PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : State budget hole: $800 Million (Michigan)



LMich
05-19-2007, 08:58 AM
Holy budget deficit, Batman! :omg:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070519/POLITICS/705190365&theme=Metro-State-Budget

State budget hole: $800M
No rebound until '09 for fiscal woes, economy

May 19, 2007

Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- Michigan's limping economy has ripped an $800 million hole in the state budget, and economists said Friday that they don't expect a turnaround for two years.

That means even more red ink for next year, when the budget deficit will be twice that, state officials said.

"An optimist would say Michigan's economic outlook is meager," said Sam Kahan, senior economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Detroit Branch, during a semiannual review of state finances.

The revenue estimates for the current fiscal year, $195 million worse than forecast in January, gave clarity but no immediate relief in the state's budget crisis. Negotiators for Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican and Democratic legislative leaders don't plan to meet this weekend, although budget officials say they're in constant communication.

Schools, cities, universities and social service agencies all are waiting with growing uncertainty and concern for the outcome of talks. If a compromise isn't reached within two weeks, schools have been told to expect a $122-per-child cut in a promised increase in state funding -- a cut that many have said comes too late in their year to make up.

State Democrats say the outlook released Friday bolsters the case for a tax hike, but one policy analyst isn't so sure it favors any single approach.

"It compels Republicans and Democrats to look at all three sides of the financial stool -- revenue, reforms and cuts," said Craig Ruff, senior fellow for Public Sector Consultants Inc., a nonpartisan think tank. "And it compels them to see the crisis for what it is -- not short term, but long term."

High on the list of reasons for the moribund economy here: The domestic auto market share, which was at 65 percent only seven years ago, will fall to 49 percent next year, according to a University of Michigan report. It's at least the second forecast to call for the Big Three's share of the domestic auto sales to fall below 50 percent.

"It's hard to expect anything good coming to the Michigan economy from this," said Joan Crary, a U-M economist.

The state lost 53,300 jobs last year and can expect to lose 46,200 more this year and 32,000 next year, she said.

Michiganians' growing reluctance to buy homes, cars and appliances in the down economy has contributed to the state budget shortfall. Revenues are coming in $195 million under the modest estimates made only four months ago, fiscal experts said Friday.

The chief culprit: weak sales tax collections, said directors of the House and Senate fiscal agencies and the state treasurer. Sales tax revenue is $160 million under projections.

That's because consumers who are either laid off or anxious about their jobs aren't making the big-ticket purchases that keep the economy humming.

"Sales tax revenues, which fund public schools and public safety are expected to fall again this year," state Treasurer Robert Kleine said. "As a result, we face a sixth straight year where sales tax revenues will grow less than the rate of inflation."

The state's income from a tax on home sales is off $17 million, due to a depressed housing market and business tax receipts in the languishing economy that are down $60 million.

Combined with additional spending required for rising welfare and Medicaid caseloads and prison populations, plus unresolved deficits still on the books, the state's budget hole is now $804 million, the numbers crunchers decided.

As a result of next year's gloomy outlook, state fiscal experts also lowered their tax revenue estimates for the budget year that begins Oct. 1. Tax receipts will come in $338 million under January estimates, they decided. Kleine said the total shortfall will be roughly $1.6 billion -- even if lawmakers replace the expiring $1.9 billion Single Business Tax.

Democrats said the figures prove the budget can't be balanced without a tax increase.

"These numbers should be a reality check; we cannot cut our way out of this mess without sacrificing Michigan's future," said Senate Democratic leader Mark Schauer of Battle Creek.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm has called for a new 2 percent tax on services. The Republican Senate rejected her plan, which would take months to implement. Speculation leans toward an increase in the income tax -- partly because it could be put into place quickly.

The state's income tax rate is 3.9 percent. One bill introduced in the House would raise it to 4.6 percent.

But Republicans have refused to back a tax hike to erase the red ink and have passed packages that would cut the budget and drain $290 million from the governor's jobs development fund.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said in reaction to Friday's revenue conference: "House Democrats and the administration are insistent on new taxes to fix this year's deficit caused by overspending and government."

You can reach Mark Hornbeck at (313) 222-2470 or mhornbeck@detnews.com.

Cleveland Brown
05-19-2007, 01:37 PM
Both parties share blame, but overall Granholm (as usual) really shows that she is an ineffective leader. This will be her last major political office, if she doesn't get recalled.

hudkina
05-19-2007, 05:26 PM
I doubt it. I think most people realize that no single leader (Democrat or Republican) can do anything to save the economy right now.

Michi
05-19-2007, 08:32 PM
I have a plan to save Michigan. How does this sound? Eliminate the single business tax (a cut of $$billions), not replace it, then instead of raising a single penny tax, cut millions more.

I think that will save Michigan...and if it doesn't...what the hell, we'll just blame Granholm cuz she's the one sitting in the throne. Nevermind, the Republican Party's fiscal strategy has been completely ineffective...that is if you don't count how their deadbeat leadership has sunk this Titanic. They only exist to pout because their party is not in the majority and they realize that that means they won't be getting their way 100%. So, instead of representing with some dignity, their attitude is, "if our party goes down, you're all coming down with us."

Cleveland Brown
05-19-2007, 10:31 PM
I doubt it. I think most people realize that no single leader (Democrat or Republican) can do anything to save the economy right now.

While most people will not blame a single party, Granholm seems childish and unable to present a coherent plan. What the value of a leader that can't accomplish anything? Even Clinton managed to work with Republicans after 2-3 years; Granholm can't manage to do the same after nearly six years.

Cleveland Brown
05-19-2007, 10:37 PM
I have a plan to save Michigan. How does this sound? Eliminate the single business tax (a cut of $$billions), not replace it, then instead of raising a single penny tax, cut millions more.

I think that will save Michigan...and if it doesn't...what the hell, we'll just blame Granholm cuz she's the one sitting in the throne. Nevermind, the Republican Party's fiscal strategy has been completely ineffective...that is if you don't count how their deadbeat leadership has sunk this Titanic. They only exist to pout because their party is not in the majority and they realize that that means they won't be getting their way 100%. So, instead of representing with some dignity, their attitude is, "if our party goes down, you're all coming down with us."

And the strategy of raising taxes, in a perceived high tax state, will create jobs how? Let's not talk about the Titanic, since regardless of blame, Andy Dillion seems content to rearrange the deck chairs.

LMich
05-20-2007, 02:59 AM
Please, the best part of this article was the quote by:

"It compels Republicans and Democrats to look at all three sides of the financial stool -- revenue, reforms and cuts," said Craig Ruff, senior fellow for Public Sector Consultants Inc., a nonpartisan think tank. "And it compels them to see the crisis for what it is -- not short term, but long term."

This is one case where BOTH parties are really being boneheads. There is no way that we can tax ourselves out of this, alone. Equally, we can not slash our way to fiscal responsibility. There is a middle, and pride is getting in the way. How Senate Majority Leader Bishop manages to get the highest approval rating (something like 58%) out of the leaders is beyond me. He's equally guilty.

Cleveland Brown
05-20-2007, 08:46 PM
^ Yes, LMich, because when I said in my first post that "both parties share blame," I only meant Granholm and the Democrats.

Bishop only needs to appeal to his narrow constituency, and except for Pontiac, I think he's safe ;) . I'm also sure that Keego Harbor, Auburn Hills, Lake Angelus and Rochester Hills residents aren't calling on him to increase taxes. Granholm, on the other hand, must appeal to everyone in the state, since hers is the only name on the ballot across the state. Even assuming your argument that both sides are equally boneheaded, Granholm will suffer the most political damage.

Michi
05-20-2007, 09:28 PM
My argument to raise taxes is not to create jobs per se, but to sustain them and the quality of life in Michigan. This is the same concept of Detroit's infrastructure being built for 2 million, yet less than half of that are paying for it. How? With high taxes. Sorry to say, the freebee days for Michiganders is long gone and will never come back. It's about time Republican leadership recognizes Michigan as a high quality state, and not some southern crap-o-sphere.

I'm not pro taxes at all, but I am pro common sense. You can't just open the flood gates of hell (SBT + all other cuts) and expect the same types of services and quality of life. Republicans are fully aware of that and are purposely proposing dead beat legislation to discredit the Democratic leadership that was voted in to office. True, Granholm hasn't led to the best of her ability, but Republican's as far as I am concerned are about their own selfish interests.

Cleveland Brown
05-20-2007, 09:59 PM
We'll Michi, Michigan's population isn't at 4 million yet so I don't think the Detroit infrastructure analogy works. Michigan has two major problems that affect how state politicians will deal with structrual economic problems. The state recieves a large chunk of its operating revenue from taxes on manufacturers and related industries. The problem is that low cost labor markets overseas and low tax states domestically make Michigan's tax rate uncompetitive. To complicate matters, most manufacturing workers are middle-aged and unskilled so, except for the very few that will go back to school, there will be no comperable replacement jobs when the high wage manufacturing jobs leave. Thus Michigan must decide to hold onto these jobs (by becoming competitve with peer states in more ways besides taxes) or risk an economic nightmere. Ultimately these jobs will likely leave in the future, so the state must reform its education system to attract new business and train workers for new industries/businesses.

Increasing taxes on business now, will screw the middle age persons in low-skill manufacturing jobs. Even if you shift the tax burden on personal income, these people also get screwed and they're also the ones most likely to vote (and will get increased tax bills along with the "usual high income suspects"). However increasing taxes may improve the future for future Michigan generations. Lowering taxes will make the manufacturers and their employees happy, but will screw state services and perhaps cut into funds to reform the state's education system.

Michigan politician ultmately must make a combination of regulatory/union rights reforms, cut some programs and find a way to reduce business taxes by shifting the burden to personal income or matching tax cuts with service cuts.

LMich
05-21-2007, 12:14 AM
Even assuming your argument that both sides are equally boneheaded, Granholm will suffer the most political damage.

I know, and it's not fair.

In this case, after having lost the governorship, the national senate seats, and the state house, the GOP-lead state senate nows very well that the more stubborn they are, the more they win. Until this goes on for too long, the state senate has absolutely no incentive to cooperate. The less they give, the more they 'win', though we all know the state suffers.

Cleveland Brown
05-21-2007, 01:06 PM
I know, and it's not fair.



I disagree. I believe that it's more than "fair" for a politician who assumes great responsibility to also assume great liability. Skillfull politicians wisely navigate political traps and when their opponents are boneheaded, will find a way to strengthen their position, while weakening the other side. There are few "moral" positions in politics so each side essentially panders to their political interests - leaving a lot of room to negotiate with political consequences. I think Clinton demonstrated this best by adopting Republican proposed social spending reforms. He received praise and the Republicans received the limited political fall out.

If Granholm wanted to do what's "right or fair" she would have better success as a civil servent or public interest lawyer.

LMich
05-22-2007, 02:12 AM
I can't agree with you up to a point. I'm disappointed that it was just today that prominent community memebers came out in favor of higher taxation to solve part of the budget problem. Granholm should have whipped and sent out every prominent foot soldier she could to advocate for her side's plan from day 1. Why she's been so scare with the bully pulpit she has is beyond me.

I will say, one of her greatest weaknesses is showing, and that is her inability to put all of the pieces of a puzzle together, and her inability to be deliver crushing defeats when they count.

With the Dems huge state-wide wins, last year, she should have used this momentum like a hammer and completely dismantled and demolished Bishop's opposition. That she is tolerating his obstructionist grandstands makes me angry, so I guess I largely agree with you.

That said, she is blamed for far too much, many things she has little to no control over, and she takes a lot of flack for being a women, let us be honest.

UglymanCometh
05-22-2007, 04:59 PM
And here's why I (reluctantly) voted for DeVos.



Forums Directory