Comment: Alright, well, it seems to be

(See in situ)

Alright, well, it seems to be

Alright, well, it seems to be difficult to get you to understand my points, so I'll try one last time.

The author of one of those articles wrote: "Ps: Before someone pipes up and tries to claim that population increases were responsible for this, the population of New Mexico in 1995 was ~1.7 million. In 2003 it was 1.9 million, or 12% higher, an approximately 1.4% annual expansion. It is thus immaterial to the expansion of the State budget and debt, and one cannot lay off these expansions on "growing population"; any such attempted claim is a futher lie."

This distorts what actually happened to a certain extent because it doesn't take into account the type of expenditures (e.g., healthcare) the New Mexico government was responsible for. We all know that healthcare and pension expenditures represent one of the biggest budget items for the state government, and that these expenditures are expected to rise with an aging population. I already proved that the age distribution of the population in New Mexico was shifting to the right (i.e., aging), which would cause higher expenditures in two of the biggest portions of the budget.

Also, looking at general price inflation is only one side of the story. Since the New Mexico government spends a large portion of its budget on healthcare expenditures, it would be worthwhile to look at how fast the prices on those expenditures were rising during that period. Here are some articles that illustrate that point (I don't necessarily agree with everything written in these, but they show that healthcare prices are rising much faster than other prices): and (for more detailed information)

What is the point of all of this? Well, it would seem to me that if healthcare and pension expenditures are one of the biggest budget items in your state, and that these expenditures increase with an aging population, and you have an aging population, and healthcare expenditures are rising at a much faster rate than the general price inflation rate would indicate, that all of this would make it really difficult (if not next to impossible) to balance the budget in a state where you are a Republican governor with a Democratic legislature. But, hell, what do I know?

To illustrate this point to you with actual data, I recommend going to the website the author of that article got his data from ( and looking at the actual pie chart of the spending for the New Mexico state government. In 1995, the state government spent 34% of its budget on healthcare and pensions, combined. In 2003, that had ballooned to 44%. At the same time, spending on other things like education, transportation, and welfare, dropped from 22%, 16%, and 12%, to 19%, 10%, and 9%, respectively. During that time, although total public debt increased from $6b to $10b in constant dollars (or about a 6% increase a year), GDP went up around 2.5% a year. Considering the fact that the government had to redirect its spending to things that are viewed as being non-discretionary (yes, when people have been promised healthcare and pensions when they retire for the past fifty years, you generally have to deliver on that promise) by quite a bit (34% of the total budget in 1995 to 44% of the total budget in 2003), I think this isn't too bad of a record. Especially considering the fact that if they hadn't of had to redirect this spending and could have reduced it by that amount instead, they would have had a surplus on the things that they have more control over.

Although, I guess none of this information or reasoning will sway you, so I won't write any more messages after this, you should at least consider it because things simply aren't as black and white as you want to see them.

Finally, I think it's a bit of an exaggeration to say he increased spending as fast as Obama did. State spending as a % of GDP increased from 19.5% to 23% under his administration. Under the Obama administration, it has increased from $3.1t (the last budget from Bush) to $3.8t (the last budget from Obama). Source here:

U.S. GDP was $14t in 2009, and is around $15t in 2013, so we are talking percentages of 22.1% and 25.3%, this is a difference of 3.2% in 4 years, compared to Johnson's 3.5% in 8 years. I think it's pretty clear who did a better job...

Also, if I was going to pull numbers out of my ass, I probably wouldn't write numbers like 137589, I'd simply write 140000.