DSHS Budget Proposal would Harm Health Care, Cost Federal Funding

Even with the specter of I-1033 behind us, the state budget situation is bleak because of the lingering impact of the economic recession. The deficit facing the Governor as she prepares her budget could be as high as $1.8 billion.

A recent memo from the Department of Social and Health Services' Health and Recovery Services Administration—written in response to the Governor’s request for budget reduction proposals—helps illustrate the size of the problem. Acknowledging that “these are serious cuts, and cuts on top of cuts,” the Department proposed deep reductions in key health care programs:

• The largest reduction ($69.2 million) would come by eliminating important benefits for lower income adults receiving Medical Assistance, including maternity support services, hospice, hearing, non-emergent dental, vision, podiatry, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, interpreters for medical services, and Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) copays. Funding for school-based Medicaid services would also be eliminated ($5.6 million).

• The proposal would eliminate access to state programs that provide health care to lower income children between 205 percent and 300 percent of the federal poverty line, taking a step backward on the state’s commitment to “Cover All Kids” in order to save $11.6 million.

• Reductions in mental health care ($12.9 million) would include eliminating funding for the Program for Adaptive Living Skills and eliminating funding for community support services for individuals discharged from state hospitals.

• The proposal would also eliminate drug and alcohol treatment for all low-income adults not enrolled in a separate DSHS program ($5.5 million).

• There are also $8.3 million in administrative cuts and staff reductions included in the proposal.

The reductions in state spending are only part of the story. These proposed cuts would cost the state an estimated $101.4 million in federal matching funds.

24 of 31 Local Health Jurisdictions Cut Public Health Programs

Yesterday the Budget & Policy Center issued a report detailing the impact of budget cuts on public health in the state. The report was co-released by the Washington State Public Health Association and the Washington State Nurses Association.

The Budget & Policy Center and the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials independently surveyed local public health agencies to get a sense of the impact of recent budget cuts on public health programs and services, staff, and funding. The Budget & Policy Center received responses from 15 of 35 local health jurisdictions; WASLPHO received answers from 31.

As the map below indicates, 24 of 31 local health jurisdictions, which are the primary providers of public health services, have cut vital programs as a result of budget cuts. These include services to support the health of lower income pregnant women, vulnerable children, and seniors through prevention and education programs.


Other key findings from the report include:

-- Lay-offs of public health professionals in 23 of 31 LHJs

-- Drops in funding for 24 of 31 LHJs, for example, over $780,000 in Spokane, $1.4 million in Snohomish, and $1.75 million in Thurston Counties

Budget Cuts Have Negative Impact on Public Health Infrastructure

The Budget & Policy Center released a new report today on the impact of state and local budget cuts on public health in Washington State. Public health programs help to promote healthy communities and lifestyles, reduce the spread of communicable diseases and provide rapid responses to public health emergencies.

Local health jurisdictions (LHJs) across the state are feeling the effects of millions of dollars in reduced public health funding from the state and local governments.

The Budget & Policy Center and the Washington State Association of Local Public Health Officials independently conducted surveys of officials at local health jurisdictions--the primary providers of public health services in the state--to get a clearer picture of the impact of these budget cut decisions.

The paper, which was co-released with the Washington State Public Health Association and the Washington State Nurses Association, discusses the findings, including details of cuts in programs, lay-offs in staff, and reductions in funding.

In Franklin and Yakima Counties, 28 Percent of the Population Lacked Health Insurance in 2008

According to new data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 13.1 percent of Washington’s population went without health coverage last year. Among the state's 19 largest counties – those with populations over 65,000 – there was significant variation, with more than one of every four Washingtonians in Franklin County and Yakima County lacking health insurance.

Counties with larger populations generally experienced lower uninsured rates compared to the state average. Yet even in King County, one of every 10 residents (10.6 percent of the population) was uninsured in 2008. In addition to King County, Island County (9.5 percent), Thurston County (10.9 percent), and Spokane County (11.8 percent) all experienced uninsured rates significantly lower than the statewide average. In Benton, Clark, Kitsap, Lewis, Pierce, Snohomish, and Whatcom counties the uninsured rate was about the same as the state average.



Of Washington’s most populous counties, Franklin County and Yakima County had the highest uninsured rates in 2008, which stood at 27.7 percent and 27.5 percent, respectively. Residents in the counties of Grays Harbor (16.0 percent), Clallam (16.6 percent), Cowlitz (16.7 percent), Skagit (16.7 percent), Chelan (19.7 percent), and Grant (20.5) were also significantly more likely to lack coverage compared to those in rest of the state.

While today’s data sheds much-needed light on the disparities in health coverage throughout Washington, next year’s data are likely to be far worse. In 2008, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent in Washington. However, the economy deteriorated dramatically in 2009. As of August, the unemployment rate in Washington stood at 9.2 percent, and nearly 66,000 jobs have been lost in the state since January. A BPC analysis of the census health coverage data in 2007-08 shows the employer-based coverage weakened significantly during that period – a trend that will certainly continue throughout 2009.

For information on the uninsured rate among children in Washington State counties, click here to view an analysis from Washington Kids Count and the Children's Alliance.

Editor’s note: The Census Bureau originally planned to release single-year estimates of all indicators included in the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) today. Due to a coding error, however, ACS poverty estimates will not be released until September 29, 2009. That morning, the Budget & Policy Center along with Washington Kids Count will release an analysis of the latest poverty data from the ACS.

Public Insurance Keeps Uninsured Numbers from Rising, New Census Data Shows

New Census data shows that while the overall share of Washingtonians who lacked health insurance went down between 2000-01 and 2007-08, employer-provided coverage weakened significantly over that time. Public coverage, that is Medicaid, increased during that time, offsetting the decreases in employer-based insurance.

National data shows that in 2000-01, 13.1 percent of Washingtonians lacked health insurance. This number dropped to 11.8 percent by 2007-08. Over that time, the table below shows that employer-sponsored health insurance fell from 67 percent of the population in 2000-01 to 64.6 percent in 2007-08. At the same time, the share of the population covered by Medicaid jumped from 12.1 percent to 13.6 percent.

Before the Census data was released, the Budget & Policy Center, Washington Kids Count, and others expected there would be a decrease in the share of Washingtonians with health insurance between 2000-01 and 2007-08. The news that the share of the population with health insurance actually went up, highlights the importance of publicly provided health care coverage.

During the last legislative session in Washington, lawmakers decided to cut funding for the state’s Basic Health Plan. This will result in a loss of coverage for Washingtonians who do not receive insurance through their employer. At the same time, the unemployment rate in the state has been rising, which means many people who did have employer-sponsored insurance will no longer have coverage. Because of these trends, we anticipate that a drop in the share of Washingtonians with health insurance will become evident in the near future.

Editor’s note: On September 22, 2009 the Census Bureau will release state-by-state estimates of poverty, median income, and health insurance coverage for 2008 from the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS has a very large sample size, allowing for single-year estimates at the state and county levels. On the 22nd, the Budget & Policy Center and Washington Kids Count will jointly release an analysis of poverty, median income, and health coverage in Washington using the latest ACS data.

The Children's Alliance along with Washington Kids Count posted an analysis of the latest census data looking specifically health coverage among children in Washington. Consistent with the general population, they find that Washington's S-CHIP program (Apple Health for Kids) has kept number of children without health insurance from climbing in 2007-08.

New Census Health Insurance Data Likely to Show Declines in Health Coverage throughout Washington State

Tomorrow, the U.S. Census Bureau will release national and state health insurance data for 2007-2008. The data will provide a preliminary glimpse of the impact that the current recession has had on families in Washington and throughout the nation. The data will not however, capture the full impact of the current economic crisis which deepened dramatically in 2009.

The new Census data is expected to show significant increases in the share of the population that is uninsured since the early 2000’s to 2007-2008. The loss of employer-sponsored health insurance is likely to be the dominant driver behind this trend. During the current recession, the economy sunk rapidly in 2009 and many more people lost their jobs and their health insurance. So while tomorrow’s release will signal trouble, next year’s 2008-2009 health coverage data will undoubtedly be far worse.

For example, as the graph below shows here in Washington the unemployment rate jumped from an average of 5.3 percent in 2008 to 9.1 percent by July 2009. Since the start of 2009, over 64,000 jobs have been lost in the state. As a result, next year’s 2008-2009 data will show a large drop in the number of Washingtonians enrolled in employer-sponsored health coverage.

Stay tuned to schmudget tomorrow when the Budget & Policy Center in conjunction with Washington Kids Count will post an analysis of health coverage trends in Washington using the new Census data. Our analysis will highlight changes in the share of the population without health insurance over time and will detail changes in employer-sponsored coverage and public coverage in Washington State.

Editor’s note: Tomorrow’s release will also include updated data on poverty and median income. To obtain state-level estimates of these measures, however, the Census Bureau recommends using data from a different survey, the American Community Survey (ACS). The latest ACS data for 2008 will be released on September 22, 2009. That morning, the Budget & Policy Center and Washington Kids Count will post analysis of the ACS data on poverty, median income, and health coverage in Washington State.

Toxic Twins Part 4: TABOR Did Nothing for Colorado's Economy

Supporters of initiatives like I-1033 argue that rigid public spending limits can be a boon for state economies. In Colorado, however, TABOR had no positive impact on the state’s economy. In fact, after enacting TABOR, employment growth in Colorado slowed relative to other states in the region. Worse, following the last recession employment recovered much more slowly in Colorado compared to neighboring states.

The table below shows that employment in Colorado grew at an annual rate of only 0.2 percent between 2001 and 2006. At the same time, the median annual growth rate among the remaining seven states in the mountain region was 9.3 percent.

For more information on how TABOR adversely impacted core public services in Colorado, see our recent report, Toxic Twins: I-1033 Mirrors Colorado’s Corrosive TABOR, coauthored with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute.

Editor's note: This is the final post in series about TABOR's adverse effects on essential public services in Colorado. Previous posts in the series detail the sharp declines in education funding, health care services, and transportation infrastructure that ocurred in Colorado under TABOR.

Toxic Twins Part 3: Colorado’s Transportation Infrastructure Deteriorated Under TABOR

I-1033 will lead to severe deterioration in public structures that are vital to Washington’s future prosperity, much like what happened with Colorado’s TABOR amendment. Our latest report, coauthored with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, details TABOR’s disastrous impact on education, health care, communities, and transportation. This post highlights some of our findings on the serious erosion in Colorado’s transportation infrastructure as a result of budget shortfalls created by TABOR.

Under TABOR, Colorado was unable to make adequate investments in roads, bridges, and other forms of transportation infrastructure. In 2007, the state ranked 48th among all 50 states in spending as a share of personal income on highways. The result:

• About 40 percent of the state’s roads were rated poor in 2006.
  


• Over 100 bridges in Colorado have been found to be structurally deficient.
  


• Congestion on Interstate 70 has been estimated to cost Colorado’s economy about $839 million each year.
  

To learn about TABOR’s adverse effects on other core public services – such as health care and education -- click here to view the entire report.

Editor’s note: This is the third post in a series about the sharp declines in core public services that occurred in Colorado as a result of the TABOR amendment. The next and final post in this series will discuss economic growth in Colorado during the period in which TABOR was active (1992-2005).

Toxic Twins Part 2: TABOR Caused Sharp Declines in Health Care Funding

Our latest report, co-authored with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, details TABOR’s impact on education, communities, health, and transportation infrastructure. This post highlights some of our findings regarding TABOR’s disastrous effects on public health programs in Colorado.

In Colorado, TABOR greatly compromised a critical part of the public safety net – health care services. From 1992 to 2005, TABOR-induced shortfalls forced deep cuts in health care services throughout Colorado. The result:

• Between 1992 and 2004, the share of lower income children with no health insurance doubled from 16 to 32 percent, making Colorado the worst in the nation by this measure.
  


• In 2002, the state could no longer afford basic vaccines and had to suspend the requirement that all students be vaccinated against common diseases such as tetanus, diphtheria, and whooping cough.
  


• In 2003, budget restrictions forced the state to temporarily stop the enrollment of children in the children’s health program and suspend the prenatal program.

TABOR had numerous adverse effects on health care and other public services in Colorado. For more detail, please click here to view the entire report.

Editor’s note: This post is the second in a series about the sharp declines in Colorado’s core public services that occurred as a result of the TABOR amendment. There will be two future posts: The next post will cover TABOR’s effects on transportation infrastructure; the final post will discuss economic growth in Colorado during the period in which TABOR was active.

Toxic Twins: I-1033 Mirrors Colorado's Corrosive TABOR

To understand how Tim Eyman’s I-1033 would undermine public investments and our economic recovery in Washington, look no further than Colorado. Our new report, co-authored with the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute finds that Colorado's TABOR amendment greatly undermined that state's capacity to maintain core public services such as education and health care. Initiative 1033, which will appear on the ballot in Washington State this November, possesses the same fundamental characteristics as TABOR and would have a similar impact on Washington.

Editor's note: This post is the first in a series about TABOR's impact on services and public priorities in Colorado. Future posts in this series will detail TABOR's impact on other crucial services -- including health care and transportation infrastructure. The final post in this series will discuss economic growth in Colorado while TABOR was in effect.

To view the full report click here.

TABOR's Impact on Education and Opportunity

Under TABOR, funding on K-12 and higher education declined substantially, leading to harmful budget cuts throughout the education system. As a result:

• The state fell from 35th to 49th in the nation in spending on K-12 education as a share of personal income.


• Average teacher’s salaries fell from 30th to 50th in the nation compared to pay in other occupations.


• Higher education spending per resident student declined by 31 percent after adjusting for inflation, from $5,188 to $3,564.

The shortfalls created by TABOR adversely impacted Colorado’s education system in numerous other ways. For more information on how TABOR led to steep declines in education funding throughout Colorado, view the entire report by clicking here.

Senate Climate Bill Should Redirect Resources from Business to Consumers

The federal government is working to pass climate legislation that would combat global warming by reducing the nation’s emissions of greenhouse gases. One impact of the proposals to cap emissions would be an increase in the cost of fossil fuel energy and energy-related goods. Low and moderate income consumers would be hit harder by these increased costs because they spend a bigger share of their income on necessities like energy than wealthier households do.

The House bill, which passed in June, sets aside 15 percent of the value of emissions allowances (the permits that allow companies to pollute) to provide financial relief to low-income consumers through an energy refund. Here in Washington State, there are 1.2 million people living below 150 percent of poverty* who could potentially benefit from the energy refund.

However, CBO has found that over 60 percent of the relief the bill would distribute through utilities would go to businesses, rather than individual households. Businesses would likely retain this relief as added profit benefiting high income owners and shareholders rather than pass it on to consumers in the form of lower prices for their products. Thus the graph below shows that the House bill would benefit higher income households, as a percentage of income, more than those in the middle.



According to this paper by the DC-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate bill which has yet to be voted on, should build on the House approach by adopting the consumer provisions and redirecting resources provided through utility companies for their business and industrial customers instead to moderate income households.

*Calculated from American Fact Finder ACS 2007 table B17002

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.

UPDATE: Basic Health Waiting List Continues to Grow

Last month we posted on the increasing numbers of people on the waiting list for the state Basic Health Plan. As the revised graph below shows, this trend continues. In June there were 31,275 people on the list. Today, there are 38,662.

Will Basic Health Become Unaffordable?

The budget signed by the Governor last month included a 43 percent cut in Basic Health, a program that provides health insurance to lower income Washingtonians. The Health Care Authority (HCA) was given the unenviable task of figuring out how to make the cuts happen.

The HCA considered a number of approaches that would have directly and dramatically reduced the number of people enrolled in the plan. Finally, they settled on sharp increases in premiums and deductibles.*

This option may have some advantages over the alternatives, but it does not mean that people won't end up uninsured. The cost increases are likely to make enrollment unaffordable for many.

The table below compares the current and proposed premiums for a single enrollee aged 40-55 (premiums are on a sliding scale based on income and age). The highest increases are for those earning between $20,036 and $21,660. Their premium would raise by $780, requiring them to spend 11 percent of their annual income on premiums.* Premiums for individuals under $13,538 would double. In addition to the increases shown in the table, the annual deductible will rise by $100.


If Basic Health is made unaffordable, it will no longer serve its purpose as a source of health insurance for people who lack other options, including the 30,000 people currently on the waiting list. That purpose cannot be maintained under a 43 percent budget cut; it will require bold action by state policymakers.


*The Health Care Authority has also identified 5,000 people on the progam who also receive benefits through Medicaid and another 3,000 who the agency believes may qualify for the federal program. They will be transitioned off Basic Health and onto Medicaid.

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 State Budget and Federal Recovery Funds

This post contains corrected numbers.

Deep cuts in state budgets during a recession can have a significant harmful impact on the economy. In recognition of this fact, the federal government passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which includes significant fiscal aid to Washington State.

The recently enacted state budget relies heavily on ARRA funding to partially offset the effects of cuts in health care, education, public safety, and economic security.*

Health care**
The largest component of federal stimulus funding is an increase in federal funding for Medicaid, the primary source of public health insurance for lower income families. The increased federal contribution allows lawmakers to cut state spending on health care without reducing total funding for the program. Washington State is expected to receive $1.8 billion in Medicaid funding from ARRA.

However, the state budget does not take full advantage of ARRA funding for Medicaid because it cuts too deeply. Examples of cuts that cause a loss of federal money include:

• A $33 million cut in reimbursements for providers of Medicaid and SCHIP managed care services will result in a loss of $44 million in federal money, more than doubling the total size of the cut.
• A $38 million cut in nursing home rates results in a loss of $56 million in federal funds.
  
• An $18 million cut in reimbursements for pediatric services results in a $25 million loss in federal funds.

Education
Another component of ARRA is the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, which provides flexible funding for education and other programs. In education, this fund is being used to partially offset devastating cuts in three areas:

• $176 million for levy equalization, which assists property-poor school districts that have difficulty raising sufficient property taxes to fund local schools.
• $562 million for a voter-approved (I-728) initiative that provides funding to school districts for quality improvements such as class size reduction, extended learning, early learning, or professional development.
• $81 million for higher education institutions.

Public Safety
The remainder of the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund ($182 million) is appropriated to the Department of Corrections to offset cuts in public safety and rehabilitation programs.

Economic Security
ARRA also expands federal support for the state’s WorkFirst program, which provides temporary assistance to families with very low incomes. During the recession, the need for WorkFirst has grown significantly. TANF contingency funds ($193 million) is intended to help pay for the increased need. Another $12 million is made available to assist in the state’s child support collection program.

* ARRA also included significant fiscal relief that does not directly impact the near-general fund budget.
** Separately from ARRA, Washington State will benefit from the reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which enhances federal support of state efforts to insure lower income children.

Update: How to Lower Costs of Climate Change Policies for Consumers

The Budget & Policy Center is releasing a new policy brief today on a federal climate rebate proposal. With cap-and-trade legislation currently being drafted in the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, it is critical that lawmakers adequately address the regressive financial impact that any carbon-pricing policy will have on lower and moderate income households. The paper provides a framework for how a climate rebate assisting lower and moderate income households can be integrated into federal climate policy.

A climate rebate represents an effective and efficient strategy for mitigating the household budget impact of a cap-and-trade system. It would utilize existing benefit and tax structures to deliver a cash rebate to lower and moderate income families, would be fully funded from cap-and-trade emission permit revenue, and would reach virtually all eligible families.

An important strength of a climate rebate is that it would address the shortcomings of other consumer assistance proposals, such as a utilities approach. For more information on how a climate rebate would work, please refer to our paper.

Update: Yesterday, the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee concluded the markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2454) by voting to move it out of committee. Introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the bill (commonly referred to as Waxman-Markey) would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases in order to curb climate change.

Importantly, the Waxman-Markey bill includes provisions to protect lower income consumers from the financial impact of climate policy, similar to the recommendations outlined in our recent policy brief (based on analysis by the CBPP). In particular, the bill would allocate 15 percent of emission permit revenue to fully offset the average loss in purchasing power for lower income consumers. For more information on the bill, refer to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ recent report.

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.