Reserves for Government
Your grandma always told you to save money for a rainy day. She wasn’t really talking about rainy days, but days when you had less or no income. The press talks about the huge percentage of Americans that have little or no savings, and how compared to other countries, we are at a disadvantage during economic times. A huge problem is that the same argument can be translated to governments, which must provide services, and often more services during economic downturns. But if they have no savings, how are they to accomplish this? They do not want to raise taxes and fees in down situations, so won’t the loss of services just make things worse?
A recent PEW reports suggests that states “had about half the reserves necessary to address budget gaps during the first year of the Great Recession. The 50 states had about $60 billion set aside in the summer of 2008, but in fiscal 2009, budget gaps across the country totaled $117 billion, about twice what states had in reserve. The budget gaps continued to grow in 2010 and many states struggled with shortfalls for years afterward. Bad news, but the news really does not improve. They report that 37 states have legal caps that prevent them from saving enough to weather recessions or even enough to substantially offset revenue losses, and most of those are based on some percentage of the prior year’s revenues. Why? Short-term views? Most governments figure on keeping enough cash on hand to pay bills during tax seasons. That accounts for 60-90 days of funds. Far too little for dealing with economic impacts. Far too few state governments recognize the importance of saving, figuring that cutting taxes during time of plenty and giving back to taxpayers is a better use of funds. Then it is someone else’s issue when the next economic hiccup occurs – and it will. Unless you raise your cap now as Minnesota and Virginia have recently done.
But the issue is not just a state issue. It is a local and a utility issue as well. Local governments are closer to the ground, have less leeway in their budgets and often have far too little funding as a result of resistance to raising property taxes, user fees and over-dependence on state shared sales tax, which often drops precipitously during a recession. Same goes for sin and gas tax dependence. When people slow smoking, or as oil prices drop, so do revenues. Ask Alaska, Louisiana, Kansas, Texas, North Dakota and others that are oil rich states about their budget this past year. The legislatures were begging Grover Norquist to let them out of their no tax increase pledges. He said no of course, because he doesn’t want government to function properly. So those legislators were stuck in the either “do the right thing” or “get whacked by Grover in the next election” conundrum. You know what they did because they want to get re-elected That doesn’t help the citizens of those states. Standard & Poor’s revised its outlook on Alaska’s general obligation and appropriation-backed debt from stable to negative. That will cost them in the future. St. Louis, Moody’s downgraded the city’s credit rating one step to A1, citing “the city’s weak socioeconomic profile; reliance on earnings taxes which are due for voter reauthorization in 2016.” Diversity in industry and taxes is beneficial. Too often this gets lost in the desire to do more with less, but doing more means you need more funding! And you need to collect those savings as grandma counselled!