YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Should states restore recession cuts? Four arguments for and against

February 28, 2014|By Alana Semuels
  • Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback greets representatives before his State of the State speech to an annual joint session of the House and Senate at the Statehouse in Topeka, Kan. Brownback told Kansas legislators that the tax cuts he championed will spur economic growth.
Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback greets representatives before his State of the… (Orlin Wagner / Associated…)

Does spending less money on state government stimulate the economy? That’s a question raised in a Los Angeles Times story Friday about states that have not restored budget cuts made during the belt-tightening of the recession.

The story focuses on Kansas, where general fund revenues have increased but spending is still down since 2008. Gov. Sam Brownback argues that income tax cuts, rather than spending, will stimulate the economy; local government leaders say that services have eroded so much that the state is becoming a less attractive place to live.

We talked to advocates in four other states; two who believe states should not restore cuts made during the recession and two who think they should, and gave them the opportunity to argue their case.

Arguments for more spending


In his State of the State address this week, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said that he had come into office with an $8-billion shortfall and turned it into a $1.5-billion surplus. How did he do that? By cutting the inheritance tax, small business taxes and income taxes, he said.

“When Ohioans have more money in their pockets, we’re being true to the fundamental idea that made our nation great — government works for the people, not the other way around,” he said.

But Dale Butland disagrees. Butland, the communications director for the  pro-state spending advocacy group Innovation Ohio, says that by cutting taxes, Kasich has significantly downsized the amount of money the state government shares with local governments. That puts pressure on local governments to put local levies on the ballot to raise the money on their own. Some wealthy areas can do that. Other areas can’t.

“Our school districts are so diverse that you’ve got some districts that can raise a lot of money -- and a lot of us that can’t,” he said. There were 72 ballot issues around the state in November that asked taxpayers to approve new operating money for schools, he said.

Some districts that can’t raise the cash are eliminating school busing from high schools, cutting arts and science programming, and requiring students to pay fees to participate in extracurricular activities. They’re just teaching the subjects that are on tests, he said, and also shortening the school day.

“Whenever the state cuts money, it disproportionately hurts districts that can’t raise money,” he said.


Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been mentioned as a potential 2016 GOP nominee, especially since he has been credited with getting the state’s economy back on track. The state’s projected surplus neared $1 billion in January, and Walker and the state legislature hope to spend it on income tax cuts.

“Thankfully, the days of double-digit tax increases, billion-dollar deficits, and major job loss are gone,” Walker said, in his State of the State speech in January.  “We replaced them with massive tax cuts, growing budget surpluses and significant job growth.”

But Larry Arft, the city manager of Beloit, Wis., and the president of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, says that the state budget cuts have been felt hard at the local level. That’s because local governments have limited ability to tax on their own. They depend largely on the state budget process, which occurs every two years.

In the 2011-2013 cycle, municipalities took a $100-million hit, and almost none of that funding has been restored, despite the surplus. Beloit eliminated 20 government positions, including five police officers and five firefighters, Arft said, and response times have slowed. Other municipal cuts included a fund that helps cities implement recycling programs and reductions in transit and road funds for local governments, he said.

“It’s hard to be against tax cuts -- no one wants to pay more in taxes than they have to,” he said. “But restoring some of that funding to cities, making sure they remain high-quality places that are capable of attracting new business -- that’s important to any state.”

Arguments against more spending


According to the National Assn. of State Budget Officers, Michigan’s general fund is will bring in $8.9 billion in 2014, more than the $8.1 billion it collected in revenues in 2008. But it’s spending less: General fund expenditures will be $9.6 billion this year, compared with $9.9 billion in 2008. Still, Gov. Rick Snyder has projected a $1-billion budget surplus and floated the idea of tax cuts in this year’s budget proposal. But a poll conducted by EPIC-MRA, a Michigan firm, suggests that taxpayers may prefer higher spending, rather than tax cuts. In the poll, 38% of Michiganders wanted the surplus to go to education, 36% wanted spending on roads, while only 11% wanted income tax cuts.

Los Angeles Times Articles