BHI
FaxSheet: Information
and Updates on Current Issues
Poor
Revenue Estimates Costs States Jobs and Investments
A new
economic analysis reveals that poor revenue estimates combined with
the ongoing economic expansion have created a new phenomenon
a year-in-and-year-out pattern of large surplus state revenues. One
New England state, Massachusetts, has accumulated almost $4 billion
in these surplus revenues over the last six years, about 4% of budgeted
spending. The continued collection of surplus revenue imposes a drag
on state economies. The Beacon Hill Institute analysis found that, last
year alone, this fiscal drag cost Massachusetts almost 73,000 jobs,
more than $2.5 billion in payrolls and almost $11 billion in capital
equipment (factory space and machines, computers, delivery trucks and
so forth) that would otherwise have been in place.
Surplus
revenue is money that the state collects in excess of its budgeted spending
for a given fiscal year. Because, for Massachusetts, surplus revenues
have become steady and large, they have taken on the character of a
"stealth" budget, a hidden revenue source from which to fund
predictable but unbudgeted state spending needs.
The phenomenon
of surplus revenues is not limited to Massachusetts. According to one
report, surplus revenues are currently running about $34.5 billion,
about 8.5% of total state spending, for the 50 states. [1] Another report puts the current-year figure
for five New England states (excluding Vermont) at close to $1.5 billion.
[2]
The fiscal
year 1999 Massachusetts budget is expected to be about $19.5 billion.
But, if current economic conditions continue and there is no tax cut,
the state will end up collecting FY 99 surplus revenue of $773.4 million.
Taking this surplus revenue into account, actual FY 99 revenue will
run closer to $20.3 billion, about 4% more than what the state is saying
now that it plans to collect and spend. If the state enacts a tax cut
in calendar year 1998, the actual surplus for FY 99 will be smaller.
Government
uses surplus revenues by making supplemental appropriations or by saving
them. Supplemental appropriations are for new state spending or refunds
to taxpayers. Saving goes to various funds, including the stabilization
or "rainy day" fund. Line 1 of Table 1 shows the surplus revenues
("stealth budget") for the period FY 93-99. Lines 2 shows
the portion spent as supplemental appropriations and Line 3 shows the
portion saved. The major portion, about 70%, has gone into spending
and the rest into saving. Only a small portion of the accumulated surplus
revenues $235 million in FY 97-98 was refunded to taxpayers.
The rest went for new spending or saving.
Table
1 - Massachusetts Stealth Budget, FY 93-99 ($ millions)
Fiscal
Year
|
93 |
94 |
95 |
96 |
97 |
98* |
93-98* |
99** |
(1)
Surplus Revenue ("Stealth Budget") |
537.2 |
406.9 |
626.9 |
930.9 |
603.9 |
848.6 |
3,954.4 |
773.4 |
(2)
Supplemental Appropriations |
524.4 |
380.1 |
490.0 |
484.5 |
382.9 |
514.0 |
2,775.9 |
530.7 |
(3)
Saved |
12.8 |
26.8 |
136.9 |
446.4 |
221.0 |
334.6 |
1,178.5 |
242.7 |
*FY 98
data are estimates based on currently available data.
**Projection
based on FY 93-98 and assuming no CY 1998 tax cut.
When
a Surplus Revenue Becomes a Stealth Revenue
At the
beginning of the fiscal year, the executive branch declares, in its
annual budget, how much it plans to spend and how much it plans to collect
in revenue over the next twelve months. Because no entity, public or
private can anticipate exactly how much it will spend and how much it
will collect in revenue, the budget is a statement of planned
spending and of planned revenue collections.
Actual,
as opposed to planned spending and revenue collections will vary
with economic conditions and with other conditions beyond the control
of government. A snowy winter will force government to spend more than
planned on plowing the roads. A fast-growing economy will cause it to
collect more than planned in revenues and to spend less than planned
on welfare.
In some
years, therefore, the state will experience a revenue shortfall and
in other years a revenue surplus. Revenue surpluses acquire a stealth-like
character, however, when they turn into supplemental appropriations
for routine expenditures that were not included in the beginning-of-fiscal-year
budget or when they are saved mainly to avoid making refunds
to taxpayers.
An indication
that government is engaging is stealth budgeting is its intentionally
or unintentionally omitting routine and predictable spending plans from
its budget or repeatedly underestimating revenue flows. Revenues belatedly
declared as needed for some emergency or contingency are
depicted as windfalls to be used responsibly rather than
as refunds to taxpayers.
Spinning
the Stealth Budget
Stealth
budgeting is an outgrowth of a tradition long considered respectable,
even high minded of underestimating government revenues and then
using the surplus revenues to pay for supplemental spending measures
or additions to rainy-day funds and the like. As a matter of principle,
state revenue forecasters and taxpayer watchdog groups offer conservative
revenue estimates in order to hedge against possible revenue shortfalls
and then, when their estimates prove to be underestimates, argue for
using the money for some emergency or for some responsible purpose.
In FY
97, Massachusetts included in its supplemental appropriations $10 million
for maintenance to state colleges and universities, $30
million for implementation and oversight of educational technology
projects and $13 million for repairs and improvements to
rinks, pools and other properties. Such appropriations appear
not to represent emergencies, but rather routine expenditures that should
have been factored into the FY 97 budget when it was originally conceived.
There
are calls to set aside some of the FY 98 surplus revenues for expenses
associated with the Central Artery Project or Big Dig. There
are also frequent warnings of the need to set aside funds now for less
rosy days ahead.
Massachusetts
budgeted $583 million in state appropriations for the Office of the
Secretary of the Executive Office of Transportation and Construction
for FY 98. Now there are proposals to set aside some of the FY 98 surplus
revenue for the Big Dig. But the EOTC bears responsibility for managing
the Big Dig. Arguably, in drawing up the FY 98 budget, the Legislature
should have considered the long-predicted spending needs of the Big
Dig in tandem with those of the EOTC.
The
Economic Consequences of Stealth Budgets
Surplus
revenues exert unwanted effects on economic activity. This is because
the higher tax rates that are needed to maintain excess revenue flows
exert negative effects on the willingness of business to create jobs
and to create capital in the form of machinery, computers, factory space
and the like.
The alternative
to collecting surplus revenues is cutting tax rates by enough to bring
actual revenues into line with planned spending. Just as higher tax
rates negative effects, lower tax rates exert positive effects on the
economy.
Suppose,
for example, that Massachusetts had cut tax rates for calendar year
1997 by enough to eliminate that year's surplus revenue. [3]
Our analysis shows that it could have brought about this result by cutting
the tax rate on earned income from 5.95% to 5.2%. The result would have
been the creation of more than 72,000 jobs, over $2.55 billion in payroll
and more than $10 billion in new capital. See Table 2.
Table
2 - Effects of Cutting the Earned Income Tax Rate from 5.95% to 5.2%,
CY 1997 [4]
Change
in Payroll
|
Change
in Jobs
|
Change
in Capital Stock
|
Static
Tax Revenue Effect
|
Dynamic
Tax Revenue Effect
|
Net
Tax Revenue Effect
|
$2.55
billion |
72,982 |
$10.84
billion |
-$818
million |
$127
million |
-$691
million |
The lower
tax rate would have caused a static revenue loss of $818
million, which would have been offset in part by a dynamic
gain of $127 million, made possible by the expansion in the state payroll.
The net result would have been a loss of $691 million in tax revenue,
approximately the amount of revenue the state would have lost in calendar
year 1997 by eliminating the stealth budget.
Conclusion
Massachusetts
has been collecting revenues that exceed budgeted spending by about
4%. The surplus revenue thus collected amounts to a stealth budget
money not reported by the state at budget time but that will predictably
become available during the fiscal year to fund routine spending and
saving requirements.
The most
effective and economically beneficial antidote to stealth budgets is
a reduction in tax rates, which simultaneously deprives government of
the surplus revenue and offers a stimulus to the economy. Because it
took the accumulation of almost $4 billion in surplus revenues to bring
about this action, however, it is well to consider a more effective
antidote. One answer is a law that requires the state to pay back, with
interest, revenues that exceed budget by more than, say, 1%. The Legislature
could be permitted to use surplus revenues exceeding this amount for
emergency purposes on a vote of 2/3 or more of its members.
Appendix
A. The Massachusetts budgetary process
The budgetary
process begins early in the prior fiscal year. For example, a budget
for fiscal year 1999 begins in January 1998 with the Governor's proposal
known as House 1. Once it is submitted, House 1 is reviewed by the House
of Representatives where all appropriation bills begin.
The House
Ways and Means Committee considers the Governor's budget recommendation
(House 5500 for FY 99) and, with revisions, proposes a budget to the
full House of Representatives, which sends it to the Senate. Thereafter,
the budget is considered by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which
in turn proposes a budget to be considered by the full Senate. After
Senate action, a legislative conference committee made up of six members
appointed by the House and Senate leadership crafts a compromise budget
for further consideration. After it is voted upon by both houses, the
budget is sent to the Governor.
Under
the Massachusetts Constitution, the Governor may veto the budget in
whole or disapprove or reduce specific line items. As a check on the
Governor, the Legislature may override the Governor's veto or specific
line-item vetoes by a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate.
At the end of this process, when the Governor has signed a budget, the
legislation is officially called the General Appropriation Act.
State
law requires the Legislature and the Governor approve a balanced budget
for each fiscal year. Any time during the fiscal year, the Legislator
or the Governor may propose further spending known as Supplemental Appropriation
Acts. The Legislature can legally increase the state's budget as long
as it does not cause the budget to be unbalanced.
Once the
fiscal year is finished, the Legislature can still appropriate additional
monies. The Supplemental Appropriation Acts allow the Legislature to
spend additional monies without taxpayers' knowledge. In essence, this
allows the Legislature to use the Acts as a mechanism to prevent surpluses
from being returned to taxpayers.
Appendix
B. Methodology
We use
data from a table found in bond prospectuses issued by the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts called the Budgeted Operating Funds Operations
Statutory Basis. Total revenues come from the line titled "Budgeted
Revenues and Other Sources." Total expenditures come from the line
titled "Budgeted Expenditures and Other Uses." Total expenditures
as reported by the Comptroller's office include expenditures from the
General Appropriations Act, all supplemental spending attributed to
each fiscal year, prior year appropriations continued (PACs) and reversions.
[5]
To derive
the "Original Signed Budget," we subtract all supplemental
appropriations from Total Expenditures and Uses. (See Table 3 below)
This represents the amount that the Legislature approved and the Governor
signed, including PACs. Next we derive "Surplus/Deficits"
for each FY by subtracting "Original budget Signed" from "Total
Revenue and Other Sources." We subtract supplemental appropriations
because they were not part of the original General Appropriation Act.
"Reported Surplus/Deficit" is the surplus or deficit reported
by the Comptroller's office. This amount is calculated by subtracting
"Total Expenditures and Uses" from "Total Revenue and
Other Sources."
Table
3 - Massachusetts State Budget
|
FY
93
|
FY
94 |
FY
95 |
FY
96 |
FY
97 |
FY
97 |
Beginning
Fund Balances
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserved
or Designated
|
236.2
|
110.4
|
79.3
|
128.1
|
263.4
|
225.1
|
Tax
Reduction Fund
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
231.7
|
91.8
|
Stabilization
Fund
|
230.4
|
309.5
|
382.9
|
425.4
|
543.3
|
799.3
|
Undesignated
|
82.8
|
142.6
|
127.1
|
172.5
|
134
|
277.8
|
Fund
Balance Restatement
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.7
|
(128.0)
|
Total
|
549.4
|
562.5
|
589.3
|
726.0
|
1,173.1
|
1,266.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues
and Other Sources
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes
|
9,929.9
|
10,606.7
|
11,163.4
|
12,049.2
|
12,864.5
|
13,700.0
|
Federal
Reimbursement
|
2,674.1
|
2,901.2
|
2,969.7
|
3,039.1
|
3,019.6
|
3,375.0
|
Departmental
and other revenue
|
1,327.1
|
1,187.9
|
1,273.1
|
1,208.1
|
1,267.9
|
1,285.0
|
Interfund
Transfers and Other Sources
|
778.5
|
853.9
|
981.0
|
1,031.1
|
1,018.0
|
948.6
|
Total
Revenue and Other Sources
|
14,709.6
|
15,549.7
|
16,387.2
|
17,327.5
|
18,170.0
|
19,308.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expenditures
and Uses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Programs
and Services |
12,683.6
|
13,416.2
|
14,010.3
|
14,650.7
|
15,218.8
|
16,504.0
|
Debt
Service |
1,139.5
|
1,149.4
|
1,230.9
|
1,183.6
|
1,275.5
|
1,243.2
|
Pensions |
868.6
|
908.9
|
968.8
|
1,004.6
|
1,069.2
|
1,069.6
|
Interfund
Transfers to Non-budgeted Funds and Other Uses |
5.1
|
48.4
|
40.4
|
42.2
|
385.5
|
112.9
|
Total
Expenditures and Uses |
14,696.8
|
15,522.9
|
16,250.4
|
16,881.1
|
17,949.0
|
18,460.0
|
Supplemental
Appropriations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
During
FY |
412.6
|
242.3
|
442.4
|
93.2
|
136.8
|
0
|
During
FY |
35.4
|
18.0
|
1.5
|
2.8
|
2.4
|
0
|
Subsequent
to FY |
76.4
|
119.9
|
46.1
|
388.5
|
223.4
|
0
|
Subsequent
to FY |
0
|
0
|
0
|
1.8
|
20.3
|
0
|
Total
Appropriations |
524.4
|
380.1
|
490.0
|
486.3
|
382.9
|
514.0
|
Original
Budget Signed |
14,172.4
|
15,142.8
|
15,760.4
|
16,394.9
|
17,566.1
|
18,460.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ending
Fund Balances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reserved
or Designated |
110.4
|
79.3
|
128.1
|
263.4
|
225.1
|
96.2
|
Tax
Reduction Fund |
0
|
0
|
0
|
231.7
|
91.8
|
3.5
|
Stabilization
Fund |
309.5
|
382.9
|
425.4
|
543.3
|
799.3
|
866.1
|
Undesignated
|
142.6
|
127.1
|
172.5
|
134.0
|
277.8
|
249.6
|
Total
|
562.5
|
589.3
|
726.0
|
1,172.4
|
1,394.0
|
1,215.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surplus
Revenue |
537.2
|
406.9
|
626.9
|
930.9
|
603.9
|
848.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saved
|
12.8
|
26.8
|
136.9
|
446.4
|
221.0
|
334.6
|
Note:
Using a 5.15% tax rate I got a net tax revenue effect of -$738 million,
a little over the -$726 million surplus for calendar year 1997. The
economic effect are a little, but not much larger.
Important
Note: This tax cut is, in addition to the temporary increase in personal
exemptions for 1997, and the marginal tax rate could have been cut by
even more if these exemptions had not been increased.
Footnotes
[1]
State Government News, April 1998, p. 12.
[2]
USA Today, May 27, 1998, p. 8A.
[3]
This is figured on a calendar year, rather than a fiscal year basis.
CY 1997 surplus revenue (obtained by averaging the FY 97 and FY 98 surpluses)
was about $691 million, or the amount of revenue the state would have
lost in CY 97 by cutting the tax rate on earned income to 5.2%.
[4]
This tax cut is in addition to the temporary increase in personal exceptions
for 1997, and the marginal tax rate could have been cut by even more
if these exemptions had not been increased.
[5]
Reversions are unspent monies that are returned to the general fund.
Posted
7/8/98: Revised on
7/11/07 14:07