EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Report: Tough Times Far from Over for States
PHOENIX -- Lawmakers have reduced spending for parks, health care for low-income children and some state-funded medical transplants. Still, the tough times are far from over.
States of emergencies. The deepest economic downturn in 70 years, job losses and high home foreclosure rates have led to a sharp drop in tax revenue flowing to local and state governments, leaving agencies with spending commitments they can no longer afford.
A report by the National Conference of State Legislatures to be released
Wednesday says the fiscal crisis reshaping the level of services that
government can deliver is likely to last at least another three years
for many states.
The report did offer a glimmer of good news: State economies are improving, and so are tax revenues.
And yet, modest gains in tax revenue will not be enough to help most states' budgets in the coming fiscal year. And that means more pain for those who depend on state programs, from schools to public transportation.
"It just poses these excruciatingly difficult decisions," said Corina Eckl, the organization's director of fiscal programs.
The deepest economic downturn in 70 years, job losses and high home foreclosure rates have led to a sharp drop in tax revenue flowing to local and state governments, leaving agencies with spending commitments they can no longer afford.
So far, budget gaps totaling $26.7 billion are anticipated for 15 states, the report said. The other 35 states do not project a gap, so far, for their current budgets, NCSL said.
Last time around, states closed a cumulative $83.9 billion deficit. For many, it was their third or even fourth year of shortfalls.
States have been able to make up the shortfalls with a combination of federal aid, including stimulus funds, borrowing, selling assets, raiding special funds and cuts in such services as day care subsidies and police.
But opportunities to repeat those strategies are getting harder to find.
That prospect has some legislators, even Republicans, discussing tax increases.
"There's only so much you can cut before you get to what I call essential services that need to be provided by the state," said state Sen. Bill Raggio, a Reno, Nev., Republican whose 28-year tenure makes him the longest-serving legislator in state history.
Nevada, which leads the nation in unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures, is projected to have a shortfall between $1.1 billion and $3 billion, depending on what level of services that lawmakers want the state to provide.
They met in February in a special session to close an $800 million gap, in part, by draining reserve accounts and increasing fees, such as the cost for banks to file foreclosure paperwork with the state.
In addition to Nevada, states such as Illinois have projected shortfalls of more than 30 percent of their general funds.
Spending restraint has helped such states as Missouri avoid shortfalls in the current fiscal year, according to the report, based on the revenue and spending in every state and Puerto Rico.
States projecting shortfalls of 20 percent or greater in the 2012 fiscal years include New Jersey (26 percent) and North Carolina (20.3 percent), while Illinois' midyear gap in its current budget tops the list at a projected 47 percent of its general fund.
Illinois carried nearly $6.5 billion in unpaid bills into the fiscal year that began in July. The state's pension funds, which have nearly $80 billion in unfunded liabilities, are owed at least $3.7 billion this year.
Lawmakers are reluctant to cut spending or services, and the state's flat income tax rate hasn't been increased in 20 years.
"It's going to take cuts in areas that have not traditionally been cut - you can't do it with just an income tax increase - and then some strategic borrowing," Democrat Rep. Frank Mautino said.
"And we need help from the general economy, but that's not coming for another year or so," he said.
In Arizona, the state has a 9.7 percent shortfall projected in the current fiscal year and a 14.7 percent gap in the next one. The state has so far cut around the edges of public school funding by suspending aid for maintenance, halving funding for kindergarten and slashing money to buy of computers, textbooks and other equipment.
"It's never been anywhere close to the difficulty that we're apparently facing," said Chuck Essigs, a school finance expert for an Arizona association of school business officials.
Funding for some transplants through the state's Medicaid program ended Oct. 1 under a budget cut approved earlier this year. Gov. Jan Brewer said the state can't afford to maintain its current program and its previous services.
Democrat lawmakers on Tuesday called on Brewer to restore funding to the program.
"This "Brewercare" has set up real death panels here in Arizona and it is outrageous and disgusting," said Rep. Anna Tovar, who had bone marrow transplants in 2001 and 2002 to treat leukemia.
In California, the projected shortfall in the current fiscal year and the next one is expected to grow to $25.4 billion, equivalent to nearly 30 percent of the current $86.6 billion general spending plan.
California's 2009 cash shortage forced the state to issue IOUs, furlough tens of thousands of state workers and impose temporary tax increases. Service cuts included trimming health care for the poor. They also raided local government funds.
"Transforming California thoughtfully and responsibly will take longer than the 28 days Governor (Arnold) Schwarzenegger has left in office. Hasty action now could have devastating impacts," said Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield, chair of budget committee.
The report said most legislative budget directors say the revenue outlook in their states is stable, a turnaround from a year ago when just four provided that assessment. Meanwhile, directors in 17 states voiced concern, down from 30 a year ago.
Other states, especially those rich in natural resources, have weathered the recession reasonably well.
In West Virginia, for example, the revenue is 8.2 percent above projection, led by increased severance taxes on coal and other extracted natural resources . State officials also credit a multiyear effort to resist growth of the Medicaid program.
"In recent times, when the national economy was strong and revenues were up, West Virginia did not create new programs," said acting Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin. "We are able to continue to pay our bills, while keeping our budget stable."
Associated Press writers Bob Christie in Phoenix, Lawrence Messina in Charleston, W.Va., Sandra Chereb in Carson City, Nev., John O'Connor in Springfield, Ill., and Judy Lin in Sacramento, Calif., contributed to this report.Online:
National Association of State Legislatures:http://www.ncsl.org
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

22 Comments so far
Show AllSo Nevada is looking at a budget shortfall of $1.1 billion to $3 billion. That's chump change compared to Minnesota where the shortfall is projected at $6.4 billion, and the "Chump" responsible, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, is looking for a "change."
Mr. Pawlenty wants to change his title from Governor to President, and he has held our whole state hostage for 8 years to achieve his goal. According to Republican Dogma, he just might have the right stuff(ing.) We all know what he's full of. Don't be fooled in a year or so when you see his smiling mug on the nightly news.
Keep in mind that Obamacare uses US taxpayer dollars to bolster the IRS's efforts to enforce the individual mandate to punish American's who don't send money to a private insurance company for "medical insurance".
Rather than creating a Federal Agency to punish insurance companies that don't pay claims, Obamacare (in 2014) adds an unfunded mandate to each State to punish insurance companies that don't pay claims. By 2014 most states won't be able to afford to enforce Obamacare.
Nor will the people be able to afford ObamaCare, My sister has been out of work 18 months but does do some temp work, theres no-way she can afford ObamaCare. I lost 10% this tern of the MOU I don't see how I can afford the increase after 2013, that my cheapskate union took as a buyin for this coming disaster!
>^^<
P.S. the unions doing great! the membership not so well!
I find it fascinating that after 30 years of these "savings" of the privatization of gov't functions all these states are going broke. I can point to one reason why.
Colorado, where I live, used to run it's own prisons, like all states. When Reagan took over and started this rush to private pay offs, the state spent $70 million on those prisons every year. It held pretty steady, adjusted for inflation, from the time they started keeping track of it. Then came privatization, and the for profit prison industry. Now, the state spends 11 TIMES that for a total of $770 million. We spend as much on screwing with people for cannabis as we used to for EVERYTHING, $69 million.
When locking people up makes you money, you get things passed that put more and more people in jail. When you are on probation in Colorado for ANY felony, no matter how slight (like growing your own weed without their paperwork), now, for instance, you lose your driver's license for 90 days. Right when you have to keep working or violate your probation, and when you have to make enough MORE to keep paying their extortion, they make it impossible for you to get to work at all. Tell me that isn't about trying to force you to violate your probation so they can lock you up anyway! When you consider that more people are locked up for violating probation than any other "crime", it's pretty clear what is going on.
The real point is that republican policies lead to corruption, excess gov't spending in the name of "savings" and "keeping you safe" (feel any safer than you did 30 years ago? I don't), overt gov't intrusion in your life, and a two tiered justice system that locks us up while it lets the rich go because "it might hurt their employment future" (in the words of the Eagle County Colorado DA who let off a hedge fund manager for a hit and run that nearly killed a man on his bicycle). You and I pay for the rich to have fun and play with what SHOULD have been our children's college funds. They ship our jobs off to foreign lands, drop the tariffs that have made trade possible for over 200 years, making sure that our workers can't compete, and we are supposed to pay for this?
The rich need to start paying a reasonable amount of tax. To let them get a lower tax rate because they didn't work for their money than those who did is a sure sign of class warfare. They should be paying a HUGE amount on that, IMHO. I say return to the Eisenhower tax rates. 92%, and NONE of the loopholes he allowed. They want to complain about a 3% increase? Let's see how they like a 60% increase instead.
Add to that a fair tax rate for corporations. 75% of fortune 500 companies pay NOTHING in taxes to this country. These are the same guys who are sitting on $1.6 TRILLION and refuse to invest it in America. Business used to pay 36% of all taxes in this country, now they pay about 8%.
Do that and you will see those state's financial issues clear up virtually overnight. And somehow I suspect that those rich people will still be rich and those businesses will still be in business afterward. It's really that simple.
Stop giving the rich breaks, they are rich, they don't NEED them. They don't spend. People who need things spend. If you want an actual economy, you make sure that MORE people have money, not less. It's a fool's game to think that the rich will EVER spend you to an economy. They didn't get rich by spending, did they? Money doesn't trickle down, it trickles UP. Give a million poor people a thousand dollars or give one rich person the same total and tell me who is going to spend it. Every dollar spent by those poor folks returns $1.77 to the economy. Any dollar not spent by the rich person, and it's likely it will be most if not all of that, COSTS us $0.88. Again, it's really that simple.
Sorry for the novel. Sometimes the stupidity takes a few words to adequately ass kick.
Long post, but like you said sometimes its necessary to deal with the BS.
I say lets call the Republicans bluff. They want the tax cuts to create jobs? Jack the tax rates to 98% for the highest earners, then fore each 100 American jobs they create the percentage of tax they pay goes down 1%. (for example). It should also be on a sliding scale, where the more money you make the more jobs you need to create to get that 1% in tax savings. And finally any money collected by this tax on the super rich MUST be used to create WPA type government jobs.
A nifty side effect of this law would be that it will allow the super rich to once again become contributing members to society.
Now there is some real incentive for the rich to create jobs. Use your money to create jobs, and potentially more money for you, or loose it to taxes. That makes sense to me, if your REAL reason for tax cuts is to create jobs. Why doesn't O-bomb-a, throw that proposal out there and let the Repulsives try to argue with its reasoning.
I like your proposal. Since the wealthy and big business bought the politicians so they could steal us blind, I say we do the same right back. Sorry if I seem to have no compassion for those who have destroyed the world's economy for their own amusement.
The funny thing is, that is exactly what the FDR tax increases did. They told business and the rich, either you invest your money back into this country, or we take it to benefit the country anyway. One way, you retain control over what those investments will be, the other, you're not bothered with it. In one, you can profit even more from making that investment, in the other everyone benefits anyway.
It wasn't until the removal of those tax rates that we started watching the country go to hell in a handbasket. Put them back, and the rich will still be rich, and I doubt seriously that you will see a single large corporation go out of business because of taxes. The only difference is that we will start to be able to work again.
Why you say here about the tax rates is so basic and obvious, it does make you wonder why the Dems aren't screaming this from the capitol dome. Although there still are some decent Dems left, as a party it is pretty useless to the common man.
Just gotta trick Obama into capitulating into it!
>^^<
Now why didn't I think of that....pay for performance just like teachers! For every say 1000 jobs related to tax breaks to the wealthy provide, we knock .01% off their taxes....($250K plus in taxable income).....when we get to 5% unemployment again we hold their taxes level. Yeh that should do it....easy....next?
I like your "pay for performance just like teachers!" Nice touch!
Christ I almost forgot that crazy Rhee bitch who messed over Washington DC schools is headded out here to Sacramento! S.O.S. any teachers better run now!
>^^<
In Pennsylvania, juvenile prisons were for-profit. What better way to increase profits than to bribe a judge to throw more kids into the electric zoo?
I've heard of one profitable "dementia" case in Santa Barbara, where a judge declared a rich widow to be a ward of the state, and then threw the "executor" business to a friend to rob the widow blind, and the widow says no I'm not demented at all! She has no food in her beautiful house that her husband left her, but her friends donate food. The more friends she has, the sooner this corruption stops.
And wasn't it PA that recently had 2 judges arrested for corruption, having hundreds of kids jailed for the kickbacks? That is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. Money screws up pretty much everything. You can't expect it to do less in politics than it does everywhere else.
Don't forget, the affable über-hack Ed Rendell tried hard to sell off the historic Pennsylvania Turnpike to the private sector.
Presumably his State Trooper chauffeur would have retained Ed's speeding privileges if he'd been successful.*
*Rendell suffered minor negative publicity when it was reported that his car frequently exceeded the speed limit on trips between Harrisburg and Philly. It seems to be a gubernatorial perk; former NJ governor Jon Corzine was busted up pretty badly in a near-fatal accident while speeding for no compelling reason.
The federal government has maxed out its AmEx card, so it has pushed all the pain onto the states. What will the states do? Push it on the townships and cities. What will the cities do? Uh, oh, don't ask.
In a failed state, the idea of a government agency is to collect as much money as is available and give it to a private citizen or a foreign company. If we elect a junta, or if a junta elects itself, we get something approximating a failed state.
The Federal Government keeps laying more unfunded mandates on the bankrupt states.
No mention of the fact that the money which used to return to the states from the federal government is now going overseas in the form of corrupt business strategies, including anything from tax evasions, outsourcing of jobs, warmongering, and bailing out corrupt banks.
Basically, we are told in this un-deep article that if we could all become as retarded as West Virginia (which promotes environmental degradation and poverty while reducing services), we might improve our lot(s) in life.
Cut the damn Pentagon and its corrupt spy-whores!
Like the wicked witch of the west that Dorothy melted away with a bucket of water, the EMPIRE is dying befure our eyes.
The People have already been pushed off the cliff. It's only right that government should follow.
If Democrats are going to offer any change, to say nothing about hope, they may have a chance now in California.
Most European countries, Aust. and NZ make the rich pay taxes and they don't turn into communist dictatorships.
State legislators and governors need to start thinking in terms of what is good for the STATE and not the Federal goverment.
Ellen Brown's website (http://publicbanking.wordpress.com/)that talks about opening up state banks would be a good start to learn how they can make their own states solvent.
And if they don't have the guts to create a state bank they can watch this cartoon explaining how the FED can fix the economy: http://moneyaswealth.blogspot.com/2010/12/so-simple-cartoon-can-do-it.html. One way or another, the "big boys" on Wall Street need a kick in the ass.