The rural disadvantage in federal spending grew from 2009 to 2010, according to figures released by the federal Economic Research Service, reports Bill Bishop of the Daily Yonder. Per-capita federal spending in metro counties has been higher than spending in rural counties five of the last seven years, according to the ERS, a division of the Department of Agriculture. Per-person spending in rural counties was $285 less than in urban areas in 2009; that amount almost doubled in 2010 to $683.
Bishop says this data contradicts the "continuing belief that the federal government must spend more to maintain a resident in rural America than a person who lives in a metro county," as reflected by The Washington Post's Ezra Klein and David Leonhardt of The New York Times, who wrote suburbs and rural areas receive "vastly more per-person federal largess than cities." Bishop points out, with illustration in the following chart, that per-person spending in rural areas in lower.
The ERS counts all federal spending tracked to a county, but Bishop says the spending breakdown varies by the kind of spending measured. For instance, spendign on agriculture and natural resources is much higher in rural counties; defense spending is higher in metro counties. If it did cost the federal government more to maintain rural population, "you'd expect to see that in spending on community resources," including transportation, Native American assistance, environmental protection, development, business assistance and community facilities, Bishop contends. But community-resources spending in rural counties is far lower than in urban, he says. (Read more)
Bishop says this data contradicts the "continuing belief that the federal government must spend more to maintain a resident in rural America than a person who lives in a metro county," as reflected by The Washington Post's Ezra Klein and David Leonhardt of The New York Times, who wrote suburbs and rural areas receive "vastly more per-person federal largess than cities." Bishop points out, with illustration in the following chart, that per-person spending in rural areas in lower.
The ERS counts all federal spending tracked to a county, but Bishop says the spending breakdown varies by the kind of spending measured. For instance, spendign on agriculture and natural resources is much higher in rural counties; defense spending is higher in metro counties. If it did cost the federal government more to maintain rural population, "you'd expect to see that in spending on community resources," including transportation, Native American assistance, environmental protection, development, business assistance and community facilities, Bishop contends. But community-resources spending in rural counties is far lower than in urban, he says. (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment