some places are before we reach a point where we are forced to take whatever we can manage when the system fails.  We are running out of road, literally and metaphorically speaking.  Our road systems, particularly in large cities, are overwhelmed due to the at will nature of our driving culture.  This too must change, and if funding mechanisms give us positive leverage to make better use of what we have and plan better, then lets observe others and conduct our own experiments.

Your thoughts?

I've decided that my first effort to do a long form, research-oriented, post in the Barrel Room will likely be on Transportation.  My initial attempt to think out loud about T-SPLOST in my earlier post was sloppy and random.  I need to clean that up and be a little more cogent.  That's what the Barrel Room is for!

A topic of this scope is a little daunting to me as a dumb blogger.  Heck, by the time I'm ready to post it, the legislature may have already moved T-SPLOST anyway.

But having said that, I think it's useful enough to do some exploration of the core aspects of how we fund transportation relative to other models and other practiced alternatives in other states.  The more I think about the regional 1-cent T-SPLOST, it's not the regionalism or disbursement aspects of the program that bother me so much. It's the way we raise the revenue.  So, I've asked a couple of folks to help me do some more comprehensive research, and I'll have more to say as things move along.

One thing I'll probably do is share some tidbits of that work here before wrapping up the total product.  It helps me keep tabs on some of the source data, and also, it gives me an opportunity to hear from you all as we put this together.

I'm moving this to the Barrel Room.  We'll just do it all there.

This would be installment #1.

At this point, I've just begun to collect some aggregate data that is not necessarily causal.  In fact, the first 2 comparative charts - on state sales taxes and gas taxes - are not causal at all.  Take the sales tax rates.  5 states don't have a sales tax period, but that has a lot to do with other methods of taxation (e.g. property tax) and has zero linkage with the states excise tax on gas.  At least that's what I'm assuming right now.

But I started here first because I have an admitted bias that I'm trying to work through right now; namely, the erosion and instability of our use-based gas tax and an increasing reliance on broad-based sales taxes to fund transportation.  I don't like that.  So, I'm not drawing any conclusions yet, but where Georgia is relative to other states with both taxes is interesting.
 

Click Thumb for Full Chart Data from Taxadmin.Org -Gasoline Prices Only

GAS TAX

As has come up many times, Georgia has an incredibly low gas tax when compared to the national as a whole.  Based on last years numbers, Georgia is ranked 35th of 50 with an effective gas tax of 18.5 cents a gallon.  As I've ranted about in the past, that number is somewhat misleading given our unique gas tax structure.  If you just compare the "excise tax per gallon", we are the 2nd lowest behind Florida at only 7.5 cents a gallon.  The second portion of the tax is that dreaded 4% sales tax that is adjusted twice a year based on the market price.  The number represented in the chart is ~11 cents, which if my scratch paper math is applied correctly, would mean it was based on $2.75 a gallon gax.  If we applied the 4% to today’s price of gas, for giggles let's call it ~$1.50, the second portion of the tax would be closer to 6 cents.   That yields a number closer to 13.5 cents a gallon.  It's probably not entirely fair to compare that to the '08 number, but if we did, Georgia would have the 2nd lowest average gas tax per gallon.  Only oil rich Alaska would have a cheaper gas tax.

So, a couple of general observations here... 

1.)  The volatility of the gas tax is real and apparent.  No wonder it makes news, even if politicians never allow it go up, but always allow it come down when prices fall. 

2.) By any measure, the gas tax in Georgia is one of the lowest in the nation, and only a handful of other states even bother with additive measures beyond the straight excise tax.


 

Click Thumb for Full Chart Data from saletaxcenter.com - Average Per State

SALES TAX

In contrast to the gas tax, Georgia ranks 19th highest with an average sales tax at 6.95% (includes state rate and an average of local rates).  Interestingly, if you just look at the states sales tax percentage - at 4% - it is one of the lowest in the nation.  That shows our states inherent flexibility in allowing locals to generate revenue.  It’s also a characteristic trait, if not universally true, of states with a higher than average sales tax.

Mixing in T-SPLOST is problematic, because approving areas are likely higher or lower than the state average, but a penny more to the avergae would be 7.95%.  That's a number on the high side of state averages.  I'll sift out local averages later.

The only basic observation I’d offer here is that where Georgia has allowed some flexibility in local revenue creation, the locals have used it.  What I’ve not quantified yet is the amount or proportion of local sales tax revenues devoted to transportation improvements via things like SPLOST.  I know from local experience that my county used its last SPLOST renewal overwhelmingly for transportation improvements.

Tthis little slice of such a huge pie is reflective of the amount of surface areas this subject covers.  Much more to come later.
 



...adding.  apropos of nothing in this post.  I'm going to need this for later.

Nine states permit cities or counties to impose a local tax on fuel.