Taxprof.Typepad: Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed"

[The Evil Genius]

Maybe ya'll need to borrow some of our accountants?

you are gonna need them with the coming pension mess

debt cannot be passed forward to another legislature.

watch and we will learn who's figures and projections are correct.(like the 9 Billion rainy day fund)

Sure it can. And it has. BTW - that rainy day fund that Perry likes to harp on - it's already accounted for - if you listen to the Texas GOP.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/perrys-rainy-day-fund-used-up-say-some-republicans/

Just ask a Republican state legislator why $6 billion of taxpayer money sits in the bank as teachers lose their jobs. The likely answer? Because it’s already accounted for.

“We’ve got to get the message right. There’s been a lot of misinformation out there that there’s $6 billion in the fund that’s not been used. It’s been used,” said Rep. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock and no relation to the governor.

Lawmakers have already drawn down $3.1 billion of the fund’s roughly $9.5 billion reserve to cover a deficit in the current budget. Then, to make the 2012-2013 budget balance, the state’s projected share of expected Medicaid costs is underfunded by $4.8 billion — for many, a conservative estimate.

That means when lawmakers come back in two years — and without a change in federal law diminishing the state’s obligation to Medicaid or an increase in Rainy Day revenue from an improved economy — they will need most of the remaining $6 billion to pay another past due bill.

[Predicto]

You mean other than the $27 billion dollar budget hole they "fixed" via great accounting maneuvers such as pushing the debt into the 2013 legislative session, right?

I didn't say their government was well run. I said they were booming economically down there.

And they are.

[Baculus]

debt cannot be passed forward to another legislature.

watch and we will learn who's figures and projections are correct.(like the 9 Billion rainy day fund)

Of COURSE it can -- that is what it's called "debt." It happens all the time. Here is ANOTHER article which talks about this subject:

"From 2001 to 2010, state debt alone grew from $13.4 billion to $37.8 billion, according to the Texas Bond Review Board. That's an increase of 281 percent. Over the same time, the national debt rose almost 234 percent, with two wars, two tax cuts and stimulus spending."

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/07/18/3016195/commentary-texas-fast-growing.html

THIS is the reality.

Criticism of your state doesn't mean you have to protect it against outsiders at all costs.

Bac I gave you figures on actual state debt(which you wish to ignore)[/quoite]

I didn't ignore them at all. Contrary to that, I rebutted them with further details, which you, ironically, ignore. There are many, many articles on this subject, which you basically said that you were going to dismiss.

So, again, are you pro-Texan or pro-Perry. Why do you refuse to acknowledge outstanding issues?

[qiuote]a deficit would mean we spent more than we have,which is not the case...shortfalls in projections tend to happen over two ys....and yes we tend to shortchange projections to keep spending in check.:evilg:

Starting every budget with 0 also helps

And, again, you are consistently denying the facts on the ground, -- the multi-billion dollar deficit which Perry created. I fail to understand why you won't even acknowledge this point which has been clearly discussed in countless articles.

I guess your narrative is more important than fixing your state's problems. It's a bit saddening.

[twa]

Of COURSE it can -- that is what it's called "debt." It happens all the time. Here is ANOTHER article which talks about this subject:

And, again, you are consistently denying the facts on the ground, -- the multi-billion dollar deficit which Perry created. I fail to understand why you won't even acknowledge this point which has been clearly discussed in countless articles.

I guess your narrative is more important than fixing your state's problems. It's a bit saddening.

Debt is not passed on by the legislature,bond programs are done by ballot

a shortfall in projections is not a deficit...a deficit is spending more than you have

we are speaking a different language

[twa]

Since there appears to be some confusion on the shortfall/deficit or whatever

from the lady that came up with the 27B figure

In an interview, McCown said those who question the shortfall "are not being honest. They’re trying to confuse the public . . . We’re short $27 billion to do what we’re doing. Obviously, if you don’t want to do what we’re doing, then we’re not short."

the shortfall is ONLY if Texas spends as much on the new budget for 2012/13(+adjustments for growth and requests for more funding included) as the previous one

we obviously are NOT judging from the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the budget cuts

Questions from the class?

added correction...it wasn't a lady

[Baculus]

Debt is not passed on by the legislature,bond programs are done by ballot

a shortfall in projections is not a deficit...a deficit is spending more than you have

we are speaking a different language

For one matter, projected shortfalls become deficits. After all, haven't we been hearing, time and time, from the conservatives about the projected shortfalls in Social Security? And how was this shortfall addressed? By pushing it forward, into the next couple of years.

Hey man, it's your state. I fail to see why you are so determined to white wash over its problems, and I fail to see why you have no criticism for Perry's spending, but hey, I don't live there. If you want to plug your ears, all so you can "rah, rah Texas!" then it's your right to do so.

[TimmySmith]

Hey man, it's your state. I fail to see why you are so determined to white wash over its problems, and I fail to see why you have no criticism for Perry's spending, but hey, I don't live there. If you want to plug your ears, all so you can "rah, rah Texas!" then it's your right to do so.

Texas has roughly 25 million people and a 4.5 Billion shortfall. Maryland has 5 million and a 2 Billion shortfall. Care to discuss O'Malley or plug your ears.

[twa]

For one matter, projected shortfalls become deficits. After all, haven't we been hearing, time and time, from the conservatives about the projected shortfalls in Social Security? And how was this shortfall addressed? By pushing it forward, into the next couple of years.

Hey man, it's your state. I fail to see why you are so determined to white wash over its problems, and I fail to see why you have no criticism for Perry's spending, but hey, I don't live there. If you want to plug your ears, all so you can "rah, rah Texas!" then it's your right to do so.

They ONLY become deficits if you behave irresponsibly and not adjust the new budget

I'll quote myself in case you missed my other post

T

the shortfall is ONLY if Texas spends as much on the NEW budget for 2012/13(+adjustments for growth and requests for more funding included) as the previous one

we obviously are NOT judging from the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the budget cuts

Questions from the class?

You want to complain about Texas spending now after all the BS about how we are starving the poor,while letting them die,uneducated, from neglect?....SERIOUSLY????:ols

added

Long as we are on SS solvency....WTF is POTUS saying SS checks may not go out if the debt limit is increased?

How can that be if it is SOLVENT?

[The Evil Genius]

Texas has roughly 25 million people and a 4.5 Billion shortfall. Maryland has 5 million and a 2 Billion shortfall. Care to discuss O'Malley or plug your ears.

Did you fail to comprehend that at no point was he listing his state as the end all, be all? Nor was he specifically saying his state had a great budget?

BTW - the Texas shortfall isn't only $4.5 billion.

[twa]

BTW - the Texas shortfall isn't only $4.5 billion.

It ain't 27 B either..

Get back to me in two yrs

[Baculus]

Texas has roughly 25 million people and a 4.5 Billion shortfall. Maryland has 5 million and a 2 Billion shortfall. Care to discuss O'Malley or plug your ears.

Sure -- I live in Oregon now, so I am admittedly a bit behind in local issues or what is driving the shortfalls.

Sorry, but, as I said before, I know Maryland has problems and I am more than willing to discuss them, especially if these problems can be solved. So much for ear plugging. :-)

As a note, Maryland spends more money on public services. Case in point, Maryland is ranked near the top of education, while Texas is ranked as "below average":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/11/state-education-rankings-_n_894528.html

Some educators have placed Maryland as the best public school system in the U.S.:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-01-13/news/bs-ed-schools-letter-20110113_1_school-funding-education-funding-education-week

So, it's obvious that some factors, such as education, is probably driving costs, but at least some value is coming from it. So, now, value and cost effectiveness has to be reached.

Looking deeper, and I only have a few minutes to do so before I leave my computer, there appears to be a few issues, including health care costs, driving shortfalls and deficits (and it looks like a few governors are using tactics, including governors O'Malley and McDonnell from VA, are using the same tactics as Perry to push shortfalls into the next legislative session).

[The Evil Genius]

It ain't 27 B either..

Get back to me in two yrs

You are correct. They faced a 27B shortfall and cut some of it (with some of those education cuts bringing them below there own state guarenteed/mandated levels), ignored a lot of it (by pushing into into the 2013 legislative session - this isn't an uncommon tactic) and raided the rainy day fund to cover the rest of it.

That assumes also, that best case scenario happens, that state revenues don't fall.

[twa]

You are correct. They faced a 27B shortfall and cut some of it, ignored a lot of it (by pushing into into the 2013 legislative session - this isn't an uncommon tactic) and raided the rainy day fund to cover the rest of it.

That assumes also, that best case scenario happens, that state revenues don't fall.

Why would they fall?....Obama gonna screw us over?....recovery ain't around the corner?

The rainy day fund even with the withdrawal is about 6B and predicted to be 9B in 13

the projected state income is based on the recovery not happening....I do appreciate ya'lls concern though

[twa]

bump for updated map from the Economist (with 20 yr totals)

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/08/americas-fiscal-union

[The Evil Genius]

So everything green - more taxes paid that federal dollars received.

Everything red - more dollars received and taxes paid.

Suffice to say, the so called red states are mostly red in this map too.

---------- Post added August-1st-2011 at 04:25 PM ----------

BTW - the extra 336 billion that California paid over than period...would have more than solved any budget problems the state had the past 20 (really last 8) years.

:doh:

[mardi gras skin]

Suffice to say, the so called red states are mostly red in this map too.

Democrat Senators Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Jeff Bingaman sure knew how to bring home the bacon didn't they?

[The Evil Genius]

Democrat Senators Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and Jeff Bingaman sure knew how to bring home the bacon didn't they?

Yes. It doesn't hurt that a lot of DC workers are also choosing to live in the eastern panhandle of WV too.

But Byrd was the master at bringing home the bacon for his home state (and it's a good thing for WV too).

[twa]

Yes. It doesn't hurt that a lot of DC workers are also choosing to live in the eastern panhandle of WV too.

.

It would be nice to see the map broken down to reflect govt employees,military and defense employees,SS recipients,Welfare and of course natural resource extraction and agriculture.

btw, ya notice we paid more in net than ya'll?....slackers:pfft:

[mardi gras skin]

Yeah, this whole thing is a farce. Like the graphs showing which presidents were in office when spending increased but ignoring the composition of congress.

In addition to all the things you listed above, twa, I think the break down of congressional representation, population density, average wages, cost of living, and farm subsidies come in to play.

[twa]

Certainly, those all are critical with our progressive tax system

if you are making money as a state, you will be paying more out

[ABQCOWBOY]

Would be nice to see something a little more current. This, according to the article is from 2004. That's pretty dated.

[twa]

Would be nice to see something a little more current. This, according to the article is from 2004. That's pretty dated.

updated map@ post 89

even it's dated at 2009

[TimmySmith]

updated map@ post 89

even it's dated at 2009

The date does not matter. Mississippi will never pay more than NY in federal taxes, nor will Mississippi ever receive even close to what NY does in Federal dollars. To put it as a ratio attracts low flying moths to the flame.

[Larry]

The date does not matter. Mississippi will never pay more than NY in federal taxes, nor will Mississippi ever receive even close to what NY does in Federal dollars. To put it as a ratio attracts low flying moths to the flame.

Or it allows people to point out things you'd rather they not notice.

As to the date: I'd assume that, at least in the case of taxes, they're referring to "tax years". Which means that "2010" refers to "the taxes everybody filed three months ago".

If that's the case, then the data for tax year 2010 won't be known for a year.

[twa]

Or it allows people to point out things you'd rather they not notice.

Or to reinforce their faulty perceptions and provide meaningless debate and strife.

I luv this ****