New Geography

Tag: state budget

  • The Impact of Federal Cutbacks

    During my college days, I had the opportunity to interview a local government official tasked with conducting various disaster response programs. North Dakota had, at the time, been dealing with severe flood issues for nearly a decade, and the interviewee had vast experience dealing with the ins and outs of working within the system to find mitigation solutions. Asked about the challenges of having to deal with a multitude of state and federal agencies, he informed me that the most vital contacts he had were at the federal level. His reasoning?

    “That’s where the money is.”

    Given the current political winds blowing from D.C., the conditions that spurred that view might be about to change in substantial ways.

    With the recent failure of the “Super Committee” to find a deal on potential budget cuts and tax reforms, states may soon find themselves faced with a set of federal spending cuts to programs and services that undergird large parts of their economy. These automatic cuts, triggered in 2013 by the committee’s failure, will total nearly $1.2 Trillion and be between domestic and defense expenditures. While many may laud such cuts as a way to help bring the federal budget back towards a semblance of order, it is worth noting that the impact on state economies moving forward could be substantial.

    Federal spending, be it on defense, salaries for federal workers, infrastructure, or procurement makes up a sometimes major part of state economic activity. As outlined in a recent piece at stateline.com, some states have far greater exposure than others. In New Mexico, home to several major federal research institutions, over 12% of Gross State Product (GSP) is attributable to federal government spending. Virginia and Maryland, home to so many federal workers and contractors are even more economically dependent on federal spending, with 13.5% (MD) and 18.5% (VA) of their economies being due to federal activity. The spillover of cuts at the federal level can’t help but impact on the overall economic health of such states. The impact will likely be felt throughout the nation as federal agencies find themselves forced to tighten their belts.

    Scholars of federalism often refer to the period since the late 1970’s as the era of “New Federalism.” Beginning under President Carter, and embraced fully by the conservative movement during the 1980’s, New Federalism was marked by increasing devolution of powers and responsibility to state governments and calls for states to be given more control over the reins when spending allotted federal dollars.

    While states continue to play an important role in the system, actions taken over the past few years under the Bush and Obama administrations seemed to hearken back to the earlier, cooperative model of federalism, with the federal government taking on a more assertive role in working with and through state and local governments to provide stimulus, reform healthcare, and implement post 9/11 security initiatives. While state leaders might have chafed at the strings tied to certain lines of funding, the dollars provided offered states a way to backfill budget shortfalls during a time of economic stress.

    With the demise of the Super Committee, continued calls for deeper spending cuts and gridlock over raising revenues are setting the table for a changed federal-state relationship. As federal agencies strike their tents on various programs and initiatives, states will find themselves receiving less direct federal largess and facing lower economic activity as federal dollars working their way through the local economy are reduced. Budget austerity may lead the federal government to increasingly leave the states to their own means- devolution by force, instead of by choice.

  • High Speed Rail Subsidies in Iowa: Nothing for Something

    The Federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state (Iowa) to spend money that it does not have on something it does not need. The state of Iowa is being asked to provide funds to match federal funding for a so-called "high speed rail" line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would simply duplicate service that is already available. Luxury intercity bus service is provided between Iowa City and Chicago twice daily. The luxury buses are equipped with plugs for laptop computers and with free wireless high-speed internet service. Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours). No one would be able to get to Chicago quicker than now. Only in America does anyone call a train that averages 45 miles per hour "high speed rail."

    The state would be required to provide $20 million in subsidies to buy trains and then more to operate the trains, making up the substantial difference between costs and passenger fares. This is despite a fare much higher than the bus fare, likely to be at least $50 (based upon current fares for similar distances). By contrast, the luxury bus service charges a fare of $18.00, and does not require a penny of taxpayer subsidy. Because the luxury bus is commercially viable (read "sustainable"), service can readily be added and funded by passengers. Adding rail service would require even more in subsidies from Iowa. The bus is also more environmentally friendly than the train.

    Further, this funding would be just the first step of a faux-high speed rail plan that envisions new intercity trains from Chicago across Iowa to Omaha. In the long run, this could cost the state hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. Already, a similar line from St. Louis to Chicago has escalated in cost nearly 10 times, after adjustment for inflation, from under $400 million to $4 billion.

    Unplanned cost overruns are the rule, rather than the exception in rail projects. European researchers Bent Flyvbjerg, Nils Bruzelius and Werner Rottengather (Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition) and others have shown that new rail projects routinely cost more than planned (Note 1).

    Flyvbjerg et al found that the average rail project cost 45 percent more than projected and that 80 percent cost overruns were not unusual. Cost overruns were found to occur in 9 of 10 projects. Further, they found that ridership and passenger fares also often fell short of projections, increasing the need for operating subsidies.

    Iowa legislators may well identify ways to spend their scarce tax funding on services that are actually needed.

    ______

    Note: Flyvbjerg is a professor at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. Bruzelius is an associate professor at the University of Stockholm. Rothengatter is head of the Institute of Economic Policy and Research at the University of Karlsruhe in Germany and has served as president of the World Conference on Transport Research Society (WCTRS), which is perhaps the largest and most prestigious international association of transport academics and professionals.

  • A Tough Week for High Speed Rail

    The week ended April 16 was particularly difficult for high speed rail, as the following events illustrate.

    1. High Speed Rail Zeroed Out of US Budget: The US federal budget deal, which cut $38 billion from spending ($76 billion annualized) zeroed out the $2.5 billion 2011 budget allocation for high speed rail and $400 million of prior spending authority from President Obama’s "stimulus" program, that had provided $8 billion for high speed rail in 2009. Approximately $2 billion of that authority remains and applications total $10 billion, mostly for conventional intercity rail services, rather than genuine high speed rail service.

    2.  Missouri Legislators Block High Speed Rail: Members of the Senate Transportation Committee in Missouri refused to place high speed rail in the annual state budget. Governor Jay Nixon is seeking more than $1 billion for intercity out of the remaining $2 billion from the original Obama Administration $8 billion program. Governor Nixon indicates that he will try to get the money placed in the budget should the US Department of Transportation award a grant. Missouri joins Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio in taking actions to block funding for high speed rail projects. This reluctance is principally the result of concerns that high speed rail will incur significant cost overruns and require operating subsidies, all of which would have to be paid for by the states, which generally face serious financial difficulties.

    3. China Slows Down Trains: Safety, energy conservation and fare equity issues led the Ministry of Railways to announce a slow-down of its fastest trains to a maximum speed of 300 kilometers per hour (186 miles per hour). This could add materially to travel times, especially in the longer corridors being developed, which traverse the greatest distance of any in the world (such as Shanghai-Kunming, Shanghai-Beijing and Beijing-Hong Kong).

    4. Opposition to Britain’s HS2 Line Intensifies: Opposition continues to mount against Britain’s HS2 line from London to Manchester and Leeds. Protesters showed up at a Department of Transport event at Northampton Station intended to obtain views on the government’s plans. Lizzy Williams, chair of "Stop HS2" expressed concern that the government’s "consultation" was not objective and told only one side of the story, ignoring the difficulties (A video of Ms. Williams at an anti-HS2 convention is here). Opposition groups also plan a rally on May 8. Finally, it was reported that projected time savings on the line have been exaggerated by the government.

  • Krugman’s Muddled Argument Against Texas

    Last week NYT columnist and economist Paul Krugman wrote a very popular column pointing to Texas’ revenue shortfall and declaring it an example of the failure of conservative government.  I found the whole piece a muddled mess and dismissed it, but you can’t believe the notes I’ve gotten from people requesting a response.

    The thing is, I don’t really get his point. The bad national economy was going to cut state revenues no matter what. Is he saying we’d be better off if we had a fat government with easy cuts, instead of a lean government with tough cuts?  How much sense does that make?

    The nice thing about delaying my response is that others have already made great cases against the column (saving me the work).  Kevin Williams at the National Review is a bit sarcastic for my tastes, but makes several great points – the main ones being:

    • there’s no such thing as a shortfall in Texas, since we use zero-based budgeting (i.e. we start from nothing building every budget with no assumptions from prior years), and
    • our unemployment rate, which is better than the national average, is even more impressive when you consider our huge population gains and the jobs we’ve had to provide just to keep up with it.

    Bill Watkins here at New Geography also lays into Krugman’s fuzzy thinking:

    “People are not as stupid as many Nobel Prize winners might think; they move for opportunity, not just for cheap houses or low-paid work.”

    Then he comes up with a great new acronym:

    “A business moves to or expands in a region based on a whole host of reasons. These include available infrastructure, resource availability, market size and location, labor supply and costs, worker productivity, facilities costs, transportation costs, and other costs. Those other costs include what I call DURT (Delay, Uncertainty, Regulation, and Taxes).”

    Conveniently, the Wall Street Journal made the case for Texas’ growth and opportunity the next day:

    WSJ.com – Opinion: The Great Lone Star Migration

    Today one out of 12 Americans lives in Texas—the same proportion that lived in New York City in 1930.

    …Finally there is Texas. In 1930 there were (rounded off) six million people in the Lone Star State versus 13 million in New York. In 1970 there were 11 million in Texas and 18 million in New York: Each had grown by about five million. But in 2010 there were 25 million in Texas and 19 million in New York.

    Back in the 1930-70 period, liberal political scientists hoped and expected that America would become less like Texas and more like New York, with bigger government, higher taxes and more unions. In one important respect—the abolition of legally enforced racial segregation—that has happened. But otherwise Americans have been voting with their feet for the Texas model, with its low tax rates, light regulation and openness to new businesses and enterprises.

    Today one out of 12 Americans lives in Texas—the same proportion that lived in New York City in 1930. Metropolitan Dallas and metropolitan Houston, with about six million people each, threaten to overtake our fourth largest metro area, San Francisco Bay (population about seven million), in the next decade.

    That doesn’t seem to be much of an indictment of Texas’ approach to governance…

    That’s not to say the next budget is going to be easy.  A lot of hard tradeoffs will have to be made.  But it’s pretty clear Texas is a very far cry from being a failed state.

  • The Tax Cut that Killed California?

    I studied with the Austrian economists at New York University. The Austrian school of economics (as contrasted to Keynesians or Chicago school economists) work with a theory about business cycles that essentially starts from the understanding that what appear to be almost mechanical, regular ups and downs in the economy are actually caused by the periodic disappointment of the expectations of entrepreneurs. The alternative is to suggest that business owners periodically and collective wake up stupid one morning and start making a lot of bad decisions. A connection to the routine horizons of fiscal policy – for example, the 5-year funding cycle for federal highways – is a more likely cause of what appear to be “cycles”.

    A current example of how government spending policy can make a disaster of the economy by confounding decision making is the changes/not-changes in US tax policy. What if you are a business owner who has a fiscal year that runs from July 1 to June 30? All of your plans for the first half of 2011 would have been based on the tax cuts expiring (which is the reasonable thing to do – don’t change your plans until the law is changed). If the tax cuts are extended, then the last half of your budget is completely changed. In this case, there will be more net income. Being unable to plan for this, according to economic principal-agent theory, will put a lot of cash in the hands of managers who may not spend it in the best interests of the shareholders. The failure of managers to invest wisely when government stimulates business through unexpected and excessive free cash flow is well-documented.

    Now imagine you are a state whose tax policy mirrors the federal policy. Tax cuts to businesses and individuals translate into revenue cuts for states, counties and cities. Any state that opts out of mirroring whatever Washington D.C. passes risks being cut-out of certain federal funding programs in the future. Nebraska, for example, passes a biannual budget. The last one covered the fiscal-years 2009-2011, which was based on the tax cuts expiring at the end of 2010. The difference if the tax cuts are extended will be a $200 million shortfall. Nebraska is a relatively small state, so consider what this will do to the budgets of all the states, plus counties and cities in the U.S. This could be the event that brings the global financial crisis in public debt home, especially to states like California which are already in trouble.

    Note: A good source for more on Austrian economic theory is the Mises Institute at Auburn University. Click this for a brief on “The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle” from Roger Garrison – who is an expert on the subject.

  • HSR Just Doesn’t Fit

    According to many economists, including the well-respected Robert J. Samuelson, the federal government’s effort to fund high-speed rail lines is like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole. If one really breaks down the numbers, the Obama administration’s goals of reducing green house gas emissions, traffic congestion, and oil consumption with these rail lines are idealistic to say the least, and this idealism may cost states more than their budgets can handle right now.

    The administration wants to build rail lines in 13 urban corridors throughout the nation, 12 of which span distances of less than 500 miles. High-speed rail in these areas would compete with car and air travel, but statistics indicate that this would not save a significant amount on energy costs. Assuming daily air passengers, about 52,934 people in the 12 corridors in 2007, switched to high-speed rail, the result would amount to only a 2.5% drop in air passenger totals. Driving is even less likely to decrease seeing as 85% of the 140 million Americans drive to work each day. If you take the example of the Northeast corridor with 45 million commuters, only 28,500 of which take Amtrak, high-speed rail will not divert enough drivers to cut the amount of energy costs that the administration claims it will.

    However, they use high-speed rail models from Europe and Asia to justify spending upwards of $10.5 billion on this infrastructure of the future. The problem with this is that the successful high-speed rail lines, the most successful of which are the Paris-Lyon and the Tokyo-Osaka lines, are located in densely populated urban areas. The United States became heavily suburban in the past half century and the percentage of the metropolitan population living in central cities dropped to 32% in 2000. As a result, jobs spread out to the suburbs and more Americans are even working from home. Rail service to big core cities will be even less useful as this trend continues.

    Washington will end up footing most of the bill for these high-speed rail projects, especially in states like California that have massive budget woes and few interested private investors. In fact, California is asking for $19 billion for its now $42.6 billion project. That’s almost twice as much as the administration has paid for all the high-speed rail projects in the nation combined (currently $10.5 billion). If this starts happening in every state waiting to get high-speed rail, even if it is on a smaller scale, the federal government will have little money to address the country’s more pressing needs, such as education.

    Some state governments are starting to wise up. Not wanting to waste money on unfruitful high-speed rail lines, they are simply rejecting federal money for these projects because they would not be able to spend the funds on things they really want, like better roads. Obviously, the federal government won’t be able to force high speed rail on Americans for long.

    There is no doubt the Obama administration has good intentions for high-speed rail, but good intentions don’t always translate to success. Rather than try to wedge its idealistic vision of a new transportation infrastructure into the realities of recession-ridden America, it should evaluate what the country truly needs.

  • In the Hunt for a Red October

    California’s precarious budget situation appears to be driving the state closer to potential fiscal ruin. The state is now 28 days into a new fiscal year, operating without a budget, and the deadlocked legislature in Sacramento appears unable and/or unwilling to strike a deal on a new budget able to cover the state’s massive $19 billion deficit.

    With no fix on the immediate horizon, California faces a cash shortage. State Controller John Chiang claims that at current burn rates, the state will find itself out of cash by October if the budget impasse continues. In order to sustain the state’s remaining reserves for as long as possible, Chiang plans to start issuing IOUs to contractors “in August or September to preserve cash”.

    Today, in another effort to defer the date the state will run out of funds, Gov. Schwarzenegger issued an executive order requiring state employees to “take three unpaid days off per month.” This move comes in the wake of the Governor’s proposal to impose minimum wage pay on state workers to save money, currently stuck in the courts.

    If the state legislature is unable to find a solution to the deficit, and creditors prove unwilling to accept more IOU’s, California may be forced to effectively default on its debts. According to Newgeography contributor Bill Watkins, under such a scenario bond issues could fail, state operations grind to a halt, and the “mother of all financial crises” might be unleashed. Even if California is able to find ways to juggle debt load and convince creditors to accept IOU’s while the budget impasse drags on, such stop-gap actions may place its already shaky credit rating at risk of being slashed further towards junk status. The state, legally unable to declare bankruptcy, must find some solution to its budget dilemma or it will become the first state to default since the Great Depression.

  • State Auditor Says Only Part of California High Speed Rail Line May be Built

    The California State Auditor’s report title says it all: High-Speed Rail Authority: It Risks Delays or an Incomplete System Because of Inadequate Planning, Weak Oversight, and Lax Contract Management.

    The report, which can fairly be characterized as “damning,” criticizes the California High Speed Rail Authority on a wide range of issues, some of which go to the very heart of the project itself.

    For example, the State Auditor says that without additional bond funding from the taxpayers, the state “may have to settle for a plan covering less than a complete corridor.” Given the financial and administrative disarray of the California High Speed Rail Authority, this is a distinct possibility, which was raised by the Reason Foundation California High Speed Rail Due Diligence Report, released in September of 2008 (co-authored by Joseph Vranich and me).

    This could produce a system that spectacularly fails to meet the promises of its promoters, while enriching the income statements mostly offshore firms that build trains and of firms that failed so spectacularly in managing the Big Dig in Boston. Martin Engel, who leads an organization of concerned citizens on the San Francisco peninsula frequently notes that the real driving force behind high speed rail is spending the money. In this regard, the California High Speed Rail Authority will deliver the goods. The vendors and consultants will get their money.

    The State Auditor also raises questions about the potential to attract the substantial private investment necessary to completing the project. This is a legitimate concern, since the California High Speed Rail Authority has raised the possibility of government revenue guarantees for private investors. This could lead to “back door” taxpayer payment of the “private” investment.

    The Authority continues to skirt legal requirements. The State Auditor notes that the “peer review” committee, ordered by state law in 2008, is still not fully constituted. This is not surprising for an agency that delayed its publication of a legally mandated business plan from two months before the 2008 bond election to days after it.

    In its response, the California High Speed Rail Authority was relegated to taking issue with the report’s title, characterizing it as “inflammatory” and “overly aggressive.” It hardly seems inflammatory and overly aggressive to point out that an ill-conceived plan is rushing headlong to failure. The State Auditor rightly dismissed the criticism saying: “We disagree. The title accurately characterizes the risks the Authority faces, given our findings.”

    This potential financial debacle could not have come at a worse time for California. California’s fiscal crisis is of Greek proportions. Economist Bill Watkins has raised the possibility of a default on debt. Former Mayor Richard Riordan has suggested bankruptcy for Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest municipality.

    Unlike many in California, Riverside’s Press-Enterprise in high-speed rail in the context of California’s bleak financial situation: The dearth of answers to basic fiscal questions suggests that taxpayers might end up paying for big financial deficiencies in the rail plans. Deficit-ridden California has better uses for public money; no list of state priorities includes dumping countless billions into faster trains.

  • Now You Should be Really Fiscally Afraid in California

    After reading a recent article I wrote about growing unfunded liabilities for public employee pensions and health care, a reader told me that it made him want to “burn his eyes out with red hot pokers.” Yes, the current situation – expanding debt, growing government, excessive pay and special privileges for government workers, thanks to union power – is not fun to read about. It can be downright scary, when one considers the financial mess that already is looming.

    If you really want to be scared, you need to listen to the types of people who are now sounding the alarm bells. I’m a libertarian, and it’s not a surprise to hear me warn about the ill effects of government spending.

    But listen to what former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, one of the state’s best-known liberal politicians, recently wrote in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed:

    “The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life. But politicians–pushed by our friends in labor–gradually expanded pay and benefits…while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages…This is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide…but at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact.”

    Democratic state Treasurer Bill Lockyer said at a legislative hearing: “It’s impossible for this Legislature to reform the pension system, and if we don’t it will bankrupt the state,”

    The chief actuary for the California Public Employees Pension System called the current pension situation “unsustainable.”

    This is from a recent Economic Policy Journal article: “According to the chairman of New Jersey’s pension fund, the US public pension system faces a higher-than-expected shortfall of more than $2 trillion.”

    The only hope to rein in the current problem is for wider agreement that the days of enriching public employees must end. That means making inroads with liberal Democratic politicians, many of whom must realize that the future of other programs they support are imperiled by shaky finances and pension obligations that suck the life out of government budgets.

    Steven Greenhut is director of the Pacific Research Institute’s calwatchdog.com journalism center and author of “Plunder! How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting The Nation.”

  • Balancing the California Budget

    The battle to find ways to close California’s gaping $24 billion budget shortfall continues, with Governor Schwarzenegger calling for deep cuts and reorganization throughout state government. Last week, making a “rare speech to a joint session of the Legislature,” Gov. Schwarzenegger argued that the state has “run out of time,” and faces a situation where “Our wallet is empty, our bank is closed, and our credit is dried up”.

    The challenges facing California’s policy makers in balancing the budget can be examined by checking out the Los Angeles Times’ “Interactive California Budget Balancer”. While the state has many different options available to it, making cuts to potentially popular programs will only serve to irritate interest groups which argue for the efficacy and essential nature of their favored programs. Couple this reluctance to make cuts with popular resistance to tax increases, recently seen when voters rejected a set of measures on May 19, and one can better understand the true magnitude of the budget impasse facing the state.