Wednesday, April 26, 2017

The battle of the taxes

In my last post, I discussed several exciting tax reforms that are gaining support in a handful of states. In an effort to improve the competitiveness and economic growth of these states, the plans would lower or eliminate individual and corporate income taxes and replace these revenues with funds raised by streamlined sales taxes. Since I covered this topic, legislators in two more states, Missouri and New Mexico, have demonstrated interest in adopting this type of overhaul of their state tax systems.

At the same time, policymakers in other states across the country are likewise taking advantage of their majority status by pushing their preferred tax plans through state legislatures and state referendums. These plans provide a sharp contrast with those proposed by those states that I discussed in my last post; rather than prioritizing lowering income tax burdens, leaders in these states hope to improve their fiscal outlooks by increasing income taxes.

Here’s what some of these states have in the works:

  • Massachusetts: Gov. Deval L. Patrick surprised his constituents last month during his State of the State address by calling for a 1 percentage point increase in state income tax rates while simultaneously slashing state sales taxes from 6.25% to 4.5%. Patrick defended these tax changes on the grounds of increasing investments in transportation, infrastructure, and education while improving state competitiveness. Additionally, the governor called for a doubling of personal exemptions to soften the blow of the income tax increases on low-income residents.
  • Minnesota: Gov. Mark Dayton presented a grab bag of tax reform proposals when he revealed his two-year budget plan for the state of Minnesota two weeks ago. In an effort to move his state away from a reliance on property taxes to generate revenue, Dayton has proposed to raise income taxes on the top 2% of earners within the state. At the same time, he hopes to reduce property tax burdens, lower the state sales tax from 6.875% to 5.5%, and cut the corporate tax rate by 14%.
  • Maryland: Last May, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley called a special legislative session to balance their state budget to avoid scheduled cuts of $500 million in state spending on education and state personnel. Rather than accepting a “cuts-only” approach to balancing state finances, O’Malley strongly pushed for income tax hikes on Marylanders that earned more than $100,000 a year and created a new top rate of 5.75% on income over $250,000 a year. These tax hikes were signed into law after the session convened last year and took effect that June.
  • California: At the urging of Gov. Jerry Brown, California voters decided to raise income taxes on their wealthiest residents and increase their state sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5% by voting in favor of Proposition 30 last November. In a bid to put an end to years of deficit spending and finally balance the state budget, Brown went to bat for the creation of four new income tax brackets for high-income earners in California. There is some doubt that these measures will actually generate the revenues that the governor is anticipating due to an exodus of taxpayers fleeing the new 13.3% income tax and uncertain prospects for economic growth within the state. 

It is interesting that these governors have defended their proposals using some of the same rhetoric that governors and legislators in other states used to defend their plans to lower income tax rates. All of these policymakers believe that their proposals will increase competitiveness, improve economic growth, and create jobs for their states. Can both sides be right at the same time?

Economic intuition suggests that policymakers should create a tax system that imposes the lowest burdens on the engines of economic growth. It makes sense, then, for states to avoid taxing individual and corporate income so that these groups have more money to save and invest. Additionally  increasing marginal tax rates on income and investments limits the returns to these activities and causes people to work and invest less. Saving and investment, not consumption, are the drivers of economic growth. Empirical studies have demonstrated that raising marginal income tax rates have damaging effects on economic growth. Policymakers in Massachusetts, Minnesota, Maryland, and California may have erred in their decisions to shift taxation towards income and away from consumption. The economies of these states may see lower rates of growth as a result.

In my last post, I mused that the successes of states that have lowered or eliminated their state income taxes may prompt other states to adopt similar reforms. If the states that have taken the opposite approach by raising income taxes see slowed economic growth as a result, they will hopefully serve as a cautionary tale to other states that might be considering these proposals.

February 8, 2013

Distinguishing between Medicaid Expenditures and Health Outcomes

As the LA Times reports, the Obama administration has vowed not to approve any cuts to Medicaid during budget negotiations:

Preserving Medicaid funding became even more crucial to the Obama administration after the Supreme Court ruled last summer that states were not required to expand their Medicaid coverage. Administration officials are working hard to convince states to expand and do not want any federal funding cuts that could discourage governors from implementing the law.

“There is a big irony,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Washington-based Families USA, a leading Medicaid advocate. “The fact that the Supreme Court undermined the Medicaid expansion is now resulting in greater support and a deeper commitment to making sure the program is not cut back.”

Paying for Medicaid remains a major challenge for states. The program has been jointly funded by states and the federal government since it was created. And many states, including California, Illinois and New York, have had to make painful cutbacks in recent years to balance their budgets by reducing physician fees and paring benefits, such as dental care.

However, protecting Medicaid spending — without changing incentives for the healthcare industry or patients — does not necessarily mean improved health outcomes for beneficiaries. As of 2011, nearly one-third of doctors said that they would not accept new Medicaid patients because they are losing money on those who they do see, indicating not only a lower quality of care for Medicaid patients compared to those on private insurance, but reduced access to care. Under the current Medicaid structure, states are incentivized to spend more to receive larger federal matching funds grants, but at the same time federal requirements limit opportunities to improve quality of care through innovation.

The State Health Flexibility Act proposed by Representative Todd Rokita (R-IN) proposes a way to change these incentives. Under the State Health Flexibility Act, state funding for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program would be capped at current spending levels. At the same time, states would be released from many federal Medicaid mandates and instead would have the flexibility to determine eligibility and benefits at the state level. Rokita proposed this bill last year, and parts of the bill made it into the House budget.

While this bill seems unlikely to make any progress under the current administration, it mirrors reforms proposed by at least one democratic state governor. Oregon’s Governor John Kitzhaber, a former emergency room doctor, received a Medicaid waiver in 2011 to receive a one-time $1.9 billion payment from the federal government to close the state’s Medicaid funding gap. In exchange, he promised to repay this money if the state failed to keep Medicaid costs growth at a rate two-percent below the rest of the country. Kitzhaber sought to achieve this by allowing local knowledge to guide cost savings. The Washington Post reports:

Oregon divided the state into 15 region and gave each one a set amount to care for each patient. These regions can divvy their dollars however they please, so long as patients hit certain quality metrics, like ensuring that adolescents get well-care visits and that steps are taken to control high blood pressure.

The hope is that each of the 15 regions, known as coordinated care organizations, will invest only in the most cost-effective health care. A behavioral health worker who can prevent emergency admissions becomes a lot more valuable, the thinking goes, when Medicaid funding is limited.

While the Oregon plan is not a block grant — the federal government has not capped the amount that it will provide to the state — it does share some similarities with the State Health Flexibility Act. The state and its designated regions have a strong incentive to provide their Medicaid recipients better health outcomes at lower costs because if they fail the state will have to repay $1.9 billion to the federal government. Additionally, the state and the regions have the freedom to find cost savings at the level of patients and hospitals, which isn’t possible under federal requirements.

February 7, 2013

New Research on Streamlining Commissions

Tomorrow I’ll be at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference to present research on streamlining commissions with Carmine Scavo. Carmine and I have written one paper developing a methodology for studying these commissions, and we’re now working on case studies of commissions in nine states.

Well over half of states have appointed one or more streamlining commissions in efforts to find budget savings or to improve state programs. We’re studying streamlining efforts in California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Maine and Virginia. We hope to get an idea of how effectively these commissions have reduced the size of state government and found efficiencies in existing programs. We also hope to identify the characteristics that make commissions most likely to meet their goals.

In our first paper, we hypothesized that commission success would depend on the following characteristics:

1) clearly defined objectives regarding their final product;

2) a clear timeline for this deliverable with an opportunity to publish interim advice. Preliminary findings indicate that the commission should have at least one year to work;

3) adequate funds to hire an independent staff to study some issues in depth;

4) a majority of the commission members from outside the government. The commission chair certainly should be from outside the government in order to help to get around the challenges that inherently restrict the ability to find streamlining opportunities while working in government. Preliminary findings indicate that representatives from the state legislature and administration should be involved as a minority of the membership to ensure that the commission’s recommendations have buy-in from policymakers.

So far, our research indicates that funding for commissions may not be as important as we’d though. Some commissions have achieved successes with essentially no budgets while others that were well-funded developed recommendations that didn’t go anywhere.

Tomorrow we will be presenting our preliminary findings on the California Commission on the 21st Century Economy, the Colorado Pits and Peeves Roundtable Initiative, and the Virginia Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring. Once we finish this research I will write up our findings in more depth here. If any of you will be attending the APPAM conference, I hope to see you there.

November 7, 2012

New Research on Streamlining Commissions

Tomorrow I’ll be at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Fall Research Conference to present research on streamlining commissions with Carmine Scavo. Carmine and I have written one paper developing a methodology for studying these commissions, and we’re now working on case studies of commissions in nine states.

Well over half of states have appointed one or more streamlining commissions in efforts to find budget savings or to improve state programs. We’re studying streamlining efforts in California, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, New York, Maine and Virginia. We hope to get an idea of how effectively these commissions have reduced the size of state government and found efficiencies in existing programs. We also hope to identify the characteristics that make commissions most likely to meet their goals.

In our first paper, we hypothesized that commission success would depend on the following characteristics:

1) clearly defined objectives regarding their final product;

2) a clear timeline for this deliverable with an opportunity to publish interim advice. Preliminary findings indicate that the commission should have at least one year to work;

3) adequate funds to hire an independent staff to study some issues in depth;

4) a majority of the commission members from outside the government. The commission chair certainly should be from outside the government in order to help to get around the challenges that inherently restrict the ability to find streamlining opportunities while working in government. Preliminary findings indicate that representatives from the state legislature and administration should be involved as a minority of the membership to ensure that the commission’s recommendations have buy-in from policymakers.

So far, our research indicates that funding for commissions may not be as important as we’d though. Some commissions have achieved successes with essentially no budgets while others that were well-funded developed recommendations that didn’t go anywhere.

Tomorrow we will be presenting our preliminary findings on the California Commission on the 21st Century Economy, the Colorado Pits and Peeves Roundtable Initiative, and the Virginia Commission on Government Reform and Restructuring. Once we finish this research I will write up our findings in more depth here. If any of you will be attending the APPAM conference, I hope to see you there.

November 7, 2012

A Congressional Cookie Jar with Oak Tree Roots: The Economic Development Administration

David Bier of the Competitive Enterprise Institute makes the case in a recent paper for the abolition of the Economic Development Administration. The history of the EDA is tied into the programs of the Great Society which spawned many fiscal and programmatic connections between federal, state and local agencies with the ostensible aim of spurring local economic improvement (e.g.The Community Development Block Grant). Fifty years on and these programs haven’t lived up to the grandiose mission statements of their architects. The EDA is part of the framework through which stimulus dollars flowed and Bier’s article underscores the key objections to the application of federal dollars to local economic development.

Interestingly, the EDA has been the subject of several academic studies over the years. The classic public administration book, Implementation, by Jeffrey L. Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky undertook an early case study of the EDA in Oakland, California with its inaugural goal of hiring long-term unemployed minorities. They conclude that while advocates had “great expectations” the program produced meager results with impulsive project choices and cost overruns. The cause, the authors postulated, was a delay in implementation and cumbersome bureaucracy.

Pressman and Wildavsky seem to have documented a familiar tale of public choice theory: the malincentives present in bureaucracies and tendency toward inefficiency. Their classic book on programmatic breakdown has touched off another debate recently in the literature centered around the question, “What ever happened to the study of policy implementation?” An intellectual dead-end was encountered according to deLeon and deLeon which can be revitalized by considering policy implementation not from the top-down but from the ground-up.

Pressman and Wildavsky sliced into their analysis in keeping with the dominant theories of the time. They view the EDA in a top-down fashion – as a single federal programmatic entity acting on subordinate levels of state and local government. Since their 1973 classic, advances made by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom and others point to the fruitfulness of thinking in terms of polycentric rather than monocentric orders. That is, to consider policies in horizontal instead of vertical terms. Map out the multiple decision nodes that connect government, marketplace and community.

B. Guy Peters in his article, Implementation Structures as Institutions, notes that in the last decade, the public administration literature now strives to make just such connections in understanding how policies are implemented. It’s an important advance which allows for a more complex and nuanced picture of the effects of programs. Such analysis may help answer one perennial question: how is it that small-budget, experimental programs inspired by mid-century economic theories grow deep roots and resist any kind of reform, alteration or pruning for generations?

When we consider federal spending programs and trace their effects we often see the fleeting connections and feel a sense of unease. A former EDA administrator calls the program, “A Congressional Cookie Jar.” From his vantage point the program is an expense account for politicians to sprinkle federal dollars on their districts. But as EDA grants are scattered among municipal governments, what else happens along the way? How do constituencies coalesce? Who benefits and who loses? Where do the dollars go and how are connections forged between private, non-profit and public sector actors. Metaphorically speaking, how did a single-shot grant in the mid-1960s become an oak forest?

September 24, 2012

Generational Unfairness in Pensions

California Governor Jerry Brown has led an effort to pass some changes to current state employee pension benefits that will affect new employees by raising their retirement age, capping their potential benefits, and requiring both new employees and some current workers to pay at least half of the cost of their pensions.

At Public Sector, Inc. Steve Greenhut explain that the savings from these changes won’t be felt for years to come:

It’s clear the reform would do little to touch current unfunded pension liabilities, estimated in California at as much as a half-trillion dollars, but will bring in reforms in decades after new hires start retiring.

The changes are projected to save state taxpayers between $40 billion and $60 billion. With these changes, California’s pension fund will still be underfunded by about $450 billion, calculated using the risk-free discount rate (pdf). If policymakers refuse to make further changes to the system, this remaining debt will require greater sacrifices from new workers and future taxpayers.

This unfunded liability represents generational unfairness. Today’s taxpayers are paying for current retirees who provided state services in the past. Likewise, the new reforms require sacrifices primarily from new workers. They will be receiving fewer benefits while paying into a system that benefits current workers and retirees.

States have unfunded pension liabilities due to management mistakes of the past. However, the costs of these mistakes are being felt today. Going forward policymakers should see the pain they impose on younger workers and make every effort not to repeat this pattern.

The longer that reforms are delayed, the greater inter-generational inequity grows. While California has the largest unfunded pension liability, it is not alone. Because Illinois has failed to take significant actions to address the state’s debt and pension liabilities, S&P downgraded its bond rating to A-plus with a negative outlook. This makes it S&P’s second-lowest-rated state above only California. Moody’s ranks Illinois’ bonds the lowest of all states. These ratings will be accompanied by higher bond yields on Illinois’ debt for future taxpayers. This will saddle them with more of their tax dollars going to debt service rather than current state services.

Policymakers have every incentive to engage in policies that benefit current voters at the expense of future voters because they want to receive credit for providing services that exceed their cost in the present. The only way to correct this tendency is for voters to demand that lawmakers do not force the cost of current programs onto those who do not have a voice in today’s elections.

August 30, 2012

New Research From Henderson on Cronyism

Today Mercatus published a new piece on the economics and history of cronyism. It is by Professor David Henderson. David highlights his piece in an OpEd over at Real Clear Politics and in a blog post at EconLog. In the latter, he quotes a fascinating section from the paper about a certain Texas Congressman, his wife, the FCC, and a Texas radio station.

While that is one of my favorite parts of the piece, I also really like this anecdote:

Members of Congress are notorious for pushing for a particular weapons system or airplane engine even when Department of Defense officials have made it clear they do not want these things. In the 1990s, for example, Dianne Feinstein, a U.S. senator from California, pushed for the B-2 stealth bomber even though the Defense Department did not want to spend further money on the program. Senator Feinstein made an interesting slip in defending the program that gave away her true motive: “The bomber,” she declared, “can deliver a large payroll, precision or carpet.” In the Congressional Record the next day, her remarks were amended to read “payload.”

The anecdote brings to mind the impending defense sequester and the rumblings from certain Republicans that it will eliminate jobs (who knew that the power to “raise and support armies” was intended as a jobs program?).

July 27, 2012

Is the mortgage crisis to blame for San Bernardino’s bankruptcy?

The LA Times contains a new kind of argument on why cities like Stockton and San Bernardino are in bankruptcy. To date, politicians, analysts and journalists have drawn a direct line from rising employee costs and declining revenues to municipal fiscal stress. Harold Meyerson takes another path to reach his own destination – to burnish the image of unions and  politicians. His bankruptcy diagnosis gets lost along the way.

He blames the banks. These cities went bankrupt because, “banks were peddling subprime mortgages to poorly-paid workers.” While the banks are certainly involved in the economic and fiscal train wreck he is upfront that the goal is to weave a counter-narrative, challenging the “right and center right” story of fiscal irresponsibility and overpaid public employees.

The problem with narratives (on either the right or the left) is when they cobble together related events and actors without a theoretical framework and empirical evidence. Mr. Meyerson is holding several of the puzzle pieces but then forces them together without regard to how they fit.

Some puzzle pieces he correctly identifies: a housing bubble, the role of banks, the economic fortunes of the Inland Empire, and the fiscal effects of California’s Proposition 13. What he airbrushes or ignores are the roles of Fed Policy, government lending, regulatory and land-use interventions, the short-term incentives of politicians, the hand of special interests, unions, and erroneous accounting assumptions that generated the perfect storm for a fiscal fallout in 2008.

Stockton’s troubles are plain for all to see. Steven Malanga discusses them here. The municipality’s spending spree can be traced to an overheated housing market which drove Bay Area homebuyers into Stockton in search of cheaper properties. That lead to a 20 percent population growth and a surge in property tax revenues fueling Stockton’s appetite for redevelopment. In 2003 the city borrowed for a waterfront revitalization and a 5000-seat sports arena. They bonded for pension enhancements. In total the city issued $700 million in debt.

Part of the pension deal allowed workers to retire at 50 with 90 percent of their final pay plus COLAs. To pay for this, Stockton invested some bond proceeds into CALpers on the bet it would earn more than the interest payments on that debt. They lost that bet. The housing boom – itself the creation of decades of government interventions – created the mirage of ever-increasing revenues that encouraged politicians to play fast and loose with bonds and future promises to workers.

The next claim is that defined benefit plans have been “demonized” also misses the mark. Defined benefit plans – or annuities – have been destroyed by those who champion them most loudly. Faulty government actuarial assumptions made them appear cheap to operate. That encourage politicians to offer workers (in union negotiations) increasingly generous retirement terms all while underfunding those benefits and taking risks with plan assets. This is accounting chicanery, and sadly, it was not (and still isn’t fully) recognized as such. The blame there can be pinned on the esoteric but well-documented trouble with defined benefit pension accounting. This case has been made in great technical detail by economists and practitioners.

The right salary for a public worker can really only be determined with reference to a private sector counterpart. It isn’t backed into based on area housing prices. Biggs and Richwine find public teacher salaries are on par with a private sector counterpart (in terms of SAT scores and skills). But, salary is only one component of total compensation for public sector workers. Compensation also includes (undervalued and underfunded) pension benefits and (largely unfunded) health benefits. Public sector compensation is a big and growing part of many municipal budgets. What can be said is that the cost of San Bernardino’s police and firefighters represent three-quarters of the city’s expenditures and revenues are flat.

Again, Meyerson is holding one of the right puzzle pieces: the revenue bust that followed the housing bubble. But he fails to note that it was the government-induced housing bubble and subsequent revenue boom that tempted public officials to overextend themselves. This house of cards was supported by flawed accounting and incentivized by short-term gains. This is why to make those pieces fit one needs a theory and empirics otherwise the diagnosis of San Bernardino’s and Stockton’s bankruptcy is cast aside in service of the meme. It is “politics with romance.”

What caused these two cities to tank? A host of economic and fiscal factors and scores of regulatory interventions over many decades. Some of that can be found in the accounts and CAFRs. They are no fun to comb over but they reveal choices, bargains, and tradeoffs under constraints and contain the record of the evasions and faulty assumptions of “public choosers.”

July 26, 2012

The Ravitch Volker report: State Budget Crisis is Real

The recession of 2008 pulled the mask off of state budget pathologies that had been identified as institutional weaknesses in the decades leading to the crisis.

The “new normal” for state and local governments does not look like the booming 1980s and 1990s but in fact is riddled with many fiscal challenges.  Revenues aren’t what they were before 2008 though they are expected to reach pre-recession levels in FY 2013. The Medicaid and employee benefits bill is rising. The stimulus pushed forward budgetary reforms. These are some of the findings of the Ravitch-Volker Report, an effort of the State Budget Crisis Task Force which assembled in 2010-2012 to diagnose the major problems facing six states: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Texas and Virginia.

Much of the analysis is non-controversial: Medicaid is eating up budgets, as are pensions costs and health care benefits.

Medicaid, currently at 24 percent of state spending, will continue to increase as enrollment, medical inflation and the increasing caseloads that come with higher unemployment increase costs. This is not a surprise. What is new is that the federal government is making it harder for cost-saving measure to be enacted, and “entrenched provider groups in each state resist reductions in Medicaid provider rates….”  I do not believe this is the intention of the authors of the report but the diagnosis of Medicaid’s future highlights the dysfunctional aspects of this federal-state pact which has led to the creation of special interests that benefit from inflating costs.

On the pension front the Ravitch-Volker report points to the the role discount rates have played in the pension funding problems facing the state and local governments, in particular in New Jersey. And they also note the reliance on budgetary gimmicks that may even result in a kind of budgetary “cynicism.” A point I have made in the past.

But the report also makes a few assumptions about the interplay of federal, state and local spending that I think could benefit from an expanded debate. The authors warn that cuts in federal discretionary spending will doom subsidiary governments. On the surface, that’s true. Cuts in aid mean less money in state coffers for education, transportation and other areas. But the larger question is what are the fiscal effects of grants-in-aid between governments? There is the public choice literature to consider on the role of fiscal illusion in finances. And further, does the current model of delivering these services actually work as intended?

Their recommendations are largely sound. Many of them have been made before: more transparent accounting, a tightening of rainy day fund rules (see our recent paper on Illinois), broad-based tax systems should replace narrow ones, the re-establishment of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR). Abolished in 1995 ACIR was concerned with evaluating the fiscal impact of federal policies in the states. Further the commission recommends the federal government work with the states to help control Medicaid costs, and the re-evaluation by states of their own local needs including municipal finances and infrastructure spending.

The report is timely, contains good information and brings many challenges to the fore. But this discussion can also benefit from a larger debate over the current federal-state-local spending model which dates largely to the middle of last century. This debate is not merely about how books are balanced but how citizens are governed in our federalist system. The Ravitch-Volker report is sober but cautious in this regard. The report sketches out the fiscal picture of the U.S. in broad strokes and offers general principles for states to follow and it is sure to create discussion among policymakers in the coming months.

 

 

 

 

 

July 23, 2012

Less Living for your Dollar: Cost of Living also Drives Migration

People want to live where they can maximize their standard of living.  But it’s not just the high taxes driving residents out of states like California, New York, and New Jersey.

According to Eamon Moniyhan, director of The Cost of Living Project (COLP) in New York, states with the largest population growth are those with a low cost of living, in particular the South and Mountain West states. The reverse is true in the high cost of living Northeastern states — Massacussets, Connecticut, and New Jersey.

According to the U.S. Census, New Jersey has  the second highest median income in the nation at $67,142, but once the cost of living is factored in, that shrinks to $56,147. Not coincidentally, New Jersey has been experiencing a steady loss of residents for lower tax (and lower cost of living) locales such as North Carolina.

As Rutgers economists Joseph Seneca and Richard Hughes find in  “Where Have All the Dollars Gone?”, between 2000 and 2005, over one million people left New Jersey. Among the top ten destination states, some are high tax and high cost of living (New York, California, and Massachusetts). Others are low-tax and/or low cost of living states in the South and West (North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Georgia, and Florida).

What drives the high cost of living? According to COLP, excessive regulations. This is why the average metro New Yorker’s income doesn’t stretch that far. A person earning $50,789 in Chicago has the same standard of living of someone earning of $100,000 in New York City. For more, read here.

August 31, 2009

Budget Gimmickry Goes from Bad to Worse

Earlier this week, Moody’s downgraded New Jersey’s credit outlook from “stable” to “negative” in light of, as the rating agency put it, “the persistent and growing structural imbalance exacerbated by nonrecurring and temporary budgetary solutions.”

Moody’s writes, “The depletion of the state’s rainy day fund, enactment of temporary tax increases and significant reliance on nonrecurring expenditure reductions including minimal pension contributions contribute to both short-term and longer term budgetary pressures resulting in the state’s negative outlook.”

In other words, Wall Street sees right through the budget gimmickry that, while especially prevalent this year, has been a feature of New Jersey’s budget process for two decades. Budget tricks may fool voters, but they’re less likely to fool creditors. And many of the stopgap measures used to balance this year’s budget will not be available next year.

But New Jersey looks positively restrained compared with this new scheme from California, which arguably leads the nation in creative intergovernmental lending:

The cash-strapped University of California plans to loan $200 million to the even more cash-strapped State of California so that—get this—the state can give the money back to UC.

Here’s how we got to this crazy place: First, California’s enormous budget deficit sent the state’s credit rating into a death spiral and prompted massive cuts to a vast array of state-funded enterprises, including UC. The state cut UC’s budget by $813 million, prompting the university to raise student fees, furlough faculty and enact a range of other painful cost-cutting measures. But as bad as things are for UC, the university has managed to maintain a better credit rating than the state. Which means it can borrow money at a low interest rate and loan it to the state at a somewhat higher rate.

Here’s the story from the San Francisco Chronicle.

August 6, 2009

Experiments in Democracy

A Wall Street Journal editorial discusses the severity of the budget crises in three states: California, New Jersey, and New York.  While all states are suffering decreased revenues this fiscal year, the problems in these states have been especially severe, resulting in possible downgrades for California’s bonds which are already the lowest-rated in the country.

The Journal states:

A decade ago all three states were among America’s most prosperous. California was the unrivaled technology center of the globe. New York was its financial capital. New Jersey is the third wealthiest state in the nation after Connecticut and Massachusetts. All three are now suffering from devastating budget deficits as the bills for years of tax-and-spend governance come due.

During booms in the business cycle, high tax rates accompanied by an increased level of government services are palatable to taxpayers, but as these three cases exhibit, high-tax policies can quickly become unsustainable as incomes fall.

Eileen’s last post explains that state and municipal policy makers including Rudolph Giuliani are currently discussing reforms toward greater fiscal responsibility in order to promote prosperity in their localities, but these reforms are going to be difficult to enact for states that are already deeply indebted.

A great asset of the American federal system is that policy variation across the states allows citizens and law makers to observe how various fiscal policies function in the real world.  As described by the authors of the newly published 2009 edition of Rich States, Poor States, constituents do in fact “vote with their feet” by moving to states with policies that fit their desires.  This year’s index demonstrates that states in the South and West are generally gaining domestic population from the Northeast where taxes and government involvement in the economy are generally higher.

Unfortunately, the same experimentation at the federal level carries much greater costs.  Until now, federal aid has allowed for irresponsible fiscal policies to continue at the state level, but this policy may be coming to an end.  If the federal debt and deficit approach the unsustainable levels that states such as California, New Jersey, and New York have reached, no entity will be able to bail it out.  Additionally, economic policies at the federal level do not provide the same sort of natural experiment within the country and carry a higher risk of severe negative consequences.

The article continues:

At least Americans have the ability to flee these ill-governed states for places that still welcome wealth creators. The debate in Washington now is whether to spread this antigrowth model across the entire country.

While government systems can never incorporate the feedback mechanisms of the market, the federalist system allows for a sort of competition between states and localities in which competition allows successful programs to thrive and spread. However, this system only works when unsuccessful local policies are not subsidized by the federal government and when authority is sufficiently devolved to allow states to differentiate their policies from one another’s.

June 30, 2009