CHAPTER SIX STATE FINANCES STATE FINANCES IN A CHANGING ECONOMY
By Marcia A. Howard
Overview had increased by another SIS billion and budgets had been cut by more than S7.s bil Beginning in New England in fiscal year lion. States entered fiscal year 1992 hoping 1989, I states entered a period that is regard national forecasts predicting the end of the ed as one of the most difficult in the recent recession in the summer of 1991 would be past. One state after another found its revenue correct. growth not keeping pace with the growth rate They were wrong. Rather than rebound as that had been estimated for the fiscal year and forecast. consumer confidence continued to insufficient to meet the expenditures incorpo decline throughout the summer, and once rated into enacted budgets. This development again states were faced with budgets that were was met with some skepticism, however, since out of balance. By the middle of the fiscal the national economy was still growing and year, at least )0 states had developed budget there were no signs of recession. h was nOl un imbalances that would have to be addressed til January 1990, midway through fiscal year before the fiscal year ended. This time, how 1990. that states outside of the New England ever, states also realized their problems ran region began to feel the fisca1 pressure. As the deeper than the recession. Not only were they months wore on, more states joined the ranks collecting fewer revenues than anticipated, orthose whose budgets had fallen out ofbal they also were spending more than budgeted ance. for some programs. In particular, Medicaid Finally, in the summer of 1990. more than and corrections continued to surface as pro a fu ll year after the first signs of fiscal stress grams whose growth was running unchecked in the states, the national economy officially - and too high to be sustained over the long fell into recession. By that time, nearly half term. As a result, the slates' attention turned the states had experienced budget imbalances from short-term survival to long-term struc and had taken the steps necessary to correct tural changes. them. Thx increases enacted in 1990, and scheduled to take effect in fiscal year 1991, to How Did States Get Here? taled more than $10 billion; budget cuts total ed almost $3 billion. By the time the recession What caused the state difficulties that pre hit, states had enacted their fiscal 1991 bud dated the onset of a national recession'! Sever gets, budgets that had not assumed the onset al factors contributed to state fiscal stress of a national recession. It arrived without including spending issues related to health warning. care and corrections. court decisions. chang Fiscal year 1991 started off badly. Almost ing intergovernmental re lationships, and reve from the first day, states began announcing nue and spending patterns from the 19805. they would not be able to meet spending com Health Care and Corrections mitments because of insufficient revenues. For states, the single largest budget prob Although still concentrated in the northeast lem has been the growth of the Medicaid pro- ern United States, budget troubles began to creep into other regions, most notably the Marcia A. Howard is deputy director of the Na· Southeast, portions of the Midwest, and Cali lional Association of State Budget Officers in fornia. By the end of the fISCal year, state taxes Washington, D.C.
346 The Book of the States 1992-93 FISCAL ISSUES gram over the last five years. Medicaid, which spending growth. While some of the increases provides medical care for the poor, is a joint are tied to programs enacted·by the U.S. Con federal/state program mandated by the fed gress during the earl y 1990s, much of the in eral government, run by state government, crease simply results from the rising cost of and fu nded by both. Figure 1 shows a percent health care. And since Medicaid is a federa lly age breakdown of total state expenditures fo r mandated program, states find it difficult to several major categories. cut the program in ways that significantly re By 1970, five years after its enactment, duce costs. For the short term, then, they are Medicaid represented approximately 4 per forced either to raise taxes o r cut other pro cent o f state spending. By 1980 it had grown grams to fund additional Medicaid spending. 109 percent, and by 1990 to 14 percent. 2 It is Over the longer term, they hope to work with now the second largest state spending pro the federal government to address the under gram, having surpassed higher education in lying problems in both Medicaid and health fiscal year 1990. Its average growth in both fis care in general. cal years 1990 and 1991 was 20 perceD!, the The spending problem in corrections is highest of any state program.) Medicaid is somewhat differeD!. Here, state spending is expected to grow from a $71 billion program driven not so much by federal action or rising (state and federal shares in 1990) to a SI83 bil costs as by decisions made by the individual lion program by 1995. states and their citizens about how crime
Figure 1 Total State E"pendilure5, Fiscal Year 1991 Higher Education Cash Assistance E & S Ed ucation 4.9% 22.4%
13.6%
3.6% Transportation 10.2% All Others 33.4%
Sotll'Cr. NationaL Auociation or State Budl~ Ofrocen
States cannot reasonably expect to fu nd should be punished. T he increase in drug growth of this magnitude while providing related cri mes and stiffer penalties for those other services and without raising taxes. With committing crimes have resulted in more peo the limited revenue growth of the last few ple being sent to prison for longer periods of years, some states have found that Medicaid time. The associated costs are significant. increases absorb the additional revenue they Like Medicaid, corrections over the last few generate from one year to the next. Over the years has grown fas ter than overall stale long term, this growth is unsustainable. spending. In fiscal year 1990, corrections grew However, states are li mited in what they can by 19 percent, and in fiscal year 1991, by 14 do to remedy the problems in Medicaid percent.· As stale budget problems escalated
The Council of State Governments 347 FISCAL ISSUES
in fiscal 1990 and 1991, some states, such as have tended to add to the states' costs in pro Illinois and Michigan, were unable to open viding public services. newly constructed prisons because they did Intergovernmental Relationships not have sufficient funds to operate them. Yet, Intergovernmental relationships include public sentiment on this issue has been clear: state/ federal relations and state/ local rela longer sentences, less generous (or no) parole, tions. Throughout the 1980s, the federal gov and higher sentencing rates are consistently ernment scaled-back its role in both state and favored by taxpayers and voters. These prefer local affairs. While states had never been ma ences also are very expensive: incarcerating a jor recipients of federal grants-in-aid, local single prisoner can cost as much as $30,000 governments had, and they sorely felt the per year in a maximum security facility. withdrawal of federal support. Court Decisions General Revenue Sharing, the major feder In areas ranging from corrections to edu al program that provided discretionary grants cation and from Medicaid to taxes, courts to states., was eliminated in 1981. With the dis have handed down decisions resulting in in appearance of revenue sharing, federal grants creased state expenditures or decreased state to states became disproportionately com revenues. prised of grants to individuals (such as Med • In corrections, state after state has icaid and Aid to Families with Dependent been put under court order to relieve Children). In 1960, payments to individuals overcrowding or improve prison condi represented 35 percent of the total federal tions. Well over half of the states are un grants to states and by 1980, this share had der court order to reduce crowding, a grown to only 36 percent. By 1990, however, factor that explains part of the explosion it had skyrocketed to 60 percent, reflecting the in corrections spending. elimination of revenue sharing, the slow • In education, states increasingly are growth of other grant programs, and the in being told by state courts that the creasing cost of Medicaid.' Thus, states have mechanisms they use to fund elementary had to adjust to decreasing federal contribu and secondary education are inequitable. tions to state programs, and a primary shift To address these inequalities, states have in those contributions from discretionary tended to increase overall spending on grants to entitlements. education. Among the states responding Along with reductions in its discretionary to such court decisions in recent years are aid to state governments, the federal govern Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas. ment imposed new costs on the slates in the • One of the methods states have used form of federal mandates. In the late 1980s, to address rising costs in Medicaid is to mandates became one of the most costly ad reduce their reimbursement rates to doc diuons to state budgets as the federal govern tors, hospitals and nursing homes. ment retained its desire to enact new policies, Courts have consistently ruled against but lacked the resources to fund them. In this practice, forcing states to maintain or stead, Congress and the Administration pass increase the reimbursement rates. ed the costs of policy initiatives on to state • In the area of tax policy, courts have governments in the form of mandated pro forced states to change their taxation of grams. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation federal retirement benefits and forbidden Act of 1990 (OBRA) alone added more than the collection of state sales taxes on mail $13.3 billion in additional costs to state and order sales. Both actions have reduced local governments.6 state tax revenues. As the federal governmem was scaling back The full impact of judicial decisions on its role in state government, it was doing the state budgets has yet to be successfully meas same to local government. With far more ured, but there is evidence that court actions limited revenue-raising options available to
348 The Book of the Slates 1992-93 FISCAL ISSUES them, many local governments responded to gions, states generall y found that they could declining federal contributions by turning pay fo r the increased cost o f standard services to their state governments to fill the gap. and initiate new programs without significant Throughout the 1980s, prior to the onset of tax increases. In fact, in response to changes their budget difficulties, states responded posi in the federal tax structure that created a tively to this appeal. Between 1982 and 1988, "windfall" for state revenues, many states ac state aid to local government increased at an tually CUI taxes during this period. average rate of 8.4 percent a year, while over The result of strong revenue growth and ac all state spending grew at an annual rate of 7.2 companying spending growth had two signifi percent. cant effects: it increased the "base" of state budgets, and it minimized the amount of Revenue and Spending Patterns money stales were saving. Both would come If the recession, growth in Medicaid and back to haunt states once the recession began corrections spending, court decisions, and in 1990. changing intergovernmental relationships all To illustrate the problem of increasing the contributed to the fiscal stress that states now base of state budgets, consider the difficu\[y face, so did the strong revenue growth of the faced by a state whose budget was growing on 1980s and the ambitious spending programs the average of 8 percent per year during the these reven ues allowed states to pursue. mid-to late- 1980s. When revenue growth sud Coming out of the recession o f the early denly declined to 4 percent, that state faced 1980s, states began to experience strong reve the dilemma of CUlling spending, increasing nue growth. While growth varied among re- taxes, or delving into savings. Most states
Figure 2 Total State Year-End Balances, Fiscal Year 1980 10 Fiscal Year 1992 14
12
10
8
6
4
2 o 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992' I_As a Percentage of Expenditures • Billions of Dollars I
' Data for tllis ~ar art cstimated. Souru; National Associa!ion of State Budge! Offian
The Counc il or State Governments 349 FISCAL ISSUES chose the latter two options, allowing them Conclusion selves to finance expenditures that exceeded The fiscal distress felt by the majority of revenues. Those decisions had two effects, states in the early 19905 is a result of many however. They reduced the states' ability to factors. The national recession is the most im impose tax increases once the recession actu portant of these, and the problems associated ally started, and depleted state savi ngs. with it will be temporary. Other factors, how Most states "save" money in one of two ever, have contributed to a structural deficit ways. They either maintain an ending balance in many states - an expenditure path that that is available for appropriation should ad cannot be sustained by current revenue sys ditional funds be necessary, or they keep it in tems. This longer-term problem will not go budget stabilization (or "rainy day") funds. away once the Te(:ession ends. For the next The latter were widely adopted after the reces several years, states will struggJe to realign sion of the early 19805 to provide greater fis their spending and taxing programs into more cal security and remove the temptation of evenly-balanced systems. readi ly available funds. The sum of ending balances and budget stabilization funds - ta Notes tal balances - is generally regarded as the sin I A reference to fiscal year 1989 refers to the fis· gle best measure of state fiscal condition. cal year that ended in 1989. Forty-six states' fiscal Even though revenue growth in the 19805 years begin on July 1 and end on June 30. Excep was strong, states never achieved the percent lions are New York (April I-March 30), Thxas (Sep age of total balances they held early in the de tember I·August 31), and Alabama and Michigan cade. Figure 2 shows total state year-end (October I-September 30). 1 Estimates prepared by the National Associa balances as a percent of expenditures, and in tion of State Budget Officers. dollars for fiscal year 1980 through fiscal year J National Association of State Budget Offi 1992. When balances peaked in fiscal 1989, cers, State Expenditure Report, 1991, p. 45. they represented the largest dollar amount 4 National Association of State Budget Offi· ever ($12.5 billion), but accounted for only 4.8 cers, State Expenditure Report. 199/, p. 53. percent of total state spending; in 1980, they J Data provided by Allen Schick, University of had accounted for 9 percent of total state Maryland, in a briefing document for the Congres sional Research Service. spending. By the lime the country "official 6 Martha A. Fabricius, "More Dictates From ly" went into Te(:ession early in fiscal year the Feds:' State Legislatures, February 1991, P. 28. 1991, total balances had fallen to their lowest level ever. Se.lecled Rdt.r~ncfS Because they had used up most of their Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re balances, or reserves, prior to the onset of a lations, Significant Features of Fiscal Federal- recession, many states were forced either to ism, published annually. . cut spending or raise taxes to deal with con National Association of State Budget Officers, FIS' tinuing budget shortfalls. Their long-term cal Survey of the Stales, published twice per year. problems were compounded because they National Association of Stale Budget Officers, chose to use up their balances - rather than State Expendilure Report, published annuall y. National Conference of State Legislatures, State make difficult spending decisions - in the Budget and thx Actions, published annually. short run. In hindsight, it is clear that the State Policy Research, State Policy Reports, pub strong revenue growth of the mid- and late- lished twice per month. 1980s contributed to the difficult years that u.s. Bureau or the Census, C3 3S0 The Book of the States 1992-93 BUDGET Table 6.1 STATE BUDGETARY CALENDARS Go,,,,,,,,,) "'t"q"' ...., ()j A' .....' ,~ &,... lTfI~"''' A,..ItC", '""~, /.If"lu' ~r. 1q",Ju"",,' ,~idt'i_ to j~/Jn!i"td ""'TI~J' _. ~, bud,.., ~"' to S'u," ~~;.,. . '0 ""W"M , ~uh1'u" '""V' "",~ "rio _m~.. ... '-Ito",• •. July Oct/ No,' Fob,.at)' Fob/ M.y ~-, An.uaI/ Ann,,"' ... , •• h .. A •• • " ~-, No .....bo, M. ~ July Annuall Ann".1 ... rI'o ••... Stp!ombo, Oc,ob<, JanUMY Aptil July Annuall Annu.' Af~ ..... M.,'"~< h July A",u.. --, JanlAp<11 July 8 ..... n.. , ' ''i Mo.,.. 1 ,,~ Au,u" No\ll(>«o Il« N... ,\tulrn. J uly St",.mbo, Januaty F.b/ ~l"oh July "'nnu.II"'nnual Jul y So",tnll><' o.1IN",· JanU"'y M."h ".April AnnuallAnnual N." '· Of~ "" ' ~ North Caroll •• • .\1."h Au,u" No,·.mb<, FtbruII")' July July 8i Soul. Il . ~o' . Jo""/ J "'y ~-, OcI/ N"" ,~"", M3t ".'u'".(II GOI' The Council of State Governments 351 BUDGET Table 6.2 OFFICIALS OR AGENCIFS RFSPONSIBLE FOR BUDGET PREPARATION. REVIEW AND CONTROLS A ...... 50 ... ludfot 00" Ikpt. or Fi_ lq:ItlId.. Fh AdatitlbllUOO'..- 00. 0( a..I&cI. F'IIQI A 1U a-.rdo s.mc.... o.pt. 0( F'_ A Ad-. .... 01 ...... 1w~ CIoII ...... Oiftoaor. Ikpt. 0( .-...- s.-c...... A F1oaoI J&ori-. ~ "'"'" • lot-. 0.1«.; 00. of LoPsIatIw ...... ,. c_ ...... Di_l ~· or~ J •• IIoodaoo CJMe.; 0;.. 01 ...... '.LI A CoMroI, ,.,..,o ... A .....I ... Lo,iIIatIw c::o.u.al Ikpt. 01 Adm .. CMMCIlntL ...... fuca!ll .. O ~ OfIlm.1II>IItIky AM". A F1 ...... OIv., Off. o' PoIIoy A MIl. o.t..ovo .... 01""01'.00. of Lbo a..I&cI DcpI.of Fi ...... ...... DinaOI', 00. 0( ...... A -..u.... 00. or .100 onao.. 00. 0( ...... -- F~=. ~ Dnctoo...... I)qIl. of a..dtot Ikpt. "' ...... Fl_ .... AdmlniItruOl', Div. or F11W1da1 01 •• of Flr>andaI M.. .. Off. of M,," 00. o' Lho Qoo.on_ .hcao..._ 1111...... 01_. 8II •.ofd .. Ouo:l.icl, ~. F""" COIUI.: s.n.te. Ikpt. of _nuc: Bu •. of , be orr. 01 Lho ao..r_ H"".. "'1II'I'IPfio11oM CII" ... 1Ioodafl. Off. of lho o.r...... orr. of FiI<:aI. M.. . ANI,...., l.tJbIatlw Srtvka IoN. 1,qj>IMi.. FlsQoI 1Iw. --"'P- 01 Mjo. '- . Dinaof. 0;.. of.ho 8\Io:Itcl.. F ...... ,...~ Di¥. of tho Buodttot. Do-pt. $taM ..... 0ir0a0I'. 0.....-'1 .... R.Mow 00" Prost- R.Mow F_A"'- ...... CaItiM OfT-"'-. for I'VIi 01 •• 0I1Ioodafl Ittwlloor: Div. of Fi ..... ~arm. Ikpt. of FualSmo.... -.. 01_, £.omi .... OfT. for 5oULe, Howot w.y. oR MftM em ...... a..... A F1 ...... MkWpoo ...... ~ Ikpt. of MIl. A M-...... C--...... Ikpt. of fiIIaoa! M~ ...... e.a..... DiNcIof, DcJ!t. of F_ M~ ...... C~OIl'.- . 01_.. ~...... DiY .; c..... M LqisIaL ... fit .." ...... orr.--- of Lq/IIMI .. F1tal 352 The Book or the StIles 1992·93 BUDGET BUDGET OFfICIALS OR AGENCIES-Continued SiQ~ 0; DlItH Offil:u.II_1t"<] ~bW jMrisJk/iOll "" ",.,-;,., '-1,... tkoI_,tI BudlOl Admini>1~O<, B",,-!;" Div.. 8ud&cI Oiv~ Admlnlsuali... Str DirMo<. BU ~ II •• ""'I.. . Commissiooer. Admini>1""i ... Lq.islloli ... 1100101 ...... "". orr. Admin"'""i"" Servkn Dop. Sot.ices Dop., Bud," OfrltlO"l" Di"",o<. Off. or M"." BudJeI ....isloli"" BudJeI & fi... "", Off., ~",noI 101 ... Uni, .• orr. of Lq.iIJoti .. Snvica OirMor. Budact Diy .. D<-pr:. ....Iil.'i .. Fi.....,. Cml<-' ....i.Ia'i .. Dop. 01 F,IUI"'" 4 Admn . of FIIUI"'" &. Admn. Council Strvk< DirMor. Div. of Budael. So ..... FiDance Cr,,, .. , Aum"lbly W&ys orr. of ,he St.,,, Complrolltf E.It<;u. i.. DqM . "Moans Cn".. , J,. Lq.i.Ia".. Comm. on E>.pondi,u", I!roW:w e...ec...t'" ""';".nl. Off. of Fi"",1 Resean;h Div., orr. 01 Sta,e Budael St . .. IIud,.. ~,i.. SrnIicn ort. NOr1~ I..... '. E.It<;u.i ... Budael " ..... l"I: Oi"",or. Lqi.Ia,I.. Boo,", "RO.IySl orr. of MIL 4 Booael Off. or 101". & aud,.. " Audi,or. Lqiola'i ... Council "'. OirMor. Off. of Budl" 4 Mit. 1qioIa,1 .. Budact ort. OirMor, orr. 01 S,... llou.. 01 Itop.. Fiscal Diy.: Off. of St.,. ~i ..."", FilUl"'" "ppropriOlions Coordi ...tor. Sona,,, Fiocai St.ff Admin"'''''or. Budj£ .. &I 1011" Lq.iIJati .. FiICal Off. Budael4 101". DiY.• E.It<;u,I .. Diy .. £=\tti.. Dept. """. h-... ) I ...,o ." . Sec.....,. orr. of Budael. s..we, II ...... Al'PfOI""wiofIs Cm' Ut•• DirMO<, orr. 01 PI.nnl .. Off. of Lqi.I.,i... ~i",al 0;•. of Finoncc, Admini"""i.... .,..... 'w~ Ser>iI. of PI.nnin, Sona,. flna"", Cm ...; llou.. S«mary of fi".ncc, Vow.. ,.,'. "Bud.., Appropri.tion. Cm,<- C.bi .... \\.... I ..t ... Oi"",o<. orr. 01 financial 101". Lo"IJOI'" /\ad;,or Off. of Fino""",1 loll" w.. t \'1,.1. 11 DirMo<. B""", Diy.. DqM. Off. of ....isllo'i .. /\ad;,o< Otpt. of filllnce & Admn. of Finance" Adm •. Wlo 0hI. of CoI ..,,,,- . Di""'o<. Off, of llot Bud, .. _mJ.. Unit, orr. oftlot $tcmory Fino""",IMI" or Council Qi"",o<, """'"'" Plonni ... LoJiua,l.. Fiscol Off. Otpt. of 1ft.w.y " Bud ... Ikvdopmc:n, ~ .. Directo<. Bu •. of IIud,.. Otpt. of Admn, "101". Rn<.",h The Council of State Governments 353 BUDGET BUDGET OFFICIAlS OR AGENClfS-Continued I'I&M..tMo ...... PIauioIt" IJucIpI. Off. of .. "-"' ...... ~. Off. oflludatt Off. of ~ 5en'ka: $tuM -- ....Otr~ H ...... " " )qt. ~"'*- Off. us.,.... w...... Oittaor.'- 00. 01 N&! "'* Audit 01" 354 The Book of the Slales 1992·93 Table 6.3 STATE BALA NCED BUDGETS, CONSTITUTIONA L AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS GUBERNATORIAL AND LEG ISLATIVE AUTHORITY c_~ .... s.~ ...., _ _ ~ "~ I",,",' Lg&MIIw " ••JoDrlI, Go_ Go_ c...... V_mp.irnI _..btrtiI" ...... "...,. " a.- boodp< ,.;,-, RalritrioloJ 100-"* votn_1mI Votn_1nd . ,..~- -...... , ~ior -_ 0-"-_ tkflri, I.. ", "'0 ...... , """"~- .-.... " ...... - -~ ... "-~ .. 0 0 MajorioJ deaal ~.. c, c, An< ...... c, - MIl deaN ) /~ ":i;:. ~ , , 0 0 0 deaN (0) =~deaN- ...... -C C . Ib) 0 0 (., 112 deaod 112 do 356 Th~ Book of Ih~ Slates 1992-93 MANAGEMENT OF FUN DS • •••• ...... • •••• ...... U•• .i~ .. .. •• • ...... ·. I~ .. li •• • .. • •••• ••• •• • •••• ••••• ...... • •• ...... • ••• ~I Ii• ••••• • •••• • •••• • •••• ••••• • •••• • •• .. • •••• ·...... "i", j 11 ' . . • ..... : • • · . '"...z 1- ... • ..... •• • .. .." " • •• . .. ·..... ""' it ~ . · >z 11 ••• .. • ••• .. ••• • ...... • "• • .. ...; - 01 • ..."'.., :0 ...... • ... • •• · . • ••• ...... • •• ...... ·.... '".... il0 "'co .., . . ... · ...... • •• • ...... ·...... 0 il "...... , . •••• ., ...... H•••• • ...... •• • •• .. ... • .. ... •• • • ...... • .. 11~- " 81, '(;oil i !, ...... •• •• • •••• • ••••• • •••• ••• • • ...... ·...... ~l ~ •! , : :; i •, , i : .. ; " 'I' 1i :· ...: :: I ~~ : ~; :"1 ,. , I ] l~ i', , Iii: b~~ , In~ ijJ1 nih ·J .....1! 1::. ;.i ~ aL3 Ud idh HId ::E::E::E::E::E i .Hi WI.! Hu The Council of State Governments Jl7 MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS ]58 Th~ Book of Ih~ States 1992.9] MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS , 1 . 1 e U -,,;"it i. • S S 1I Cj~-- : i '! 1, ! .1 • .. • • • i, ... •• · . I )1 • • • · . • • I, ... • I ! • • • .. • • • • .! Ii · . . 1 • .. • • • I .. -.. • ~• · 1, '" , I, I '" ' i '"::> • • .. • • • ... • • '".., ·1, H{ 1 I-'" I , '" j ·1 .. • • • , ... • l-'".., 1 1 j j S 0 I s I .. Ii; -] t • 111 .. i :1 .. ; , t " ~ ~ ~ ,. • , ~ . ,:! ,. .,:! .. : i -1 • :l , ~ ,:! ... m " ~ <~ ~~ ~ ~ ;:;; ~O .1 ~ ,, < ~ Z I " " " I "I... _0 • " I· • • "• " • ::l6 S I I" 1-- · . 0 Q • • • • • · . • • • ... • • '" li I -::> 1 . 1 '"~ U • • • ... • '"Q · . '"z • · . • ... • • ::> 111 I '"Q · . Z • · . ... • • ::> U5, · . ... , "InIU • • I'" • ! • ... • • • · ...... • • ,hi , I·~ ,J, , ...... · ...... 1, h , '! .. · ';~ i I " " I 'Ir : ~; :1 ,""' ti' it r i : : :! v J • Ii ( = liij~ !111 ~ ! . ~ dW idh J]W :1:1:1:1rtili :I .Hu .iii! ! ! .. .1 .I I-J ;;l ; The Council of State Gove rnments ". MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS 360 The Book of the States 1992-93 Table 6.6 CASH MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS AND SERVICES R,..,." ofr.s/t~' __ "'tr""'1 _ r.s/t ",."",.,----- a....uoz_ I~_-,,' pnt11tn A_, ...... , ,,,. --" ",.,-..1 SllMO'OI/wr ~Ur.r R,.,.....,.. ..-cY1 ~'"'6 ..... I~'''' R"""""'..-cY ...... ~II ~...... ~("'~ -, ".- }tI~ I~("'~ ~ _ ' ..- ""'- ...... ,- • ~ ,., ,., • ...... •...... ,., ,., OF/ ..uy _ • • • IH .OF IIl.OF - A ...... IH/ I 0' A rI_ .. IH/ ) '" IH/ I '" '" '" '" A .... _ . IH/ I '" • '" '" '"• '" '"I•H .Ol' ili :OF '" Col' ...... '"IH"II '" IH/ "'«1_. '" IH .OF '" '" IH Ib) '" '" • • C ...... IH16 • • '"• IH,OF III.OF IH .OF e...... :· .. · 1'1 ."'. N.A . IH.OF PoIo .. _ .... '" '" IHll '" '" '" 0 ' '"IH " 0 1'11 0' 0'"' '" '" '" '" '" '"IH / IoI_ '" '" '" • ,.....- .. 1111...... - '" '" • • • • • !: '" ifill Ie) 0 ' > 11 .. 011 •. IH/ I Ie) 0<' 0 ' Z I•• " .,. lH/ 1 IHII '" 0' '" '" '" III (b) '" !H.O F 0 ' 1.1.... lH.OF/ }·l '" '" '" '" > 11IdI ••• •• IH (b) '" IH Ib) '" 0'"' 0''" 0' '" 0 I...... IH/ . '" 1111 1 '" 0' '" '" '" m '" '" '" '1I"1.0 F '" III Id) '" 0' '"IU ,Of !: ...... 0' '" 0 ' m " ••t ...... , .... . lUll '" 0' '" IA ...... '"IH"Il '" !HI! '" 0 ' 0' 0''" 0'"' Z '"" '" 11111 • ..., !>hl ...... 11112 '" '" • • '" M• .,t. ... OF Ie) '" IH/ I '" 0' 0' '" '" '" 0 '" 0 ' 0 ' 0<' 0 ' ." M_~ ...m .. lUll IH/ I " 0 ' IHII III N.A . I'I.A . 0' 0' 0' '" '" ." M ltlrolp. '" '" 0' ..., IHll IH/ 362 The Hook of the Slates 1992·93 MAN AGEMENT OF FUNDS $l ~::~ ~ §§§~§ z !2!2eeeEe !2 .... , : :-=< ·-z ...... , · ...... :; : .. .. . , .. . , , . .. . :. : ~ : ...... ·z · ... s ...... , . : ~ : ...... ·z ... . . ! .. : ~ . ~i · ...... · ...... ·z .. ... :..; : ...• ...... · ...... ·z · The Council of Slate Governments 363 MANAGEMENT OF FUNDS 364 The Book or the States 1992·93 STATE GOVERNMENT FINANCES, 1990 By Henry S. Wulf Introduction Summary of Siale Finances The finances of stale governments, as with Total state government reve nue amounted large business corporations, are tied closely to $625 billion in 1990. an increase of 6.6 per to prevailing economic conditions. I The ex cent over 1989 .~ Recent year-to-year percent tended recession that began in 1990 created age increases in total revenues have fluctuated great riscal stress for alllcveis of governmem considerably: 1986 to 1987. +7.3 percent; and produced, once again, a strong climate 1987 to 1988, + 4.9 percent; and 1988 to 1989, for re-examining the roles played by every level +8.4 percent. The major revenue sources and - federal, state and local. State governments their share of lotal revenues were: taxes (48 play several roles in this intergovernmental fis percent), funds from the federal government cal system, including creator and financier of (19 percent), insurance trust revenue (16 per local government services; conduit and re-dis cent) and current charges (7 percent). tribulor of fed eral funds; and direct provider Expenditures in 1990 totaled 5572 billion. of important services such as hospitals. high The 8.9 percent expenditure rise from 1989 to ways and corrections. 1990 was sharply higher than the revenue in States are significant economic entities, as crease of 6.6 percent. By contrast. from 1988 demonstrated by a study comparing state gov to 1989 revenues rose 8.4 percent, while expen ernment fi nancial activity with Fortune maga ditures were up 8.3 percent. Of every 10doilars zine's ranking of the SOO largest industrial states expended, three went to local govern corporations. California, the largest state, ments, thereby underlining the states' role as would rank fifth, between IBM and General a financia1 resource for their subordinate gov Eleetric, while New York would be eighth, be ernments. Education and public welfare out tween Mobil and C hrysler. South Dakota, lays together comprised more than o ne-half of all state expenditures, accounting for 32.3 with the least state financial activity, would percent and 18.4 percent, respectively. High rank 355th. ahead of such corporations as ways was the next most financially significant C hampion Spark Plug. Fairchild Industries and Dr. Pepper/ Seven Up. 2 activity with 7.7 percent. State government indebtedness amounted This discussion of state finances covers to $318 billion at the end of 1990. This aspect revenue. expenditure, indebtedness and cash of state finances, however. docs nOt have near and securities. The concluding section dis ly the significance of the local or federal gov cusses financial issues in state governments. ernment debt burdens. The state government This analysis uses information from the total. for example, was less than 60 percent of U.S. Bureau o f the Census surveys of state and the local government total (5542 billion) and local government finances, and compares not even 10 percent of Ihe federal amount 1990data and with that of 1989 and previous (53.3 trillio n). years. J Cash and investment holdings totaled S990 Bench marks for comparison are the peri billion in 1990. However. the states dedicated od from 1985 to 1990 and the decades of the 19705 and 1980s. The analysis uses an aver Henry S. Wulf is chief of the Finance Branch, Gov age annual percentage change to represent ernments Division. Bureau of the Census, U.S. longer time periods. Department of Commerce. The Council of State GovernmentS 365 FINANCES most of this money to specific purposes. such programs are Aid to Families with Dependent as redemption of long-term debt and employ Children (AFOC) and Medicaid. Without the ee retirement programs. In fact, only one of public welfare money, revenue from the fed every eight of these dollars was uncommitted. eral government rose only about S percent. States held the single largest portion of these The most significant drag on insurance asselS, $S92 billion, in state employee retire trust income was tied closely to the economy, ment trust systems, making this accumulation unemployment compensation trust revenues. of funds a major source of investment capital. This source showed a 6 percent reduction from 1989. Contributions to state unemploy Stale Government Revenue ment compensation systems, the state unem The detail of Thble A shows considerable ployment compensation tax, decreased in variation in the year-to-year changes among two-thirds of the states. state reve nue sources. The three major reve The three largest sources of tax revenue nues comprise about 84 percent of the total general sales, individual income and cor - taxes (48.S percent), revenue from the fed porate income taxes - contributed $99.7, eral government (18.4 percent) and insurance $96.1 and $21.3 billion respectively to the tax trust revenue (16.7 percent). They show very total of $300 billion. The trends for these ma dirferent growth rat es from 1989 to 1990, how jor revenue sources, shown in lable B, reflect ever. Thxes were within one percent of the over some of the current state financial problems. all revenue growth rate, but federal revenue They all have lower rates of increase than in was 2.7 percent above, and insurance trust rev 1989, with preliminary 1991 estimates showing enue, 2.9 percent below. some of the lowest year-to-year growth rates in the past three decades_. for each category. C-e. bin f., Mo}or n. SHMJ C ___ fNllo/dwl CIon" ...... tO,t •• • """'" ~ ,- ~ ... "..,... f«ltral ~ ...... 'U 19f11O- IlIA +t .9 +H ..1.5 M~ ...... J te\Oft\... U U IlIA 10 I," +7 •• -+ 10.' • lOA ror"'L IUWENlJE ... ,... 1911910 1990 ... .. , _' .9 1990 10 1991 +1. • -u -... f_ 1ocaI.-r-' U 'J ." ,., ..., ~ us. o.,.rt __ olc--nz. ....~ oI.1ot c-. "'" .., ., _ 1991 ...... _ pniiallMrJ atimMa.. te\Oft\ ... .., ,., --1_ '.... ,. .. Current charges present an interesting point -- for analyzing changes in the structure of state revenues. This aspect of government finance Overall, what most influenced these three at all levels has been a focus of discussion major revenues? Thxes seemed to be reflect because of two hot and related topics con· ing economic conditions. For example, the cerning the proper role of government - pri corporation net income taxes and documen vatization and pay-far-service. In state gov tary and stock transfer taxes, two taxes that ernments, there are two key areas, current react fairly quickly to business cycles, declined charges for education (primarily tuition from about 9 and 7 percent respectively from 1989 public post-secondary education institutions) to 1990. and state hospitals. Slightly more than three The primary driving force for revenue from out of every four dollars received by states in the federal government was in the public wel current charges derives from these two sources. fare category, which increased more than 14 How do the growth rates of state current percent. The twO best known public welfare charges compare with other revenues? From 366 The Book or the Stat ~ 1992-93 FINANCES 1985 to 199.0, the average annual rate of broader context of sorting out responsibilities change was 9.2 percent, with the lowest being in the American federal system. 6.4 percent from 1986 to 1987. Total reve nues for states had an average annual rate of Siale Governmenl Expenditure change equal to 7.5 percent, 1.7 percent be As the 1990s began, state government ex low current charges over the same period. The penditures appeared to be resuming the current charges, then, although still account higher patterns of growt h that marked the ing for only 6.8 percent of [otal revenues, are early 1980s. The growth rate overall from 1989 growing considerably more rapidly than other to 1990 was 9.0 percent, considerably higher revenue sources. than the average annual rise the preceding The future portends perhaps an even great four years of7.7 percent. From 1980 to 1985 er re liance on current charges. Medical costs the annual rate was 8.7 percent. in general continue their rapid rise and states Which expenditures drove this total? As Ta view increased fees as one way of maintain ble C shows, two types of expenditures, insur ing this service. This is a sensitive issue, how ance benefits and repayments ( + 15.8 percent) ever, because the state faci lities generall y serve and current operations other than salaries a higher proportion of clients who do not and wages (+ 13.1 percent) exceeded the aver have the abilit y to pay. Post-secondaryedu age growth considerably. At the other end of cation w ition cost provides another example. this ranking, intergovernmental expenditures, A recent analysis indicated that states are in interest on debt and capital outlay all showed creasing wit ion considerably in the face of increases below 6 percent. potential loss of state support for higher edu cation. ! Federal revenues to state governments has T.W. C SI ... E>pndl'.m ..,. c_. tKlft . owI Objt The Council of State Governments 361 FINANCES ing. Intergovernmental payments to local gov The annual increase in the intergovernmen ernments would be squeezed out by the states' tal payment category was only 4.4 percent direct obligations and services. Probably the compared with an average annual increase of most significant changes in this equation are 7.9 percent from 1985 to 1990. With numer the increases in public welfare expenditures ous states involved in court cases and discus for vendor and cash assistance payments that sions concerning equalizing elementary and amount to about 44 percent of the current secondary education expenditures, there is operations other than salaries and wages potential fo r dramatic increases in these types category. of state payments. The annual growth in capital outlays from Though the states could see a considerable 1989 to 1990(5.6 percent) was the lowest since rise in elementary and secondary education 1983. It was consistent, however, with the 6 spending. there is some indication that state percent change over the previous year, from expenditures for higher education might slow 1988 to 1989. This has implications for both considerably. These payments for higher edu economic growth and infrastructure devel cation increased on average 6.9 percent from opment, especially as it relates to highways. 1985 to 1990,8.9 percent from 1989 to 1990. Highways account for nearly three Oul of every As the full impact of the economic slowdown five dollars states spend on capital outlay. hits the states, however, many states might try Any economic stimulus that might be pro to close the revenue-expenditure gap in higher vided by capital projects will certainly be education by increasing tuition charges and muted if this comparatively slow rise in state holding down expenditures. 7 capital outlays continues. The other major trend in state expenditures One factor that might create an increase in is the remarkable rise in welfare expenditures, capital expenditures by the states is the consid fueled to a considerable extent by Medicaid erable drop in bond interest rates that occur costs. From 1985 to 1990, public welfare ex red during 1991. Stales will Slruggleto balance penditures grew at an average annual rate of their precarious financial position with the 9.3 percent. As a share of total state expendi attractive opportunjties to borrow moncy at tu res, public welfare increased from 17.2 per considerably lower costs to finance needed in cent in 1985 to 18.4 percent from 1985 to 1990. frastructure improvements. Some accounts indicate, however, that states Functionally, two areas continue to domi are trying to restrain growth severely in this nate state expenditures, education and public area. For example, one repon revealed that 40 welfare. Respectively, they comprised 32 and states have frozen or cut benefits in the Aid 18 percent of all state government spending to Families with Dependent Children pro in 1990. Adding them to the four next most gram and that half have cut state general as significant activities - expenditures for insur sistance welfare programs.' One state has ance trust programs (9.5 percent), highways almost eliminated its general assistance pro (7.7 percent), hospitals (4.0 percent) and in gram. Balanced against these cuts, however. terest on general debt (3.8 percent) - reveals are continuing increases in Medicaid costs. 9 that these six fu nct ions accounted for three The net result appears to be that public wel out of every four dollars in state expenditures. fare will continue to increase as a share of Education outlays rose to $184 billion, an state expendit ures. increase of 6.6 percent over 1989, below the Since the growth in these two major func average annual rise over the past five years of tional expenditures shows little sign of abat 7.5 percent. The primary thrust of education ing, states have put severe restrictions on other expenditures is in intergovernmental payments expenditures. Corrections provides an exam to local governments ($109 billion), predomi ple. From 1985 to 1990, corrections spending nately in support of elementary and secon rose an average of 13.5 percent ann ually, in dary education programs, and direct payments creasing 15 percent from 1989 to 1990 alone. for higher education programs ($61 billion). This growth might be reduced considerably 368 The Book or the States 1992-93 FINANCES because states are resorting to less expensive expenditures by the states from 1989 to 1990 alternatives in the face of their budget diffi was the lowest since 1983. States mighl have culties, including doubling up prisoners in ex delayed capital expendirures waiting for more isting facilities, reducing prison terms and propitious opportunities such as lower inter using alternative sentencing practices. One re est rates. port noted that three completed prisons in Evidence suggests that state indebtedness Michigan will remain empty for many months; will grow much more rapidly. In calendar year that state's prison population, which grew by 1991, state and local government debt issues 4,000 in 1989, increased by only 21 inmates in were the second highest since 1986, which was 10 1991. a record year. A considerable amount of the debt issues in 1991 were refinancings, but State Goyernment Indebtedness there also were a large number of new issues. State government indebtedness at the end This surge continued into calendar 1992. The of fiscal year 1990 totaled S318.3 billion, up states are panicipating in this bond market in 7.7 percent oYer the prior year. States have the crease, but the increases are not likely to reach smallest debt burden by far among the three the levels of 1980 to 1986 because of budge levels of government in the United States. tary constraints. Total federal, state and local government debt was $4.1 trillion in fiscal 1990 -79.1 percent State Goyernment Cash and Inyestments belonging to the federal government, 13.1 per State government cash and investments cent to local governments and 7.7 percent to amounted to nearly $) trillion in fiscal year states. 1990, including: $592 billion in employee The trend in the growth of state indebted retirement trust funds; SI90 billion in fu nds ness has moderated considerably from the held as offsets to long-term debt; and $207 major increases that occurred from 1980 to 1986. Table D shows the changes in state in billion in miscellaneous insurance trust funds, debtedness during the 1980s. bond funds and others. Only 12 percent of these funds is available for financing general government activities. Tobit 0 About three-fiflhs is dedicated for employee Q ••..,.I. St ... eo..n ...., I"~I The Council of State Governments 369 FINANCES the foreseeable future should be considerably equity and pay-for-service are likely to inten lower. sify under the stringent fiscal constraints and This. in turn, might further increase finan societal pressures under which states find cial pressure on the states. For example, state themselves. retirement systems have only three sources of funds: investment earnings., state contributions AdditJonal Data Sources and employee contributio ns. If states rely on In addition to specific references cited in investment earnings to maintain the long-term the footnotes, readers can obtain basic cur financial stability of their employee retire rent and historical data from Census Bureau ment systems. they will need to increase their publications. These include the annual contributions or ask the employees to pay State and more should the earnings falter. Government Finances in (Year), Govern ment Finances in (Year). Historical data on this topic are available from the Census of Issues in State Finances Governments publication Historical Statistics The primary issue for states is how they will on Government Finances and Employment. cope with the effects of the current recession. Data are also available in electronic form. A report on the 1992 fiscal outlook noted a Readers can contact the Governments Divi bleak scenario: sion, Bureau of the Census for additional A weak economic outlook, tax Teve informalion. nues below expectations, expenditures above budgets. and a lack of reserves Notes suggest that 1992 will see a replay of the 1 For example. as private business and personal very difficult budget sessions of 1991. incomes change. so do the reve nu es that states de· Recessions are bad times to raise taxes ri ve from income taxes. As sales rise and fall, so or (0 cut expenditures; either course can does the income that states derive from general or slow economic recovery. But states are selective sales taxes. In good times, fewer persons likely to see lOIS oj both jor 1992, jor need social service and income maintenance pro lack of alternatives." grams. If economic conditions turn sour, there is Even an improvement in overall econo mic an upsurge in the demand for these activities. As conditions will leave the states with consider consumm of servi~ state gOYemmenu' negotiat able problems, at least through fiscal year ing positions shift when land and conslruclion 1993. 11 prices nuctuate. 2 Robert D. Be hn, "The Fortune SOO and the SO if the economic conditions were not As Slates: A Combined Ranking;' Institute of Policy posing enough problems, states are confronted Sciences and Public Affairs, Duke University with serious issues in their two largest areas (February 1990). of responsibilities, education and welfart.In J In this artide. mention of particular years public welfare, there is the continuing prob refers to state fiscal years. This is the year endina lem of rapidly increasing Medicaid costs. In June 30 for all statcsextept: New York (March 31). education, there are two major concerns: the lOas (Auaust JI), Alabama and Michigan (both national impetus to improve education, as September 30). Thus, a reference to 1990 means the signified by the America 2000 program promul state fiscal yean end ina June 30, 1990 for most gated by the federal government; and the stalcs, March 31, 1990 for New York and 50 forth. spate of court cases over the issue of equaliz • The Census Bureau data are a statistical com pilation of information, not an acxountina balantt ing elementary and secondary education ft shett. The practical application of Ihis is Ihat tc sources. lal revenues nearly always exceed total expendi The confluence of these occurrences could tures, but this cannol be equaled with a budael or push the states into considering a significant accounling "surplus" or "deficit:' The reasons for restructuring of their responsibilities in the Ihis are manifold, bUI has 10 do with varyi na treat federal system. Discussions about issues such menLS of ilems such as debt, capital expendilures, as privatization, performance measurement, accruals and insurance trust system transactions. 370 The Book of Ihe Slates 1992-93 FINANCES , " Bad Times Foret Uni~rsities to Rethink What I The States and the Poor: How Budget Deci They Are;' New York Times, February 3, 1992. sions in 1991 Af/ected Low Income People, Cen 6 In 1983, the state go~rnment share of feder ler on Budget and Po licy Priorities and Center for al General Revenue Sharing was eliminated, leav. the Study of the States, December 1991. ing only local governments eligible. However, state 9 Set' "Why Slate Medicaid Costs Vary: A First governments passed through a considerable per Look:' by Jane Sneddon Little, Federal Reserve centage of their portion to local governments. The Bank of Boston, August 1991. full amount of these federa l fu nds, then, was not 10 "Growth of U.S. Prison Population Sputters available to the states. The aspect of this program to Halt as States Can't Arrord to House and Ar that made it so valued among the states was the al rest Crooks:' Wall Street Journal, February 3, 1992. most complele lack of spending restrictions and II "State Fiscal Outlook for 1992:' State Legis rfijuirtments. lative Report, Volume 17, No. I (January 1992), 7 See for example, "The College of Hard National Confertnct of State LLgis latures. Times:' by Kathleen Sylvester in Governing, Sep 12 Set' Looking for a Light at the End 0/ the tember 1991 and "Bad Times Force Uni~rsit i es to TUnnel: States Struggle with Another Difficuft Rethink What They Are!' New York Times, Febru· Budget Yeor, National Association of State Budget ary 3, 1992. Officers, January 1992. The Council of State Governments 37 1 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Table 6.8 SUMMARY FINANCIAL AGGREGATES. BY STATE: 1989 (In millions or dollars) c.. _ £xpnt!i,we ._- UIIII,w U,JlI,w ""IJ,IIItdi:t"'" /toIdI""-" a/ Mdllq_ / ..... "'1>« ,~- _of St_" ,.. ,- ,.. -,- ,~ .. - S42.nI'""'"' 5Ml5 591.114 S12M77 """'"' SUIl II"'''' su .... !IN.''1 - ..... ,., - ...... "".,., ...... -..-...... ' ,211 ,.m 1.tIIl 6.155 --•. on --12.1oU A ...... s.ln ,.'"' .411 ...... 4,100 '"~ ,., UII 21.1S' 1,511 '" 1.l41 .1.IH ..,,, '" l2.n7 ."- >.0" " ).~1 1.76' .~ ..1.771'" 'M ,..., .... " ", 7.ns'" ,..,., m.lo'7'.m 11,101 M .... ,.,• I1.OM ",'" ~.'" • "' .,....,., 6."" ,..,. ,.... , 2.m 11,4" .-...--- , ,.... • 1.14) '.11''.m '.19) '.m I'.IW ,»,'.~' un ''''no '" ,m 2,1)1 .-.. .. ",• I •.'.m m '" M.m'.'" ~- ,.... ,....' ." , ,....- '."'7 ",.. 10.1196 " 1.039 1',911 ~ .. :'::::::::: "".11.", 10.loU • I.'''' 10.1l' "• m II ...... •.0011 ,.... m 1.114 UN ill 1.IIU 6.'" 14 ...... ::: ... 2,219 ,.... • ,~ USI 1.6" • ,~ 2.911 1m ...... ll.Nl II.9l4 ,.m lun ,.... 14 .ISI " " ", '" ".>0>11.Z90 11111 ...... 10,11) ',130 ,• ...... 9.119 • ... 1.'" 10'" ...... 60430 5.m " ... '.m ,.,l4 " "" 1.61' 6,115 I(a._ ...... '.(4) , ,.... , ..591 ..., 6,911 , 1.126 '."',<101 "'20 '.116 10.lll ""'.... , .. 1.1l1li'" ,• '" 11,'"160 1•.• 1' ~ .. .. .9,'" 1.111 , '.1l-t ',1U '" 1.164 '.m l.I)1 '.m .. '" l.Oll ,.... .101-..,... ·• II.SOI un ~" ,....'" 10.111 ...... '" }.Il4 14 .... 101 _ ...... 16.0n I• •m 1,211 11.120 ",071 1.177'" 16,l1l 11.:163 .. ,.~ .. ),015 n.,., 19,:m ".6lI u. ""- 12.)9) 10.261 , 2,1l1 "'.,10.HoI , 1,601 n""IUOS "_ . '" ',7l, '" ,,,.. 6,011 ,... ',IU ',nl '.1%6 .., '"m "'-' .. ~ 7,.n '", ,.no'" ',111 ' ... ' ."1 '" I,l41 "'"1.711 101 ...' ..... '.m ,.m ill -...... ,.... 2.611..." , 1.559'.- 2.49' ", ~ 1.'" u" " '" 2.~1 ,.m ~. , 1.911 '" 2.'1l m ,...... ,~ ... 1,61) M Nrw II•• ,.... ·~ ·::::: ,.m ,.. 1.'" ,.... N ... J...., ...... 21.169 ,~" '" 20.111 17.119 " 2.119 . '.J9J 11._'." '.'" 17."9 '.m '"'" N .... Muko ...... ' .591 ),9)1 , ~ ,..., ,.~ , ,.... 10.165 ,...... YIHI< 60.671 ".461 1.765 lO.' ll ,...on ',In ..... ,'.)(16 95.627 ,...~ ~ CwoII ..... :: :::: lUll II.H6 , 1.916 12.:166 .1,.""1.l4l , '" 1'.161 1.591 , on ,.~ N"' ~ I,...... 1.151 I.H6 , '.m '" '.'" ,n ..~ lI,m 10,'" ow...... :n.47. II.'" '" 12.97' .. '.'"'" "."196 m ...... 1.011 5 ...., M' 6,l12 5.l41 ~ 1.'71 un 0f0ttM ...... 6.767 1.1l1li '.972 ~ .. 17.lSI ',"1 ,...... m ""-lo ...... 20.955 '" U71 n.'" ".on ,. ,.... 10.540 ll.....'", un , 2.'" 2.43-4 un "5.m.... '" U,J61 s..-,_CoooIIoo, - ...... U~ 1.1'"'" ..... un " '".N J.77' '" ,~ '" s.." DM_ ...... 1.121 , ,», 1.1. , ' .... ,... ,- .,,,I.'" , ... 7., 372 The Book of the States 1992·93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Table 6.9 SUMMARY FI NANCIAL AGGREGATES, BY STATE: 1990 (In millions or dollars) u...... su...... un.172 "IM29 U .211 SIc:..S3O un.ll' uc:..:!14 'Mil 596).)42 •. on us} l.)n 1.119 1.411 lUll "' •• ." '.m 21.Ul ...... ""41 .. ., .... '.n< ..... "' ...... '.": '" ,.U) 1.191 12.071 ~ . n 6.91) ",rlroIo • •• '.619 .. .. '" '" 1.747 6.619 ",n.._ . , .'"0.221 ).930 , NO '.~l ... '" 124.Cl'll .... ,. ~ ••W Colir_Jo . 19.ns M.lSI .~ 19.174 7"'61 70.119 .. I2.UO C..."... .. '.610 l.18) , 1.1l1 6.)10 s.611 ., 1.422 ,w• 10.90 14.112 C_~ ..., U21 ...... 1.104 1.IIB .. 1.971 4.9201 Doll.. " ... . . l.m ...... -,..w • •. "• un". 21.721 2O.SSI n 1.14) 1l.SOl n." ,. .... ", '" ').117.m 16.70l r ...... 1l.197 11.190 ,• - 1l.211 11.:19) .W '. The Council of Slale Governments 373 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~ -e~'i~~.~N~.N~.=~'"i'~~"~'O!.~E~.;'i.i'~'~I!"5'~""~~'.~ N~~ciNt~~~.~~;~~;~t~~~.~ t~~ ~= ~~~~~~~~~ o ii'i~* 1 ~ .~~~~~~~3~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~{~s~~~~~~~~~~G~~ ~~~~~~~~ 1 ! §~!_~~=2 N=~~NHi~~~!~~~~2tj~~~~~'·~=--~"H-~~ ~~~~~~N~ ~ I ~~~;~~~~·~.~~~~~;~~,~~~~e,~.,~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~ ~~,~~~~e -~~.~-.~ N ~ ~lNN-_~~~~_ ~_ ~~~~~Qi _ ~O~.~_~~=_.~ ~~~O~~N~ ,I - I~~ ~-- - - - ~~~ - ~-~~--~- - ~ -- - ~~lij~~~~·~&~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~~!~~~~'~~~~~'~~"~~ ~~~~~~~~ I_ -jii§§~~= N~~~~Na~Q~~E~~-~~~~i;;~~=~~~-~'~~·x ~~.= .. N~ 374 The Book of the Siaies 1992·93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~~=~~~,~~s~~~, ; ~~~~~~« ;:;a:~ ~ · ~·~~§~~~i~;~~~~~j~~ii ~~~ ..:..: ..; " ;;~=_~~~~~~~N J ~ ~ ~~~~;« i~. tl~ i · "·~S;~~~~~!~~~i~~'~ii ~~~ ..:..:..: ..; " ft~·! n!·~ The Council of State Governments 375 REVE NUE AND EXPENDITURE ~ j~~~. ~~~~~ .ii.. .~... '~.i~ a~ •• ~ •• &.. 5•• ~a ~ ••••• ".,~~ ~ ••=" ~".". '··~1 !!=•• ~ : ~~i ~!~~N ~~~3 to"=i~~~~ ~~~~~ ~.~ ~ ~~~~ f."i"~~~ ~ II- ;; .IJ ii ~IQ.l ~.~~, ~iiiilil' uaa~ :;~;.~ !a·" ~,n~ -•• ~~ •• SII a'"~ ~$~~~ ~t;#a '=~ij~- !tt.~ --~~i~. s~-... i.~.~ ~5~'a- = ~~%=~ ~~~=~ ~~·i~ =~~~~ - t;J~ ~-~-~ ~~~~~ i~§~X It ~ ~~~;i ~~a~s ~~~~~ 2~~2~ ;ia~i ~~~~e ~i;~~ ~~~~~ f~ ~ ~H~ ~ ~ _ ~~ -~~-~ • --- - _ ~N ~ ~ ;; a ~.;.; I!·'l '~il' a-.~. Ii.;; .,••• l'"~i q·El~ ] ~ i ~~? ~~ ~~ ~~~~~ i~~~~ ~~~~~ it ~ §~~a~ E ~t~ 1 i - ~ ... ~ ... -~... -- - ... ~--- .....- ~ ~- j l ~ ~~~"~ ~l.~~ ,~.~~ ~~~~~ ~~~a~ ~~~~~ a~';i a~~sl !• ~ .'~~~_ M_~ ~~~.~_~ ~ ... ~.~~~_ ~~ _ ~~__ ••N ...~ Q~~~~~ .... _... ~.q~~_ ... ~it~'__ N ~ ~~.~ii • ~ 376 Th~ Book of th~ States 1992-93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~~~~~ ~ ;~~s.~ i ~ The Council of State Governments 377 REVENUE AND EXPENDIT URE 1, ~ ~~~~~ e.~~~ ~~."~ ~~;~~ ~~.~~ .~~~~ I ~ ~.~~~ ;~!~~ ;~~~~ '.'I~ ~~~~. ~ija~ f ~ ~ --~ -- ... ~ ... ~- -~ ~ ~"'N__ ~ • ~~;~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~.~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ,~~~! ~~i~~ ~~i~~ a~ ~~ ;~;li ~~~s~ - - - Iii... ..~ CO Q "'-Z '"U~ e "'"0 _O~"'''' .... '" c -:>~ ::is t:Q ; ~ !-..~ ::I ~• ~~a~~~N~ ~i~~~~ ; ~~S~~_~ ~ ~~~~~H~~_~ ~~t~~~~§~~ ~~~~~_~_ ... i~!~~_~~ • ~~~~~~~~ ~ ! It - z;'" C .- > 0 ",e'" ~.'. ~.~~~ ~~',~ .~.{~ ~~~~~ i;~~~ .~~.~ ~;.~~ ~.~~~ ~ '5~ a~ ~~ ~.~~. .~~.~ ~~~.~ Ii ~ a ~a~ 1 ~.~ '" 1 l ! - - ~ ...... - ..... -- - - ... --- .... -...... - "'~ j • ~ ~~~~~ ~~"~~ ~"~~{ ~~{~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~.~~~ ~~~~~ '"z J ! ~a55~ ~~!2~ !~!5S ~~~~~ l:'!~~ ~S~~! 3!!j5 ~i~l~ ~ .. -- '"'-' ;; ...... '" '" ...... , ...... ,...... " " " , ... j; ;': ;::';' ;,,: ; ';: "'1' ;"j : ;; 1' i !jlll J1IJl ll3t! JII!! IIJII !ilif !ii;! 11111 378 The Book of the Siaies 1992·93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~~~~~ ~~!~9!-. - ...... The Council of State Governments 379 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~ ~JiJ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ;;~m ~~;.!1· ;(~~~~ ~m~ ~~m - ~ ;'I~~ ~~~~~ .~ ~ ~s ~N~~~ ~~~~t N ~ ~ ~ ~ t~.~~ g~~~1 1! ~ _ {j ..... _ i'I«i _ _ ... _ ...... _ .. _ .. _ 1-'. ~"~~;; ~~~~~ ;~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~. ~~~~. tj i ]U a ~:!! ~ ~s :tI~;;;~! ~ :! ;;~ "'::I:::::J: ~ J:~ :! :t' .... ~=:::l Na"-~ ~~ :a: ::rs • 1 ~ ~~~~£ ~f'~; q~~~~ ~ ~;(~l ~;~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ "~~~~ I ~ ~~§o~ .i~~~ , " ~ •• ! ~~.~ ~~;~. E~~'~ ~5~E5 ~'5~1 U • ...... •.••• ····· h~t!~ i d j jfil! Itlll Jill! iiil! jIll) 380 The Book of the Siaies 1992·93 STATE EXPENDITURE, BY CHARACTER AND OBJECT AND BY STATE: 1989-Conlinued 0Wrt~~_ c.,.,.,.,..~ &/IJIIit: T_ I~'- ,..,- A.Isisl ...... bmtfl,-.. _ a..., _., ~ ,.- e"","",," ~~ >- ,..---- ,." ,.. . ~- ~- ...... ,..~ 141.0:11 o.l.. . 2n.~- 1.020.1)9 1601.101 14o.no -,16.759 " .1S7 SMT.. ._ ' ...... --"' ... , l.Im.91l '-6' 1.901 ).1'111.5011 ...... 756.011 ~.~." 1"9.999 2lJl.l29 119.0011 --'7).1166 1.6011.216 -- 2.1:!I._ 4.167. 171 T~ ...••••...••.• 1. 169."1 11.06.566 10.1501.716 UlI.m ~.U2.HO 16S.O'U "'AU .,..,., '36.11' u...... Ull.)10 1.101.$00 'I1.m m.n9 11.116 10 1.916 n.~ 111.757 293.:110 115.91 ~ ,...- ...... 260.5011 1.11J.1M 1~"'9 1 lUst 19. ~ Sl ,.~ n.'" 61.100 n.'" n.'I' .. ... ,,...... 1.lll.64l '.501.0SI S.1116.360 U06.669 1.I1UTI lO.l4S 301.')011 295.M I .000.'29 .".... 2.122.116 ~. ~ ...... 1.l19.lloI 1.161.116 ,..,..m pan 711."1 la. l17 117.911 0107..242 )46.367 1.7JS.JOO 1 ...7. 6Ol W... ' · ...... 1501.:99 l.'16s.4 11 1.1:11.7010 152.712 191 .165 5."'1 ".4501 124. ;; "~ ,•~ "~ ~ REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~§~~. ~~~~~ ~";~~ ~~~~~ ~q~.; ~~~~~ -a" ~ ~~;E~- ~l.!E E"~~~ "~.". ---~~ •• ~ §=3~~ =~."§ ~ •• ~. ~ .-;~a =~§ •• ;i.~a §§lJ; ~ •••§ -;,'§ .~~a •••, •• "j .: i~~Si ;'~fji ~;;;;;i:;-;': lia~~~ i~~Bg ~~~(:i iiiliiii::i '!£;":=si Jl i -~ - ~- ~ - ~-~ -- ~- - - ~ ~ N_~ __ lrl ~ ~~~~~ ~~~,,~ :;~~~~ ~~.~~ .~"~~ ~;!~~. ~~~i~ ••~~~ lt~ ~ ~~i~~ ~~~E~ ~~~~3 ~.~~~ ;$~~1 ~.~~~ ~~~ ~ i=i~~ ~ .. .1 5 ~~~f~ :;;!~fiii ::!~§~i ~~~~;: U~E:6 ~Ii!:;& fi~aE I ~ a~a!~ ~g!~~ ~rt~~~ ~li~~ ~~~~~ ~~g!~ a~E~~ o - • _, ___ ••••• -'c-- ---R- -R-'- --._ • •o-u- -_.-. 1 ~ ~~q~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~; ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ! ~ ~~~~~ ~.~~~ '5';~ ~~,~~ ,~~"~ §el~~ ~.~.~ "~.;~ 1I ~ ~N~~~ ~~-~~ N ~~~ N~~_~ ~~~N~ - -. -~~ ~ ~N = _~ , ='-1" i"~: "-!' •• ~ ••••• -. ·,--R --•• - -.:'- 1 ~ gt~ti iii~! ti~~~ ~a5'~ i~~~i ~~!~i :~~~~ gg§~~ .. s ..;~..;~~ .... .:-:i.- .... .:i... ·.. ~..; .... ~~ -:i.~,..:~..; .:... .:.::::i NIIi"':~ ..... ~ ..... , . . . . j i WII dm l~li! 382 The Book of the States 1992-9 3 STATE EXPENDITURE, BY CHARACTER AND OBJECT AND BY STATE: t990-Conlinued c.,...,.,,,..,t.,Dir«f~~ ... ,.."...... ,- £>tiI1bII: Toul ,-.... ~,u_ '"~-.... ,. ~-, ~JfUl ,.- _ .~ To. .. .., ...... _ ,- C""""""'" ...... 10 1.1$7 "'"-ZI.1J9 •• IV 101.561 61.))6 V I-,Q:U loIl.%.2 1.101.7)0 (095.01<1 170.19) ,n - 5001" DalIM O 229,)lJ ~.,.. m,m uU,oUt T_ .... 1,110AlI 6.1~.0l1 ' .2 11 ,05' 1.011,1. 199,n1 Bl,061 119.0SI -- -- 0,",),$19 Tn-. , .... 1.Jo1!.~ 11.",,6JI II.J.I6,m 1,m,009 1.1911,)'" lll,"1 401.9lo1 9>00,801 061.11 ' 1,m,1Z1 Utoll ...... '1«1.112 l,m.SI' 1. ...),036 J",,641 !S1,lI') ~,H6 ,ru.m m.w Ul.l9) .... )1.1,179 v...-.... " .... ,. !6S.J6t 1.199.6111 9)0,," 112._ 116,912 ..... n.617 10,o}l n.", -.'" ),on.9S1 9,1",.lOl 6.0}6,IIS 1.J6l,70l 1.112.97) ,,-'" m.nl 1ll,10I "9,on"'" *,)2(1 1,ts1,068 ' ...... , ...... ,' 2,}60,9)6 'tl. ~ ...... ),631.019 9,930.16.! ",12:7001 1.)16,219 1.100,101 16.666 199,506 S91,9j2 Jll.l16 I.IIIII.6l1 1)6,610 6)0,19) 591,1 601 WOOl' .... ,,' 9S9.1~ ).251.'19 2,OJ),lll 00,119 21$,"'" J.m 61,ll9 111.'" 0,111.HZ 1, IOO.l6l 0,606.991 611,010 02l.0It JL.I~ 1S9,Q66 S26,H) o)l.ILl 917.269 1.&<11,616 W, ...... ,:. Sll,861 1.0".)1$ "".SOl m,l" 192.11' ).10) 11.111 )1."1 ,,-'" 1l1.' SoO 110.0)' i:: --"""'..... : U.s. Drpan...... of c ...... B.... ~ of lilt c ...... 51.". Go_~ __, FI...... ns: 1m < m ~: Dn.~ ...~ "'" """ 10 10lah d ... 10 ""'I>IIint. Z c: m > z o ~ ..m Z o ~ Q ~ • i:: "2: o ~ !<' • f •~ ~ ~ ~ REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE it\ ... ~~ J-~iE ;;Ei!~ i~s!l~ '~,,~E H~~5 - ,,-- on5, -~ -- ~m~ ~ ~::I~s!;:; sii":llii ::::::!:.:; :::~:::~:::: .!Ii~~ ":::i!i~~ ~i;"; ;:::i~l i;:;-~"' u •• !U .u~a ,~~~~ • ri· ...... : ~~~~" ~m~ il~'~~ ~:i:titg ;ltij;~ ~Ef!;£~ ~1i~!!!E ~~;:;!: 2~~i~ ;~?l~~ 11 •i -;==3 384 The Book of Ihe Siaies 1992·93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE i ~a~i: ~i~i; ~ I q i!5.'; Uiil" 1 iit iii·- ",ii' I • ~~;;aii t t ~l ~1i i ~ ::i~~i 5 j ;:i~gt~ ~~~~~ I;; > • :::::O~~I! liI~ ' :::8:S t~i~i ;~~2a,-, '"Q I Z« z o 6z ...::> > .;'" 0: ~ Q ..z 1:1 ~ '"z '" "'" ~ The Council of Siale Governments 385 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE I ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ {~i~~ ~~;~~ ~a~~~ ~~~=~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ I i 3~~!~ !§~~! §~!~~ 3~~ i ! !:5~5 ~I!'~ !~~~~ ~~5~3 ~§~~~ • § ~, ~ ~ ~ =.a •• §,.=. ~ ••. ~ .!~ •. '~ •...•.• "~~~.~ ."~ •. .~ ~~~~~~ _ ~~~ ~.~~~~ __ ~~ ~_~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~_~~~~~_ N~ ~~~~~~~~ _ ~ ~~iii_N~_~ i~~~l~~~_~ ~~~~t~~~N~ ~(~~~_ ~~~_ ~ il! ,~ ...... · .... . 1 · ...... Ii! 1fi ! lilll lii!! ~ilj ~ Jfllj IJ! :J! 386 Th~ Book of th~ States 1992-93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ~~R~~ 1 !S:::;~::! ! ~ ; ~5;U~ 1 ... t(1 :t~2~= i • ! ]I c= 1, ~ ~~~~~ i B 11 ~ I ~t ~~~~:s: •, ~ I S'-:::::S:::! Iii " ~-" ..." ~ i ... E ~~i!:::: ~ .,... J ~ en ,! >- ~~;:.~~ , ~~;:~ :c; '"Q I • z., I z ii~~~ ! 0 11 ;!i!:i !~ Bz 4 i ~~q~~ .." t 5iJ:~;; f >- ~ I '"oi , ;i~iI§ ~ 0: I " .. "" ~ ~i~~~ I EQ i ~ Z ~~q~~ , '" ~ I ~~ ..>< The Council of State Governmen ts 387 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Table 6.11 STATE DEBT OUTSTANDING AT END OF FISCAL YEAR, BY STATE, 1989 (In thousands of dollars, except per capila amounts) ...... 1oI«-"_(a) ~,.,. T•• T •• T.. ""10<' ~- -_...... U...... 5100 ... lm,SOO,llU I I,IUD $1IUZ!I.'JI02 sm.7lI.79I ....- I2n.no,soo -- """.W- '111.m.611 '''.<112.361 A ...... '.07'1."1 ....~ '.on",S2 I,I6.1.761 --l.,. •.,*, ,., I.iU9.11l6 I.UI.* ...... 50611.179 10.6011.11 }.611.)1'9 m.m ' .lIl.IOI , ""'19 A_...... 2.06f.61'1 "'1.15 2.G61.61'1 , 2.06f.6I1 , 1."'3.691", .... , Art_ •.. l.J6l ..m 1)00 1.165.069 1I.6U 1.736.'" 2.'" lS,f.lJ '._.IQI 11 ,165.119 , "'.'" c..,...... U"'"" tol." U"'"" '.'H.m ',In.''' ~ ...... 1.IlI.109 UU7 1.161.»' 1I.~ UM.'" un UJ.'" 1I.~ c..--...... 'Jll,loll US5." 9."'.991 l.m.l07 " 1M ..... J.HoI.", 1.iU1.1 11 1.111.160 l.lll.m 1.H6.1Ol ".mt.m "7,261 .~-lotWI ...... U61.011J '.lOl.l' '.961. 116 I."'.OJO"'.'" 1.075.106 5.951 •."'.'" Ir.l .... W , IOO ~ ...... 1.001 ..... "'.n."1l },OJ"" 4 2,on.965 I,m.'" , 1.0)7.6001 z.oOI.") 1'.,,-'1 .. 1.062,161 2,l}l.29 1.011.011 l .m.OJ9 1.0)9.91' ".751 l.J1O.OSJ 1 .967.J~ I.. M .... 'J.'.'J6 "'.W IJ.'.')6 , lJ4.4)6 , II1.J99 , 11M ...... " .Ul.r.lt 1,2".'1 ... Ul,lH 4,014.249 10.I'J.101 m ' .656.Z!IO 1.191,21'9 1... 10 ...... 1.'11,,99 641.4J ).561.210 , ),561.210 26.229 1.lJ6.199 , Iowa ...... 1.611,)11 569." 1.611.m , 1.61UII , JlI.J" , ...... :14).510 1)6.12 :142.862 , :141.862 171.729 , - I.J11.(19 95 ..S15 M4II.62O , l.lll.6U ""'''', ...... '.116.'" '.1)6,'" '" '1."1 I.oIIIoIo.M ...... 12.160.061 2.nJ.OO Il.IIO.rn '.OOO.,tI '. 110. 19. ~ ... "'6',iM) '.969.:149 Mol ...... 2.001.6U 1.661." 2.001.'" )24.170 1.101.4115 .. J:I4.1ll )24. 110 "'..,1...... UJ).9)7 1.241." UU,9)7 2.015.111 J.'".749 , 1.9tO.1l1 1.996.121 10' __11 ...... 16.21'.466 2.142." .,.no .. " 6.()401.125 '.126.7:14 "'7.tHI "'.... n '.WI.999 "' ...... 1.19&.l41 &84.10 '.It7.m 7.710.171 I,T75,lJO 10'1_ ...... J.6OO •..o 1l7.16 J.6OO,6oIO 1.1",m"' .... 2.:0..7" , 1,' ''.124 1.161.716"' .... "'....."...... 1.J.t6.Mt SIl." 1.J.t6.ost Sl.I.~ 117.S" '", m.909 "".170 "'_ PI ... 4.192.'19 "'.J, 4.166.47. 4,o.J.'" 26.QI' "'."2 10(.,,4 ...... 1.).406,567 1.670." 1.127.115 ""'"n." 1.144.125 11,"2 )1).61' n." - ...... 1.410.100 115.71 1.)95.91) , l.m.97J 1•• 117 )9111.'" , 1'1...... I.m.1M I.2IO.6J 1.'21.'" 601.910 ",,on, on m.NO -s... 11 ~ 2.,.'.1.4 2,661 .Of 2 ...... , 1 2,410",7 I.1D '".OJO SIl.'" ""."2 ...... N...... ,...... 17.m.totO 2.2".12 17.l12.I" 2.m.T/' 14.IIOf.". 10.1-0 1.21&6.691 2."'.4" "'- "'nI StHI,.., u.s. ~_ of c...... B ~.nu of,1I< Ceou.... Si",~ (I) L.ona~ ..m dct!! GUIII.neIl ... mlft ... """ .I.,m do'" otr.... . ~ ..... _.II FI...-.· 1919. No": Ottoll may IlOl odd '0 ''''... clue '0 .ounell .... 388 The Book of Ihe Siaies 1992·93 REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE Table 6.18 STATE DEBT OUTSTANDING AT END 0" FISCAL YEAR. BY STATE: 1990 (In Ihousands of dollars, except per capita amounts) hltfoit. #ltd- ~t Nottt _tftd U_Sl_ ... , Slll.lB."1 1,076,ll' ...... ,, , l.979,061 9&Ul ) ,971.926 I,WI." .1 U7l,OJI 1.1" 1.16J,'" ,,,._ .. ' ,UoI ,oU l 110'1.651 11'9.S40 "'- 651."0 , , " '.!-I6.m 10.0l\0I.:' '.:U2.911 ...... 2.0601.509 , "...... 2. 191.,,", ,,,.,, 1.191.956 , ! . I91 ,,,", , ""_ .. 74). 11 1.746.:166 28,61' 1.717.691 2010.11 1 !I.6n ,,_ ...... 1.10.04 , 1I ,11J.) 14 ' ,1,",,)11 CMIf..... , •• 11.166.)06 ...." 11.166.)06 ' .')1,905 n ,4.l4. The Council or State Governments 389 TRENDS IN STATE TAXATION, 1990-91 By Ronald AU The last two years have been difficull ones marginal rate from 2.75 percent to 2.5 percent. for slate policy makers, as the e(:onomic slow And the District of Columbia reduced the down forced them to make some lough choices. taxpayers' burden by raising the personal ex During this period, the economic recession emption amount. Arizona became the latest spread from the Northeastern states to other state to reform its personal income tax struc parts of the country. causing Slale tax collec tun; reducing the number of income brackets tions 10 Jag behind forecast amounts and from seven to five. The state also raised the leading to large deficits in many states. As income level al which a taxpayer would reach a resuh, during the last two years, 37 slates the top marginal rate, set the personal exemp raised one or more of their major tax sources. tion amount the same as the federal govern In balancing their budgets, some slates al ment, and eliminated the inflation index pro tempted to improve the progressivily of their visions. tax system by increasing the income tax. How In 1991 , eight states made changes to raise eve r, most states raised all taxes across the additional revenues from their individual tax board or increased selected taxes, with excise es. Connecticut became the 42nd jurisdiction taxes being the most common lax raised (32 (including the District of Columbia) to im states). Twenty-one states increased the motor pose a broad-based personal income tax when fuel excise tax, mainly to provide additional it enacted a tax calculated as 4.5 percent of funding for highway construction. Cigarelle fed eral adjusted gross income (AGI) less state excise taxes were increased in 19 states, whi le exemption amounts. However, in the first year, only eight states raised alcoholic beverage tax 1991 , the tax ra·te was imposed at the rate of es. Meanwhile, 13 states raised personal in 1.1 percent of federal AGI. Pennsylvania and come taxes; nine states increased corporate Rhode Island increased their total tax rates, income taxes; and 15 states increased their while four states (California, Maine, Minne sales tax rates. sota and North Carolina) added income tax brackets to impose the increased lax burden Individual Income Taxes on higher-income households. With its indi vidual income tax linked to the federal tax lia Nine states and the District of Columbia bility, Vermont could nOI improve progressivilY made changes to their individual income tax by adding new tax brackets. Therefore, state struct ure in 1990. Three states - Massachu officials enacted two additional taxes on high setts, Nebraska and Vermont - made across er income taxpayers, making the total appli the-board increases in the marginal rates. New cable tax rates 28 percent, 31 percent and 34 Jersey and Oklahoma attempted to impose percent of federal liability - depending on the increase on higher-income taxpayers by level of income. New York once again delayed introducing new tax brackets with higher mar implementation of a scheduled tax cut and ginal rates. New York temporarily suspended also delayed until April I, 1992, a cut in the a decrease in the marginal tax rate scheduled top marginal tax rate. Arkansas, in order to to go into effect in 1990. The voters in North reduce the tax burden on poor households, Dakota approved a measure to reduce all in come tax rates across the board. South Caro Ronald All is a senior research associate for the lina allowed a scheuled drop in its lowest Federation or Tax Administrators. 390 The Book of the States 1992-93 TAXES created new tax tables fo r cerlain low-income Maine, North Caroli na and Ve rmom - raised taxpayers to reduce their income tax liabilit y. their sales tax rate by one percentage point. Arkansas raised the tax ra te by 0.5 percent, Corporate Inco me Taxes whi le Nevada increased its rate by 1.25 per cent. On January I, 1990, Cali fo rnia lowered Seven Slates changed their corporate income ilS tax ra te to 4.75 percent and later increased tax in 1990. The most substant ial was in Ari it to 6 percent as pan of a budget balancing zona, where the overall corporate tax structure bill approved in July. The Min nesota Legis was reformed. State offi cials reduced a seven lature enacted an addit ional 0.5 perce nt state bracket corporate income tax into a nat tax sales tax to fin ance local aid. which was sub of9.3 percent. Four states - Kentucky, Min ject to approval by the local governmems. All nesota, Nebraska and Oklahoma - .enacted of the local jurisdictions agreed to the new across-the-board rate increases. Colorado and tax. West Virginia implemented scheduled tax rate decreases. Motor Fuels In 1991, eight states made changes to their corporate income taxes. The enactment of a The motor fue l tax increases implemented personal income tax in Connecticut enabled in 1990 raised the median state lax rate from state policy makers to reduce the corporate 16.25 cent s to 17 cents per gallon. In 1990, income tax rate fro m 13.8 percent to 12.65 state legislatures enacted increases in the percent. Maine, Nebraska and North Carolina motor fuel excise rate in Arizona, a l-cent imposed surcharges on their corporate taxpay increase; Massachusetts. 6 cents (from 10 per ers. In additio n, Nebraska imposed on cor cent to 17 percent of average price); New porate taxpayers another surc harge totaling Hampshi re, 2 cents; and Washington, 4cenlS. 2 percent of the allowed depreciation. Arkan Oklaho ma allowed a I-cent motor fuel tax to sas added a new tax bracket for corporations expire when the Petroleum Undergrou nd Tank earning more than $100,000. Pennsylvania in Release Environmental Clean-Up Indemnity creased its corporate income tax rate fro m 2.1 Fund reached $5 million in January, but rei n percent 10 3.1 percent, while Wes t Vi rginia stated it on January 23, 1990. Utah imposed and Colorado permitted a scheduled ra te de an additional 0.5 The Council of State Governments ]91 TAXES cenlS and 5 cents, respectively, as pan of the the highway funding bill, sels the diesel fuel state budget. Florida imposed an additional and gasoline rate at the same amount. tax equal to two-thirds the local rate (6-cent maximum). This tax will raise the maximum Tobacco gallonage state, local and sales tax rate to 22.2 Eight states increased their excise tax rates cents. A si milar provision on diesel fuel will on cigarettes during 1990, raising the median be phased in over four years. Four stales - state tax rate to 22 cents per pack. States in California, Connecticut, Kansas and Wash creasing tax rates were Arizona, a 3-cent in ington - implemented kent per gallon gaso crease; Delaware, 5 cents; Florida, 9.9 cents; line tax increases approved ear li er. Other states louisiana, 4 cents; New Hampshire, 4 cents; implementing previously approved changes New Jersey, J3 cenlS; New York, 6 cents; and include Colorado, 2 cents; Massachusetts, 4 Texas, 15 cents. cents (from 17 percent to 19.1 percent); and Cigarette excise taxes were increased in 10 Oregon, 2 cents. Meanwhile, Vermont imple states in 1991 and fell in only one. As a result, mented a l-cent drop in the gasoline excise tax the median state tax rate increased from 23 to rate approved by the 1990 Legislature. The 24 cents per pack of 20 cigarettes. States rais· North Carolina Legislature raised the base ing their cigarette tax rates include Arkansas, motor fuel tax rate by 0.5 cents per gallon ef l-cent per pack; Iowa, 5 cents; Maine, 6 cents; fective January I, 1992. Maryland, 3 cents; Minnesota, 5 cents; North Seven states have variable tax rates that are Carolina, 3 cents; Pennsylvania, 13 cents; subject to periodic adjustmenlS depending on Utah, 3.5 cents; Vermont, l-cent; and the Dis current market conditions and state revenue trict of Columbia, 13 cenlS. In North Dakota, needs. They are Kentucky, Massachusetts, the Legislature reduced a scheduled drop in Michigan, Nebraska, Nonh Carolina. Rhode the cigarette tax from 3 cents to I cent per Island and Wisconsin. While Massachusetts pack. and Rhode Island legislatively increase the tax During the last two years, three more states rate, only three of these states made adminis enacted an excise tax on Other Tobacco Prod· trative adjustments in their variable tax rates ucts (OTP), bringing the total to 36 states. In during this period. Nebraska changed ilS ex 1990, New Jersey imposed an OTP tax equal cise tax rate each quarter, with the rate rising to 24 percent of the wholesale price. In addi as high as 26.5 cents before falling to the cur tion, two states, Texas and California, changed rent rate of 23.7 cents per gallon. Nonh Caro their tax rates on OTP products. The former lina makes adjustments to its motor fuel tax raised the tax rate on tobacco and snuff from rate every six months. During this period,lhe 28.125 percent to 35.213 percent, while Cali rate rose to a high of 22.6 before falling to the fornia administratively adjusted its rate down current rate of 22.3 cents. In 1990, Wiscon ward from 37.41 percent to 34.17 percent. The sin administratively adjusted its excise lax on California tax rate is dependent on the rela motor fuels up 0.7 cents and added another tionship of I he cigarette excise tax rate to the 0.7 cents in 1991. average retai l price ofcigaretles. In 1991, New Most of the states increased their excise tax Hampshire enacted an OfP tax equivalent to rates on diesel fuel by the same amount as the the cigarette tax rate - 22.2 perccnt of the gasoline rate during this period. Thnnessee in wholesale price. Nonh Carolina a150 enacted creased ilS diesel fuel rate by 1 cent in 1990 an OTP tax equal to 2 percent of the manu and by another penny in 1991. While thegaso facturers' price. Iowa raised its OTP tax rate line tax rate was increased in 1991, Maine did from 19 percent to 22 percent, while Maine not change the rate applicable to diesel fuel. raised the tax rate on chewing tobacco and In Arkansas. the diesel fuel rate was increased snuff from 50 percent to 62 percent and by 4cenlS per gallon as pan ofa 199 1 tax bill smoking tobacco and cigars from 13 percent replacing the weight distance tax on trucks. to 16 percent. The North Dakota Legislature This, along with a 2-cent increase enacted in set the OTP rate at 22 percent, when it was 392 The Book or Ihe Stales 1992-93 TAXES scheduled to drop to 20 percent. California rates according to alcoholic content). New administ ratively adjusted its rate downward Hampshire added 5 cents per gallon to the tax from 34 .1 7 percent to 29.35 percent. rate on all alcoholi c beverages under 6 percent alcohol content (predominantly beer). Three Alcoholic Beverages states changed other taxes applicable to alco holic beverages. Florida imposed a new tax Eight states and the District of Columbia based on the ounces of alcohol purchased at made changes to alcoholic beverage taxes in retail for on-premise consumption. New Jersey 1990. Three slates - Delaware, New Jersey reduced the wholesale tax to 2.9 percent and and New York - raised the tax rate o n ali al now applies the retail sales tax to all alcohol coholic beverages as part of a broad tax pack ic beverage sales. Texas raised the on-premise age. Delaware raised all alcohol taxes by more mixed drink tax from 12 percent to 14 percent. than 125 percent, while New Jersey's tax in In 1991, only three states made changes to creases ranged from 50 percent for distilled their taxation of alcoholic beverages. Califor spirits to a 200 percent increase for beer. New nia raised the tax on spiri ts to $3.30 per gal York increased the tax rate on spirits by 21 Ion and raised the tax on beer and wine to 20 percent and beer by 90 percent. Tennessee cents per gallon. Other changes in the taxa lowered the excise tax rate on low alcoholic tion of alcoholic beverages included a sched spirits (under 7 percent) to $1.10 per galion. uled reduction in the wholesale sales tax rate Colorado added two additional taxes to wine in New Jersey, from 2.9 percent to 1.5 percent, totaling 15 cents per gallon, while the District Maine enacted a lower tax rate for low alco of Columbia reversed the wine tax changes hol spirits (under 4 percent alcoholic content), made in 1989 (now imposing different tax which wi ll be taxed at 30 cents per gallon. The Councilor State Governments 393 TAXES Table 6.19 AGENCIES ADMINISTERING MAJOR STATE TAXES (As of January 1992) SI.'~Qr "'~ j~rlsdk.ioIt ,- Guoiilfl Ml)Il1I'wII~ AIok•• •...•.••.• Otpc. of k~... OopI . or~ ... 00pI. or II, ~ ... 1kpI. of lI,even ...... Depc . of 11, ...... - Depc . oI k ~... Depc . of Publk Sof.. y ArI_ .•. Depc . of 11,,,.- 1)q:Jt. of ~ ... [)qM . of TrarupOftll ..... o.~ . of T .....pon.,lon ~ . o.pe. of FI" ... Admin. o.pt. of FIa. " Admin. [)qM . of I'I.. . .I: Admin. 1)q:Jt. of FI ... '" AdtniJl . CallI...... FranchIH T.. lid. 8<1. or EqlOlliwioft 8<1 . of EqualIu'...... 1)q:Jt . of Moe", V.~ic:1a CaIonoI ...... Dope . ofll,~ ... Dope . or ll,~ ... Dept. of Revm ... 1kpI. of 11,,,.,,... CO._., ..... 1)q:Jt. of II,tIIftI"" Son. Dept. '" lI,ewn"" Son. Otpc. 01 II,~ ... Son. Drp. of Moel1l' Vohkla Orio ... ~ ...... 0;.. of lI,evm ... Dope. of Public: Solely Otpc. of Public Sofely flortd • ... Dept . of II.<-v M_'_ts Dept. of RtIIftI"" Drp. of 11, ...... Dope. of R...... 11, ... of Moe", Vehic:1a Mldrla·· ..... Dept. of T' ....ury o.,.c. of T.ouul)' 1kpI. of TICUUI)' s.cr..:7 of Slat< MI._ ,. 1kpI. 01 11.< ...... Dept . or 11, ...... Dope. of...... ,... Dept. o Public Sorely MIorrhrIIr...... TuComm. T .. Comm. T .. ComIll. T.. Q/mm. M ...... Dept . of Revm ... Oepc. 01 Itevm ... Dept . of 11.<'." ... Dept. 01 Rev S.. Mw...... T .. '" lI,even ... Dept. Tu a It ~ ... Dept. T .. '" It ...... 0.,... T .... It ...... ""il<'pr: . N.. " ...... il<'pr:. 01 T ... " FI ...... Dept . of T.. . a F1 ...... Dept. of T ... .. Fi ...... Dept. of Moeor v.hic:Ia N..." c ...... Dept. of lI,e>'eII'" Depr. 01 Rown... D SoT.. __1t lloI. o' • ....• ~ . of R...... Ilcpt. of 1I, 394 The Book of the States 1992-93 TAXES AGENCIES ADMINISTERING MAJOR STATE TAXES- Continued SIal.. IX OIM< Nllmlwr at armciel jll,isr/kliIXI fJdml~Wm~1, I.- AIo~._ . .. . Dept. of R~ .... Dept. of 11 ...<0 ... Akoh. 8..-. Control Od . "...... Dept. 01 11 ..../1 .... Oo-pt. of II ..." ... Dept. 01 II ..." ... , Alb...... Dept. of II...... Dept, of II ...." ... Dep'. of R..... /I ... , .. .. Dept. of Fin . &: "dmi". Dept. 01 Fin. '" "dmln. Dept . 01 Fin . • Admin. CoM"'."'_ -• . . Btl . of Equalization Con"oIln Od. of Equal; ..,ion •, Dept. or II.... " ... Dept. of II....,... Dept. of R.... /I ... , Dept. of II...... Son. Dept. of II.... " .... Son. Dept. 01 II....,,,,, Son. , Di". of II.... ~ ... Di • . of lI ..en .. Di". 01 II....,.... [)q:!t. of BUD"'" II... Dept. of 1I",,'enu< Dept. of 1Iu Dept. of II ...." ... Dept . of R...... Dept. of 11. .../1 ... , ..10 •• -,..-11 , R.... " ... e.bi .... II ...." ... Clbln 101o.' ...... Otpt. of II....,... Dept . of R.... /I ... Dept. 01 R... /I ... s .... Dept. of lIown .. Dept . "I lIown... Uq"", Con,,01 Comm. s...... Dept. of T. ..,jo" Dept . of T ..... '100 Dept. of T ...,ion s ... H ••poIIi ... . 0qIt. of II ...... "dm;n. Dept . of II ~'" Adml". Uqoo< Com",. s .... J....,. .. . [)q:!t . ofT.. ...,ry Dept. 01 n ..../")' Oo-pt . 01 T, ....ury ,"I"... Mnko .. Tu &: 1I ....n .. Dept. Tu &: R... /I ... Dept. T ... R... n .. Dept. N ... v.n. .. . Dept . 01 Tn. &: Fina .... Dept. of Tu. &: Fi...,..,. Dept . of T.... " Fina .... No>rt.CaroIIoa . Dept. 01 II~ ... Dept. of II...... Dept. of II.. .., .... No>rt. Dal The Council of State Governments 395 TAXES Table 6.20 STATE TAX AMNESTV PROGRAMS November 22, 1982 - Present Am)Oj~" 11W1li11Mtl1 l.ArI*/l.. M",- CoIl«tloN S""e .... "'_ 0"", (I Mili/(NU) (oJ -::::.r.:::;"_11«1 (b) i "rlMIlnltM A"'_, ~ "",/torlUllitNt '"""'" AI.b._ ... 011101 ... • (MIOII'" No «) -- u A." ...... I I /WIl · 011lO/1l No (e) '" '" .., '" "'Ira_ ...... 09/ 01117 - 11 1»111 ,. '" " ,., ,.'" CoNI ...... I ZlIOI ... . Olll SIll ,. l/Idi.id .....'" lneon>< ,." 154.0 ,. ,. .... 41 .0 ,. Colo ...... 091161" · 11115/ 1' ,. ." '" ••• C.. MCtk1o, •••••••• 09/01/9(1 - l l/ lOI9O ,. ." ,'". ~ . , ,.'" 01101 /17 · 06IlO/t1' ,. I,..... 1l.0 ,. -.. OI /OIl88 - 06I»IU V.. (d) '" UCd) ,. ,- O5/lO,l11·OII»111 No Ce) IIIdMduall ...... '" ,., IIW...... 10101 / ... - 111»1... ,. '",. 160.5 " I ...... 09/ Ol1SoS · 1011) / 16 ,. '" ,. 1'.) '"N.II . lril_ .• 01/01 / ... - 011 / )0184 ."'" ,.. 1ri ..,0Id!)" •• 09/ U / U·09/ )01&8 Va'" (e) '" 61.1 ,." .....M . 10I01I&5 · IZlll/ lS ,. '" '" ,., Va tel 10101 /'7 · IZlU/ I7 ."'" ,'". ,., V.. (0) MaiM ...... JlIOI/9(I · IZlll/9D '" ,. ~ . , ,. M..,...... 09/01111 • 1110lI11 ,. ."'" ,. :1<1 .6 (I) M-'o_IU 10I11I1l · 01 / 17114 ,. ." ,. M.' '"V.. Ia) MkWI" .. 05111116 . 061)0116 ,. ." ,. 109.1 MI._ II . 01101 / 84 · 10011184 ,. ." Il. 1 '" MiahII,pI • 09/01 / 16 - 11/ )0116 ." '" ,., '" M ...rI •.. 09/(1 11) . 1013 1111 '"No (e) '" ,.. '" N...... ,. •••••• 09/ 10111· 11/0&111 ."'" '" 116.' '",. N... M • .un...... OI/ UIIS · 1111l11l ,.'" 1111 (h) ,.'" IU ,. N ... V", ••••• 11 / 01 11' · 01 1l1l16 ,. 1111(1) ,. .r(I1.l ,. No rl~ CwoII .. . 011/011" · IZlOLl" ,- IIll(j) ,- n .6 N.rI~ DallOI • . 09/ 0111) • 111)0111 N.. «) ." ,., '",. Ok...... O"I / OII" · llIll/U ,. I"""""'. Sola ,.'" 1l.9 No(l;) R.... I _ .. 100U/ SoS· 01/11111 ,. ,., s...,~c-I .. (lf/ 01/1! · 111»1" ,. '" ,-'" ,., ,.'" T.~ 0lI01l" · OlIl9/U No (e) '"IIU (I) ,., v....-...... O5IlS/ 90 · 06IlSl9O ,. '",. 1.0(m) " VI•• b.I • ... 0lI01/9D • Oll ll /9D ,. ."'" ,. ll.l ,." lII'OII VI...... 10/01/ 16 - 11IlU16 ,. ,- 1$.9 ,...... (lf/ 1S/ 1l · II/WIS ,. '" V.. Co) Z7.l ,. DIll. of c.I• • 1tio . 07/01 / 11 · 09/ )0187 ,. ,. ,. '" "., '" by,IIoapinlloorot,IIo Pl1111e111 In.. 1110 up;· ]96 Th~ Book or t h~ States 1992-9] TAXES Tablt 6.21 STATE EXCISE TAX RATES (As or January I, 1992) M The Coun cil of State Governments 397 TAXES STATE EXCISE TAX RATES-Continued 398 The Book of the States 1992493 TAXES Table 6.22 FOOD AND DRUG SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS (As or January I, 1992) Tu ..,. """... (~' ."' f.' F.., I'hsriptit>tt dnop .uoa...•...... •.. • • "'_"' ...... , "''''''_ ...... -., • • c.II'..... (1)I ••• •· • • • C ...... , c..Mfl... . • • Dolo" ...... • • • n .. fW • •. • • • ...... -• • ...... II.""S.. ,• • IUI_ C<)· 6.2' ; ito." ,.• ,. 1"1••• •••• , • • 10"·• .•. • • • .,;.~ ... 4.2' • ";'.',,"1 • • I ...... • ,. • 101 .... ,d) . • • 101." 1...... •, • • • M_ ...... , • • Mi The Council of State Governmenls 399 TAXES Table 6.23 STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX ES (As or January I, 1992) Tu,.,,_ ,..... lilt tfP!!ttlIJ '" SlWOI'OlMF ....of """"f""_ ,....., ~ '0> '-,-- -... _...... -~ ,.. ,. ,., 500 1.1 .,1.000 t., ,... ,... --• .-.-. U ,., , 10.000 I., 150.000-- t.1 -,...... '.000 Art.- .... ,., 1.0 Ce, ',000 U ... 10 tdl «I (~ 101d) . 4.)94 t., 200.000 tl, 60 tdl ,~, CoIII-I_ (~I .•• ,., 11 .0 • • ______Ao". ______",. .-... ,., ______no~. ______"'- CM-'.... I ...... , Il.O(1O (I) 14.000 In , DoIo,,_ ...... ,., ,,' • ',000 ,",000 ,... ,., .. , ,~'" ''''' ,,000 ''''' .-...... • '"' ... '" " .. ",.. II ...... ,., 10.0 1.500(.' XI.500 (.1 ,.... ',,", ...... ,. U • 1.000(11) 10.000 Cb J.)OO (0 4.6110 (i, 2.500','" (I, , ~. '.1...... •, ------no ______',000 2.000 1.000 ,,' ______Aa .ue ______, ,000 ,~- ,. , ',000 '.000 1.,," te) , ,> ' .M • ,,"" 47.700 10 (d) oIO(d, IS td) • 10_ ... U, , 27,500 ill 17.500 U) ',000 >,000 ,000 * t,il ... , 0,000 K.. IWl J " ,,' .., ',000 10 tdl 40 tdl 10 t 400 The Book of Ihe Stales 1992-93 TAXES STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES- Continued Sou",.., The F The Council of State Governments 401 TAXES Table 6.24 STATE PERSONAL INCOME TAXES: FEDERAL STA RTING POINTS A_ A~ . ,.. A_. 1/ 1191 F... .01;...... I_ Aftl_ 11119. r... Idjouled FOOl __ <_ . Frodmll..... ""'fooacedlfOllw.abIc ~ __ --eo-_ """" r.o..01 .,;jJWIod ___ ""' eon..,...... - 1111'91 ~ ..:I;u.od ,...1_ tt...... 1%/ )1190 r ...... 01 w.abIc ' 14 ...... 111191 F..:lcnlIUObi< 1_ 1111- ...... """'"111191 '_F...... MS1d ...001 .._I-<*1_ ..... 1Od fd .._I_ I ...... 1111'91 r ..... K._ ...... r .....oIl1dh'tllrc' "OM 1_ ".·'01<1.;1 ..•...•• ·· •.. · .• ·.· 1"'-1131/19 F«ktll lI,cOOll< LMIoI ...... r ..... lIdodS'" ...fOI ...... po.. 1_ "'01 ...... "'"~ F..... II ad UOI Sow<-r: n.: f .....~ion (>f T .. Ad..ul\lttfO'(It •• oompilod r.om .0r\oU$ (a) No lUI. 1_ , ••. (b) Or 111 /11. , ..po!'":", opIion. -~ . ,.,,, (e) On inI ..... UId diriclol>ob OfIty • • . . _ St ...... _ ....pIot. r...... >lOfth", pOin. (d) Or r..... a1ILUbie I"""",, buedOfi CIOnoa. JIM .....I ....n ... Code. CW, .... _ Sto •• Iw adoPted 1..... naI ...... n ... Code .. """R1ly in (.) Noo 'n •. 402 The Book of the States 1992·93 TAXES Table 6.25 RANGE OF ST ATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATES (As of January 1. 1992) Tn lNortr/S T.](ftlt~(a) "''''mbn /~~tl FHHr8{ ;1fNJm. I/Irllnl of /Nortr/s fl... ..n.J iI"H/I So.I. I)o~OI' . 6.0(.) Tt._ .. . 6.0 (e) fill hI< 6.0 (c) Tu .. ,., Ullb ... S,O (e) Fla, Ita,. S,OI') \ ''''''''"1 ... S.S· US (ol Rol • ~.O (dd) W •• blo,'... . ••• <,>--_-'-__~c.::'---...:.C Wao \'1",1 ... . . ~ \00...... 01 • ••• ,.. BalFlol Ra..R.,. ====.,;:,,". ___'- ___.~, .• W)o.. I.~ .. ------/Il--- DbI. 0 / c.i. llbl. 10.0 (c .... ) 10.0 (c,.d See foo""" .... end of ,able. The Council or State Governments 403 TAXES RANGE Of STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATFS-Conlinutd .fo>wno: Tbo f ...... ofT.. ~on(bM 404 Th~ Book of the States 1992-93 TAXES Table 6.26 STATE SEVERANCE TAXES, 199 1 .. , I."" Or~ Mini... Tn S.OJ/ton ~'ornI P.odlOOl' St;'tn..... T •• vorin by '!'«'Ift;1Id ~I,i""""" Oil.nd Go> C ...... V.,k>n II lI ..uialk>n of l .. of ...... 1 .... , poinl of lII'od\lC.'lion l'rodO<1ion To. Oil .nd Go> p"xtU<'1ion TIo.' B.. of .."" "111... , ""Inl 01 111'0<1I00I'''.:.'1'0 of ...... 1 ... II poinl of incT Coal s..r.~ To., (b) $.Il1l''''' CN! _ Lipite s.-...... Tao $-.:oro"" lor odI;I,," 10 Cool 5<>_ TIU .-w..r;.., ikoN ..... To> l'l'o to , ... of fi'" __ ""')'11'< of floII 0;( _ 0.. I' S.-..09I1 .... ( •• "" ...... n""'nll.nd $.06/,,,,, (II .... """"','Ulhorl- '1) 01 coal , ...... ' ed by """,,.pil Of "rip ..... _ Coal Ind Go. s...... T .... (ml $.)1)11.... of ,u,f.... · min«l coal M I...... Go> Ind Oil 5<> ...... T •• ''''' Cp.l. 6.6"" (oil) 11>11 . .. Coil f. om "riP!'<" ..ell. Ind m.,,;,,,,1 p Sot: lootnot •••, . The Council or State Governments 405 TAXES STATE SEVERANCE TAXF.S-Contlnued ... 1lIw .-.4 .""nc..1tM ~ _ (.) "' ...... COIIISeYn_ T.. Vorieo bf (IIWiI, 01 001II ... I)'SI< 01 ..... _ "'op...... ~.Iu.4 .. _Ia_O(UJO.OOO. F... _ MeI.lhf...... M'- I..kNw T.. (0) .raulllippodlO_a ...... lI.)(d) M~M ...oII~T .. I .O!I/ _ c_ LiDmoc T.. I'" 5.1211 .. of __ .1.0$1_ 01 _ ...... 1YfIMIID"'_ w ...... Ml.oI ... To> US."~ pi.. 0.5'Il10 of..- ...... _ " .000 US pi... 0.''Il10 of .._ ...... r...... N...... OIllIIId GM s.-.-T.. l'lllo... of ...... of _I'ippor 011 ...... po: 1'Il10 0( ...... of_rlppa OIllIIId o.s C~OIioo T.. ).lui...... IIIUbllt 0( ...... utIad U• ...,;u .. To> 1'Il10 of _ ...... _ I' dian N_a ...... NC'I ""-'11 of Mi... T .. MioimulII1'lllo, ...will ... ''Il10 8ucd .... ""., of .... poO<:nds 10.. ...-. of ",bolo opmrIIon. 001 _ au C...... 1000 Tu JO onilWbbI. or oIllllld JO ... UII/JO.OOO N... U_ptIoloe ••••• R~nll<'d P.. roInInI "'OIl..... Tu 0. 1'"' or rait ...... t ....1 ... N... MulN ...... Raou..... EariIc To> (t) Variroo _dl", '0 oubM.""" Sc> ...... Tu (t) Varia acconIi", '0 oubM01>C.'O Oil _ Oat SeYn._ Tn 3.",", or ...... or oil ...... liquid hyd.(Jt•• botu.1\II "".bon dio,1de 011 _ GMI'rivIlqr Tn ).u .. of .aI... N.lural au I'T~' I Tn 0 .•',", of ...... of ",01100' 011 _ Ou Ad v ...... i'fN.... ion Tn OiIlIIId a.. COIUef>'OIioo Tn (.) "~.-....,Iries ... (I) N.... ' c-...... 011 UId 0. c-n-a.ion Tn ).Iujmg", , ... UII/bbl. 0( oil ..... 0.' mld/ l.OOO .... ft. or ... (h) "'inwr f'0fftl Prod..... A_ T ... I01""""'_."'''' S."'I.OOO .... bovd ft . and $.11 ... UOIClIII'd ~ ...... ~_s.vn-T... (v) 5. 11lIMII. of oil: 1,(12'".000 01._ ...... Oil. ou .... MiIImII GnIoe I'rodIIcPoa Tn ,w) s.pu.... tOl~ f. ndi ....._ Nai ..... Gas ... C~ 0.. c::--;o. UI'I/ I.OOO (ll. Ii ,. .... 1'Il1o or..- ...... oI.-to 1.000 .... n. of po Elcioo Tn can,...... F_ I'TochIcU Harvac To> I .O!III.OOO booorcl ft. ~ WI) W : 15011.000 bOIOrd ft, (UnaI WI)IY) Oil UId 0. Pl'odUCIioo To> , .. 0( ...... _ s.-a- To> .... laM..... ~ r .... bor J'IIIo of tm.aliaIe ...... ,.. ...:I1oI;Idi&looo.aI_ ...... , ...... f ... • ...... ~ $cwnooo To .... WatCI'a 0._ r .... bor '.J'IIIo of ...... od>IioaaI __ In ...... r_MIoa Ia ...... CqII f ...... JI1Ir I, 1991 Ihrouah Ocaoaba 11 , 1992 s-u. I)d-_ ••• . ••• PrcdoooI M..... SeYn ..... To> 2'Il1o of ..... yidd f._ .... 01_... pi ... 1'Il10 .... _ ",crfIu. royal • .... rr_ ...... r~ ...... I!JicfI)' MI...... Sc-tmo_ T.. ' .J'IIIo of ...... of "", ...... U ""...... CoftwrvaIIooo Tu 1 .• miD. or t ...... 01 ... of 110, _I)' oni_ T ... _ ...... OIllIIIda..SeYn...... Tn l,", or ...... prI w~...... U ...._ .. ,....".. hlilli", T ... Utillb. ~F_flo.bT... 0.07'IIr '0 ''Il10 of ..... (cI 406 The Book or the States 1992·93 , TAXES STATE SEVERANCE T AXES-Conlinued $1_ Tak Md .",oo.IHM <1/ IU CI) .,. ..,.,..."... .. Mcta/lif...,.., ttli_"" "",,polioot Tn Pfoar..v... _ ptO W, ...... Oil ud Gu ProcI"",ion T.. M...... y'" 0.' miM/ 1i of vo/lit M ...m ..ad (h.dd) Mini,. Elriot MId Sc-.-er ...... Taus ...... by ... bsuco« f.om I.'''' '0 ) . ~~ of ,-allIt; _ oddilioao/ em...... of 2'" 10 J'" ~: C_~ C\oariIIt; H_. s.... Tu a_. ('I) c...... _ l)'I»IIlIt ... 0I1ied ptOChooI.l (I ) ApplicMion or I.. It ...... I,,", or elllo y...... _ .. ;...... ,"" (') Situ.", ....,..""'" no.-pc oil ...... PI, IiQIIid hydl_b...... by. fOOl_c. Qfboao diooidt. (b) T o ",-..locI 10 Iftmlllll. up"" t'" ''''''pliooo of. _ po_ (I' Oil. cool. _liquid h~_. """_...... ,...... * dicWd< or III I Th~ Council of S tat~ G ov~rnm~nt 5 407 STATE TAX COLLECTIONS IN 1990 By Gerard T. Keffer Stale tax collections totaled $300 billion _. in fiscal 1990, up 5.7 percent from the $284 """"1 "'""'"_ .. SWr Tn ~ billion collected in fiscal 1989. Of the states' " M...... T.. C...... , $632 billion in 10lal revenue for fisca l 1990...... """ ,-... ~ 0 .." nearly 50 percent came from taxes. Major ,.., 'U 11.1 .., non-tax revenues included $118 billion in pay '''' 57.7 -,'-' ... -'''' --.... n'" • - ments from the federal government, and $109 "'" .., .. "OJ ,,.,'"' .. , '" OJ billion from insurance trust sources, mainly 'M, ~, "l7...' ".. , ,., , .9.) n.7 .., "U employee retirement contributions. However...... ,' .. , .., ,.. o nly revenue data from state lax collect ions ,- .. ~ , ~., 19'" .6 .., .. '" "OJ " are presented in Ihis anicle and the tables that .... " follow, As in previous years, these fiscal 1990 '''' '" " state lax collections exceeded locally imposed increase o f 8 percent. The combined yield collections o f $196 billion. (rom general sales and gross receiptS taxes and The distribution of tax collections by stale individual income taxes accounted for near major tax category has remained fairly con ly two-thirds of all state lax revenue in fiscal Slant since 1980. From the period 1960-1980, 1990. Corporate net income laxes decreased a major realignment of tax revenue sources 9 percent 10 $22 billion. occurred, primarily because of an increase in Selective sales taxes totaled $47 billion, an the number of states collecting individual and increase of S percent si nce 1989. Motor fuel corporate income taxes. In 1960,33 stales col taxes climbed 7 percenl, to $19 billion, the lected individual income taxes, and 37 states largest share of selective sales taxes. Increases collected corporate net income taxes; by 1972. in the motor fuel tax rate in 27 states during these numbers rose to 44 and 46, respectively. fl.$C3.l 1989 and 1990 contributed significantly With two exceptions, those same states con to the overall rate of tax increase. Six states tinue to collect individual and corporate in had rate increases in both years. And in eight come taxes today. (I n 1980, Alaska repealed states, the sale o(motor fuel also is taxed un itS individual income tax retroactively to Jan der the general sales tax provisions: Califor uary I, 1979. Connecticut in 1991 adopted a nia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana. Michi broad-based tax on individual income; prior gan, New York and West Virginia. to that, individuals paid only a capital gains lbbacco product taxes showed a 10 percent and dividends tax.) With the additional states, increase to $6 billion. Sixteen states increased income tax's percentage o( total tax collec the cigarette tax rate in either fiscal 1989 o r tions nearl y doubled from 1960 to 1980 (18.8 1990, offsetlingany decl ine in consumption. percent to 36.8 percent). As Thble A reflects, AJcoholic beverage taxes registered a 2 percent this caused a relative decrease over the same growth and stood at $3 billion. period in sales and gross receipts taxes, license Severance taxes rose 13 percent to S billio n taxes and other taxes. in fi scal 1990 after declining for four of the At $100 billion, general sales and gross re ceipts taxes were the largest source of state tax Gerard T. Keffer is chief of Ihe 11txalion Branch. revenue, up 7 percent from 1989. Individual Governments Division, Bureau oflhe Census. U.s. income taxes accounted (or $96 billion, an Department of Commerce. 4Q8 The Book of Ihe Siaies 1992-93 TAXES previous five yea rs (-4 percent in 1989; + 7 per - this compared to the two Slales that had cent in 1988; -34 percent in 1987; - 16 percent tax revenue declines the previous year, and in 1986; and - 1 percent in 1985). During 1985- th ree states thaI suffered losses in 1988. No 1987, the decline in severance tax revenues state had year-Io-year tax revenue decreases in (mostly related to oil and gas) was so drast ic more than one of these three years. The five that it resu lted in an overall decrease in total states affected in 1990 and their percentage tax revenues for Alaska, Louisiana, Ok lahoma changes are shown below: New Hampshire. and Texas. Allhough still not fully recovered, - 2.90/0; Maine. - 1.9%; New Jersey, -0.6%; these states' economies have benefitted great Virginia, - 0.3%; and Delaware. -0.1 %. ly by the reversal of the slide in severance tax A drop in corporate income tax revenues in revenues. all of these states was the primary reason for the decrease in thei r total tax collections. Individual State Tax Collections Maine. wit h a drop of 40 percent, and Dela ware. with a decrease of 24 percent, showed State taxes per capita reached a record high the sharpest declines in corporate tax revenues. of$I,211 in 1990, with nine states having col lected $10 billion or more in taxes. Table B shows their total tax dollar and per capita Tax Burden amounts. Taxes for those nine states we re While all states rely on various types of nearly $160 billion or 53 percent of the total. selective sales taxes, five - Alaska, Delaware. Wit h collective populations of 129 million or Montana. New Hampshire and Oregon - do 52 percent of the U.s. total, their per capita not levy a general sales lax. Seven - Alaska, tax burden as a group was $1.201, about I per Aorida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Wash cent below the national average of $1,21 1. Of ington and Wyoming - do not impose indi this group, only New York ($1,591), Califor vidual income taxes. And four - Nevada. nia ($1,459), New Jersey ($ 1,350), and Michi Texas. Washington and Wyom ing - exclude gan ($1,220) exceeded the national per capita corporate net income from taxation. There tax average. fore, the burden of taxation varies fro m state to state. Identifying the actual taxpayer is T.W.1I even more complicated in states with a high Sok< .... 5 .....· 11.. C. IIo<.Io"", 1'1'10 degree of tourism or "exported" severance taxes. Given those factors and variations in A _~''''_ (J Millitms) state versus local tax authority and responsi Cal,fooni. ,",l .~1 9 $1 •• 59 Now Yor k 28.6Ii I.S91 bility for services, caution must be exercised 1<.7 17 ~ in comparing per capita tax reve nue and state ~,'" lJ.l89 1.027 -.I'tnn.) .... nia I,ll) rankings. 1I1,..,t. ".no12.891 1.128 O~io 11 .43-6 ,.... For example compared to a national over Michi.. n 1I .J.41 ,= lOA) ' 1.)50 all lax per capita average of $1,211. Alaska still ... "'~ lead with $2,811 in 1990. Hawaii was second ($2,107) and Delaware. third ($1,696). How Six states reponed thaI 1990 state tax col ever. a review of individual taxes paints a lections rose more than iO percent over the different picture. New York. which had the previous year: Montana (17.8 percen!), Neva highest per capita personal income tax ($850 da (16.7 percent), West Virginia (16.6 percent), compared to an average $387), ranked 33rd in Washington (14.0 percen!), Georgia (11 .5 per per capita general sales tax revenue. Tennes cent), and Idaho (10.0 percent) (see Table see with $2 1 had the lowesl among states im 6.28). Nine states had increases of this mag posing personal income taxes. nitude between 1988 and 1989. Only Idaho Because states ut ilize a variety of reve nue and Nevada were in this category for both sources to support their programs. the reader periods. should be cautious in drawing comparisons At the other end of the spectrum, fi ve states or conclusions without analyzi ng the state's experienced a decrease in 1990 tax coll ections overall economic and demographic changes. The Council of State Governments 409 TAXES Table 6.27 NATIONAL SUMMARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT TAX REVENU E, BY TYPE OF TAX: 1988 TO 199() ,..,....,.....,..,..,..,.... A_""' __ of~ ,.... "",.."tu. 1990 Tu_ ,... '''',... . 1IUtribf 410 The Book of the Stal ~ 1992·93 TAXES Table 6.28 SUMMARY OF STATE GOVERNMENT TAX REVENUE, BY STATE: 1988 TO 1990 "' __, /ill ,--.a "l dt>&nJ ~ """'tw="l"' Si"'~~","" 19f'),,.. '11 ,.... f'Wupiu. I'I'JO /ttrfJd""'*' ,... "., ".. r._ 1I.. ... SI_ nOO.loI'.16'"" 52".412.6J4 $2-106.»0._ ,... IS .'" 51.211.4' A"~ . .. 1 .•• 9.'1) 1.662.S6l 1.122.201 '.J" !l.7" 92M2 A...... 1.)0t6.'" 1.41 0.1)0 1.062.191 9.1" 12.'" 2.9J4.': '.116.16. '.060.'12 M69.4n 1.'" 17 ."'" 1.%lO." A",._ ...... 2.260.9)6 2.112._ 1.&19.066 4. '''' U."'" 919.11 .-c.IIf_Io ... 41.'''.164 ".21).1" 11"'9.106 ,.. " IS ."'" 1.491.9"1 c_ ...... J.069.'za 2.90.1.121 U".l19 5.1'" " 9U.16 c_-*-. '.»1.0" 4.101.416 '.280.7" 9.6" ..12.1..'" 1.626.4) Dolo .... . 1.1:9.'51 I.IJO.I96 912.(109 -0.'" " .1'" 1.671.J.I 11.m.49! 1l.4Ss.5H 9.146.1U 6.1" 16.1" 1.041." ...... -. -. 1.0'1'.197 U "'7.20J un.619 11 .'," 19.2'" 1.099.71 It .. MI Ul4.191 U I7.0J9 1.697.424 U" 10.6" 2.099.64 ,,, ..... I.UI.7" I.OJ'.OU ...... 10.0'1'1 204.7" l.m.OJ liN ...... 12.190.'12 1I.1~.S8I 10 .... :!9.U, 9.6'" 12 .1" 1.lo,.n l.ctl...... 6.101.619 1.901."1 4.711.281 ).4'" 21 .1" 1.O9O . ~ 10" • .... J.l1).09f l.167._ 2.662.110 U" 19.0'1'0 1.1116." 2.6611.9911 1.... 96.l41 2.00.63' ... 19.1" 1.06l.08 .... ' .160.691 ' .0'12.915 J.m.161 .4.6"- 11 .6" 1.1" .20 ..•• -... . 1 .....1 ...... ' .086.691 1.969.19J J.469.109 , ,... .. " 912 .61 1'01.1 .. .. 1.$90.ru l.l3II.430 .. 1.277 .11 1.560.169 · 1."" 21 ."''' 1'01 • ., ..... 6."'lO.119 6.19S.976 '.181.$66 "'. I'l't 19."'''' 1.J14. 12 1'01 _ __ .." , •• 9.:169.101 9.118.18J U".lll 2.1" 9.2" '.'''.49 I'oIk lllK" .. 1I.J41.401 11.1204.O'Il 9.122.IS1 , .),)" I.ln.l? 1'01 1._. 6.119.2)4 .. 1.$66.16 6.400.120 !.)0t6."'1l 6.'" IS .'" M_ ...... 1.)9j,116 un.OSI I."l.m '.1" 11.2" "... ." M ~ .... 919.169 "'.61'-17' J."2.m S.4" II.'" 911.:19 114 ••' ...... Ill.611 717.969 11 .1" n .l" 1.000 .U N_• ... 1.'11.911 1."9.99<1 1.203."'.""'"144 "'.J" 919. 11 N«o ...... I.ll9.W I.H6.!)l , .1lI.11Z _1.2" 2019.'" 1.206.01 N~ II ...... "'.~ 6U.211 511 ...... -2."" ')1.76 ~ J ...., ,0.411.910 IO.lOI.)U 9.491 •• 11 -<1.6" 10.-.'" 1.J.d." ~ l'oIuJt.o...... 2.0 ..... (\1(1 1."2.961 I.~ 1 .736 6 .... .,. " .2" I.JII.09 N~ V..-l • 11.614.") l6.I".OJ9 2-I.671.lS6 1.'" 1.1" 1.~ . 11 N... ~ C_ 1 ...... 1l1 1.369.)" '.21~ .I14 6.1"" 17."''' 1.'96." Ntot1 ~ ,_ ..... 6n.1I2 1166.140 "l.ln ,... 16.1" l.cw.tl ... II .... }6.161 10.101.)92 9.)02,2" S.'''' 16.2" I.OQ.H 01>1._ . ).... '•. .,9 l.lI2.1" l.6JoI.2Jl ,... 1.1 .'" •.000 .... l 2.11l.19O 2.'16.262 2.lJI.O'Il 1.7" " .1" "' . ~ ...... " ...... ll.l19.MI 1l.6'/!U91 lI.n'.l'" ....2.. 11 .'" ' .09"1 .• M_ '...... I.:!JJ.JOS 1."9.111 •. tM6.9U ..... " 10.'''' I.2Js.n S-, ~ C_ .. 1.9J4.1l) 1.111.161 l.IH.lSI S.. .. 11 .... 1.120.» s..,_ ()oI;040 $00.09) 412._ 4IUIO ,...... 4" 699.41 Tn_ 4.2-".014 ....066 .... " 1.~J.lll 4. ... " 11.'" '''&66 .n.... 1 ~."' ...... 116.111 11.974.361 1I.2S4.410 I .J" 14 .2"" u,.~ ... 1.767.991 l,W.161 1.4)1.)15 ..... 12 .9" 1.0l'.n ,'..--,. 66.1.141 6)4,'" 572.910 .... 10.1'- 1."(." v ...... 6.600.419 6.621.011 '.S14.Ul -(1.1" 19.6 .. 1.()8.l.4O '0\"0 The Council or Slate Governmcnls 411 TAXES ...... : ~ :: : • ~ ,~~~~ ~~~~~ ,~~~~ ,~~~~ q~~~~ ~~.~~ ~~~~~ J ..3 5~~!a ~"5!! ~~~E~ ;E~SS ;~~!~ ~2~~~ !~iij ~ ~ =~~!! Gs~~~ ~!~~~ liii! §i~~~ ! ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~, ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~-~~~ ~~-=~ ~-~~~ ~~~-~ ~=~~~ • hi ! . "'!' ...... : ::::: it ii lil!! iti~~ 1 ~I , If! I Ifill a.. i « « ~ !A I!5! ! :" n.! .... .! :I UU:I 41 2 The Book or the Stales 1992-93 TAXES '. ' '5 1 ,' 0" . } :::; : :... . ' -<>:; ,• • " • • 1 '£ ' 'f ;" ~IO: : ~i .~ . ' ,.: ~5..;: . I- - ~ .., . ,• .II c "'I::~"'''' .,. !;"!.-:~~ ~~~~i\ ~ c ::! ::;:;:; ...... 10"'01'" 0 <.l Ai " I & : : :"1 ~m~ - :!!fr~~ " .," J ~ ... 0 ~~~( : ~~~iI ~ .-~. -s5! ;\ 0. J '">-... >- ":s: ' '':!j II ~~ : i~ ~ : ~ ~ : '" I • ~ ~~ ~ '";J al z ~ • ..'" : ~ : ~~ ~ • .'"E: ..- '. l! !~ 8 ;:;:;t ,• '" ..; ..; '"., l t "... " • ...z ...~~~~~ ,.- ...... ~~~~~ j ..... ~ .. ~ ;'i:E!:! ~ : :. I '"z l ..'" ~.~~a~ .~in ! ! '" li "ii-i' • ~ 0 5i~~i:~ ~..:~ .... j, " •• '" • i ...'"., ...... - ... , ~~~!;!. ~~~!. ~ -~ in ~ ~;,,~i ~"~~=. . ;) ";!- "" .: ... '" - J •i ....' , i 11 ' , J• ! l, ,• • I'I' r iq ,~ • ill j.< ',, 111- .. ;>;. mi. ~ The Council o r S t a\(~ GovernmentS 4 13 TAXES LIf • • 5111 .~mij- ..... ~ ~m~=-:;:: " .... .~ :: ,~ : S,Ii~~ ~'it~t . . . .. !ijll Jlj~t lji ~ 414 The Book of Ihe Slales 1992·93 TAXES .... n· .. l ~~~ : ~ ~ .... ~ : : ::l=~ ;! ~:o~ ~ • 0 : ::::1 : : i::!:;:;i : ..,• c I, C 0 I t , ::... '" - : ~~~~ '" 2= ~ ! ... ::> ~~~~~ ~e,,~~ •;; Z "':;;:;:!!:! ~2":!:- ;. tl! ...'" [ • 1 ~~!!S .~m '" ! ~::~~- ~S!::;!2 a " i j ..."" • '" ~t;J!:N;:; - U:I:~ :; i: ...,...,""!11~ l1"!"'l."'l in ::i~~~ !!!=:~.., • ...'" T'~=. J~. ~~ ~~~~ '" ·" .1iI -"'!. ;; : '"0 ~~ §!"'E ~ ~ '"0: '"Q ;ri:::::~~ Ha;; z ia;;~ 6;.~:;; I It ::- ~ .! !:J"" , u".§ ~~,~~ ~ "" ::i.aij;i I ~ -'" . - ~~~§' '"..."" • • .I ...z ::. m=~ s.~q~~ S ::::12:1"':;; ~ z ~~~.! "'l ...... ~- i , 0: -. - ;.... 1-1 0 J ~~~sa .~iU ....~ ~ ~~i~fi ii~iN ...'" ~ . i ...;-...: ...... ~= ,J ..."" " '" , ... ~ i i 1 i : : : : . 'J" s ,oj ! !lr I , j.': !,1 ;-;-;;1;I!I ~lH:r.:r."':r. ~ " . The Council of State Governments 41 S TAXES ...... - 'iI'~ , ",- ••••...9). .s.' .. ! .,.;i'i - ., .. ;::; 1 . it jf ! Ijj!~ Jjl~f ~~Iij 416 Th~ Book or Ih~ Siaies 1992-93 TAXES "f( ...... :;~O'.' :. l - : ~ : .. ,I ..;.~a=";..; : "... a:i!i~~ :; i~:!~ ": ~ ~ .1 ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ... . "' ... -. .! .,.~ O ~ 1 ;;~~ .. ~ The Council of Slale GovernmenlS 4 17 TAXES Table 6.32 f iSCAL YEA R, POPULATION AND PERSONAL INCOME, BY STATE T~br ,."..",. -.-. ~ Slm",_ (um.tJUt, /ifta o...--J t!!!..11ItI9(b) rill 1""'-"dIJ ,..,..-~~ ~ '" ~~ ...... ", "'~"/k-.I Of"".. AJri I. 1M ~ hty I, 1m f/IJ ,-.....,"'_. '981." I 41 8 Th~ Book or I h~ Siaies 1992-93 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES IN THE STATES AND orHER U.S. JURISDICTIONS: FISCAL 1990 By David Kellerman By its size alone, the federal government's Intemionallyexcluded from the data are in innuence on the states extends beyond mat ternational transactions and net interest pay lers orfiseal federalism or mandates. With an ments on the federal debt. The laller, which an nual budget of SI.5 trillion, the federal gov totaled S184.2 billion in fiscal 1990, does not ernment can be viewed 35 the nation's largest lend itself to a conceptual geographic break business enterprise. An employer of nearly 3 down. million civilians and more than 1 million ac T he grants category is defined in accor tive military personnel, its contractual agree dance with the Budget oj the United States ments with pri vate businesses approach 5200 Government. Its components are the many formula grant programs allocated among the bi llion annually. The federal government is nOI merely a provider of goods and services; states, some project-based grants (such as the program for Construction of Wastewater Treat it is a major national economic activity. ment Facilities), and a variety of reve nue shar As such, the distribution of federal dollars ing paymems to the states (such as payments among the states is of great interest to public in lieu of taxes for land owned by the Tennes officials and citizens alike. C hoices made in see Va lley AUlhority). These programs are de Washington about where to locate or close tailed more in Thble 6.34. military bases, where to buy tanks or compu Table 6.35 contains the distribution of feder ter printers, or how to allocate grant monies, al payroll, with some detail shown for military translate into jobs and disposable income for and other defense-related personnel. Salaries residents of a state or region. This essay and data are distributed according to place of the tables that follow describe the patterns work; commuting pallerns could resuil in a and trends associated with the geographic dis slightly different allocation in some instances. tribution of federal government expenditures. if they were to be taken into account. Table 6.36 displays the disuibUlion pattern Categories of Federal Spe nding for direct payment programs,which represem the largest category of federal expenditures. The U.S. Census Bureau has been tracking Included here are the Social Security pro the geographic dist ribution of federal spend grams, Medicare, food stamps, veterans bene ing since 1981 . For reasons largely associated filS and other payments for individuals. with data collection procedures, the expendi The procurement data in Thble 6.37 repre ture data shown in Table 6.33 are grouped into sent the federal government'scontractual pur ri ve broad categories: chases of goods or services. T he distribution • Grants to state and local governments is based upon prime contractor place of per • Salaries and wages for federal employees formance. Unfortunately, no data are avail (including the military) able on subcontracting and its redistribution • Direct payments for individuals effect. The table covering all other direct fed- • Procurement • Other direct expenditures (primarily David Kellerman is special assistant for Programs. research grants and agricultural Governments Division, Bureau o r the Census. U.S. subsidies). Department o f Commertt. The Council of State GovernmentS 419 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES eral expenditures is Thble 6.38, which contains and other direct spending also exhibited pat data for agricultural programs (subsidies), re terns that renected the innuence of a variety search grants and other program areas not of factors. That will be discussed in more de classified elsewhere. tail later in this essay. The data in Table 6.39 represent the value Federal expenditure pauerns differed when of federally guaranteed loans, direct loans viewed on a per capita basis and were more made or insurance liability. These do not equitable in appearance, as previously men necessarily equate to federal expenditures for Honed. The five states in which per capita the programs shown, federal expenditures were the highest differ completely from those in which total dollars Is Federal Spending Equally Distributed? spent were the highest. On a per capita basis, federal government expenditures were high The Census Bureau data on federal expen est in Virginia (S5,874), followed by Alaska ditures are compiled and presented in abso (55,867), New Mexico (55,703), Maryland lute dollars, as well as per capita amounts and (55,671) and Massachusetts ($4,949), In those percentage distributions among the states, states, there are either significant federal in The tables following this essay contain the ab stallations, a sizeable federal work force rela solute dollar amounts for federal fiscal 1990 tive to overall employment, a major industry (October I, 1989, to September 30, 1990). with sizeable federal contracts or some com In one sense, the data are remarkable in bination of these factors, that they show the federal govemmenl spend Virginia'S naval facilities, ship-related indus ing large amounts of money for each category tries and proximity to the District ofColum in every state area. This pattern is more evi bia make the federal government a major dent in the per capita statistics, For 1990,46 economic force in that Slate. Alaska has large of the states had federal expenditures within amounts of federally owned land and a size 51,000 per capita of the national amount of able military presence in relation to its private S3,974, and 28 states wert within 5500 of that sector economic activity. Massachusetts, on amount. The distribution, on a per capita the other hand, contains numerous Defense basis, was rather equitable. Department contracto~ and during the laller Overall, the federal government spent more part of the 19805, benefited from the defense money in California (5116 billion) than any buildup, generally, and the Strategic Defense other state during 1990, New York (570 bil Initiative, in particular. lion).1btas (S58 billion), Florida (551 billion) At the opposite end, for 1990, those states and Pennsylvania (S45 billion) rounded out with the smallest amount of per capita feder the top five stales in terms of absolute dollars. al expenditures were North Carolina (S3,043), That these states were at the top should not Indiana (53,051), Wisconsin (53.052), Vermont be a surprise, since much federal spending is (53,140) and Michigan (53,142). directly related to population. Yet the state distribution also varied among Factors AHeCiing the Geographic the different types of federal expenditures. Distribution New York. not California, was the destination of most federal grant dollars, despite Califor Benefits accruing rrom rederal expenditures nia's greater population. New York state had should not be measured purely in terms of a higher level of participation in the Medicaid dollars spent in one state or another. Public program than California, and Medicaid alone goods and services provide, at the first level, accounted for more than 550 billion in annual intangible benefits for all citizens in the long federal grant expenditures (or about one-third term, Such is the case for spending on nation of the grant total). al defense. space exploration, educatjon, and The state distribution of procurement dol so forth. lars, direct benefit payments for individuals, There is. however, the reality of economics salaries for civilian and military employees, that leads people to look at any activity in 420 The Book of the States 1992·93 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES terms of its measurable contribution to an o n a moderate scale. The category of federal area's well-being. Such is the case with the fed spending that changes most frequently, in level eral government and its budgeted spending of and trend , is procurement. About 70 percent much more than $1 trillion annually. of th is category has been defense-related There is a small amount of flexibility in the thro ughout the 19805, but even non·defen se geographic dist ribution pattcrn of federal ex procurement can shifl considerably. penditures, but it is limited, especially in the At least part of the geographic shifting that short term. Decisions about major shifts in occurs for procurcment is attributable to the spending, whether locational or programmat statistical nature of the data. The procure ic, must be agreed upon in the political arena, ment amounts represent contract act ions dur and this usually results in a series of com ing the year. Si nce some contract actions can promises. Military base closings are a good cover multiple years, a state with large feder example. The issue of what to close is a sen al procurement in one year can have an off sitive one, with efforts made to keep efficiency year immed iately thereafter, only to show a and national need as the basis for the de significam dollar increase when the contract cisions. cycle repeats it self. Such is the case for fed It is no accident thai so many of the fed er eral contracts in Kentucky associatcd with the al grant programs contain not ouly compli purchase of coal by the Tennessee Valley Au cated allocation formulae, but also "noors" thority, for example. o r "ceilings" that prescribe limits on benefits Expenditures for grant s and direct benefit lost o r gained. For this reason, grant spend payment programs, on the other hand, were ing is very equitably distributed among the more stable during the 19805 and changed states o n a per capita basis. o nly graduall y in response to demographic In addition to the politics of compromise, drifts. twO other factors that affect the distribution Through the 19905, there could be more sig are demographics and geography. Demograph nificant shifts in the distribution pattern of ics includes population, usually (but not al federal spending. The most important issue ways) positively related to federal spending in will be shifting fede ral budget priorities. Re an area. It also includes population compo ductions in defense spending, in both re lative sition. Florida, with a heavy concentration of and possibly absolute dollars, will significant ret irees, has the highest per capita federal ex ly affect the distribution of federal payrolls penditures for the Social Security programs, and procurement. Decisions about military for example. base closures wi ll be watched closely by sena Geography is a more straightforward factor. tors, representatives and public officials from Major naval racilities could not be put in Kan the targeted areas. Decisions about weapons sas, for example, no r would surplus wheat systems, ships, submarines and military air storage silos be located in Florida. Geography craft will be equall y monitored. Such is the also affects private contractors, a factor im nature of federal spending when disaggregat portant in {he distribution of procurement ed into geographic component s ra ther than dollars. Overall, the distribution of federa l expendi program or need-based component s. tures is a complex issue involving procurement References: choices, political compromises, geography a nd demographics, in addition to the basic Readers interested in additional data about the element of national need for any given pro geographic distribution of federal government gram or activit y. funds should consult the annual Census Bureau publication Federol Expenditures By Stale, from Recent Trtnds which the accompanying tables .",'Cre extracted. Ad ditional geographic detail is available in the annual Shifts in geographic federal expenditure Consolidated Federol Funds Report series. also patterns occurred during the 19805, but only from the Census Bureau. The Council of Stale GOllernments 421 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.33 SUMMARV DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS. BV STATE AND TERRITORV, FISCAL YEAR 1990 (In millions of dollars) SuNOl ",,-... , MIl 1txW,., __ ..... -_. _ .. -.- ...... /.- "'... ~ UIIIIM SU ... (oJ SI .OO2,703 SIM.'ll $1016.095 "" .... "".UI sn,m 11,l61 Z,l01 •. m -,.,.. ,- 'M ,~. un m ,- 15.0'1'2'.n' "",.on ." ),661 ,"'- ...... '" .M ,.no'm m'" IU.102.. '" n .9)2 51 ..... '" """- 11,'016 H."". l.11'I .-- 14.'16 1.'l9 2.'" ,.'" '.043 ... 14,139 1.971 1.261 ..... ""'_""" ...... 1,lft '.'U .. 51.J59 ' .51'"6 6.596 n.Al..'" 6.616•• '"" .-...... 21.lft l,IJfi '.'21'" 10.'J9 ... '-'" ,. 11 ...1111 '.461 ... 2.166 ,.'" ,.w ... 1.103 ,.'" ..till ...... ,,, '.1" 12.687 l,601'" 1.J11 t ...... -.. , ...... "t6,915.... '" 10.0:' 1.97'"1 10 ..11 ...... '.ill .... ,., ... .. '" '.m '.~ 1.5l' Iii ...... 9.'3' 1.02 1 ,.~'" ,..., 1.11I "",.n, ...... :: u.,:. ,.- 1.911 7.l67 l.OlO ~ .. , ...... , 15.1 16 un 1.863 1.661 2.)U ..'" ,~ , ., ... ••• n.lll' .92' 1.)54 6.101. ,.'"9.116 "'.., ...... 2.ln• ",_••• m , .. H.rn un 1,64' n,ljl l.lll "'1ttoIau .. H.'" '.151 1.'ll 19.671 ....,.... M' "'1._. 15.on ,.'" ,.... ,.... 2.0'/' 1,1Jfi 10.066 ,.m ..,n 1.616 1.171I.'" 10.191 6.961 .- ..... '.m t.'12'" J.14' on ,.... G' "-...... '" fl' J.IoI6 '" ...... "- '.'"' .1" ... 1.176 •• N",II~ , 1.559 "''"G> '"• s.....m.., .. '.m 'M'" lUll ,.m ...'"'" ".m '.'" " s....1'0", !>I, ...... W, '" 1IQ.. • ..,) 15,761 'J" ,.'" '.ill .... '.611 ,.'"'" ...... lO.m- 1.INI ,.... "II.~ 1.'92 m s... DIll... . UIO ,.m ,. '*' n.920 '.m'" '.m'" 21.715 ... ..,. ""'"- 11.1JOoI ,~, 6.'29 a.-... : ,'.'" I.IM ,...... ", ,-,I> ...... ".:. " 6,llj ',IQ 2U" ' .In t.l"..'" ' .)1' m ou s-,. c..-.... ,.~ -,- n.664 '.m 6.197'"" ,...... s..,. I,.... ,.'" ., 1.1U '" T_ .,~, II.Of' l.111 'm 9.41'0 ,... ". ,_ . n.ll7 .....'" U.'" 11.201 ,.... "~ . 6.511 ..- ,.... "-.-1 .. 1.712 ."m ..." •. w ,.'",~ '" \' ~"' . , .. !.llJ 10.lOl'" !l.n, 10.11141 1.11." w..w.f,'''' .... M.'"2O. lft ,.... 9.1U ).IN) WOOl \' ..1111 ...... ,.~ 1.'''' •• 411 \1' ...... 01. , •••••..• .... '" l4.m u» 1.197 9.114 1.:16)'" '" "',....t., ..... ,.... I.'" ... ,w ,.. '"H 0I0C, or c...... I7 .JSJ 1.711 9.439'" 1.961 Ul6 ,,_.s._ ~ , '." G ...... ,,., ,w on• ..... "'_ IIIIoMo '".. , " , ...." Itlrf '" J.(1I2 "• :Si i ;, u.s. \'ltrIo ..... '." " ,.... , '"" s...u..... u.s. ~ oI'eomn...'" .... 1Iu ••• uol'llIceen-.r_'" ,.) llIdudn IIJIdiIl,jbllood" _ : SJfI2 mUIioa'" /0111 .... 10 OI_lIIId ~ II? .u /01 F&trII r_ 19'JO. local 5154 .iUlooo '''' ...... Ieo lIIId .... S1 422 The Book of the States 1992--93 FEDERAL EXPEN DITURES Table 6.34 fEDERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY AGENCY AND FOR SELECTED PROGRAMS. BY STATE AND TERRITORY: f ISCAL YEAR 1990 (In thousands or dollars) 0.__ c_ FO The Coun cil of State Governments 423 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS-Continued t::-Itrwr/otll>! FENA· ~.'"- SUUl>fl>liw ...... ""'" .. "(1F';;!j ...... , -, _ ,..".., -,--_ ..'" """"" ...... - "'- "..... (bl lI_SU""ol SI,079,rn 12,29),t92 11,161.l11 IU,loI6,OOO 1!,l14,CIOD- ,",,110."4 -- -- ~," ' .2'J --ro ... --- ".... _ MAO' )1.'" ~ .... ~w ',111 n.119 " , .. '.fl4 ..... '.W 39,11"1 ..", ."" ....,110 7,161 "n-.... , .. ". 11.016 un 109,1(11 •. w ... '",y .... ,)11 ,,_ ., U,066 6.169 ',In 4).'" 7.716 .."1.m CoW_ ".lS1"'" 1ll.'99 Ill,4II' 1,1)0,'" 46,lll ),169,906 .... ,• )n~.'".m c..- ... ".16) 14,111 ,.... 10,0" '9,360 J05.'lIfi m 62,49] c.. Uk... ,. lun 42.'" ..~ 14U16 ~ ... 61l,4" '01.91' 1.91) ...... ).fl' ...... no ~ .... l6,no 47.149 n,w 1,4l6,6040 1,171 no.w.- .. ,,"" "6,'''' '.~'" :m.w " 166.0l0I Goo 424 The Book of the Siaies 1992-93 FEDERAL EXPEN DITURES f EDERAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS- Continued Off/« 01 JOUIn 51"" iOUl~ FAA- y,bM ...... ~ .., ••• 51~~.,,"" A ...... ~ /~"n ~~'_~I /Ii,~ ...' Itul;,~" w_ A ll."".., ~;o.. _of...... ,. '.--"";0.. bw., ,....." ...- ''''''/~''II .-" ,-- .",OOulWiM U.,'" SUo..,. ' SoII.S05 " ,~ A"'_ ... » .... • •• '1 ll. I:" Ill.lU..- 1•• 9ll "'.711 calif_ . ... 9-1.911 .S."" 11l.791 1~1.661 " 1•• 019 "7.9~ Uti.• l ~ . 11.901 >.>00 lS,110 :"9.97' ...'" SI.L'9 ,.. .)6.1162 C~, .. n.~1 UIO ".1l0 19l.ll2 • 9.216 46,1)7 lIS.119 Dob...... 11 ,000 2,116 7,7ll 'M • •2 71 104.997 ,_. 66.9lJ ".002 10.0$2 . ".""71,2S9 .. 9l.04S 92.996 I.109.nl (:.or." 11 •• 91 ..'" .7.'7. 116.71'\1 M 41.913 17.III 112.096 " ... oiI • 6.07' I.n' 10.11' 1Z-I.6S7 11.109 1• •416 1"'.136 14.M Mil ,.... 17.411 m.m " 1.911 2.117 171.601 1111 _ •. 1".11. '.6So1 1lO.91S 502. 11'\1 ,~ 11.964 JZ-I .l69 1,60"'-'(16 I ...' ••• •• lO,~' ,.... )',911 2$9. 191 .o.lJ7 11.OS7 6Ol,l54 1o... . '-'" U611 lUO) 156.ISo! '" 11.796 16.11' lIS.", K ...... 16,60S ,.'" 11.$06 '6I.U, 10.S62 ..... 171.9" K '~I" ~ ~ ."'16 MIlO 29.B7 160.119 2019 II •• S(I S11,60 1 Lo_I", ••• ...... S(I.l77 J.l29 36.678 XlI.S12 9.1'2 .ao.O$2 62l.SlS ~h l .. 11.064 2.(16' I'I.OSS 66.112 4,.1' 10."1 In.126 ...... 1.611 46."2 )6(.90) IJ •• 5I 617.2.7 ~ .t) """ ....IS' " ".'" ~ ...... ~ ... '" ..... 74.688 '.llS ".~ IIU20 22.11'\1 13U67 841.117 ~ k . I,. • . 46,744 '.71. 116,088 ))6,.21 " 11'.'0 n,.... 1,~7,162 ~ I."""" .""", " .770 . .061 ~l.ISI ~.~ '" 19 •• 29 )Ull S67.7'7 ~ """"'HI ...... · 11,'" 2,'" 21,4}9 114.2'1-1 " ,.... $OS.o-U M I<.o.rl o4O.671 7 •• 10 ~9.()IO 171.lM "M ll....IOI" 116.'36 6J'.1l1 ~O .IO •• ll.9)2 ,.~ 11.)42 ,»,861 1.610 ,.'" 1lI.04I s_. 10.792 ,.'" 1'I.m 101 •• 19 ,.'" '.' 71 Ufi.l.86 N<->...... ,.... 16.)20 ~ .... ,U 21.21) 50499 1)9.6-16 _ " ••"..,1 .. '.616 1.1)' 11.0'1) H.1OI •.m ).110 126.SIS s ... J...., .. Ilj.OIl 1• •Ufi &1.021 lH.1I01 12,6l9 22I,JOt 977.120 _M...... ~ .... 1.729 16,091 ".m "~ I• •m 10,921 - ,...... nO.n, 20.'" 2O'iI.')1 m . 2.911 "l.617 !,71J.717"'.'" s .... <:.roho ..... n S.))J 49.971 ....lIS.109 '" ,~ :9.no 16-.9lO 129 •• 21 N... . I,..... U '.160 1. 1l1li 11.006 10• • 12 •. ~ I.ll' 1l6.J4' 01010 .. IOS.6lJ 11 .)7) ".1l9 oIOJ.1JJ • ~ .... 109 •• 11 1.)19.«16 Ol...... 5O.lll ]0.7$9 17• •917 " 10 •• " 1),lll 451,016 IS.no ..,~ l6.UZ 151.816 1l.1" !Il.S61 U I.ln P... l" ...• 1.,.506 12.m"" 112.390 151.11) 60,01' 119,4]0 1.7S1.611 1t_ I.oI_ . 1.ltIQ 2.677 16.569 1:16.1 16 ..... I.UI 1$7 •.,,' Cwoll•• " --s-,. ~ ."" 6.74Z 21."1 160.60S ~ 11.0-" II..lZ-l 416.01' Ts..,~ ...... 1_ .... 01. 11.S66 ,>', ..m fl.'" ,... 1S9.744 ,.~ . 1.0l0I .. '" 17,,)1) "9.697 110•• " l'.S16 T ..... "'92.U).45' 2).)17 ')9• • 2) 1.026.192 ., 71.727 107.911 1.926.')6 til.. ... l.'" l.U' 27.S86 IlI.OSJ 11.21. 21.9" ll2.20Z \ ....- , 4.7., 1.191 6.0l6 SoI.' 1'\1 " ,.'" ' ,7ll IOU'! \·IrJl·· 4l.111 '" )7,SlO J16.-"'O 'M" 1',20 )1.066 109.117 W ..... I.. 'o. U,SI. .."OS. 61.22' ~.'" M n.", 7I.Il' 607.9).6 W OOl \"1 ....1 • . 10.111 2.719 lS.m 101._ S.)16 6.J91 1II.091 Wlw ...... ) '.)06 ••61) '11.JoI9 lll."" ',j9 19.91 1 1l.436 i!OUIl 101"1°.. 1 • • •• . ,.22 ")'n 9.022 111.060 7. 11 , l,m lXl.1I1 Oh'... r CoL ... bI. 16.7$9 1.429 16.20) 67.0SO J:",119 'IS.95) A ...... s...... 1.11) 1.GSl'" ~ .... (;.g.", ·.ii M' lZ6 '..ow 75,l1S 1'1'0. Morb .. I...... '" ." 1,"1 SO.026 "-lo ll...... 76~ 20,)11 ~ '" XI."1 1.1I49.90S >.'"'" .. 6.177'.16' 61.U7 u.s. n r." I...... 9,049 1.0)1 J.l67 :so..fTt: u.s. I)q>o." ....., or COI.U.w.... ""tt. u or ,II< C.n ..... FnJtrgJ (bl S«Iioa. poor ...... 10 Pllblit.....,an: S«Iioa I '"Ply ...... '0 """. &p..... m._ b, SI~I. for fUul 1"...... /99fJ. PllblN:...-n The Council of Siale Governments 425 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.35 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR SALARI ES AND WAGES, BV STATE AND TERRITORV: FISCAL VEA R 1990 On thousands of dollars) ~.B6.'.u Uf• ." • .., AlllIIo_ 2.1~JOoI I ...... u UI.761 .~"., "'I."J G.161 In.101 AA_.__ 1.11'.lt) W.n> 611l,102 601.11' "'.'" 119.1It1 M.... )I'.~ An...... 1.00I6.1Z' "UM 66),n4 .,., ".'"",111 119.no .26.2" 6Jl.I!II I:U,)6oI .. m ..,2 .19.2OJ 21'.026 69.U' 1l""1 "'-'" Ml.421 ""' ..... 11.14J ...., 10."",611 '.)lo.m J,99l,121 l76,~1 ',Il9.l19 l .942,291 J.Nl.6IO c...... 2.m.UJ 1.z.w.J1O '50.0l0I '''.1'' to.610 )94.)21 S26.116 ~.- c-** .. 1.266.'" Jll.611 )45.671 ,.,.w "'.""6 I".flj) SlUG? 215.990 1)cU ..... 113,669 I".IOJ 1:A.lll 9... :1-1 ll.... 50.76' 11l.')1 "'6.1Il 6.m.65' 1.'lJ.OM l.m.m 2.:1-19.601 1,..12-1 1.021.:161 1.'.... 20(, 1.126.ltd .Gt-ortIo- ...... 4.426.611 2.411.1102 U09.llI 1,Ol6.119 2$2.1n 1. IOU71 'OU21 I.D.J'" II ...· ...... 1.165.102 ' .911.l-4' 1.266."'.19 I.m.ll' ' l.711l 'n.CM6 11l.1l7 Ill.'» 14_ ...... 501.111 I'I.~ "1.7ll Ill.542 19.210 lI.7A 101.1" UJ.506 IUl_ '.7S5.00s I,no."'" &IIi.on 71l.66I IIl.:l64 644.411 l.tooI."6 1.)20.01) I...... 1.800.1" 716.OJl 506,110 11J.llil 11l.12I .79.:Al VI.,91 U1.," low ...... 'Jl.111 110.ln M.'" 10.69) ~.'" 44 .915 197.997 m.ou 1.""'.629 ''''.116 '911.12-1 -."1 131.$63 117 •.,2 :w4.6IIl "' ...... )71.110 m~ ", ...00<1<, • 1.911.211 1.092.fl9 nU7I 6J(.4:16 1,..911 446. 7l IAII...... 1.I6J.)60 916,00l 662,11) "2._ 109.tOJ... '" ISl,617 "".'49 501.609 Mol .. , •• ,. j60.'~ m.o.! 110.'1' 111."2 19.17' Il.m 113.11) lOoI.:W M..,...... '.IOO.JIII 2.))9,160 911.047 715.9}1; 14!.109 1.'ll.11l "1.691 1,999.7)0 M-"_It 1.6"6.9$4 719.162 BO• • l' 116,54' Ill.llJ "'.~ 1.107."7 799,1') MIdIIt •• 2.'11.94' ...... m.", II1.m 111.'" lI),l41 1.1 ....732 ~.'" UU.llS "'.W 115.406 ll.W 110,1'1 9Ull 66'.lll "2.0lD .,-M_"...... , .... 1,lI1.7l4 719.0)9 ....m nO,n4 91 •• " 120.790 U I,0I61 167.114 ",-..m , .. 2.ln,619 I.INbl loOJ.91) 1l4.9.16 161._ 62.!1.lI' "' .... "'.m '1l.1l6 160.1" 1ll,"'2 94 .912 16.SlO lI."l ...... ""- fll.Jlt nUll m.'" 37.179 1l6, ..1 llura "'IA.l'Ol .... Noo"'" . • _..... ""S.71S 111."S 251.'" 16l.'"ll,.ltD 16.91'9 st.176 1J),617 2OO.)1l -.Neoo II ...... , •• :: ,~ 21,)" ' ''.7'''' .... ~.'" "' nl.l" '" ~J....,. ,...... "'.'" 1.)94.J9I ).16.6011 191.lIT 1'),ll-4 "7,~7.... 1.4IU6l "'.OW... s.-.. "' ...... I,U'.l7l 710 .• m._ nII.l91 ~.w lll.606 U7,l9J otto.991 -,~ Ull.m 1,l901.fll 740.94' lJ7.0Il 1Ol." '54.001 1.140.1-41 1•• ,(171 S..tll c..-..t. ),*.069 l,llS,106 1,I94.l1l 1.771.711 1.,.710 ...... , "'.711 '5O.1Sl N«t.oa... '10.119 192.01' 21'.JlI 2<1.711 n .... 91.996 12-1,'" J,911.94l 1.67',076 "'.'"SI'.lst J6J.'" 1S2.107 1,1S9,9I1 I.lIl.OII 11.111 "... 10.16' vitpolo ...... ••..• 10.lO3.117 7.\100.0601 . ...l.llS 1.9IlI.m 1,7".749 1.'96.073 W ...... c;: ...... 3.)1).609 2,160.077 1.119.2Il 1.0trI.116 "Ill'."6.IO'l ..."'.7" "' 147.17' WOOl V.I• ...... 600.0" 96.0'17 ".621 lUll 11 .190 "'.'"50.'54 lO3,nl lOO.l61 "'...... iI ...... 1.196.670 J19.nl 191 •• 10 2-1.641 I".W 17.'" "I.UI lll.598 W~ ••I .. ll•. .,1 IN.IOJ ".- 1l.619 1l.J0'l JJ.1l9 " •..xI 1)<1.166 IMoI . • ' e ...... , .. 9.'11.716 1.062.162 '1'.'10 111.017 62.191 6Ui.7l1 J17,&42 '.OSl,7I2 A_.Iio_ ... m ~ ." '.m ('...... 15O.lO1 21',ll6"' lIS.," l.!9O"' 1ll.067 ",)06 .~. M ...... I_ :'· "'.'"2.671- ~ ~ '.l"m 2.2-17 "un 119.ill IOJ.1I97 10.~ 79 J.I.611 74.J2I Ill.ll! u.s. ' ·..,.. 1...... :.: 4O •• n 6.n. '.- 'M 1.610 l.')<1 .. ", "'.'"".... --s-n-, u.s, o.-s-n_ ate--. 8u.rau of I'" Cmsu •• FtdInI KfJ" ~I_ '" 51.,. ft>r F&t.I r_ 19fIO. .. , _ RopmotN. _0 or .au",," 10 ...0 _ , o.oall __ MIl '0 ."'... duo to _1IOdioIJ. u.s. Dopo . at (.) III 426 The Book or Ihe Siaies 1992·93 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.36 FEDERA L GOVERNMENT DIRECT PAYMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS BY PROG RAM. STATE AN D TERRITORY, FISCAL YEAR 1990 (In tho usands or dollars) _ s.n.rit, ...... F_,.,,_, ~4~'1._" II~~' /Jig"",'" H _,III SUw 01 t>lWr ...... -~ ...... ~_""~I-,'"'... }tirUtWl;"., ._- Cim-III Mda., ,- ,..,-.." ~" _ v .. ,.,. Sto ... fbI •. s.o91.tM.m $16I.IOO.'12J 1:10.1'12,144 n..6U.291 S61~.9:IO $44.081."-- IJI.UU'. $l1.lJl.OoII sn,}60,J16 ~-" ~-" -- -- ".. "_ ...... '.lA.'JO 2,.J9.l1) '" ~ ..., 1.067.621 -"600.'29 726.2:10 110.'" "'.. b ...... 611.092 121.160 ....~7.710 15.4~l 19.Il4 24,62. ".'70 "".'"~ .... 17,21. """""' ...... 7.JlI.7I6 2.631.261 ...... 601.7Ol J9oI.l'" }}o.m IJO."O Art.._ ',116.).01) 1.6:11.'" nl.11I "'.'"~ .... ").017"'.!XII 462,110 :9).' 1' 1"'.)0(1 1l1 .:!9oI Coli'...... ,. '1 ....,./ioI9 16.m.W ' .U7.441 2.2.19.:101 lJII.77' 6.017.:101 l.!M.DIN l.ool,~ L96J.J9) ...... ~,6I6.l91 1.7)9.610 ' 24.0lJ ru.~I' 6S6.11l JU.721 }lun lH,2:IO 1"'.0501 Co.-,I II .....U •••••• 2.0l4.097 6U.l2' 1010.201 61.711 1ll.219 U8.061 180.21~ 0 ."" ...... 1.102."" 6'1O.Ot9 112.188 ~ 191,Jal 12 •. S$ So.t. o.h,• ...... UIl.m "".~ 1l7.98' '1.'129 191.21' ".290 91.911 · 1.266 9.719 T .._ •....•...•. 9 •• 70.429 l.OJO.I71 I.OS1. 116 611.)ll 1.24 1.~·U 69-4." ~ '20.164 (n,S I( 216.600 Tn...... lI.MI."1 U"2.6n l.m.l" 1.190.980 3.661.162 2.!6l.616 LI20.7'9j 2.lll.tlll ' . 7.201 mi • ...... 2.490.412 116.Ul 1).ol.O'M 100.).019 196.I1 ~ '''7.HJ 400."2 I Il ....2 56,621 V .._ ...... 1,01-l.711 n~.1').1 106.919 :10.156 '.'.1" N."'" ".lJO l1.716 0 .," \ ·....,.1 ...... 12 .'H.761 ).246,1'10 I.OS9.1ll S6l.6l1 1.212.782 nUll 2.162.990 1.6)1. 100 1S6.1OII W"~I.r.1"" ...... 9.121. 1&2 1.n6 .• n 8l4.... , .1O.J03 WO.191 67 1.1" 117.116 766 •• 79 l ." OO6 W ... \ ' <&1." ...... (72. 100 !.)IO.J61 lU.11l " U8' :!lI1.OI9 16l.l71 9O.110 9l.'" Wlol<...... 9.l7• •ll) J.12oI.699 1.00I6.S6l"6. "" 48oI.61l I.Ml .'" 807.1)2 212.190 1l1.1l1 111._ W,·o.'" ...•... 11O.1l44 11!6.l&l 80.019 16.967 II.OJO 49.901' " .• ll )7.712 2O. 1l4 I)bo .•1 C...... 1.'i'60.71~ lU,110 90.011) 19.48~ 28tl,S19 112.1l6 617.61. (7.JI~ '1.9Ol A_.S._ • .... lUll ".JJO l.I7J 2.4 10 I.' H Guo ...... 1).199 11.172 MJO 1.27) 2.127 11 .1'" S .. M.riMlhlo... . J.611 ..'" n.'"" U> , ...... Illco ••••• l ..... 7.697 1.0n.lll 461 .999 S60.910 IM.9:IO 209.!2' 102 .771'" ,..,.. I ;til.2911 u.s. \'Irttoo 1110 ... . ::· ".196 11.601 1t.0S6 '.692 '.'" ) .722 , ,761 1.56' . ,6l9 Soc ,_"",.. '" mol 01 ••bIt . The Council of Slale Governments 427 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIRECf PAYMENTS-ConUnued ....,e- N..... ,- 01' ,- -.. 5Mff Of_ H_ ...... -..... "'" ...... '" ...... _. .~" U..... s.-(bl SI6.0101--._ SlI--,7.7.111 SIl-,99II."" U.l9l.Hl- $1.323.6:11 SA.?IO.'I' ---ll,J70.IOO ---SI.}Il.m 110.'1l.101 -- ....Oll --- ,., ... -"UI."I lXl.7<19 ".. 91 ,096 UO •• U.n' ...... ~.110 .. 7.911 1.l71 ...... n.97l lUIS •.' 1. -A_ . m.$I1 112.nl U9,l52 53.191'0" 7t.16J'.'" M-'" 12.'79 ..". 116.119 AO_ m .... 166,)1' ,,,,m 'MOl w,w '" ,... m 9017,076 ?Ol,*","0" . 100.lll1.1" """- l.lU.1Jt 1,"VU7 ,., .., "' ... , 11'.077I'.'" W.9oI! ...... 221.167 In,_ n ... w.... ~.I CM 12.'" 11:11.1" lloI.'" "V .'".... ".no Ill,'" "U,n,.... 1'.J9J ,.... 69."1 U •.., XI,lX1 ~.761 U"" 1.'" 10.<191 '.41 1.HO 2'.'''' ,_ . 1.1'1.159 6OI.ttJ .... ". Xll,m 161.'"""" 211.'" 11.7'" 90.111 "1.1'" -Gtota/I-- ... "'.ow "'.ill ., .... 11».• ~ .... m.m 11.'" ".m 199.791 H ••• .!'.Ul JU9J ".77' 6,9)(1 11 ,001 1.'H lJ.7Ol ,.,., 6U" ...... 17,'i02 21."9 II.!" 7.1901 6.).1 63.901' W,,"'" ..., - 169,1" I .... 16.171 621,11, ,---- .. '1:11.171 n,. •n ,., .... m ,...... 2.66,961 "un 111.641 97.9013 ".~ n.'" U.16oI 211,074 V ..., ""'" ~ 79,JJI ....JI,771 6.11..1 161.911 •• ...... UO.t-19 109.CM' '7.5.10 lJ.l.!l ~- ...... Ul.6lt 61,1.1J ",f}] u.m ..... )1,7'1 n.919 1,0'1 191 .111 11. ..1 ..... ' 197.011 ,., .... ))),991 16,'79 JI.4O! 11.019 11.0901 XI.901 l61.lOII l.ooW.•• ....•...•.. )19.036 loIl,1-4I ,..,.,,, 8l.'lO 111.12-4 141.'" 17.'" 1'.411 m,~ Mill ...... II'-'U U.W '9.9)9 11.136 15,711 IJ.lOS 61.971 M ••,...... 15<1,1)0 161,oIIH".14 l(M,lIS 1l1,.!71 42.71' 66.CMl 11.611 !1.6lt'.71' 111.'70 M __...... ' lI.919 1-69.741 l(M.9)9 111,161 ... ", ., ,.I6l 11.161 2MI0 149.lm M~ ..... 'lO.966 169.611 661,", 171,071 IM,au 1/19."'" 42.611 It.IIO l6J.'70 MI. _ VO,l14 101 .10 1.... 861 1117.111 100• .101 JI,16I 'Ull 11.691 ,...... M...... :.::::::. ~,61' lal.11 1 .wt.110 ".0)7 11.112 lIS .... 1 lUll .... MloMorI ...... m.914 119.9011 )10.190 10l.916 97.914 tl.m 15.1'1 1,,701 la),I". ".911 11.160 ".m 1S.9S1 21.701 ".179 ,.'" ,.... 11.607 "-N_. 111:1.1 <19 n."" $I.'" ",)11 11,119 61.19' ,.... I2I,6S) Sn...... ~."" ...... D.'" '" Il.m XI ....' l,lIl 9.,1) ".m Sno ll ~ ".illlUll 1'.1M u .... ~.m ", ..... J.I.~l n,l4I s ...... ,. loll.'" 261.762 2S6.sn ,..,'" ...... ~ ".)011 loI','" .., 1 199.011 S .... Multo ..•.• 143;'1 '1.709 11',11:11 ...... l6.61' 47.166 11.106 7' .0400 s .... vtot. 911 .0101 I.OM.'lI 1.01'.122 61).911 l71."1 lJO.7" lSI,Sst''''' M ...... ,., s ..... c..tIoo ..... "',m 361.SXI 179,436 110.061 11.'" 16'._ ~o~ ~.I96 163.l'6I S_ DooIie4.1 ...... n.'12 17.4U ~.'" 16.lA1 D.m ..... 11 ....' 1.'19 ".lM 6/19,9)01 '19,'" ~,..., "'.- 119,'" 1.10,'21 ".... J9.'" W.)77 :I6O.711 '~.m 11.1.')1 5<1.617 ".169 69.'" 1I .ll1 D .... 91.2Ql ...W I6.J76 161,l26 "'.lOl .111,767 ' ).90:1 IU19 19.011 111.91' ...... ~,..., - ").INS . . " .9)1 17'1,666 H.619 1.ln...... ,-,1>"" - .., .., .... ,., n.~ 11,66) u.~ ...... "'ll.m .... 1I.l69 9.111 S. I99 U ...... - '--,- 141.91 • 111,6loI "..". 62.611 <19.'" 101 ..... 9 10.117 t ••9U 92.Q s-u. DooIi_ ••• D .... loI.661 11.911 uon 11.1'. ).,141 ,.... ».". T_ n...'."'1 '" .,"'" )71..... 91.411 ".m I ll.1U M.no 'J.6JJ 111.011 T_ ...... ::::::::: 1.114.'" 69).6010 1.'21.111 m.m 46,)oIS 1"9,112 91.961 ...... 71 •.,] n.991 1I.OSO "'u .m.... 5<1.196 15.166 9)."1 "~ D.'" 11.91' v...-...... -'" m", D.~ 11.102 6.711 •• OW 6.lJ' ,.... ".~ 41' .111 1+I.)oIS ....W IlO,ll7 ".011 95.917 lUJI .... 16 ).16.5<11 'W_:f;'''' ...... 1St._ 166.4.10 171.071 n .... 71.146 ~.>., It.96I 111.921 WOOl' ...... 161.061 119,107 192,4IJ ",W loI.n 4 11.119 •.6.115 '16,95J w...... nUC6 169.916 110.911 ....11.190 SI,UO SM19 9.12.1- "1.69] Vt"14_1.ot ...... 21./190 1,45<1 10.'" ... 10.561 1.1" 1.'11 ,.,., '''"''".- 0loI 0' Colo ...... ".41S 51.111 'I.au ',.JIII 11 .367 IS.I'" 11.627 )01 .619 A_oSo_ 1.191 m '.m Cu...... 1,756 ".16l 4.0t) '" ,. " N•. M_I...... on 1.TI' '.'" " P-,o !l1e. .. 2IJ,I" l2l.1-41 1010.".' 11.661 1.".1 lJ.m"' u.s. \."-'" hi• ...; . ,.W I ••:..oj J,211 ."'" ~ ,.... ~. u.s. o.pan_ 0' eom-.... l1li ...... 0' oN Census. F~ (b) I~ 1IfIdItrributfdlllOdleJ, $II.J" mItIooI tor dvIIian roc:ImoI rctn- ~.}' St.",., Fw..t r_ 1m. _all6 428 The Book of the States 1992·93 FE DERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.37 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS-VALUE m AWARDS, BY STATE AND TERRITORY: fiSCAL YEAR 1990 (In thousands of dollars) _. ,4*011/#< SI.~ '" ",I/#< , ':r.:J-'• "i_ ~ .. -~ Sf,l.06.fIM SfI.S1',9J1 UooH ... ~u ... (., ' 1".,,0... 1 'm.1l9.019 - 1.911.1'2 1.410.)l-I A ...... U".!6/) ".J'9OI 7,.m ,_. H'.I " n.m -.~ 28).122 Arb.... . :: ).667.0U 1.1l-l.", $'l.U' A ...... )90,611 )10.0)<1 ) The Council or State Governments 429 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.38 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR OTHER PROGRAMS, BY STATE AND TERRITORY: FISCAL YEAR 1m an Ihousands of dollars) a- NASA ____ fl/H..,• .. _*-'lioH_ SlMrOf' OIW H_S 430 The Book or the States 1992·93 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES n :OERAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES FOR OTHER PROGRAMS-Continued /)uWt 1!!!.1"'~fS "'. '_I!!!. /ltdiridoMb I?!f""-'" 1>1 Alflcwlrwr F_""~ c~ 11''''''', "'~ ,...... "f'tnI1I,," JUbib..,.... ",,{,- ..ebiliw .... ""'"'"~ -~ AN til"'" SUI<' 00' -,- ...... ~ ~ til"'" ..... ".y...... , 1JIq.... " .. ...'- ~-. ... v_St.'""""""'".. n•• ·.. S1'.l6'.116 U.9JJ.l!6 II.BO.SIO 51.'11.61) $7 ....'WO IUl1.Ilt SI'.I6'."1 I .U2 22 ...., ~ l.'ll 50.'79 111.')1 A"_ .• 2".1)1 .. , 11.161 ,~. 11. 112 'IM 99.116 ",1_ .. nO.216 2.,..1 I.'" 'l.nl 1).11)" lO.no"• l,IlO I•• 'll 2J9.1Z1'" u.~ 36'."' 1.241."' caNI'"- ...... 1.6"."'" '.116 •. m ..." 1).169 '''.M 19/..190 c..IonoIe ...... '1l.501 61.1'2 n .... 2 1.9)0 21.910 ".019 ca._,Ino, .. )92.))' .M 1).691 !,s.u n6.no u...... 24,1)0 '.m 'In 2.11' 2O.ns )09,' 97 4.... , •.W 2O.92.S.. ,lo The Council of State Governments 431 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES Table 6.39 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOAN AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS- VOLUME OF ASSISTANCE PROVIDED, BY STATE AND TERRITORY, FISCAL YEAR 1990 (In thousands of dollars) F.-..H_ HowiIq / 432 The Book of the StattS 1992-93 FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LOAN AND INSURANCE PROGRAMS-Conlinued 0-,__ v...... -.;.., M«t_ 0_ F.,~I_ ..." , & iIuJ The Council or State GovernmentS 433 1< .