Will Dorchester County face a debt crisis?
Uh oh... here we go again.
It looks like there may be another showdown on Capitol Hill over raising the debt ceiling once again, before this year is out. As if last year's fiasco wasn't enough to entertain, and indebt us for generations, a Wall Street Journal blog recently pointed out that in the White House's 2013 budget proposal, government debt subject to the statutory borrowing limit on Sept. 30, 2012, will be $16.3339 trillion — and the debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion.
So by late October, maybe early November, we can expect House Speaker John Boehner to start accusing President Obama of being Jell-O again, and Republicans to hurl more insults such as "Hobbit" at other Republicans.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-07-14/news/29792318_1_debt-ceiling-legal-borrowing-limit-jell-o
What a relief that our government back here at home doesn’t have such problems … or does it?
Well the Dorchester County fiscal year 2011-2012 budget, as presented by County Council, was a no tax increase, balanced budget. So clearly we are in much better fiscal shape than where our Federal budget stands. But what about our debt?
According to the Local Government Debt Report by the South Carolina State Treasurer’s Office, Dorchester County ranks in at fourth of 46 counties for Total Debt Outstanding, as of fiscal year 2010. The debt per capita also ranks in at fourth for the entire state, totaling $1,303 per resident. That’s over 150% more than Charleston County residents are on the hook for at $825 per capita, and a whopping 550% more than Berkeley County residents are indebted, who per capita owe a mere $233.
http://www.sccounties-scac.org/profiles/DebtOutstanding.htm
A closer look at the numbers, though, reveals Dorchester may be in even worse position than what would first appear. The top three slots for total debt per capita are awarded to Horry County at $1,905, McCormick at $1,445, and Barnwell County at $1,432. But if you look at the overall debt load – McCormick with a total debt of $11,811,734 and Barnwell at $940,000 (the lowest in the state) – Dorchester County’s total debt of $151,090,913 seems extreme. Horry County, home to Myrtle Beach (the land of 1000 mini-golf resorts), is on the hook for $449,924,502. Everything is bigger in Myrtle Beach.
Even though Charleston County’s overall total debt is higher than Dorchester at $291,212,917 — as is Beaufort’s at $263,832-042 — their much larger populations account for the lower per capita debt. Beaufort’s is one of the lowest in the state, just $79 per capita.
What is also concerning is the revenues per capita, and per capita expenditures, as this illustrates how much revenue each resident is generating to pay off this debt, and what the county spends in services per resident.
According to the South Carolina Association of Counties, who quoted fiscal year 2009 figures in their tables, Revenues Per Capita for Dorchester County were $669 – but Per Capita Expenditures were $687, a loss of $18 of expenditures over revenue for every resident in the county. The county ranked 24th in revenues per capita, and 23rd in expenditures.
Comparatively to the other large debt holders, Horry County had revenues of $1,788 over expenditures of $1,480 in fiscal year 2009 — a net gain in revenue of $308 per resident. Charleston County also seemingly operated at a loss in fiscal year 2010, with per capita revenues of $1,072 and expenditures of $1,218. Beaufort was in similar condition, with revenues of $1,049 and expenditures of $1,278 per capita.
http://www.sccounties.org/counties/county-statistics.aspx
It’s going to get worse.
Dorchester County voters have already approved spending another $5 million for parks, which is being generated by debt from bonds, and council has been busy moving forward with purchases at Pine Trace and an 80-acre tract across from the newly constructed Richard Rosebrock park near Bacons Bridge Road. In addition, the county is looking to build a new jail complex to the tune of $18 million.
Also on tap for the next few years is the building of a new main library, EMS centers, and perhaps even relocating chambers for County Council – with debt spending projected to be an estimated $26 million or more before 2015.
Overall debt could rise to a level approaching $185,000,000 or more, and each resident could be on the hook for upwards of $1,600 per man, woman and child.
As the county continues to grow, we grow deeper and deeper in debt to provide more services for residents and expand our local government’s footprint even larger, and believe the expected future growth will continue to pay for the projects we cannot afford today.
Henry Turner
9:37 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Bill,
Great piece, but the chart from the Association of Counties was flawed. It required counties to self report their debt and a majority of the counties didn't report their sales tax for capital projects. Dorchester County did report their one-cent road tax, so that's why their debt was so high in contrast.
David Chinnis
7:02 pm on Saturday, February 25, 2012
Henry you are 100% correct - over 100 million! In fact if one delves a little further you'd find DC's Bond ratings have improved. As a result we may qualify for improved interest on Bonds if we "refinance". There are several important considerations not included in the above analysis.
Bill Hall
11:13 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
@Henry, I don't know if that is the case or not, I used the information as presented and a difference in reporting data was not referenced anywhere I saw. If that is the case, I think it would be unusual that Dorchester County claimed additional debt that you say a majority of other counties did not. If that table is flawed, I would like to see a true apples to apples comparison.
Jack Jackson
12:32 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Bill, As I understand it, debt incurred pursuant to a bond referendum is not subject to the 8% of taxable property limit set in the SC Constitution and thus some on County Council here and obviously in other counties choose to say that debt does not count. Even using this logic, Dorchester County debt would be $139MM and we would still be ranked 4th. Describing debt incurred from a referendum as separate from debt issued by action of Council members is, in my opinion, a silly argument. Taxpayers are responsible for repayment of all of it. Whether repayment comes from a sales tax, user fees or property taxes is ultimately meaningless. It is still money removed from the private sector and transferred to government. If the designated revenue stream falls short of projections for repayment, the general funds will be tapped to make up the difference.
Bill Hall
1:24 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Jack, I agree! Taxpayers will be on the hook no matter how you look at it!
stanley seigler
8:33 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
@bill hall: "... John Boehner to start accusing President Obama..."
FYI
Three Charts...http://www.truth-out.org/three-charts-email-your-right-wing-brother-law/1314626142
[CLIPS]
three "reality-based" charts...These charts show what actually happened.
[SPENDING]
spending increased dramatically under Bush [88%]. It has not increased much under Obama [7.2%]
[DEFICITS]
Peoplewho claim that Obama "tripled the deficit" are misled or are trying to mislead.
[bush trending UP. BO trendind down]
[STIMULUS]
It looks a lot like the stimulus reversed what was going on before the [BO] stimulus.
[under W's voodoo trickle down]
"We were losing lots of jobs every month,...". under BO: "We stopped losing jobs and started gaining jobs, and it was getting better"
More False Things
These are just three of the false things that everyone "knows." Some others are (click through): Obama bailed out the banks, businesses will hire if they get tax cuts, health care reform cost $1 trillion, Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme or is "going broke", government spending "takes money out of the economy."
If you get tricked into thinking that Obama has made things worse and that we should go back to what we were doing before Obama -- tax cuts for the rich, giving giant corporations and Wall Street everything they want -- when those are the things that caused the problems in the first place, then we will be in real trouble.
SDR
8:27 am on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thats a pretty good chart.
Since ALL spending begins in Congress, When did the democrats gain the majority in the House under Bush? When did the GOP gain the majority under Obama?
Bill Hall
10:40 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Stanley,
I think it was Mark Twain who wrote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Unfortunately I think the "reality based" charts you are touting fall into all three categories. If you are trying to argue that GW Bush spent too much money, you will find no fight with me... unfortunately his administration followed the path of too many Republicans and embraced deficit spending while expanding the role of government. I support his tax cuts, just not any of the overreaching spending that followed along with it. Your charts show mere "estimates" for a dramatic reduction in the deficit over the next three years, and claim a trend for the Obama administration. Its been my experience that the government's outlook on such matters is always a more rosy picture than reality. Likewise, it claims the "estimated" 7.2% of spending increases show how Obama reigned in spending... Yet if you think how that 7.2% is compounded over the already inflated spending increases of the past, its a huge increase. As far as showing the huge influx of jobs credited to Obama - if you believe there are more jobs today than in 2008, you are the only one I've met. I think reality its more likely the job pool shrank as long term unemployed workers just quit looking, and were removed from jobless figures. But as I said, statistics and charts that are easy to manipulate, and I will share one I have found: http://urbangrounds.com/2011/07/obama-deficits/
reg
10:33 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Your urbangrounds reference uses charts from selective time periods (months of October). See: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 - unemployment today is now slightly less than it was when Bush left office. There *are* more jobs today.
stanley seigler
12:08 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
@SDR: "... When did the GOP gain the majority under Obama?"
GOPs controlled house for 6 years and senate 4 under W...and W vetoed how many spending proposals...
@Bill Hall: " ...lies, damned lies, and statistics...the "reality based" charts fall into all three categories..."
COMMENT
as do the charts tooted by the "very lovely Ms. Ann Coulter"...both sets of chart state the facts...the devil is in the interpretation of the facts...enter the lies, damned lies ...aka the limbo spin...(well ok the DEM/GOP spin)
my bottom line interpretation: the GOP "no reg free market" policies have failed. never worked...the 1929 disastrous results of these policies were reinforced by the results of same (very similar) policies in 2008.
DEM/FDR policies brought USA out the 1929 depression...DEM/BO policies are bringing USA out the 2008 GOP policy fiasco...are there any warm fuzzy results of the GOP policies...ie;
trends down pre 1929/2008...and up post 1929/2008.
BTW that the economy does better under GOP policies is a myth...eg;
1900-1999: the DJI rose 7.3% under GOP presidents and 10.3% under DEM presidents...the difference in the increase under DEMs and GOPs amounts to 41% increase in net worth to investors.
also, the DJI was 6000 in 2008 and around 12000 in 2012.
BTWbtw...DEM policies (opposed by GOPs) brought USA social security, medicare and civil rights.
oh/and, "lies, damned lies, and statistics" was disraeli's line and attributed to him by MT.
SDR
12:30 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thanks for the summary. Look at the chart you refer to and ask those questions to your self. I have no trouble answering them.
Bill Hall
2:00 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
@Stanley - Your argument that free market principles have failed could have teeth if it was based on the reality of what has transpired in our financial history - unfortunately it is not. As long as the Federal Reserve has existed and manipulated our money supply, there have been NO FREE MARKETS, irregardless as to what either Republicans or Democrats have stated. In the decade leading up to the Great Depression, the Fed inflated the money supply by nearly 60%, which gave rise to easy money and birthed the Roaring 20s. By 1928, the central bank began to dramatically contract the money supply and began raising interest rates - leading to the depression that followed. It has been this manipulation of our currency by the Fed that has caused the boom and bust of our business cycles.
reg
10:46 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
The central bank played no part in the cause of the Depression; that was an unregulated financial industry aided by drought affecting the then-largest industry in the country, combined with war debt our country couldn't pay thanks to Hoover's kissing up to wealth.
and it's bad enough you can't do basic math, Bill, but if you're going to add to that by using words that don't exist ("irregardless"), then you're only knocking your credibility further down the ladder. Can't believe patch is letting somebody like you - who doesn't know jack on this topic - post here.
stanley seigler
2:54 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
@SDR: "...ask those questions to your self. I have no trouble answering them..."
to which question do you refer...if reference is to your question: "When did the GOP gain the majority under Obama?"...thought it was painfully obvious that it is more important who has control most of the time than that the DEMs controlled the house for 2009 session.
a simple majority does not control the senate. it takes 60 votes to control it. and especially so when the minority's JOB #1 is to make BO a one term pres. NOT jobs for you and me.
would be interested in which questions you have no trouble answering...also much interested in your answers.
@Bill Hall: "...there have been NO FREE MARKETS, irregardless as to what either Republicans or Democrats have stated.
someone needs to tell the GOPs...they comment ad nauseam, "let the free market work"...anyhow, in my post change "free market" to "pro growth"...eg:
'my bottom line interpretation: the GOP "PRO GROWTH" policies have failed. never worked...the 1929 disastrous results of these policies were reinforced by the results of same (very similar) policies in 2008.'
a rose is a rose...a failed policy is a failed policy is a failed regardless of what it's called...
BTW free markets work only where there are no greedy bastards...ie, nirvana...oh, Christianity and communism will also work in a perfect world.
stanley seigler
11:22 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
PS
@Bill Hall: "It has been this manipulation of our currency by the Fed that has caused the boom and bust of our business cycles"
THANKs for the clue to the role the fed has played...not sure i agree...but will google for more info.
opine: the public needs to be informed...not by fox/limbo and msnbc...but by the facts...we cant be used by the koch bros ilk to satisfy their greed.
reg
6:08 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
1) per capita debt in our county was not reported, as the primary source for that data (the third link listed) clearly states. (See the "***" notation there?) This source does try to estimate it itself in the third column, but without explanation.
2) When government debts are reported, assets are not included to provide a net. This only lists a total of expenses, but without listing the tax dollars and other sources of funding.
3) $1,303 is 57.9% greater than $825, and not "over 150%"
4) $1,303 is 459.2 % greater than $233, not "a whopping 550% more"
5) incorrect reading of data + incorrect calculations = a writer who is not very knowledgeable on this subject
Bill Hall
8:15 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
@reg
Let's start with comparing numbers and converting to percentages. When determining the percentage of one number compared to another, I believe the correct equation would be (x/y)*100 = percentage of y. In this case, (1303/825 = 1.5793939) *100 = 157.94% (rounded to the hundredth decimal point). In the second example, the same equation is used - (1303/233 = 5.5922747) *100 = 559.23% (there's that whopping number). If you still have trouble grasping this, perhaps you can use this online conversion calculator:
http://www.onlineconversion.com/percentcalc.htm
As far as your other statements, I am not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. You say the government's assets provide a net? Are you implying that taxpayers would not really have to pay for this debt, because the county would sell off an asset to pay for it? I am not sure if I follow your train of thought at all. The chart did not list tax dollars or other sources of funding, correct; but for every debt or obligation by this government body or any other, funding comes 100% from the taxpayer in one way or another. As far as #5 goes, please feel free to enlighten me; I assume from your confidant yet confounding statements that, in your opinion at least, you possess vast knowledge and understanding of the subject.
reg
10:13 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Your belief of the "correct equation" is INCORRECT. Your use of the online calculator (that you apparently just dug up looking to defend your calculation) further defends my assessment, and because now you're trying to change the terms. You said $1303 is 150% more than $825 - but 825 +150% = 2062.5 ...
When calculating percentages, you determine the difference between A and B, then divide the result by A. Since 1303-825 is 478, and 478/825 is 0.5794, then the difference is 57.94%.
You can't make claims in support of a one-sided economic theory if you don't know math.
reg
10:25 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
My argument against these "debt" scare tactics is that these calculations of debt (which you refer to ... that $16 trillion figure) is fraudulent. It comprises total obligations - but completely overlooks assets, even liquid assets, that are already compiled to pay that debt. For example, that calculation claims about $3.5 trillion of that debt is Social Security; what the same scare-tactics folks fail to tell anyone is that the US Govt already has $3.7 trillion in funds to pay that debt. The almost $2 trillion federal reserves, set aside and remaining liquid specifically for emergency use, is included as part of that "debt" for some reason. Over $4 trillion of that $16 trillion "debt" is PERSONAL debt - money you, me and other citizens owe, as well as private companies in the US (calculated in the same way - tallying up debts without inclusion of assets to determine a net). About one-third of that total "debt" is foreign debt - which is calculated by ownership of bonds (as in, we sell them $1 in bonds - they have the bond, we have the $1 ... but it's reported as $1 debt) and trade deficit.
Bill Hall
10:52 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Reg... Ok now this is getting silly. The percentage I used is correct when comparing one number in correlation to the other. The percentage you are quoting is the difference between the two numbers. For example: 2 is only 50% of 4; but the number 4 is 200% of 2! And 6 is 150% of 4! Amazing I know, yet all those percentages are correct! Your math is correct, reg, if you are speaking of the difference between the numbers, but not if you are looking at how one number correlates to the other. But this quibble over how percentages are determined is useless. I did, however, go back and read my article again in search of this "economic theory" you stated I made claims about... and to my suprise found none! I'm starting to believe you are just a heckler reg...
reg
11:37 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
Your statement was: "totaling $1,303 per resident. That’s over 150% more..." You can try to change the terms in the thread, Bill, but the words in your article say it all. Go on - keep trying to kick up dirt while you backpedal.
as for the "economic theory" - here's the words in your first paragraph: "government debt ... will be $16.3339 trillion — and the debt ceiling is $16.394 trillion." That's the economic theory - that we have uncontrollable debt - you're purveying; which, as I pointed out, is fraudulently comprised. Deliberately misleading - calculating assets as debts - including citizen/corporation debt in the calculations of "national debt" and without including the assets.....
and *that*, Bill - spreading utter garbage, using incorrect calculations and then trying to cover them up (and don't forget your use of non-existent words!) - is heckling.
Bill Hall
11:14 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
This is my last comment to you on this thread reg; we can debate other issues on different threads on other days. But if your grasp of the debt issue this country is facing, in your belief, is just "scare tactics," then we have nothing further to debate at this point. This country's debt is the NUMBER ONE THREAT to the security of this country - bar none. Iran, China, North Korea, Al Queda - none is as much of a threat to our existence as a free Republic as the economic crises we are facing. Our entire financial system will crash, and the world's will follow, if we cannot stem the flow of an ever increasing debt burden. We are policing the world, sending money in foreign aid around the globe to both friends and foes, and we are borrowing money from China to pay for it all. It is unsustainable. I wonder how many hecklers in Greece decried the "debt scare tactics" there before their system started to collapse? The rioting is in the streets and neighborhoods there... http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/buildings-set-ablaze-in-greece-debt-riots/story-e6frf7jx-1226269386033
reg
11:40 pm on Monday, February 20, 2012
We won't be debating other issues on different threads on other days - because I'm not reading your future entries. I don't waste my time reading the works of folks who don't know the topic, and who don't know English, either. and I won't waste my time coming here to read an online journal that includes works from self-declared experts who don't know jack on the subject.
stanley seigler
5:33 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
@reg: We [reg/hall] won't be debating other issues...experts who don't know jack on the subject.
sorry to hear it...i learned from the discussion...hall supplying the straight lines and reg supplying the facts to strengthen my opine...the same could apply to others and other issues...
it's not a about a win/loss for reg and hall...it about educating the public.
re: This country's debt is the NUMBER ONE THREAT to the security of this country [b.hall]
perhaps not a scare tactic but it is political bs...if it were truly the NO#1 threat...then GOPs should immediately raise taxes on rich folks.
of course we need to spend more effectively...but not take an axe to programs.
Richard Hayes
11:42 am on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
How could Dorchester County be in such debt? We have been run by a Republican majority for over 15 years! They all have told us that we are financially sound with surpluses in our budgets! Are you saying the Larry Hargett, George Bailey are not telling the truth??? Maybe Lindsay can get Councilman Hargett to answer the heinous charges.