May 4, 2004

THE SURPLUS PROBLEM:

States' Tax Receipts Rise, Leading to Some Surpluses: States are reporting stronger tax collections for the first time in three years, fueling hopes that the budget-cutting days of the economic downturn are over. (JAMES DAO, 5/04/04, NY Times)

From Florida to Oklahoma to Oregon, tax revenues are up in recent months from the same period last year, the first consistent increases many states have experienced since Wall Street's bubble burst in 2001.

"Our economy has bottomed out and is improving slightly," said Ken Rocco, a fiscal officer for the Oregon Legislature, echoing the comments of many state budget officials.

Stronger-than-anticipated tax revenues combined with tight spending practices over the past few years are allowing 32 states to finish their 2004 fiscal years with surpluses, according to a survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures. [...]

Most states compensated for the lost revenue by cutting programs, raising tuition and fees, or borrowing, experts said. Only a few raised taxes during the downturn. As a result, many states are spending only slightly more today than they were five years ago, causing pent-up demands to spend in many legislatures.

Governors expect expenditures for their 2005 fiscal years to rise 2.8 percent from 2004, well below the 26-year average of 6.2 percent, the National Governors Association, which released its own survey of budgets on Monday, said. The growth in spending is up from the 0.6 percent increase in the last fiscal year, which was the smallest increase in 20 years, the association said.

"During the previous downturn in 1991, two-thirds of states filled their shortfalls by increasing taxes," said Raymond C. Scheppach, executive director of the governors' association. "This time, you've got the flip of that. Most states filled shortfalls by cutting budgets."


Hey, tax cuts grow the economy which raises tax revenues--who'da thunk it?

Now, anyone seriously think the states will act any more wisely than they did the last time they had surpluses?

MORE (via David Cohen):
Federal Deficit Likely to Narrow by $100 Billion: Tax Receipts Pare Borrowing (Jonathan Weisman, May 4, 2004, Washington Post)

Smaller-than-expected tax refunds and rising individual tax receipts will pare back federal borrowing significantly for the first half of this year and could reduce the $521 billion deficit projected for the fiscal year by as much as $100 billion, Treasury and congressional budget officials said yesterday.

The Treasury Department's borrowing estimates may prove to be more good news for President Bush on the economic front, as opponents attempt to make his fiscal stewardship a campaign issue. The $184 billion the government is now expected to borrow through June is a 27 percent improvement from Treasury's February projection of $252 billion, the department said.


The valetudinarian stumbles.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2004 8:16 AM
Comments

I'll take the "less wisely" side. I know, I know, it's hard to think of how that could be, but state government never fail to break records in this area.

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 4, 2004 8:55 AM

On a related note Instapundit notes a WAPO article that estimates of the Federal budget deficit may be reduced by $100BN. Not a surprise to those who understand that most of the deficit was caused by the slowing economy, not tax cuts.

Posted by: AWW at May 4, 2004 8:55 AM

Ohio and Virginia (two Republican states) are raising taxes now, apparently because the legislators are afraid of being wise.

Posted by: jim hamlen at May 4, 2004 9:39 AM

Do you guys know what "smaller than expected tax refunds mean"? Is a silly way to say that your investment income (from gains, interest and dividends) was much bigger than expected so the overwitholding on your wages ended up funding most of the additional tax from wealth gains. I wonder if there are Dems that will bite and begin spinning this as "Oh you see, the typical person got no refund". The reality is that most of the last minute shift in taxes owed (more of it) vs taxes refunded (less of it) was borne by people with large investment gains.

Posted by: MG at May 4, 2004 11:22 AM

oops, operator error: here's the raw link

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/03/prison.tv.ap/index.html

Posted by: John Resnick at May 4, 2004 12:29 PM

The states can't print money, so they are forced to balance their spending, borrowing and taxation. Of course economic activity has picked up due to the large tax cuts and refi activity. The Federal deficit increases has allowed the states to improve their income statemens.

I would not put too much trust in any projections on the Federal budget deficit. Inflation is up, the markets will stay flat at best this year. Rates will increase, whether the Fed goes along or not, so borrowing costs will increase.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 4, 2004 4:14 PM

Robert --

Economic activity has now broadened well beyond consumer spending driven by consumer spending (the greatest beneficiaries of tax cuts and refi) and include business spending and net exports. Consumer spending can be counted on to be solid on account of increasing income (wages and proprietors). Net exports are beginning to grow driven by lower USD and broadening global growth. And tax cuts won't go away soon (even if they don't become permanent). So the economy will continue to grow fairly nicely even if facing moderate headwinds -- energy prices and rising interest rates. In fact, a bit of inflation (2% p.a., with peaks of 2.5%) can not now be such a bad thing after having spent 2 years hearing the Cassandras of deflation declare global growth finished. Markets will re-adjust to normal business cycle conditions -- towards which we are heading -- and will decide whether lower economic risks/higher profits more than offset higher real rates.

Posted by: MG at May 4, 2004 6:56 PM

I hope you are right MG, but I am stil not convinced. Lower USD will bring higher inflation which will offset any export-driven income. As rates rise, the bond and derivatives bubbles will deflate. I don't think the pain is over by a long run.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 4, 2004 8:33 PM

Except that the lower dollar is a debubble (or whatever the opposite of a bubble is). No one in their right mind would bet on the future of Europe over that of America, yet it's currency has gone up against ours. Money valuations are basically political emotions and hatred of America is confusing people terribly right now.

Posted by: oj at May 4, 2004 8:41 PM

Yes, it is a de-bubble, wrought by the bond bubble and the twin deficits. The system has to balance out somehow. It isn't a political reaction, the Europeans offer higher interest rates than we do. Noone wants the US economy to fail, we'll drag the world down with us.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 5, 2004 11:22 AM

Robert:

and they're crushing their already feeble economies in the process. The Euro is a short term winner and a long term loser.

Posted by: oj at May 5, 2004 12:41 PM

It is a choose your poison scenario. We choose low rates and inflation, which is better for a nation of debtors than deflation. Remember the 70's? As long as you have marketable skills that will inflate along with the CPI, you'll do well. Anyone on fixed incomes will be trashed, though. Don't plan on an early retirement.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at May 5, 2004 2:18 PM

rather, fairly standard rates given that there is no inflation.

Posted by: oj at May 5, 2004 2:26 PM
« IF THEY SHOULD BAR WARS PLEASE LEAVE US THESE: | Main | TEACH TO THE TEST (via Tom Morin): »