Failing to Extend Federal Recovery Funding will Cost Jobs

Federal fiscal relief to states is set to expire at the end of 2010, but state fiscal shortfalls (including Washington State's) are expected to last into 2012 or longer. A new round of fiscal relief could help offset the damaging cuts proposed in the Governor's recent budget and provide a boost to the recovery. In order to be of use to Washington State, Congress must act soon so these funds can be included in the budget process.

In Washington State, there has been record drops in state revenue at the same time as dramatic increases in the need for public structures that provide health care, economic security, and job retraining. We are not alone. At least 38 other states have mid-year deficits that have opened up after balancing their budgets earlier this year (more detail). The actions that states must take to close these deficits could cost the economy as many as 900,000 jobs.

In the last round of deficit-closing, most states including Washington State relied heavily on federal fiscal relief. These funds helped stave off even deeper cuts in health care and education and provided a boost to the economy. The graph below shows how much of the total state fiscal gap was closed through federal recovery funds. It also shows how deficits continue into fiscal year 2012, after the federal relief has ended.

Governor’s Forthcoming Revenue Proposal Only a Drop in the Bucket

In the 2010 legislative session, Washington State will have to address the continuing effects of the economic recession. Governor Gregoire has signaled a willingness to take a more balanced approach between cuts and revenue enhancements. In the context of the total size of the fiscal impacts of the recession, however, her revenue proposal will only be a drop in the bucket and will not save crucial services.

During the last session, the state cut $3.6 billion in public services—cuts that will hurt state priorities such as the quality of education at every level, the availability of affordable health insurance, and the quality of our health care infrastructure. There were a few pieces of legislation that raised revenue, but no meaningful tax increases.*

The Governor’s budget proposal that was released on Wednesday follows in the same vein, with no revenue increases and $1.6 billion in cuts. However, the Governor also announced that she would introduce a second budget in January that would include roughly $1 billion in cuts and $700 million in revenue increases.

The Governor's proposal is a start to the conversation, but a bolder, more balanced approach is needed.

First of all, the $700 million would do nothing to save programs that help working families pay for child care, prevent costly health problems by supporting at-risk pregnant women, and clean up toxic sites. These are just a few of many cuts proposed in the Governor’s first budget proposal that she has not signaled will be protected in her second proposal.

And even with the Governor’s forthcoming revenue proposal, the approach the state has taken to the total budget shortfall will still be severely imbalanced. Combining the Governor’s proposal with the previously enacted revenue policy, revenue increases would only make up eight percent of the total solution to an over $11 billion problem (see graph below). Cuts in core public services will total 40 percent.


* Revenue legislation passed in the 2009 session gave the Department of Revenue more oversight of purchases for resale, authorized multi-state lottery agreements, increased out-of-state auditing, and opened new liquor stores.

Governor's Budget will Create Costly Problems Down the Road

The budget cuts released yesterday by the Governor include several items that would only end up creating more costly problems down the road. This approach will diminish the quality of life for thousands of Washingtonians now and in the future. It also defers higher costs to the state that will inhibit our economic recovery going forward.

Budget cuts to state investments that focus on prevention and other longer-term benefits include the following:

• The budget would suspend all funding ($13.9 million) for non-emergency dental care for adult clients of Medicaid. This will have a direct impact on the health of 120,000 Washingtonians. Further, by not funding prevention and early treatment, the budget will likely increase the need for more expensive emergency dental care in the future.

• The budget proposes eliminating all state-funded early learning programs for three-year olds from lower income families ($10.5 million), directly affecting 1,500 children. High quality early learning programs set the stage for success in life and are expected to confer economic benefits to the state in the future.

• The budget significantly reduces funding for the Water Quality Program, a cut that will damage our ability to plan for healthy water. Ensuring the quality of our water through preventing and cleaning up water pollution has a direct impact on human and environmental health in communities throughout the state. Neglecting this government responsibility will be costly to reverse.

• The budget would mean that over 65,000 people would lose health coverage by eliminating the Basic Health program ($160.6 million) and sharply limit the availability of childcare assistance ($88.5 million) to working families. State investments in health insurance and childcare help to encourage and support employment for families that are struggling to stay out of poverty.

• Family preservation services seek to preserve or reunite families. They assist families in crisis by improving parenting skills and family functioning. Children are protected while being able to remain in their own families. The Governor’s budget would slash funding for these programs in half ($5.9 million).

• The budget would eliminate funding ($28.1 million) that reduces premature births and infant mortality by providing support for lower-income women with at-risk pregnancies. Without these support services, families and the state will inherit more costly problems down the road.

An Imbalanced Budget

Governor Gregoire released her 2010 supplemental budget proposal this morning. It includes $1.6 billion in cuts to essential public structures that promote health, education, economic security, and safe and thriving communities.

As required by law, the budget works inside existing revenue constraints. The Governor acknowledged her concern over this budget and plans to release a second budget that will include necessary revenue increases in order to avoid the most damaging cuts.

The Governor is right to be concerned about the effects this budget would have on Washington’s economy and people during these tough economic times. A balanced approach that includes meaningful revenue increases is a better alternative.

The budget released today proposes completely eliminating or suspending efforts including (this is only a partial list):

• Basic Health, which provides affordable health insurance to 65,000 people.
• General Assistance for the Unemployable, which provides help to people who are unable to work because of disability.
• Health insurance coverage for 16,000 lower income children.
• Benefits for Medicaid clients including vision, podiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, prescription drug assistance for elderly patients, hospice care, dental, and maternity support.
• Funding to send more than 1,500 3-year-olds to preschool.
• State support for all-day kindergarten in high-poverty areas.
• Class size reduction efforts.
• A program that equalizes school funding between wealthy and poor school districts.
• Tuition assistance for over 12,000 lower-income students.

Stay tuned to schmudget for more analysis of the Governor’s budget.

Raising Taxes Would Prevent Economically Damaging Budget Cuts

Later this week, the Governor is expected to release her supplemental budget to close the $2.6 billion deficit that is a result of the ongoing economic crisis. State lawmakers will have difficult decisions to make in the upcoming months, as they find a way to balance the state budget. We encourage them to take a balanced approach that includes revenue enhancements as well as spending reductions to protect essential public structures such as health care and education.

Raising revenue is a better alternative for our state economy than budget cuts. In a paper for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote, “In the short run (which is the period of concern during a downturn), the adverse impact of a tax increase on the economy may, if anything, be smaller than the adverse impact of a spending reduction, because some of the tax increase would result in reduced saving rather than reduced consumption.”

Last February, the Budget & Policy Center released a letter signed by over 20 economists and public policy experts in Washington State urging lawmakers to take a balanced approach, including revenue increases, when addressing the state’s budget deficit. “Implementing deep cuts in government spending and declining to raise revenue through tax increases is not an effective strategy to guide Washington State out of this recession,” the letter states.

The letter remains a potent reminder to lawmakers to consider all options for balancing the budget in the challenging months ahead. We certainly hope that they will.

The Unprotected Budget

Primarily as a result of the recession, Washington State, like most states, is now facing a large deficit ($2.6 billion). As we pointed out in our recent slideshow on the state economic and fiscal outlook, most of the budget is off-limits to cuts. This means that an all-cuts budget would require elimination of entire programs and services.

A new presentation by the Senate Ways and Means Committee staff provides more detail on this issue. They estimate that only $7.7 billion of the state budget is vulnerable to cuts in the coming session, with programs that provide economic security for lower income Washingtonians being especially exposed.

They break down the $7.7 billion into three categories: 1) timing (nearly $10 billion will already be spent by the time the new budget is signed), 2) legal restrictions such as state constitutional requirements, federal law, and debt and pension obligations, and 3) strings attached to the federal recovery funds.


The graph below breaks down the vulnerable part of the budget into program areas.


They also provide a possible scenario (see table below) to illustrate what $2.6 billion in cuts could mean. It includes elimination of financial aid, the Basic Health Plan, in-home services for clients with long-term care needs or developmental disabilities, and money that is used to equalize school funding between rich and poor districts.

New Slideshow on State Economic and Fiscal Outlook

Watch the 12-minute slideshow (audio included) below to get a better understanding of the state economic and fiscal outlook, including ideas for a balanced solution to the budget shortfall.

Click on the green “play” button on the bottom to begin the narrated slide show. The large black arrow on the right-hand side just skips forward to the second slide.

Note: if you cannot see the presentation try using the Firefox browser instead of Internet Explorer.

Washington Families Risk Losing Housing Assistance

Thousands of low income families in Washington could face painful reductions in housing assistance if Congress fails to approve additional funding for a critical federal voucher program. The Housing Choice Voucher Program provides rental support for about two million low income families throughout the United States. The program, however, faces a large budget shortfall for the remainder of 2009. Left unfilled, this shortfall could force hundreds of state and local housing agencies, serving 500,000 families, to curtail or eliminate rental assistance administered through the voucher program. Here in Washington, as many as 11,550 families could see reductions in housing vouchers.

According to a new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), the shortfall in the voucher program immediately threatens rental assistance in about 400 state and local housing agencies. Cumulatively, these agencies will need an additional $130 million in funding for vouchers in 2009 to avoid drastic cuts in rental assistance and to restore assistance where cuts have already been made.

As of May 2009, shortfalls among housing agencies in Washington totaled nearly $1.6 million, leaving vouchers for 404 families completely unfunded.

The CBPP report goes on to show that states will have few good options should congress fail to approve additional funds for the voucher program. These options include:

• Denying vouchers to eligible families on waiting lists, even when slots become available;



• raising rents on voucher families;



• reducing rents paid to property owners; and



• terminating vouchers for participating families.

BPC Report Shows I-1033 Undermines Public Priorities

A new paper by the Budget & Policy Center finds Initiative 1033 would impose strict spending limits on state and local governments resulting in sharp reductions in public investments in education, community development, health care, and economic security. By restricting resources, I-1033 would dramatically weaken the state's ability to fund important public priorities and would diminish the quality of life for all Washingtonians.

I-1033 would:

• Sharply limit public investments over time



• Lock in the current budget cuts and increase the deficit



• Exacerbate the effects of economic downturns



• Be fiscally irresponsible

To read the entire paper, click here.

Increases in Caseload Forecast Will Cost $250 Million

Today, the Washington State Caseload Forecast Council (CFC) released its revised caseload projections for the 2009-2011 biennial budget. The Office of Financial Management (OFM is the Governor's budget office) predicts that CFC's current caseload forecast will increase the cost of maintaining current budget commitments by $250 million in the current biennium. Combined with the recent revenue forecast, the State is hundreds of millions short of the revenue needed to maintain public structures.

The rise in the caseload forecasts reflect the growing need for public services during the current economic recession. The projections below are based on OFM data:

Health care: State-funded health care for children and families will require an additional $183 million. To maintain mental health services, costs are projected to increase by $29 million and costs of serving more residents in nursing homes and in home community-based services are projected to jump by almost $9 million.

Economic security: Increases in the General Assistance caseload will require an additional $12 million.

Education: Changes to the K-12 caseload amount to approximately $10 million. Most of this increase is due to an additional 916 students from the time of the budget's adoption. The state expects less private school enrollment and a larger birth cohort which will increase the number of students entering school.

With the fiscal year starting today, the deep cuts in the state budget from the last legislative session will begin to be felt in these and other state investments.

Basic Health Waiting List Growing by 386 People Per Day

The recently enacted state budget made deep cuts to the Basic Health Plan (BHP), which is the state program that provides affordable managed care health insurance to lower income Washingtonians who do not qualify for Medicaid. Because of the cuts, the number of people receiving health insurance through the plan will be reduced by 36,000.

But disenrolling participants is only one part of the picture. The budget cuts are coming at a time when the need for the BHP is growing dramatically. As shown below, between the end of the legislative session and yesterday, the number of people on the waiting list for BHP has grown by over 14,000 people. That’s an average of 386 per day.


This year the state will take an enormous step backwards in our commitment to ensuring quality and affordable health insurance for all. It is a step that could have been ameliorated by a modest sales tax increase.

The Final Budget Cuts, Part Three: Thriving Communities

Thriving communities rely on public investments that maintain our state infrastructure and protect our natural resources. Public structures such as transportation, communications, justice, and the arts keep our state economy in motion, our neighborhoods safe, and our cultural life vibrant. To create thriving communities, we need to do more than address short-term needs. We need thoughtful, long-term planning and the sustainable use of resources.

The state can promote economic growth and the wise use of resources while also ensuring that business, education, and the arts serve the interests of all Washingtonians.

This year's budget process resulted in significant budget cuts in areas that contribute to thriving communities, particularly natural resources and public safety. (Click on the table below to see a larger version).

Closing the Deficit: An Unbalanced Approach

This afternoon, the Governor will take action on an operating budget that must close an $8 billion deficit, likely the largest in state history. Rather than take an approach that balances raising revenue and reducing spending, the budget passed by the Legislature relies heavily on deep budget cuts in education, health care, economic security, public safety, and the environment.

The graph below shows how the Legislature’s budget closes the three-year deficit. (The numbers may differ slightly once the Governor exercises her veto power.)

• Budget cuts: The budget makes a total of $6.7 billion in near-general fund cuts. We'll be providing more detail on these budgets cuts later in the week. Federal stimulus funds offset $3 billion of these cuts, however this number is somewhat misleading because other spending cuts reduce the federal funds the state is entitled to receive.


• Revenue: Actions on revenue are expected to raise a net $242 million. These include restructuring the resale certificate program, opening nine liquor stores on Sunday, and opening liquor stores in malls during the holiday season.


• Rainy Day Fund: $445 million is transferred from the Rainy Day Fund, leaving a balance in that account of $250 million.


• Capital budget resources: The budget uses $777 million of funds that are typically appropriated in the capital budget.


• Other transfers and changes: An additional $389 million in funds is accessed by transferring money from other accounts and making other marginal changes.


• Ending balance: These actions leave an estimated $573 million in an unrestricted balance, although recent revenue collections suggest the ending balance could actually be lower.

$8 Billion Deficit: What a Difference a Year Made

Tomorrow, the Governor is expected to sign a budget that has the unenviable task of closing an $8 billion near-general fund deficit, likely the largest shortfall in state history.*

How did we get to $8 billion? The graph below divides the deficit by 1) the shortfall that was anticipated in June 2008, 2) the increase in cost estimates since June 2008, and 3) the decrease in revenue expectations since June 2008.


About one quarter of the $8 billion deficit was already anticipated in June 2008, after the Governor signed the supplemental budget. In 2007 and 2008, the Legislature maintained long-term investments in key public priorities, but failed to enact revenue solutions that would ensure funding beyond that biennium. As a result, after passing the 2008 supplemental budget, state forecasters estimated there would be a nearly $2 billion deficit by the end of fiscal year 2011.

While the forecasters expected a weak economy, they were not prepared for the economic crises that hit last fall. As the economy plummeted, the state’s deficit forecasts quadrupled.

Here’s why: a suffering economy takes a toll on the state budget both in terms of costs and revenue. On the cost side, the recession increased the need for public supports that provide economic and health security. In total, between June 2008 and March 2009 the estimated price tag of continuing current commitments rose by roughly $600 million.**

But the biggest problem for the state budget comes from the loss of revenue. Between June 2008 and March 2009, the official state revenue projection fell by $5.5 billion, an eight percent reduction. The largest component was a $2.9 billion decrease in expected sales tax revenue because of a sharp decline in retail sales. In addition, the housing crisis took its toll; revenue from the real estate excise tax fell by 25 percent from what was expected in June.

So that’s how we got to $8 billion. Tomorrow we’ll discuss what this year’s budget writers did (and didn’t do) to close the gap.

* Often, projections of budget deficits use estimates of additional policy costs that are not generally included in the maintenance budget. For this analysis, we are only including the stricter definition of the maintenance budget, which results in a more conservative estimate of the deficit.
** $600 million is a rough estimate based on unofficial Senate Ways and Means projections from Summer 2008.

Series on the State Budget Crisis: Part Three, States Raise Taxes

States are struggling to balance their budgets during the current economic recession. As we discussed in yesterday's post, many have opted to cut spending as a result. But given the sheer size of state budget shortfalls, cuts alone will not be enough to solve the problem without long term harm to essential public services.

According to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, instead of a cuts-only approach, states are increasingly employing a combination of budget solutions that involves drawing down reserve funds, maximizing the use of federal dollars, and raising taxes.

As the map below shows, so far in 2009 sixteen states have raised new revenue through tax measures. Another 17 are giving serious consideration to doing so. These initiatives are in addition to revenue actions taken in states in late 2007 and 2008 as the recession’s effects began to be felt.


In addition, the report finds that states that raised taxes during the 2001 recession were just as fast to rebound from the recession as states that did not, even though they were typically climbing out of a deeper hole.

Series on the State Budget Crisis: Part Two, Cuts to Vital Programs

As we mentioned in yesterday's post, almost every state in the nation is facing budget deficits because of the weakened economy. The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act includes roughly $140 billion in fiscal relief for state governments. But the recovery act funding will only be enough to fill about 40 percent of the $350 billion to $370 billion shortfall that states will face in the next two-and-a-half years.

According to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 36 states have addressed their shortfalls by cutting spending. As the report notes, cuts in state budgets worsen the recession by reducing overall economic activity. Reductions in state spending translate into fewer state jobs, canceled contracts with vendors, lower payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cuts in benefit payments to individuals.

Importantly, cuts in state spending also particularly hurt the most vulnerable residents in the state. The report outlines five areas in which states have made cuts. Washington State has made cuts in all of these areas.

• Public health programs: At least 19 states have implemented cuts that will affect low-income children’s or families’ eligibility for health insurance or reduce their access to health care services.


• Programs for the elderly and disabled: At least 21 states plus the District of Columbia are cutting medical, rehabilitative, home care, or other services needed by low-income people who are elderly or have disabilities, or significantly increasing the cost of these services.


• K-12 education: At least 22 states are cutting K-12 and early education.


• Colleges and universities: At least 30 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities, resulting in cuts in faculty and staff and tuition increases of 4 percent to 15 percent.


• State workforces: At least 39 states and the District of Columbia have made cuts affecting their state workforces. At least 27 states and the District of Columbia have instituted hiring freezes, 10 have announced lay-offs, 15 have reduced state worker wages, and several have delayed scheduled pay increases (including cost of living adjustments).

Click on the chart to see a state-by-state view of cuts in these budget areas.


Tomorrow we will post on states that have raised taxes to help close budget deficits during the current recession.

Series on the State Budget Crisis: Part One, The Big Picture

Most states, including Washington State, are facing deep fiscal troubles. A new series of reports from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analyzes the effects of the state fiscal crisis and how states are responding. Today’s schmudget post looks at the overall state deficit picture, tomorrow’s will look at budget cuts states are undertaking, and Friday’s will look at states that are considering tax increases.

Washington is not alone among states that are in deep fiscal trouble. According to a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 47 states are dealing with significant budget shortfalls. Combined budget gaps for the remainder of this fiscal year and state fiscal years 2010 and 2011 are estimated to total more than $350 billion, the report says.

As the graph below shows, in fiscal year 2009, total state budget shortfalls amount to $106 billion. The estimated budget deficits going forward show the problem is expected to get worse. The CBPP estimates that FY 2010 deficits will amount to $145 billion and FY 2011 deficits will be $180 billion.


According to this article in the TNT, Washington State Governor Gregoire told the paper's editorial board that she anticipates state revenue forecasts will be down in June and September as revenue collections continue to fall.

Here in Washington, as in many other states, the problem of inadequate revenue to meet the needs of normal growth in state spending is not going away. An honest conversation about how to move forward and preserve important progress that has been made through state investments in health care, education, communities, and economic security must continue.

Tomorrow we will look at the deep cuts in state investments that have occurred throughout the country.

Spokesman-Review Editorial Debunks Myths on Taxes and Spending

The legislative session officially ended yesterday. State lawmakers settled on an all-cuts budget that will cut $4 billion out of state investments in education, health care, community infrastructure, and economic security.

Using data from the Budget & Policy Center, Gary Crooks from the Spokesman-Review’s editorial board wrote a nice piece pointing out some of the core problems with our state’s fiscal structure. He also called for action, stating:

They better get started, because the amounts raised by the current taxes clearly do not match the needs of the state. And as Dr. Phil might ask lawmakers, “How’s that workin’ for ya?”

UPDATE: A Longer-Term Perspective on State Budget Proposals

UPDATE: The graph below has been updated to reflect the budget agreement released today, which would impose significantly deeper budget cuts relative to the economy than any other budget over the period shown.

When looking at state fiscal trends, the standard methodology is to compare state spending and revenue to total personal income.* This provides insight on the resources we have to fund public investments and also recognizes that the cost of government grows along with economic and demographic trends.



This graph looks at spending (the green line) and revenue (the blue line) as a share of personal income from 1995-97 to the legislative budget proposals for 2009-11. Some key facts to note:

• Revenue had been eroding before the current economic recession because of significant tax cuts, spending limitations, and a tax system that doesn’t grow along with the economy even during good times.**

• The decrease in revenue in the current biennium is twice as large as previous declines.

• State spending has been fairly flat for a decade.

• The proposed budget cuts for 2009-11 are significantly deeper relative to the economy than any other budget over this time. They would result in a much smaller investment in public priorities.
  

*Personal income is an estimate of the total income received by all Washingtonians from all sources (employment, dividends, interest, etc.). For more, see the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

**Wonder why revenue increased in 2005-07? The housing market.

Comparison of Budget Agreement to House and Senate Budgets

The overall structure of the 2009-11 budget agreement, the details of which were released today, is similar to previous proposals from the House and Senate, although there are key differences in how the budget cuts are distributed. The table below gives an overview of the total cuts and a comparison with the previous House and Senate budgets.


For more details, click here.