There are three or four of us who every Sunday morning break out into a round robin email dissection of the latest op-ed column by LSU-Shreveport political science associate professor Jeff Sadow. While we invariably disagree with Sadow’s philosophical position, we have finally arrived at a consensus that The Advocate is striving for balance on its opinion pages.
On Tuesday (March 1) I received a copy of the following blog post by Michael Kurt Corbello, Ph.d. and a former classmate of Sadow. I immediately contacted Dr. Corbello, a political science associate professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, to inquire if he would be willing to post his comments on as a guest columnist on LouisianaVoice. To our delight, he consented. Following is his column:
By Michael Kurt Corbello
Copyright 2016
Numbers can be pesky things, a great source for truth, or a weapon to mislead. Scientists like numbers because they are transparent, until human beings interpret them or insinuate that they have done so. I am a political scientist who teaches my students “math is the language of objectivity!” Yet, three-plus decades of research and teaching have taught me the pitfalls of data collection and interpretation for someone trying to conduct scientifically valid research, even if it proved me wrong. In partisan politics, many divest themselves of scientific validity, some accidentally, others purposefully, and still others because they fail to admit their biases. We all have biases, but numbers have a way of cutting through those most cherished.
Recently, Jeff Sadow for The Advocate (See “Lawmakers should call Edwards’ bluff on TOPS, Medicaid,” The Advocate, February 27, 2016) criticized Gov. John Bel Edwards’ budget plan during the special session of the Louisiana State Legislature, arguing that the governor “refuses to meaningfully pare a state government that ranks well above the national average in per capita spending” [emphasis added]. Sadow didn’t indicate sources supporting these value statements, so I collected the most recent data and examined it. In fact, the only way to arrive at the columnist’s conclusion that Louisiana ranks “well above the national average in per capita spending” is to make it all up!
I looked at the most recent U. S. Census data estimates of state populations for 2015. I combined this with data from the National Association of State Budget Officers, State Expenditure Report (Fiscal 2013-2015) (Table A-1 in the downloadable report). In 2015, total state general fund and federal fund expenditures per capita ranged from a low of $3,724 (Florida) to a high $18,644 (Alaska), with a national average per state of $6,717. Louisiana ranked 22nd out of fifty states, in the middle of the pack, at $6,365 per capita. That’s right! Louisiana was $352 per capita below the state averages nationwide! Among 16 southern states, Louisiana ranked 7th in total state general fund and federal fund expenditures per capita, about $134 per capita above the state averages in the south.
Notice that while Louisiana spent a total of $29.7 billion in 2015, $10.15 billion of this was federal funds, $2,173 per capita (ranked 14th), or about $200 per capita above the state averages nationwide. The Louisiana state portion of total state spending was $19.58 billion. Nationwide, state general fund expenditures averaged $4,744 per capita. Louisiana averaged $4,192 in per capita state general fund spending, placing it 23rd, or $552 per capita below the state averages nationwide!
Now, I don’t mind voters, politicians, and citizens calling into question the spending and priorities of state government. All of us should be vigilant in our efforts to take care of our community of needs, while reigning in the natural and selfish human inclinations to abuse the system! However, looking at this data, it is difficult to make the argument that, compared to other states, Louisiana has a spending problem. Whether we look at per capita spending or gross dollar amounts, Louisiana was in the middle of the pack of fifty states, with one exception: We ranked 14th in State Federal Fund Expenditures! For that matter, Louisiana was one of eight southern states (including Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Tennessee, and West Virginia) in which state federal fund expenditures per capita were above the average per state nationwide ($1,973 per capita). In other words, we are dependent upon everyone else for a huge amount of resources in our state budget. Why? Because of our history of poverty, low levels of education, and lack of economic development (regardless of the deadbeat mantra always coming from Bobby Jindal and his apologists)! Imagine if we in Louisiana really did have to pay for our own spending!
The fact remains that we do not live in the 18th century, with the luxury to implement a minimalist government, not if we want to have a competitive position in a world driven more and more by competitive people of high intellect, hard work, creativity, technological knowledge and skill! Anyway, those pesky numbers, they must be liberals!
For a closer look at the data used to draw my conclusions (and to refute The Advocate’s columnist), please click on the following link to my blog: http://corbellopolitics.blogspot.com/2016/02/an-advocate-writer-does-it-again-why.html
Louisiana Voice 
No one I know believes much that comes from him.
Beyond a Sadow of a doubt, facts and columnist Jeff are total strangers.
When I see his name, my eyes move on!!!
Ditto.
That boy, I can’t even bring myself to say his name, and truth or facts in the same article is the epitome of the term oxymoron.
Reblogged this on tmabaker.
Now, can the Advocate PLEASE get rid of him???? Ditto on reading his name and moving on.
Tom I appreciate you reaching out for truth and accurate reporting. Ethics in journalism appears to be irrelevant to the masses in our country. This is evident by how Trump rose to the top of the ,”party of Genius!!” (backwards spells GOP) . FOX news, MSNBC, etc.., report false stories daily, 24/7. Mr. Sadow likely thrives on the attention regardless of what he is being called out for. Inaccurate reporting needs to be stopped by calling it out for what it is and never giving them the attention again. As a society when we stop listening to the False news then they will be stopped by not having an audience. Preaching to the choir, I know. I personally have never read a single article he has ever written. Once several sources deemed his writings as false and was accurately proven, then reading it is like buying the National Enquirer and talking about it with my peers. Maybe you all will find something else to better spend your time on next Sunday morning.
Thank you for keeping them honest!!!
Ohhhh, you better be careful. Perfesser Jeff is going to be really mad you.
That guy is a compulsive liar. I never bother to read anything with his name on it anymore. It’s all the same mantra again and again, based on nothing!
I have contacted several people on the editorial staff and The ADVOCATE’s Editor, Peter Kovacs, about Sadow I’ve never gotten an official response.
As has been said many times before, everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but there should be only one set of facts. Unfortunately, data sources being what they are, they are sometimes subject to significant caveats and, at times, even biased – numbers though they be.
As Dr, Corbello clearly shows, Sadow does not want to be confused by facts, but he is perfectly willing to cite statistics that seemingly exist only in thin air to give his opinions the illusion of credibility.
I will not dignify Sadow’s column by further piling on, but will simply say, if his column exists to provide balance, it must be an attempt to balance truth with fiction.
Sadow’s “statistical proclamations” reminds me of a phrase stated by my first statistical professor on my first day of class in my first statistical course. His statement is classic and rings as true today as it did forty years ago: “statistics and statisticians are the greatest liars in the world-and that’s a fact”.
Sadow’s comments are more in line with “vanity research”. His “statistical” deductions are for the purpose(s) of support a predetermined position and not for “studying” a subject objectively.
The academic world has many so called “academic experts” in this or that given field. They all have one thing in common-the distortion and manipulation of research for the purposes of “proving” or providing support for a given political, economic or populous position being espoused.
Sadow is nothing more than an academic “pimp”.
I’ve learned a long time ago to not even bother reading or commenting on Sadow’s writing. Time is too dear to waste on that hack.
If the Advocate wishes to give “both sides” a voice, then it should choose someone who cites factual information, and that would not be Jeff (Jindal was a great governor) Sadow. If he ever tells the truth in his columns about state politics, it is probably by accident.
It’s really not that tough. Get the state tax collections available on line from the Census Bureau and divide by population, also available from the census bureau. That gives you an idea of the state’s overall tax burden without confusing the issue with which taxpayer class is paying what.
Louisiana is well below Arkansas and Mississippi, slightly below Texas, (but if you take into account her fascination with toll roads, even that difference disappears).
A professional social scientist like Sadow has no excuse to make that kind of error.
He may be social, but I question whether he is either a professional or a scientist of any kind in practice.
Reblogged this on LAB Louisiana Boy.
[…] SLU associate professor says Advocate columnist can only arrive at state expenditure numbers by R… […]
One question: why does it matter that the writer is one of Professor Sadow’s former classmates? Why didn’t you just publish his piece as is?
Because he provided that information himself for his bio. If he considered it important enough to mention, I considered it important enough to include.