Many States Fall in Fiscal Free Fall

[VermontDem2004]

HARRISBURG, Pa., Aug. 13 — Lately, California’s budget and political crises have stolen the news headlines. However, plenty of the 49 remaining states in the union are facing fiscal woes of their own.

CALIFORNIA MAY BE the worst budget basket case, but it’s not the only one in fiscal free fall. Here in the Keystone State, and in many other states from coast to coast, governors and state legislatures are dog-paddling in a sea of red ink.
Nationwide, states battled shortfalls totaling $60 billion. Unlike the federal government, deficit spending is not an option for states.
“The biggest difference between state budgeting and the federal budget process is that states must balance their budgets,” said Michael Mazerov of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.
And they had to pull out all the stops in order to do it.
“On paper, the budgets of virtually all states are balanced for the fiscal ’04 year that just started,” Mazerov said. “However, many of the budget-balancing goals were achieved through one-time measures that will leave many states in just as much fiscal difficulty when it comes time to adopt a budget a year from now.”
To make ends meet, 31 states cut spending:
23 states laid off workers or cut their pay.
15 states increased taxes more than one percent.
13 states tapped rainy-day funds.
11 states delayed capital spending projects.
And 4 states expanded gambling.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/951979.asp?vts=81420030544

[SpiralHawk]

1. "But, but, but...just wait until

the Bush tax-cut for the wealthy recovery program kicks in (effects delayed at least another month while the pResident enjoyes his 4-week tax-payer financed vacation).

And remember: "A rising tide lifts all yachts."


"By making the right choices, we can make the right choices for our future."
- George W. Bush

[DEMActivist]

2. Ga. Medicaid deep in red $172 million shortfall projected

By ANDY MILLER and JAMES SALZER
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The state projects a $172 million shortfall in its Medicaid program this fiscal year and said that gap could more than double the next year.

"The hole is deep,'' said Tim Burgess, new commissioner of the Department of Community Health, who presented the estimates at a board meeting Wednesday. "There's no way to describe this but big.''

And if not for a one-time grant from the federal government, Burgess said, the state portion of the fiscal 2004 shortfall "would have been well over $300 million.'' The projected state Medicaid shortfall for fiscal 2005 is $376 million.

Burgess and Community Health board members Wednesday discussed managed care as a possible solution to the spiraling costs in Medicaid and for PeachCare for Kids, the state's program that covers 196,000 uninsured children. The agency has requested and received information from dozens of health organizations on developing possible solutions to control spending.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0803/14medicaid.html

[QuietStorm]

3. Does this Administration want America to collapse financially?

Is that the plan? Probably a stupid question, but they have wrecked havoc on the treasury and the economy since in office. How is this sound economics what they are doing? Can someone explain this to me? Apparently this kind of economic havoc serves a very select group of people. It can not be they will do a second term.

[justfred]

4. Of course that is their plan...

You see, during economic downturns the people who are hurt most are the working poor...those who are living hand-to-mouth or are leveraged to the hilt on their mortgage, etc.

You see, as unemployment goes up, people are more willing to work for less money and less benefits just to keep 'food on their families' (couldn't resist quoting Bush, there). In addition, if they cannot make their payments and are forced into bankruptcy, then those with the funds can pick up bargains on things such as real estate, purchasing it for pennies on the dollar in repossession action, then selling it to someone else at full price.

Do you think it is just a coincidence that Reagan, Bush41 and Bush43 had such lousy economies?

Remember...bad economy, lower personnel costs/bargains on investments....good economy, higher personnel costs/higher prices on investments.

[QuietStorm]

5. and don't you just love those democrats you meet

that will proudly offer that they are socially democrat, but fiscally republican. Doesn't one cancel the other out?

No it hasn't escaped me that at all three of these administrations seemed to downturn the economy. If more people are being paid less but working more. Where does consumerism play into to this?

Really besides that stolen election (which still people argue he won fair and square). How in the world is the working class still twiddling their thumbs with their head in the sand on this Administration. It is infuriating. I must be thinking out loud.

[VermontDem2004]

7. Sorry to say something good about Reagan

but 15 million net jobs were created during his two terms of office. But the budget deficit grew to 155 billion. But his 15 million jobs created isn't close to the 22 million net jobs that were created during Clinton's term.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. YES, they do!!!

.

[MGKrebs]

10. I can't find it now, but

there was a story in the London Financial Times about a month ago that said just that. Their editorial stated that no other conclusion could be drawn given the HUGE tax cuts in the face of HUGE deficits. Their position was that the Repubs were using the destruction of the economy as a tool to dismantle social programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and welfare.

Given that less dramatic measures have not worked in ending these programs, they felt that the Repubs had decided to create a situation where we Americans would be faced with a choice: national security or social programs. One or the other.

[gratuitous]

8. Meanwhile, in Texas

Gov. Perry has announced his intention to call special session after special session until the Republicans get their way on redistricting. Of course, calling all the legislators together to Austin doesn't come for free, but Texas is apparently just awash in extra cash to call endless "emergency" special sessions.

If they're really looking to do something useful with that money, we'd take a chunk of it here in Oregon.

[booksenkatz]

9. And in Texas...

I believe something like a half million poor children will no longer have dental care in a few weeks... I hope they can get in to see a dentist before the State of Texas says sorry, we can't afford to help you anymore. As much as I complain about my family's medical, dental and Rx co-pays increasing this last year, at least we can still get our child's health needs taken care of. I worry so much about other parents who don't have the luxury... if their kid gets sick, they're outta luck! If their kid gets a toothache, too bad. If their kid needs antibiotics, tough shit.

Something is wrong at the very core of this country, and has been for a very long time.