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.

35 States Face New Budget Shortfalls, More Federal Fiscal Relief Needed

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) finds that 35 states – including Washington State – face new budget shortfalls in the current 2010 fiscal year as a result of the national recession.* Each of these 35 states had already acted to close significant budget shortfalls, but have seen new gaps open up as the economic outlook worsened over the summer and fall.

Even after the economy begins to recover, state fiscal problems are likely to linger for several years as a result of persistent unemployment. According to the report, “High unemployment and economic uncertainty, combined with household’s diminished wealth due to fallen property tax values, will continue to depress consumption, thus sales tax receipts also will remain low. These factors suggest that state budget gaps will continue to be significantly larger than in the last recession, and last longer.”

The graph below shows the total size of state budget gaps closed during the recession of the early 2000s and current recession. In aggregate, states are projected to face sizeable shortfalls at least through 2012.



It is important to note that the measures taken to fill state budget gaps earlier this year – that is, cuts in services and tax increases – would have been much more severe were it not for state fiscal relief provided as part of the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), also known as the federal stimulus act.

However, the state fiscal relief provisions of ARRA are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010. Another recent CBPP analysis calls for extending these provisions into 2011. “By taking action now to extend ARRA assistance to states into 2011, lawmakers can reduce the drag that very large state budget cuts and tax increases would otherwise impose on economic activity and jobs and thereby give the recovery a better chance of gathering strength.”

* The size of Washington State’s deficit has grown significantly since this report went to press. It will be updated in the next edition.

New CBPP Report: I-1033’s Problematic Measure of Inflation

Initiative 1033 proposes to limit revenue collections at the state, county, and city levels according to a formula based on the rate of population growth plus inflation. A key feature of Colorado’s TABOR amendment, this formula is deeply flawed because it fails to keep pace with the costs of providing essential public services such as health care and education. Under I-1033, the inflation component of this formula would limit revenue growth according to the “implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures” (IPD).

A new analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that using the IPD to restrict revenue growth would do great harm to basic public structures in Washington. The report explains that the IPD only reflects changes in costs faced by consumers; it does not reflect the ongoing costs of providing state and local public services. The costs of education, for example, rise faster than the general rate of inflation. Education accounts for only two percent of expenditures for the typical consumer. For the state government, however, K-12 and higher education account for 53 percent of expenditures in Washington. As a result, restricting state and local revenues to growth in the IPD would lead to severe cuts in education and other core public services.

The CBPP report also shows that the IPD is even more restrictive than the measure of inflation that was used in Colorado under the TABOR amendment. Under TABOR, state and local spending was restricted to the rate of inflation as measured by the Denver Consumer Price Index (CPI). The graph below shows that from 1993 to 2005 – the period in which TABOR was in effect – the CPI grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent while the IPD averaged 2.2 percent.



Yet even under the faster-growing CPI, TABOR lead to devastating cuts in education, health care, and other vital services in Colorado, prompting voters to suspend the amendment in 2005. According the CBPP report, “if Colorado had been operating under an I-1033-style IPD-based formula, the state would have had to cut services by an additional 10 percent beyond what the state enacted under the actual CPI-based formula.”

The view the entire report, click here.

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.

Income Inequality Grew Steadily from 2002-07

The top one percent of wealthiest households in the U.S. saw almost unprecedented income growth between 2002 and 2007, with income rising ten times faster than it did for the bottom 90 percent of households. As a group, the richest one percent of households saw their incomes grow by 62 percent during this period, after adjusting for inflation. By comparison, the bottom 90 percent of Americans (those with annual incomes below $110,000) experienced income growth of only four percent.

According to a new analysis of IRS data by economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez (summarized by CBPP), income growth skewed in favor of the wealthy during the 1920’s, but then turned towards the middle class during the post-WWII era. As the graph below shows, in the early 1980’s income growth again began to concentrate in the upper tiers of American households.



Income gains have been even more pronounced among those at the very top of the income scale. The CBPP report shows that incomes in the top one-tenth of one percent of U.S. households grew by about 94 percent ($3.5 million per household) from 2002 to 2007.

The report does not show the impact of the current economic recession. Even though it is expected that income concentration will fall in 2008-09, once the recovery begins economists predict income inequality trends will continue.

State Policy Fellowship Program Seeks Applicants

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is sponsoring in coordination with the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative (SFAI), the State Policy Fellowship Program which is currently seeking highly-qualified candidates to serve two years as entry-level analysts. The position would entail working within a state policy organization belonging to the SFAI network, such as the Washington State Budget & Policy Center, or at the Center’s state fiscal division in Washington D.C.

Fellows will gain hands-on education and experience while working alongside experts in the field of state policy to analyze the impact of state budget and tax policy choices on low-income residents and promote positive reforms. The program offers a competitive salary with health benefits and features professional development opportunities.

For more information, click here.