Ed, thank you so much for fleshing out what that kind of data means in real terms. I get a bit overwhelmed, know that it's important but can't quite get down to why. Thanks for doing that. Really telling. comment by Jill Zimon

Back in July, when Chris Thompson posted here at BFD about that FFOEF consultants' study (by the Center for Governmental Research), I commented about some serious methodological issues with its "comparisons" among counties: e.g. the inclusion of the entire Metrohealth and Tri-C budgets even though these are relatively unique institutions and county taxpayers cover a minority of their costs; the inclusion of the City's airport and electric system, which are also fairly unique and entirely self-supporting; and so on. Chris promised to pass these observations on to the consultants. Maybe he did, but I haven't heard anything since and there are no corrections posted on the study website. Are you sure those per capita employment numbers don't have the same problem...? comment by Bill Callahan

Yes, it is clearly so that Tri-C and Metro Health are not separately accounted (as I made clear in my Metro Health comment above).But we need to start somewhere, and public employment data is a pretty good start. You can make adjustments in the next stage of analysis for Tri-C and MetroHealth, if you like. I'm not looking for accounting accuracy; I'm looking for recognition that Cuyahoga County has a big problem: public overheads are relatively high, and headcounts are the main cost of government. This county is beginning to sink. This cost structure drives higher local taxes, which are relatively higher than Chicago... comment by Ed Morrison

Bill, at least as I read it, your comment seems to imply that it's the public sector's responsibility to worry about full employment, and that if the private sector can't create enough jobs, taxpayers are supposed to silently sit by and accept featherbedding in public agencies. I hope you're not meaning to suggest that... comment by John Ettorre

Good dialogue. Ed is pointing to something important here, which is that what you measure drives what results you get. If you're not measuring productivity in some way, or if you're measuring the wrong things (like employment), you don't generate the results stakeholders want. comment by J Murray

Great conversation. One of the many mysteries that emerged from the Cost of Government Research that the Fund for Our Economic Future (my employer)participated in was why are our judicial costs so high in Cuyahoga County specifically, and Northeast Ohio generally? One limitation of that research was that the most recent data dated back to 2002. Because the state of Ohio doesn't require local governments to report revenue and expense data in a consistent manner that can be aggregated, researchers relied on the Census of Governments data issued every five years � but increasingly governments aren't reporting their numbers to the Census, so even that data is incomplete. comment by Chris Thompson

Although the cost of patronage employment becomes a problem at most government levels, there's another cost that doesn't seem to get much attention. I recently reported $113 million in County tax money that went to pay Browns Stadium, Art & Culture recipients, and the medical mart/convention center; a while back I accounted more than $100 million to the convention bureau over some 17 years; also $240 million of sin taxes went to pay for Gateway; in January,the County will pay from its general fund some $6 to $8 million in an annual bond payment for Gateway overruns, which total more than $100 million. Playhouse Square gets funding from the County on its buildings annually, the city is paying several million a year for the Gateway garages, which don't make enough to pay its cost because of free parking for the Indians and Cavs. City tax revenues from its parking income and admission taxes are diverted for other than city tasks. Add to this contributions to various civic and arts institutions annually by the County... comment by Roldo Bartimole