Budgeting during a Recession Phase of the Business Cycle: The Georgia Experience

This article describes the impact of the nation-wide recession on Georgia revenue and spending decisions in the 2002 and 2003 fiscal years. The state's strong economy and conservative revenue estimating practices historically provided a hedge against revenue shortfalls during a recession phase of the business cycle. However, when state revenue collections for FY 2002 were 5 percent less than collections for the prior fiscal year, several gap-closing measures became necessary, including state agency spending reductions and substitution of bond proceeds for tax revenues. These revenue and expenditure gap-closing measures were intended to enable the governor to achieve his policy initiatives while maintaining a balanced budget. The state's Rainy Day Fund remained full and was held in reserve for budget balancing in FY 2004, if necessary. Budget balancing during the current recession has been made possible by the state's practice of not overcommitting to program increases and tax cuts during the expansion phase of the business cycle, and by effectively framing the issue of fiscal restraint.     

Revenue Diversification in Arkansas Cities: The Budgetary and Tax Effort Impacts

The consequences of revenue shortfalls for cities are particularly dramatic due to the balanced‐budget requirement. Revenue diversification is one method of stabilizing revenue streams because diversified revenue structures can mitigate the revenue fluctuations often associated with single source revenue. Using audited financial reports, this study examines the impact of revenue diversification in Arkansas cities over 10 years. To address the issue of revenue adequacy, this study examines diversification's impact on current year budget changes in revenue and expenditures as well as its impact on tax effort.     

Budget Process Reform: Waiting for Godot

The unraveling of the budget process described by Irene Rubin will have extraordinary consequences for the long-term budget outlook facing the nation. The retirement of the baby boom generation will prompt unprecedented and unsustainable structural fiscal imbalances for decades to come. Early policy action on the spending and revenue sides of the budget is critical to avert fiscal and economic crisis and to phase in changes in order to avoid precipitous and politically perilous actions in the future. Yet such actions constitute what amounts to a politically unnatural act, as one generation of political leaders is asked to make sacrifices in current policies benefiting future generations. Budget process reforms can serve to highlight the salience of these issues and help deal with the significant political hurdles faced by decision makers in making these intertemporal budgeting trade-offs. Ironically, the need for budget rules and processes has intensified as policy makers have become more vulnerable to polarized political parties, ever more watchful media, and mobilized interest groups. Budget rules and processes can help policy makers cope by protecting their ability to make the hard choices that will be necessary. The pressures for budget process reform will accelerate as the current financial crisis increases near-term budgetary pressures, promoting greater alignment between near-term and long-term fiscal problems.     

Monitoring Single-Source Revenue Funds throughout the Budgeting Process

Unexpected revenue shortfalls that occur during budget execution create serious problems for public agencies and programs. This is especially true for agencies and programs that rely upon a single source of revenue. This article implements a revenue monitoring process that combines ideas from statistical process control and exploratory data analysis into a spreadsheet environment. The methodology builds on principles used to monitor manufacturing processes. This simple application helps public managers detect revenue surpluses and deficits early enough in the budget execution process to take corrective action. The methodology also adapts to the data problems and avoids many of the pitfalls that arise when using "real world" budget data. An example of the benefits of this methodology is offered using an example of a state agency funded by a single revenue source.     

State Policies Affecting Cities and Counties in 1991: Shifting Federalism

States experienced considerable fiscal distress in 1991 as the recession led to widespread revenue shortfalls. In this environment, discretionary spending did not fare well. This article discusses five major policy areas: (1) state financial aid; (2) major changes in the "sorting out" of responsibilities between the state and local governments; (3) revenue diversification; (4) changes in limitations imposed on local taxes; and (5) new mandates handed down to cities and counties.     

A User's Guide to State Revenue Forecasting

One of the most difficult tasks in preparing a state budget is forecasting available revenues. An overly optimistic forecast may subsequently require unpopular budget cuts, tax increases, or both. A pessimistic forecast may trigger a political controversy over the size of the budget surplus, or may encourage additional spending that cannot be sustained in the future. Forecasters have always informally shared their experience with each other. Only in recent years, however have scholars begun to document those experiences.
A forecast user is an elected official, program manager, reporter or private citizen involved in the budget process who uses a forecast prepared by someone else as a basis for making or influencing policy decisions about state taxes and spending levels. __ While the objectives of these forecast users may vary depending on their role in the budget process, they all share one need in common: a sound forecast which provides them with the information they need to participate in the budget process. The first part of this article briefly reviews the status of revenue forecasting in the states. The second part reviews five specific forecasting issues. The third section, discusses limits of revenue forecasting. The concluding section is a summary and checklist of good revenue forecasting practices.     

Betting on the Future with a Cloudy Crystal Ball? How Financial Theory Can Improve Revenue Forecasting and Budgets in the States

Accurately predicting revenue growth is nearly impossible. Predicting the peaks and valleys of the business cycle is even more hopeless. This matters because tax revenues are largely driven by economic growth. Volatile, unpredictable revenue growth causes all sorts of unpleasant responses on the part of governments, most commonly manic-depressive patterns of spending and taxing. Fortunately, modern financial economics gives us a set of tools that can be used to manage volatility. This article shows how such tools can be used to inform fiscal decision making. The focus here is state governments, but the analysis applies to all jurisdictions that face hard budget constraints and therefore must balance spending increases against revenue growth.     

Budget institutions and taxation

While a number of different studies have explored the effects of budgetary procedures and the centralization of the budget process on government debt, deficits and spending, few of them have explored whether such fiscal institutions matter for public revenue. This article argues that centralizing the budget process raises the levels of taxation by limiting the ability of individual government officials to veto tax increases in line with common-pool-problem arguments regarding public finances. Using detailed data on budgetary procedures from 15 EU countries, the empirical analysis shows that greater centralization of the budget process increases taxation as a share of GDP and that both the type of budget centralization and level of government fractionalization matter for the size of this effect. The results suggest that further centralizing the budget process limits government debt and deficits by increasing public revenues as well as constraining public spending.     

Tax Expenditure Budgets, Budget Policy, and Tax Policy: Confusion in the States

A tax expenditure budget should contribute to efficient and effective public decisions by quantifying the division in the tax structure between provisions that represent revenue policy (distribute the cost of government according to the legislated tax base) and parts that represent budget policy (substitute for direct spending). For this transparency to have the desired impact, however, the tax expenditure budget process and the direct expenditure process must be properly integrated and the tax expenditure budget must make an accurate division between the parts of the tax structure. A review of the 33 states with tax expenditure systems shows many weaknesses in application of the concept and poor linkage to the direct spending budget system. Their most significant flaw is in dividing the tax structure into normal and preference elements; states need greater attention to defining their basic tax structure if they are to have a meaningful tax expenditure budget.     

How to think about the U.S. budget challenge

The long‐term budget prospects of the United States are grim. Projected spending greatly exceeds projected revenue over the next few decades. Projected growth of health care spending accounts for more than all of the anticipated gap. Without action to narrow the gap, accumulating deficits will drive up the ratio of debt to GDP. Interest payments will rise correspondingly. At some point, domestic and foreign holders of U.S. debt will come to doubt the capacity of the government to service this debt. At that point, they will demand sharply higher interest rates. The combination of increasing debt and rising interest rates will cause debt service costs to explode. What follows would be some combination of collapsing investment, declining production, debt default, and inflation—in brief, a calamitous mess. That such a mess will occur is certain if budget deficits as large as those currently anticipated are realized. Precisely when is impossible to forecast accurately.     

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990: The Path to No Fault Budgeting

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, included in the controversial and comprehensive budget legislation passed by Congress in October, makes a number of significant changes in federal budgeting. It shifts the focus of the budget process from deficit reduction to spending control, provides five-year spending totals and mini-sequesters for defense, international and domestic appropriations, and puts entitlements and revenue expenditures on a pay-as-you-go basis. The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit targets have been raised substantially, Social Security surpluses taken out of the deficit calculation and allowance made for further adjustments for inflation, Operation Desert Shield, and other emergency spending, minimizing the prospect for general sequestration. OMB has been given important new estimating authority and the roles of the congressional committees involved in budgeting have been altered.     

Surplus Expenditures: A Case Study of Colorado

In this study the concept of surplus expenditures is introduced, and a theory of surplus expenditures is explored. The study examines the disposition of surplus revenues that emerged from the imposition of a binding tax and spending limit in Colorado. The study concludes that the accumulation of surplus revenue requires a major overhaul of budgetary reporting and decision making to reflect the impact of binding tax and spending limits on the budgetary process. The reporting recommendations are designed to make the budget more transparent and provide both taxpayers and legislators the information they need to make more rational decisions. The policy recommendations explore options for a more efficient and equitable disposition of surplus revenue.     

Capital Budgeting and Management Practices: Smoothing Out Rough Spots in Government Outlays

Public capital budgeting and management literature recommends long‐term capital and fiscal planning practices to prevent large fluctuations in outlays caused by fiscal stresses. This study extends the literature by examining the effects of long‐term capital planning and management practices such as the use of a capital budget, separate impact analyses, and the use of bond financing and dedicated revenue sources on capital spending volatility. The empirical results confirm that several of these practices smooth out state government capital outlays that vary because of socio‐economic and financial factors.     

Surviving a Revenue Collapse: Shortfall and Recovery in California

Substantial revenue shortfalls have to be reckoned with, no matter what their cause or what the cost. California found itself in such a situation late in the 1987–88 fiscal year. On April 22, 1988,' it ascertained that tax receipts were falling behind forecasted revenues. This led to the prediction of a $1 billion shortfall for California in 1987–88 and again in 1988–89. The article reviews the causes of the shortfall and describes the actions taken by the governor and the legislature to balance the budget.     

Elections and the strategic use of budget deficits

We present a model in which a conservative incumbent with preferences for low public spending can strategically run a budget deficit to prevent the left-wing opposition candidate from choosing high public spending if elected, and possibly also to ensure his own reelection. We find that the incumbent never manipulates the opposition candidate??s public spending if he can ensure his own reelection; and that a conservative incumbent who runs a budget deficit to ensure his reelection may somewhat paradoxically choose high public spending before the election.     

Wisconsin's Budget Deficit: Size, Causes, Remedies, and Consequences

Wisconsin's lawmakers increased spending and cut taxes during the 1990s. Then, in January of 2001, they faced an estimated $2.4 billion budget gap or deficit for the FY 2001–2003 biennium. They cut spending and generated additional revenue by borrowing against future tobacco settlement income. Still, by January of 2002, the estimated deficit had grown by an additional $1.3 billion, and more cutting and borrowing took place. Despite these actions, a $3.5 billion deficit was projected for FY 2003–2005. In this study, the causes of the deficit, the "remedies" selected, and their effects are examined. "Lessons" highlighted by Wisconsin's experience include the risks associated with nonincremental policy making, the high costs of excessive political partisanship, and the corrosive effects of "fiscal brinksmanship."     

A better budget rule

Debt limits, interest coverage ratios, one‐off balanced budget requirements, pay‐as‐you‐go rules, and tax and expenditure limits are among the most important fiscal rules for constraining intertemporal transfers. There is considerable evidence that the least costly and most effective of such rules are those that focus directly on the rate of spending growth, even with their seemingly ad hoc nature and possibilities for circumvention. In this paper, we use optimal control theory and martingale methods to justify a transparent, nonarbitrary rule governing maximum sustainable rate of spending growth, treating the revenue structure of a jurisdiction as a given continuous‐time stochastic process. Our results can be used to determine whether a proposed rate of spending growth is sustainable or not. © 2009 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management     

The Politics of Forecast Bias: Forecaster Effect and Other Effects in New York City Revenue Forecasting

This paper examines the impact of forecasters, horizons, revenue categories, and forecast timing in relation to decision making on forecast bias or accuracy. The significant findings are: for the most part forecasters tend to report forecasts that are similar rather than competitive. Forecast bias (underforecasting) increases over longer horizons; consequently claims of structural budget deficit are suspect, as an assertion of structural deficit requires that a reliable forecast of revenue shows continuous shortfall compared with a reliable forecast of expenditures. There is an overforecasting bias in property tax, possibly reflecting demand for services. There is an underforecasting forecast bias in two revenue categories, all other taxes and federal categorical grants, resulting in a net total underforecasting bias for the city's revenue. There appears to be a period effect (forecasts in June are substantially biased), but this effect requires further study. The study suggests further examination of the bias associated with revenue categories, time within the budget cycle, and forecast horizon.     

Budget Deficits in the States: Massachusetts

Massachusetts entered the current recession carrying a structural deficit counterbalanced by a healthy, $2.1 billion stabilization fund, equal to 10 percent of total tax revenue. Like most states, Massachusetts only dimly realized the depth of the current recession in October 2008 when revenue collections began to slip and welfare caseloads began to increase. By May of 2009, a total FY2009 budget gap of $4 billion had been identified, the combined effect of plummeting revenues and increased costs for welfare and medical assistance. The Commonwealth closed the FY2009 budget gap through a combination of budget cuts, stabilization fund transfers, and federal stimulus funds. The Commonwealth faced an even larger $4.8 billion budget gap in FY2010. With the stabilization fund severely depleted, the FY2010 budget gap was closed primarily by budget cuts, federal stimulus money, and a sales and use tax increase. Because of the Commonwealth's reliance on one-time money to close current budget gaps, a significant budget gap of at least $2.8 billion for FY2011 was identified soon after passage of the budget. In this paper we discuss the political and historic context in which the budget gaps occurred, outline the causes of the budget gaps, and evaluate the strategies employed to close them.     

Budgeting during the Clinton Presidency

This article assesses the Clinton administration record of budgeting. During President Clinton's two terms, the federal government moved from an era of large deficits to one of equally large surpluses. This turnaround was caused by both the strong economy and the deficit reduction deals of 1990, 1993, and 1997. Defense spending and interest declined as a percentage of the budget, whereas mandatory spending and nondefense discretionary spending increased. Acrimonious interbranch budgetary relationships dominated, with Clinton ultimately winning far more fights than he lost. Executive branch budgetary and financial management capacity improved during the Clinton administration.