<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: State of the States &#8212; liquidity is becoming an issue</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thepublicpurse.com/2010/02/13/state-of-the-states-liquidity-is-becoming-an-issue/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thepublicpurse.com/2010/02/13/state-of-the-states-liquidity-is-becoming-an-issue/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:57:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicpurse.com/2010/02/13/state-of-the-states-liquidity-is-becoming-an-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-181</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 04:50:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicpurse.com/?p=653#comment-181</guid>
		<description>To add detail to the charts -- they are adjusted for population -- given the migration that takes place from state to state each year and governments&#039; spending response.  The charts also combine expenditures of state and local government to illustrate the effect of post Reagan and Contract with America years.  In spite of a significant recession in the early 1990&#039;s New Jersey had good population growth during the 1992-2000 period and more modest growth from 2000-2008.  Expenditures went up moderately during the first period, but down on a per capita basis.  All figures are in constant dollars.  And yes, the $2.8 billion pension bond issued in 1997 under Gov. Whitman&#039;s administration did create a postponement of payment from current expenses plus there was a moratorium on local pension contributions.  See interesting discussion of New Jersey&#039;s pension issues here: http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=52</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To add detail to the charts &#8212; they are adjusted for population &#8212; given the migration that takes place from state to state each year and governments&#8217; spending response.  The charts also combine expenditures of state and local government to illustrate the effect of post Reagan and Contract with America years.  In spite of a significant recession in the early 1990&#8217;s New Jersey had good population growth during the 1992-2000 period and more modest growth from 2000-2008.  Expenditures went up moderately during the first period, but down on a per capita basis.  All figures are in constant dollars.  And yes, the $2.8 billion pension bond issued in 1997 under Gov. Whitman&#8217;s administration did create a postponement of payment from current expenses plus there was a moratorium on local pension contributions.  See interesting discussion of New Jersey&#8217;s pension issues here: <a href="http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=52" rel="nofollow">http://libertyunbound.com/article.php?id=52</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marc Pfeiffer</title>
		<link>http://www.thepublicpurse.com/2010/02/13/state-of-the-states-liquidity-is-becoming-an-issue/comment-page-1/#comment-180</link>
		<dc:creator>Marc Pfeiffer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 14:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thepublicpurse.com/?p=653#comment-180</guid>
		<description>The charts showing expenditure change are really interesting.  The drop in New Jersey spend in the 90&#039;s leads me to wonder why - could that be in part the result of pension obligation bonds that reduced the spend that should have been made?  And would that be a significant amount?  Which leads to the question would there have been other deferred spending practices that would confound the data?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The charts showing expenditure change are really interesting.  The drop in New Jersey spend in the 90&#8217;s leads me to wonder why &#8211; could that be in part the result of pension obligation bonds that reduced the spend that should have been made?  And would that be a significant amount?  Which leads to the question would there have been other deferred spending practices that would confound the data?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

