maven&meddler

I received this in this, from sources in Washington, in my morning email:

This morning’s Las Vegas Sun confirmed what we’ve known for a long time – that any shortfall Nevada experiences when it comes to federal funding based on taxes paid is due largely to Carson City leaving money on the table, the census’ failure to keep up with Nevada’s growth and the state’s demographic realities. However, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service and the US Census Bureau show that Nevada actually received roughly 97 cents in federal spending for every dollar we send to Washington in taxes in 2008. Further, because of Senator Reid’s leadership position, Nevada has consistently out-performed the vast majority of states in the nation by taking home a much larger than average amount – sometimes more than twice the average – in earmarked funding for important state and local projects.  Earmarked funding is particularly important for states like Nevada to fund job-creating transportation, defense, and infrastructure projects, especially considering the tens of millions of federal dollars the state leaves on the table.

2008: Nevada received 97 cents in federal funding for every dollar sent to Washington. According to the IRS, Nevada sent roughly $17,753,419,000 in taxes in FY 2008. According to the Census Bureau, Nevada got about $17,259,856,000 in federal funding in 2008 –approximately 97 cents in federal funding for each dollar sent to Washington in taxes. (IRS, State Tax Statistics; US Census Bureau, Quick Facts - Nevada)

HARRY REID IS DOING MORE TO MAKE UP FOR NEVADA’S FEDERAL FUNDING SHORTFALL THAN ANYONE ELSE THROUGH EARMARKED APPROPRIATIONS

Taxpayers for Common Sense report confirmed Reid secures more earmarks for Nevada than the rest of the delegation combined. “Reid is one of Senate’s top earmark recipients with more than a quarter-billion dollars … that’s what Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog group famous for exposing the ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ found in a report that discovered, not surprisingly, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee led the way but that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had the sixth most solo ($91 million) earmarks and eighth most joint ($223 million) earmarks. 168 in all, total of $267.6 billion. None of the other members of Nevada’s delegation came close, with Sen. John Ensign at $79 million, Reps. Shelley Berkley and Dean Heller about half that number and Rep. Dina Titus slightly behind them. That is Reid had more than the rest of the delegation combined. And Nevada, because of Reid, ranked 10th overall. The report acknowledges Reid’s leadership post accounts for his and the state’s high ranking.” (Ralston’s Flash, 2/18/2010)

Thanks to Senator Reid’s leadership position in the Senate, the people of Nevada have been significant beneficiaries of earmarked federal funding:

FY                                           Nevada’s National Ranking
2010                                       10                                                                          
2009                                       13                                                                          
2008                                       15                                                                          
2007                                       (Not available)                                 
2006                                       8                                                                             
2005                                       11                                                          
2004                                       11                                                                          
2003                                       13                                                                          
2002                                       12                                                                          
2001                                       17                                                                          
2000                                       17                                                                          
[Sources: http://www.cagw.org/reports; http://taxpayer.net; Las Vegas Sun, 2/18/10]

FY                                           Nevada’s Per Capita                       National Per Capita
2010                                       $79.07                                                   $31.28
2009                                       $63.79                                                   $29.60
2008                                       $61.89                                                   $33.77
2007                                       (Not available)                                  (Not available)
2006                                       $69.15                                                   $30.55
2005                                       $87.89                                                   $33.03
2004                                       $66.18                                                   $31.17
2003                                       $78.90                                                   $34.33
2002                                       $72.37                                                   $32.21
2001                                       $38.65                                                   $25.52
[Sources: http://www.cagw.org/reports; http://taxpayer.net; Las Vegas Sun, 2/18/10]

NEVADA GETS A SMALLER SHARE OF FEDERAL FUNDS THAN MANY STATES IN PART BECAUSE CARSON CITY LEAVES MONEY ON THE TABLE

Las Vegas Sun: “Nevada leaves millions, if not billions, of dollars on the table because state agencies are not aggressive in pursuing federal money and because state legislators have created state programs that cut off opportunities for federal matching funding.” “Nevada is dead last in per-capita federal funding for state programs such as health, education and transportation, according to a new report from the Brookings Institution. Nevada received $742 per person during fiscal year 2008 from the federal government for these programs, compared with $1,469 for the rest of the nation. The study includes money for programs based on fixed formulas — including per-capita income and census estimates — that are mostly immune from congressional wrangling. As such, the study isn’t an important measure of the influence of Nevada’s congressional delegation, though it does raise questions about the state’s governance. In short, Nevada leaves millions, if not billions, of dollars on the table because state agencies are not aggressive in pursuing federal money and because state legislators have created state programs that cut off opportunities for federal matching funding.” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/10/2010)

·                   Nevada’s low per capita funding for Medicaid is because “Nevada has long had one of the nation’s stingiest Medicaid programs.” “The primary reason Nevada receives so little money from the feds is because most federal money comes in the form of matching funding for state programs such as Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor, blind and disabled. Nevada received $315 per capita for health programs, or 42.5 percent of the total money the state received, versus $892 per capita for other states, nearly 61 percent of their totals. Nevada has long had one of the nation’s stingiest Medicaid programs, with restrictive eligibility requirements. In part because of the tougher eligibility standards, about 6.7 percent of the population was enrolled in Medicaid last year. That enrollment was second lowest in the nation, according to the most recently available data.” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/10/2010)

·                   Nevada Check-Up could have gotten an additional $32 million in federal funding is Carson City had spent an additional $11 million. “For example, in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2008, Washington allocated $51 million to Nevada Check Up, its version of SCHIP. But the program got only $28.8 million because the state’s contribution — $14.2 million — fell $11 million short. If the state had allocated more money, Nevada Check Up would have had a total of $75 million, instead of $43 million.” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/10/2010)

·                   Las Vegas Sun: “It’s not just health programs.” “According to testimony last year to the Assembly Health and Human Services Committee, just 30 neighborhoods in Washoe County were being served by a nutrition assistance program, or about 1 percent of the children eligible. That left $57 million in federal funding on the table. ‘To be blunt about it,’ said Nicholas Johnson, director of state fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, ‘if Nevada wanted to capture more federal dollars, they should be cutting less and doing more on the revenue side and supporting those programs with a federal match.’” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/10/2010)

·                   Relatively low poverty levels (until recently) and a lack of state-paid grant writers also contributed to lower-than-average federal spending in Nevada. “Also, aid from the federal government often depends on a state’s relative poverty. Nevada, until recently, had incomes that were well above average. The depressed incomes of Nevadans because of the recession may not yet be showing up in the formulas that determine our federal share. Finally, as UNR economist Elliott Parker pointed out, the Nevada Spending and Government Efficiency Commission recently recommended that the state hire more grant writers as there is currently a ‘significant number of opportunities for federal funding,’ perhaps $93 million per year, ‘not pursued because of inadequate availability of grant writers.’ Doing so, however, would cost the state upfront.” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/10/2010)

NV Budget Director: State’s fiscal conservatism hurts our ability to secure federal funding. “The state budget director, Andrew Clinger, concurred with that analysis. Nevada’s fiscal conservatism, which many in the state view with pride, is the reason many analyses have shown over the years that state residents pay more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in spending — about 65 cents on the dollar as of 2007, according to the Washington-based Tax Foundation. Similarly, Nevada’s low spending on both K-12 and higher education appears to be part of the reason the state came in last in per capita education funding from the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act].” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 2/23/2009)

Reno gazette-journal: Nevada’s low ranking in federal funding is due in part to low spending on social programs. “Nevada ranked last in federal money returned per capita to the state in 2006-07, according to a recently released U.S. Census Bureau report. The Census Bureau said Nevada got $5,852 per capita that year, with the biggest discrepancy in Medicare and Medicaid. The national average was $1,891 per resident while Nevada got $1,001 per resident. The reasons included the state’s tight purse strings and demographics … It often takes a commitment from the state to give money to get federal money, and Nevada isn’t spending the money, administrators said.” (Reno Gazette-Journal, 4/29/2008)

THE REALITY OF THE STATE’S DEMOGRAPHICS ALSO PLAY A PART IN DETERMINING OUR SATE’S SHARE OF FEDERAL DOLLARS

Reno Gazette-Journal: Demographics and low participation rates in certain programs play a part determining the sate’s federal funding levels. “Because Nevada’s percentage of senior citizens isn’t as high as the rest of the nation, there’s less Social Security and Medicare money flowing to the state. The state also gets few grants from the National Institutes of Health, which does medical research, and Food and Nutrition Service spending, which handles food stamps; Women, Infants and Children and the school lunch program. Nevada has a historically low participation rate in the food stamp program, said Jeff Brenn, chief of eligibility and payments for the Nevada Welfare Division. ‘We have a very low participation rate compared to the rest of the country, so we don’t get as many federal dollars coming in,’ Brenn said.” (Reno Gazette-Journal, 4/29/2008)

NEVADA HAS ALSO BEEN HURT BY THE FACT THAT THE CENSUS HASN’T ALWAYS KEPT UP WITH THE STATE’S RAPID GROWTH

Nevada Taxpayers Association: federal funding shortfall due to inaccurate information about Nevada’s population. “The federal government spends less per person in Nevada than in any other state, according to a 2005 report by the Census Bureau … Carole Vilardo, president of the Nevada Taxpayers Association, said the report shows the federal government needs more accurate information to account for Nevada’s surging population. ‘When it comes to federal grants for education programs like No Child Left Behind, we have not received what we should have,’ Vilardo said.” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/10/2007)

·                   Las Vegas Sun: “Nevada’s politicians have long complained that federal formulas fail to keep pace with the state’s rapid growth. That’s part of the reason why Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Nevada lawmakers have been so brash about going after earmarks — specially targeted money that can supplement federal spending.” (Las Vegas Sun, 3/1/2009)

Former Rep. Jon Porter: “Because our growth outpaces the census, our return on each tax dollar is substantially lower than many states with declining populations.” “Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee which oversees tax legislation, joined Vilardo in calling for more accurate federal data. ‘Because our growth outpaces the census, our return on each tax dollar is substantially lower than many states with declining populations. Whether it is in the areas of transportation, education or health care, federal agencies must restructure their formulas to adapt to the needs of states like Nevada,’ Porter said.” (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 10/10/2007)

Reno Gazette-Journal: Nevada’s participation in the 2010 census will have a significant impact on future federal funding levels for the state. “Nevada ranked No. 1 in growth from 1990 to 2000 when the Silver State’s population mushroomed by 66.27 percent. While growth has slowed this decade, Nevada’s growth rate is still the highest in the country after a one-year loss to Arizona, based on census estimates. All those new bodies — about 1 million more since the last census in 2000 — mean more federal dollars in local and state grants, if they are counted. ‘No state in the country has more to gain from the census than we do here, given how much this state has grown,’ said Byerman, chief liaison to Nevada for the U.S. Department of Commerce. He oversaw census preparations for 2000 in Nevada and is again in charge for 2010. ‘I look at this as the highest possible stakes,’ he said. ‘A lot of money is parceled out by census data.’” (Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/19/2009)