States brace for shutdowns

States brace for shutdowns

Time is running out for the legislatures in Arizona, California, Indiana, Mississippi and Pennsylvania to solve budget gaps.

By P.J. Huffstutter and Nicholas Riccardi
June 30, 2009

Reporting from Indianapolis and Denver -- The last time Indiana missed its deadline for passing a budget and had to shut down the government was during the Civil War.

But on Monday, as lawmakers raced to hammer out an agreement over school funding, state agencies began preparing 31,000 workers to be temporarily out of a job. Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels has warned residents that most of the state's services -- including its parks, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and state-regulated casinos -- would be shuttered unless a budget is passed today.

Indiana is one of five states -- along with Arizona, California, Mississippi and Pennsylvania -- bracing for possible shutdowns this week as time runs out for lawmakers to close billion-dollar gaps in their fiscal 2010 budgets.

Of the 46 states whose fiscal year ends today, 32 did not have budgets passed and approved by their governors as of Monday afternoon, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Although the majority of those are expected to pass eleventh-hour budgets, the fiscal futures of a handful remain uncertain, said Todd Haggerty, an NCSL research analyst.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shutdown30-2009jun30,0,1912245.story

this was inevitable. It would not surprise me in the least to see a permanent reduction of 10-15% in state public employment ranks. Local governments are in better shape, but not much. A lot of blood-letting in their ranks is coming, too.

You would think saving for a rainy day would be standard practice for citizens and towns/states/countries.

:puke:

It ha always been a bad idea. This is why.

:dem:

-Laelth

Tax receipts were not the problem, the problem was that the states grew their budgets by three to four times the rate of inflation.

Income was not the problem, spending is.

All too many American families did, and do, the same thing. The average credit card balance is something like $8,000...that's not an income problem, that's a spending problem.

I want the States to spend more, not less. The cost of medical care for the indigent has risen far faster that the rate of inflation, and states spend a lot on medical care (and education, the cost of which has also risen far faster than inflation). At the same time, states are forced to reduce access to both medical care and education while shifting the burden onto the poor through college tuition increases and direct payment requirements for medical care.

Sounds like an income problem to me, not a spending problem. The states need to spend more. They can't because they don't have the resources. Most states have been under pressure to cut taxes for the past 28 years. Many have done so--usually for corporations and the rich.

:dem:

-Laelth

need more money, they either need to raise it somewhere else, or cut spending.

Many of us are not doing so well.

:dem:

-Laelth

school while waiting tables at Denny's, driving a transit bus part-time, and raising a family. It wasn't easy, but it did put me in a middle class income bracket. And because I've sacrificed so much to get what little I have, I'd like to keep some of my income for my family and I.

over the last couple decades when adjusted for inflation. They were forced to credit cards to made up the difference.

My income was forced to zero over most of the last 7 years. Not for want of trying to find new work, but because of my age, education, intelligence and experience. I'm "overqualified" for everything and nobody wants a 50+ woman.

I already self-treat when sick or injured. So what am I supposed to do next? Quit spending money on food? Stop heating my home in winter? I already self-treat when sick.

It's B.S..

And it's only going to get worse, especially if media producers and other social string pullers keep sending out ideas that old people are unworthy, incapable, you name it.

along with schools, and basically every other service? Revenue is a fraction of what it was 30 years ago, in real dollars, both for goverments and for households. That is most definitely an income problem.

the City of Seattle knew full well that the voters would never vote for a new concert hall, or to remodel an NBA arena, so what to do? The city council issued councilmanic bonds, a financial instrument that allows municipalities to borrow money without voter approval. Fine, so they went and borrowed $450+ million. But, when 9-1-1 needed money? Well that has to go on a ballot, voters need to approve additional tax money for that. Parks? Same thing. Roads? Same thing. So their strategy is to place critical, basic services on ballots that voters must approve (and tax themselves even more), however for pet projects that benefit a very few, they use general tax revenues to pay back councilmanic bonds.

A few years ago the State of Washington, King County, and the City of Seattle, were all pleading poverty. The coffers were dry. But some how, some way, over one billion dollars materialized to build a brand new football stadium for the Seattle Seahawks, and a new baseball stadium for the Seattle Mariners. What happened? Roads are crumbling, schools are crumbling, parks are closing, medical services are being cut to the indigent, but they found $1 billion for sports stadiums? They can find a billion dollars for non-essentials, but plead poverty when it comes to funding essential services? Is that a revenue problem or a spending problem?

State budget shortfalls are not an income issue, the shortfalls are solely due to extravagant spending and outrageous public jobs growth. The fact that a large enough portion of the $11 billion budgeted for Washington State schools in the 2005-2007 biennium, didn't make it to the classroom, is not a revenue problem, that's a spending/investment prioritization problem. The Board of Education and the local school districts boards, obviously place a higher priority on hiring government bureaucrats than in hiring teachers. Is that a revenue problem or a spending problem?

Taxes consume almost 40% of my income, (that includes federal, state, local), and I'm sick of it. How much more should I pay? 60%? 80%? Keen in mind, these are in your face taxes. Washington State has a myriad of hidden taxes which if thrown into my calculation would no doubt bring my tax burden up to 45%.

You walk into any government office and just count how many people are sitting on their fat asses doing nothing. Please don't try to tell me that government budget shortfalls are an income problem. Anyone who has seen government from the inside, will laugh hysterically at that claim.

has gone up, percentage-wise, is that your paycheck has shrunk.

Those stadiums are usually paid for with separate taxes that are voted on (referenda). If the new Seattle stadiums were taken from the same fund that is supposed to pay for roads and schools, then you need to toss your city council out of office.

If government is so wasteful, then why is Medicare run, successfully, with 96% of the money going to health care, while United Health spends only 78% on health care, and 22% on overhead? The bureucracy at private offices dwarfs that of government offices. Look at Halliburton/KBR. They're nothing more that scams.

You are really on the wrong board. Try freeperville.com. foxnation.com, or townhall.com. THe "government is the enemy" loons are all there.

I did not say the stadiums were built "from the same fund" as roads and schools, I said that "somehow one billion dollars materialized".

Medicare is going broke, you better stop using that one as your "good government" example.

You appear to be typical flamer, going off on some half-assed rant without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

And you're right; it's disgusting that state wankers can find money for overpaid sports teams to have our tax money build them a nice stadium to overcharge us with when we want to see men hit a ball with a stick and then run around, spit, and scratch themselves...

Lower wages and then show plastic cards that say "Live now".

To place a fictional character into modern context: Archie Bunker wouldn't have had nearly as nice a life he had if he was living today instead of 1971...



Ultimately, I think the truth is in the middle. I refuse to place working families or individuals are the sole cause of this mess.