Starting in 2008 the United States entered an economic
downturn that would become know as the Great Recession. As unemployment and prices fell, the
federal government experienced a loss in income taxes, which resulted in lowertax revenue relative to GDP. From 2006 to 2008 the percentage fell from 11.89 to 8.48
resulting in a 29% decrease. To
help fix the slumping economy President Obama and the Democratic Congress
passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which became better known
as the Stimulus Bill. The bill
invested $787 billion into education, healthcare and infrastructure mostly
through governmental grants to state and local governments. In 2008, states and local governments
received $419.5 billion in grants from the federal government; in 2009, due to
the stimulus, that number grew to $664.9 billion, a 58.5% increase. Although that number has shrunk every year since 2009 with
the 2012 grant total being $537.1 billion, the Great Recession definitely saw
an increase in federal governmental grants.
While the size of government grew at the federal level from
the stimulus, the size of the total government actually shrunk in the last fouryears. States, and to a lesser extent local governments, on a whole
greatly reduced their size. From
2005 to 2008 state and local governments increased their operating budgets and
investment by 2.5 and 3.5 respectively.
From 2008 to 2009 those numbers fell to -3.7 and -11.6. Local government from 2007 to 2009 saw
almost no change in revenue from intergovernmental grants. Since we know the federal government increased spending to
local governments during this time, its safe to conclude that’s states cut
their funding to local governments during this period. New Mexico led the way with a 10.4% cut
to its local governments in 2009-2010.
Many other states including Minnesota cut over 5% annually.
Looking at the overall results we see that tax revenue from
income, sales, and property taxes fell during the Great Recession. The federal government’s solution to
this problem was to try and stimulate the economy by giving state and local
governments a lot of money. While
this policy helped stimulate the economy, it did result in large debt for the
federal government. Most states,
including Minnesota, are not allowed to run deficits, so in order to make up
for the loss in tax revenue they cut grants to local governments and accepted more
revenue from the federal government.
Local governments saw an increase in federal grants and a decrease in
local grants. As a result, many local
governments were forced to increase their property tax rates in order to make
up for the loss in revenue.
A large part of the difference in the different governmental
responses to changing revenues relates to whether or not they
are allowed to take on debt. The
winners from the changes in governmental grants were clearly the states; they
received increased grant amounts from the federal government while decreasing their
grants to local governments.
No comments:
Post a Comment