Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5450)	1/4/2010 11:43:05 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7936

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money. Most state capitols? Where? Whom? To my knowledge there is not one state in the West [Pacific and Rocky Mt states] that has not cut back on expenditures. So what states is this author talking about....or is just WSJ BS? A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same. How much you want to bet that the unemployed people in those states would not agree? Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries. And this is bad why? Logic tells you that if people are paid more, then they have more money to spend. Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes. One provision prohibits states from cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility below levels in effect on July 1, 2008. That date, not coincidentally, was the peak of the last economic cycle when states were awash in revenue. State spending soared at a nearly 8% annual rate from 2004-2008, far faster than inflation and population growth, and liberals want to keep funding at that level. A study by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Seattle found that "because Washington state lawmakers accepted $820 million in education stimulus dollars, only 9 percent of the state's $6.8 billion K-12 budget is eligible for reductions in fiscal year 2010 or 2011." More than 85% of Washington state's Medicaid budget is exempt from cuts and nearly 75% of college funding is off the table. It's bad enough that Congress can't balance its own budget, but now it is making it nearly impossible for states to balance theirs. The intent of the stimulus was to stimulate the economy. If it did its job, then the states will take in more revenue in 2010 than in 2009. If it didn't, all we did was forestall disaster from 2008 to 2010. The evidence suggests that not only did Obama prevent disaster but the economy is improving. These spending requirements come when state revenues are on a downward spiral. State revenues declined by more than 10% in 2009, and tax collections are expected to be flat at best in 2010. In Indiana, nominal revenues in 2011 may be lower than in 2006. Arizona's revenues are expected to be lower this year than they were in 2004. Some states don't expect to regain their 2007 revenue peak until 2012. I don't know about all the states but revenues have started perking up here in WA state and some other states as business improves.

To: TimF who wrote (5450)	1/6/2010 2:09:10 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 7936

A Gov who gets it: Mitch Daniels says NO tax hike How do you know politicians "get it?" They unambiguously assert that the Government Budget is NOT the most important budget. The taxpayer's family budget is THE MOST IMPORTANT BUDGET...and when politicians must decide which budget suffers, they always choose the government budget to take the hit. taxingtennessee.blogspot.com Daniels: Tax Hike Not An Option State Has Depleted Its $1B Budget Cushion INDIANAPOLIS -- As state revenues continue to crumble, Gov. Mitch Daniels has invoked just about every possible financial measure to stem the tide, but said raising taxes is out of the question. In a year-end one-on-one interview with 6News' Norman Cox, Daniels said that raising taxes would just cause damage to people who are already hurting from the recession. "We are not going to raise taxes on our citizens when they're hard put enough already," he said. The most recent revenue forecast shows the state completely losing its $1 billion budget cushion, even if it cuts spending on education and public safety. Increasing the income tax by 1 percent would bring in $1.1 billion, completely restoring the surplus, while hiking the sales tax a penny would do almost as much, raising $850,000. During the last comparable recession, in 1982, then-Gov. Robert Orr and the Legislature raised both taxes. Since then the state has raised taxes for education and for property tax relief, but has not done it to protect state services. Daniels said that although raising the income or sales tax would affect people who are working more so than people who are without jobs, they're still off limits. "First of all, many of the people who do have jobs don't have as much money as they did. The average Hoosier income went down 2½ percent last year," he said. "We are not going to make their situation more difficult than it already is. Second, it'll make the recession worse." University of Indianapolis Finance Professor Matthew Will said a tax increase would indeed provide a very short bump in revenue, followed by another loss as money is drained from the economy. "It would have a very short-term positive impact on revenue, probably one to two quarters. But after that, it would start declining, because of the harm on the economy," he said. "You're taking money from one part of the economy and putting it into another. Basically (you're taking money) out of the hands of workers and businesses that use that to produce more goods for the economy." Will said a temporary tax hike wouldn't work either, because the beneficial effect is so short-lived. He pointed to Michigan and Illinois as states that did increase taxes during the recession and are now considering rolling them back. Daniel said this week that he does not believe the state will need to make any more deep cuts in 2010, as long as revenue forecasts are accurate. theindychannel.com