Posted on 10/11/2009 5:53:24 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
U.S. states suffer "unbelievable" revenue shortages
By Lisa Lambert
Fri Oct 9, 5:59 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. economy may be creeping toward recovery after the worst slowdown since the Great Depression, but many states see no end in sight to their diving tax revenues.
Tax revenues used to pay teachers and fuel police cars continue to trail even the most pessimistic expectations, despite the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
"It's crazy. It's really just unbelievable," said Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, and called the states' revenue situations "close to unprecedented."
Most states had been pessimistic in forecasting their tax revenues for the 2010 fiscal year, Pattison said. So far, collections have fallen below even those low targets.
Lower tax revenues could lead to higher taxes or another sharp reduction in services if receipts do not show signs of improvement before year-end, as every state but
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
On average, the American woman had 2.1 children, or 1.05 children per adult.
So...I have an idea!
Any citizen that pays for the private education of 1.5 children should be given a **permanent** reprieve from any further school taxes for the rest of his life!
I've made it 1.5 children because there are some children who are catastrophically handicapped and therefore more expensive to educate.
Generally, that's a good thing. The problem is the federal government will grow to make up for the state's slack, thus centralizing even more power and control.
I think somebody's really reaching here.
Excellent post! My hat’s off to you for taking the time and making the effort to provide so much info.
I see the same thing here with my grandchildren. Some schools are excellent, others not so, and yet others the exact opposite. The key is really what support the kids get from their parents. That seems to be the biggest difference between kids who do well in school and those who don’t.
Thanks again!
severe cutting of whole Federal operations is going to have to come about.
There....you hit the nail on the head. Everything we hear from the politicians/media is all a mind-game to program us into thinking that the situation is so dire we should be grateful to let them raise taxes. If they were really serious they'd lay off one guy making $250k a year instead of two guys making $30k. Why do you need 3 people making $175k a year doing practically the same job?
Oh, and don't get me started on the lottery fiasco. That was suppose to solve all of fiscal woes for funding education, roads, emergency personnel, etc. But what do they do with it but stick it in the general fund to be re-allocated to their other pet projects, like building stadiums which the state has NO business dealing in.
Right now, all the states know their bridges, both big and small, will need repairs very soon. They need to start now to set aside lottery money so they can start repairs.
Make your reps learn how to budget. Hire people who know how to budget instead of all lawyers who make the laws, interpret the laws, and change them when they need it to do what they want.
(jumping off my soapbox)
Over the past 30 years I’ve worked for a number of companies that have downsized in response to declining sales or a slow economy. In almost every instance the first cut in headcount is 10 to 15%. If a second round occurs it is typically between 5 and 10%, depending on the size of the first round of cuts and the sales outlook at the time. Typically salaries are also frozen and the bonus plan requires the total company to hit a threshold level of profits before any bonuses are paid. Needless to say a hard hiring freeze is put into place requiring the CEO to sign off on any new hiring.
Having experienced a number of these downsizings, I’ve never seen an organization suffer from these cutbacks. While certainly the severed employees suffer, the organization itself actually benefits from the weeding out of unproductive employees (the first to get cut) and the quicker decision making that results when there are fewer people. Companies become focused on the essential mission of the firm and stop doing all of the extraneous initiatives (such as diversity training) that rob productivity. Plus fear is a great motivator. Those employees who remain with the company fear being part of the next round of layoffs so they work harder and more efficiently.
Over the past 20 years most American companies have gone through waves of downsizing, replacing people with technology or outsourcing their jobs to foreign nations. It is time government got with the program as well. I have no doubt the government could take a 15% reduction in headcount (with the exception of active duty military) and not suffer one bit in its ability to continue providing services. If private industry can do it there is no reason government at all levels shouldn’t take the same step. It will help bring expenses in line with revenues and will likely improve the attitudes and performance of the government workers remaining.
No, there is plenty of money for that spending. Simply cut all the non essential administrative staff at the various state bureaucracies like Depart of Natural Resources, EEO, State EPA 1st rather then cut essential services 1st as is the habit of Leftist politicians.
I don’t know, but where we live, library use is way up with the recession. More people checking out books, DVD’s, using the computers, etc. Some days its hard to find a parking place.
In principle, if the library were privatized and became a completely "fee for service" operation, I can see how efficiency might improve. If government had nothing to do with its operation, it would be a lot harder to sneak in general fund increases along with increases in the fees for service. In practice, I'm not as confident of the result.
Education is important to both the individual and the general populace. Public "Free" libraries have a long tradition in America, pre-dating the nutty socialist politics of the 20th and 21st centuries. To the extent that an informed populace serves the republic well, I continue to support the concept of public libraries. I'd hate to see anyone discouraged from using the library because of fees. There are plenty of people who do not seek public support who nevertheless count their pennies carefully. Some would probably be discouraged from using this resource, as would children from poor families who do not fill out the necessary paperwork. This is one "socialist" program which I find less objectionable than most others.
I guess in a perfect world, I'd rather see them as non-governmental organizations, supported by philanthropists and grateful users who recognize the value of education and free information flow and help fund it. I don't see that happening just now.
The last laugh of the Laffer curve.
Libraries should NOT be cut. Believe it or not, many people still use the library. Believe it or not, many people do not have internet. Believe it or not.......there’s bigger and better things to CUT.
Makes you wonder if there were headlines like this in 1930. I’ll bet there weren’t as many certainly.
See it works..
Signed,
Galt
the cash from the economic stimulus plan pouring into state coffers.
^
The Welfare States of America, Democrats have ruined economic conditions to the point States have to get in line for a Government hand-out
Rephrase that to:
States enact incredible spending splurges
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.