Tweet
Budget Worries Push Governors to Same Mind-Set
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: January 17, 2011
CHICAGO — The dismal fiscal situation in many states is forcing governors, despite their party affiliation, toward a consensus on what medicine is needed going forward.
The prescription? Slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.
In years past, new governors have introduced themselves in inaugural remarks filled with cheery, soaring hopes; plans for expansions to education, health care and social services; and the outlines of new, ambitious local projects.
But an examination of more than two dozen opening addresses of incoming governors in recent days shows that such upbeat visions were often eclipsed by worries about jobs, money and budget gaps. Those speeches are the best indication thus far of the intentions of this class of 37 governors — 26 new and the others re-elected.
“The rhetoric has grown very similar,” said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. “A lot of times, you can’t tell if it’s a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal.”
In Wisconsin, the new Republican governor, Scott Walker, says that any prospect of a tax increase is off the table, and that he wants to “right-size” state government, meaning, he says, that it would provide “only the essential services our citizens need and taxpayers can afford.”
In California, the new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, lists as one of his guiding principles (second only to his tenet to “speak the truth”) support for new taxes only if voters want them. And he says it is time to examine the state’s system of public pensions — an increasingly vitriolic political issue in states around the country — to ensure that they are “fair to the workers and fair to the taxpayers.”
Without question, this emerging consensus comes in a wide range of degrees. Exceptions have also emerged.
Here in Illinois, a state that has wrestled with some of the most dire financial circumstances in the country, including some $8 billion in unpaid bills to social services agencies and others and a desperately underfinanced pension system, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, a Democrat, pledged after renewing his oath of office simply to “stabilize our budget.” Three days later, on Thursday, he did the reverse of what so many governors are urging, and signed a 66 percent increase in the state’s income tax rate.
And in Minnesota, where Gov. Mark Dayton, another Democrat, faces a $6.2 billion deficit and a Legislature controlled by Republicans, he has advocated for a tax increase on the wealthy.
After being sworn in this month, Mr. Dayton told the crowd, “To those who sincerely believe the state budget can be balanced with no tax increase — including no forced property tax increase — I say, if you can do so without destroying our schools, hospitals and public safety, please send me your bill, so I can sign it immediately.” Otherwise, Mr. Dayton said, he hoped his colleagues would work with him on “this challenging, complicated and essential” budget process.
Though public remarks in the moments after being sworn into office may be the first signal of a governor’s true intentions, actual policies can be another matter entirely. Those can depend, not least of all, on the decisions of legislatures. And governors of all political stripes have a tendency to talk tough in their early days.
The difference now, experts say, is that the financial circumstances leave little room to do nothing, and governors will soon be tested on their words — as early as in the next few weeks, when many of them must propose budgets for next year.
Some states seem better off (North Dakota) and others worse (California), but the shared, essential problem in many states is simple: not enough money coming in to pay for all that is going out.
While state revenues — shrunken as a result of the recession — are finally starting to improve somewhat, federal stimulus money that had propped up state budgets is vanishing and costs are rising, all of which has left state leaders bracing for what is next. For now, states have budget gaps of $26 billion, by some estimates, and foresee shortfalls of at least $82 billion as they look to next year’s budgets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: January 17, 2011
CHICAGO — The dismal fiscal situation in many states is forcing governors, despite their party affiliation, toward a consensus on what medicine is needed going forward.
The prescription? Slash spending. Avoid tax increases. Tear up regulations that might drive away business and jobs. Shrink government, even if that means tackling the thorny issues of public employees and their pensions.
In years past, new governors have introduced themselves in inaugural remarks filled with cheery, soaring hopes; plans for expansions to education, health care and social services; and the outlines of new, ambitious local projects.
But an examination of more than two dozen opening addresses of incoming governors in recent days shows that such upbeat visions were often eclipsed by worries about jobs, money and budget gaps. Those speeches are the best indication thus far of the intentions of this class of 37 governors — 26 new and the others re-elected.
“The rhetoric has grown very similar,” said Scott D. Pattison, executive director of the nonpartisan National Association of State Budget Officers. “A lot of times, you can’t tell if it’s a Republican or Democrat, a conservative or a liberal.”
In Wisconsin, the new Republican governor, Scott Walker, says that any prospect of a tax increase is off the table, and that he wants to “right-size” state government, meaning, he says, that it would provide “only the essential services our citizens need and taxpayers can afford.”
In California, the new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, lists as one of his guiding principles (second only to his tenet to “speak the truth”) support for new taxes only if voters want them. And he says it is time to examine the state’s system of public pensions — an increasingly vitriolic political issue in states around the country — to ensure that they are “fair to the workers and fair to the taxpayers.”
Without question, this emerging consensus comes in a wide range of degrees. Exceptions have also emerged.
Here in Illinois, a state that has wrestled with some of the most dire financial circumstances in the country, including some $8 billion in unpaid bills to social services agencies and others and a desperately underfinanced pension system, Gov. Patrick J. Quinn, a Democrat, pledged after renewing his oath of office simply to “stabilize our budget.” Three days later, on Thursday, he did the reverse of what so many governors are urging, and signed a 66 percent increase in the state’s income tax rate.
And in Minnesota, where Gov. Mark Dayton, another Democrat, faces a $6.2 billion deficit and a Legislature controlled by Republicans, he has advocated for a tax increase on the wealthy.
After being sworn in this month, Mr. Dayton told the crowd, “To those who sincerely believe the state budget can be balanced with no tax increase — including no forced property tax increase — I say, if you can do so without destroying our schools, hospitals and public safety, please send me your bill, so I can sign it immediately.” Otherwise, Mr. Dayton said, he hoped his colleagues would work with him on “this challenging, complicated and essential” budget process.
Though public remarks in the moments after being sworn into office may be the first signal of a governor’s true intentions, actual policies can be another matter entirely. Those can depend, not least of all, on the decisions of legislatures. And governors of all political stripes have a tendency to talk tough in their early days.
The difference now, experts say, is that the financial circumstances leave little room to do nothing, and governors will soon be tested on their words — as early as in the next few weeks, when many of them must propose budgets for next year.
Some states seem better off (North Dakota) and others worse (California), but the shared, essential problem in many states is simple: not enough money coming in to pay for all that is going out.
While state revenues — shrunken as a result of the recession — are finally starting to improve somewhat, federal stimulus money that had propped up state budgets is vanishing and costs are rising, all of which has left state leaders bracing for what is next. For now, states have budget gaps of $26 billion, by some estimates, and foresee shortfalls of at least $82 billion as they look to next year’s budgets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/us...s.html?_r=1&hp
Comment