State Budget Crises

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Okay, so, I try to keep as involved as I can in state-level politics, but it's hard to split my attention 50 ways. As such, I try to keep as up to date as I can on those that matter to me, like my home state of Massachusetts and my childhood home of New Jersey.

Both of these states are experiencing budget crises. So is Georgia, as I've learned from another thread.

So too is Illinois. Historic, and epic, even!

Just out of curiosity, I threw some random states in the Google machine, and tacked "budget crisis" at the end.  What do you know—every one I tried had results.

New Mexico.
Kentucky.

So, anyway, the question is this: Are there any states out there NOT undergoing a budget crisis? I ask this seriously, as I'm interested in looking at polling data with this in mind.

[Sam Spade]

So, anyway, the question is this: Are there any states out there NOT undergoing a budget crisis? I ask this seriously, as I'm interested in looking at polling data with this in mind.

Basically, only commodity-producing states or fiscally conservative states (often one in the same). 

Which means North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Alaska.  Think that's about it though the other small states around them are ok too.  (Nebraska, South Dakota, Idaho)

Texas is also ok too, for at least the time being - partially because the Constitution forces balanced budgets.

[phk]

I think states with lower populations might not be so bad off either. Though that is highly correlated with commodity producing states and fiscally conservative states as well.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Amazing that no one mentioned California.

[bgwah]

Washington is. The Democrats have done some budget cutting and are now raising taxes. They currently have a pretty large majority in the legislature and will certainly be losing some of their marginal districts in November, but they should still control the legislature next year with a somewhat comfortable majority, I think. The suburban Spokane Democrats, and maybe some exurban metro Seattle Democrats, will likely be the ones losing.

[Barnes]

To expand on Georgia a little:

This year's budget has still not been approved. The budget is the one thing that the General Assembly must set before sine die. The Democrats and the Republicans can't reach any kind of compromise since the Republicans are cutting EVERYTHING, but refuse to raise taxes. Meanwhile, the Republicans say that the Democrats goal is to raise everyone's taxes.

Also, tax revue has been falling month after month. The Legislature has already had to borrow money form the 2011 Budget. And to add to the problem, Georgia has a mandatory balanced budget amendment, even though we're millions of dollars in debt.

It's a mess people.

 

[Dancing with Myself]

North Carolina is pretty bad too, to the point of making teachers go without pay.

[Ban my account ffs!]

North Dakota has a surplus.  And they should exhaust it funding a flood diversion channel on the North Dakota side of the Fargo/Moorhead area so they can stop this annual race of building huge sandbag dikes from the overrun Red River.

Minnesota's budget crisis was completely created by the insane partisan divide that has developed here.  The legislature, which has a DFL super majority in the senate, and is 5 votes short in the house... do not work well with the governor, whose negotiating criteria are "my way or the highway".

His single handed budget balancing efforts, praised by conservatives, is currently before the supreme court.. and from the arguments so far and what the justices have said, it doesn't look good for Pawlenty.

He used unallotment to balance a projected $3 billion shortfall in the 2010/11 budget biennium.  This shortfall was created after he signed the spending bills the legislature sent (with fewer line item vetoes than in the past.. which should have been a sign that something was up).  Then, at the last minute, he vetoed the revenue bill.

The unallotment law states that the state finance commissioner and governor may unallot monies from various state programs/funds when an *unforeseen* budget deficit shows up in the *current* budget.

Pawlenty effectively created the deficit by signing spending bills and vetoing the corresponding revenue portions and then unalloted funds from programs he doesn't like *before* the budget cycle even started.

The supreme court has gone so far as to question the constitutionality of the entire unallotment power, but has also been critical of Pawlenty's use as it is very clear in the unallotment language that the power only falls to Pawlenty if and when an unforeseen shortfall shows up and the legislature is not in regular session to deal with it.

They also questioned the way he unalloted funds.  They wondered if the spirit of the language actually meant uniform decreases in funding from all state programs.. rather than targeting and completely defunding certain programs at his own discretion.

He also delayed the payment of $1 billion to school districts... for which no repayment schedule has been made.  This is why he has become known as "Gov. Kick the can".  He'll use gimmicks, one time funds, money transfers, payment delays.. any tactic he can to prevent raising taxes and thus transferring the deficit to the next governor... so he can keep his street cred among his conservative buddies in his hopes to become President Timmy.

If the supreme court rules the unallotment law as unconstitutional (lower courts have ruled it constitutional.. but the supreme court seems unusually critical of it), it would literally force the governor into negotiations with the legislature.

His only alternative option would be to let the clock run out until he leaves office and let the new governor deal with a $3.5 billion shortfall within the first couple months of his/her term.

This has nothing to do with the $5-6 billion shortfall for the 2011/12 biennium.

Ever since the legislature and Gov. Ventura sent rebates to people in 2001 and then cut taxes, we've dealt with budget deficits in every biennium.  You *DON'T* cut taxes at the top of a historic economic cycle when the surpluses are modest at best.

They should have saved the surpluses for a minimum of several years.. and only then if that money was still there, should it be returned to the people.. that way if a deficit arises from the inevitable recession, they have "free money" so government doesn't have to constantly grow and srhink with the economic cycle (when in fact, it should mirror the economic cycle)