Read the State Legislative Tracker. New edition available now!

Difference between revisions of "State budget issues, 2009-2010"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - "Health care" to "Healthcare")
m (Text replace - " <ref" to "<ref")
Line 660: Line 660:
 
| [[Hawaii state budget (2008-2009)|Hawaii budget]]
 
| [[Hawaii state budget (2008-2009)|Hawaii budget]]
 
| No
 
| No
| text align="right"| $639 million <ref name="NCSL July"/>
+
| text align="right"| $639 million<ref name="NCSL July"/>
 
| text align="center"| 11.1%<ref name="NCSL July"/>
 
| text align="center"| 11.1%<ref name="NCSL July"/>
  

Revision as of 22:03, 10 March 2014

State Information

State and local government budgets faced challenges as the nationwide economic downturn that began in 2008 continued to cause budget problems in the economy. One of the greatest challenges that budget makers faced was lower-than-expected revenues from taxes. In Fiscal Year 2009, budget makers were overwhelmed by lower-than-expected revenues from taxes. Additionally, public spending at the state and local level is 10 times what it was in the 1950's, while private spending is only 5 times what it was during the '50s.[1] A recent report by the Government Accountability Office reported the state local gap at $9.9 trillion.[2]


As a report produced by the National Center of State Legislatures concluded,

Lawmakers in virtually every state scrambled to keep their FY 2009 budgets balanced while at the same time struggling to enact new ones for FY 2010. Hemorrhaging revenues drove the massive difficulties they faced. No matter how pessimistic revenue forecasts were, actual collections seemed to come in lower. This happened over and over and over again. Ultimately, states were not just faced with lower revenue growth rates, they confronted year-over-year declines in actual collections[3].

The Government Accountability Office has said,

… closing the fiscal gap over the next 50 years would require action to be taken today and maintained for each and every year going forward equivalent to a 12.3 percent reduction in state and local government current expenditures. Closing the fiscal gap through revenue increases would require action of a similar magnitude ….[4]

A subsequent report by the National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers found that FY2010 presented the most difficult challenge for states’ financial management since the Great Depression.[5]

In total, states faced a budget shortfall of $113.2 billion in FY 2009. As substantial as that is, it is far less than the deficit some have forecast for FY 2010. According to one such projection, states could face a total shortfall of $142.6 billion this year.[3] The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said that state and local government could be facing a $10 trillion gap over the next several years.[6]

Federal “stimulus” funds, authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, helped some states avoid some cuts in programs and civil service employment. However, as the entry below explains, that short-term fix carries costly consequences as well.[3]

See also: Find your state budget

Declines in Spending

In FY2009, 43 states made a total of $31.3 billion in mid-year budget cuts, and 40 states made mid-year budget cuts to their fiscal 2010 budgets totaling $22 billion.[5]

For FY2009, states expected to spend from all sources (general funds, federal funds, other state funds and bonds) an estimated $1.59 trillion, with the general fund representing 41.7 percent of the total.[5]

Total State Spending for Estimated FY2009[5]

Category % of total state spending
Elementary and secondary education 21.1%
Medicaid 21.0%
Higher education 9.8%
Transportation 8.2%
Corrections 3.3%
Public assistance 1.6%
All other expenditures 34.9%

Tax revenues in FY2008 amounted to $541.4 billion. They declined 11.8% to $477.4 billion in FY2010.[5] In FY2009, 41 states brought in revenue amounts below their projections.[5]

Although revenues were lower and spending was cut, many states relied on funds from other sources, including money the state borrowed, from rainy day funds and federal stimulus funds, all of which fueled spending and in some cases increased spending.

Rainy Day Funds

Because prior economic downturns resulted in lower than anticipated revenue collections, states established “rainy day” accounts during times of economic expansion to help stabilize budgets from future declines in tax collections. The effort to maintain adequate balances helps mitigate the disruption to state services during an economic downturn. Also, rainy day funds can be used to balance budgets when revenues are below expectations. The informal guideline has been that budget reserve balances should equals at least five percent of total expenditures to provide a relatively adequate fiscal cushion.[5]

Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2009 to Fiscal 2011 (number of states)[5] NOTE: The average for fiscal 2009 (actual) was 4.7 percent

Percentage Fiscal 2009 (Actual) Fiscal 2010 (Estimated) Fiscal 2011(Recommended)
Less than 1.0% 11 14 15
1.0% to 4.9% 16 16 17
5.0% to 9.9% 14 12 10
10% or more 9 8 8


Federal “Stimulus” Deepens State Budget Woes

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Congress awarded states and localities some $280 billion (35% of all stimulus dollars) to sustain employment, create jobs and promote economic activity and growth. The vast majority of the state and municipal outlays — some 85% — have been designated for health, transportation, education and training programs. In FY2008, the federal share of total state spending was 26.3% and that increased to 30% in FY2009 due to the ARRA.[5]

The Wall Street Journal on January 2, 2010 identified federal stimulus funds as making the state budget situation worse.[7] Legislators, enticed by the promise of federal money, spent more money instead of adjusting budgets to declining revenue. Money was added for K-12 education; higher education; child care; and health and welfare benefits.

In addition, the funds given to states also included large expansion of Medicaid to cover the health care of unemployed workers and single workers without children. In 2011, when the federal funds run out, states will be stuck with one million more people on Medicaid with no money to pay for it. The estimated increase from the temporary increase in the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) from ARRA is $87 billion over the 27 months which began October 2008 and ends December 2010.[5] Medicaid enrollment increased by 6.0 percent during fiscal 2009.[5]

Then National Governors Association acknowledged this fact in its Fiscal Survey of the States, noting the loss of ARRA funds combined with the anticipated slow recovery of state revenues is expected to result in the continuation of difficult state fiscal conditions for the next few years.[5]

An accounting of stimulus funding by state is available at Recovery.gov, a Web site created by Congress as a repository for information related to stimulus spending.

The Government Accountability Office also has issued a report on the challenge to states in complying with maintenance of effort requirements.[8]

Public employee salaries impact on state budgets

State and local governments employ some 20 million people nationwide. Employee compensation costs represent the largest set of expenditures in every state budget. Analyzing the fiscal dynamics of the civil service system reveals some of the most significant constraints and opportunities legislators confront in balancing state budgets.

Total state expenditures exceeded $2.2 trillion last year, of which wages and benefits amounted to $1.1 trillion.[9] Consequently, budgeting decisions related to at least 50 percent of all state budgets are driven by the wage provisions of civil service contracts and funding obligations for state workers’ health care and pension plans.

Labor costs also constituted a sizable proportion of private-sector business costs. But the average wages and benefits provided to public sector employees far exceed the rates paid by private employers. For example, the average hourly wage of public employees in 2008—$39.66—was 45 percent more than the average hourly wage of $27.42 paid in the private sector.[9]

States fulfill health care and pension obligations through direct contributions as well as investment earnings on those contributions. At its most fundamental, the formula for sustainability of health care and pension funds is: Contributions + Investments = Benefits + Expenses.

States’ recent investment losses, which exceeded $800 billion in 2008, have worsened the budgetary pressures of pension obligations. For example, the state of Illinois was forced to borrow $3.5 billion to meet its pension obligations, thereby incurring tens of millions of dollars in additional debt service costs. Estimates peg the total unfunded liabilities of state and local pension plans between $1 trillion and $3 trillion.[10]

Healthcare obligations likewise are sapping state budgets. Unlike the private sector, state and local governments have largely adopted “defined benefit” plans, under which specific types of services are assured. (In 2009, for example, defined benefit plans were provided to 84 percent of state and local workers compared to 21 percent of private-sector employees.[11]) The costs of defined benefit plans escalate annually. In contrast, “defined contribution” plans provide a fixed payment for pensions and thus in fully funding pensions. Moreover, public employees contribute far less to their health care coverage compared to workers in the private sector.

Demographics also are exacerbating the budgetary burden of the public-sector workforce. Current retirees leave work at an earlier age and live longer, thus drawing substantially more retiree health care and pension benefits than their predecessors.

Rainy Day Funds

Because prior economic downturns resulted in lower than anticipated revenue collections, states established “rainy day” accounts during times of economic expansion to help stabilize budgets from future declines in tax collections. The effort to maintain adequate balances helps mitigate the disruption to state services during an economic downturn. Also, rainy day funds can be used to balance budgets when revenues are below expectations. The informal guideline has been that budget reserve balances should equals at least five percent of total expenditures to provide a relatively adequate fiscal cushion.[5]

Total Year-End Balances as a Percentage of Expenditures, Fiscal 2009 to Fiscal 2011 (number of states)[5]

Percentage Fiscal 2009 (Actual) Fiscal 2010 (Estimated) Fiscal 2011(Recommended)
Less than 1.0% 11 14 15
1.0% to 4.9% 16 16 17
5.0% to 9.9% 14 12 10
10% or more 9 8 8

NOTE: The average for fiscal 2009 (actual) was 4.7 percent

Charts

Below, there are four charts. One is for the state budgets in FY 2009. The other is for state budgets in FY 2010. The third chart contains information about the allocation of funds under the ARRA.


Fiscal Year 2010

The following chart lists state budget projections for the FY2010 as of October 9th, 2009[3][12] .


State budget Spending Transparency Estimated Shortfall Estimated Percent of General Fund Budget
Alabama budget No $1.2 billion[13]
Alaska budget Partial $1.35 billion[3] 31%[3]
Arizona budget No $1.4 billion[14]
Arkansas budget No no shortfall[3] n/a[3]
California budget No $41.6 billion[15]
Colorado budget No $560.7 million[12]
Connecticut budget No $4.1 billion[3] 22.2%
Delaware budget No $300 million[16] 12.9%[3]
District of Columbia budget No
Florida budget No $6 billion[3] 27%[3]
Georgia budget Yes $900 million[12]
Hawaii budget No $1.41 billion[3] 25.4%[3]
Idaho budget No $151 million
Illinois budget Partial $7.29 billion[3]  %21.2[3]
Indiana budget No $569 million[3]
Iowa budget No $779 million[3]
Kansas budget Yes $1.11 billion[3] 17%[3]
Kentucky budget Yes $1.08 billion[3]
Louisiana budget Yes $2.02 billion[3]  %19.8[3]
Maine budget No $640 million[3] 18.8%[3]
Maryland budget Partial $1.95 billion[12]
Massachusetts budget No $400-600 million[12]
Michigan budget No $1.2 billion[3] 12.3%[3]
Minnesota budget No $2.6 billion[3] 14.7%[3]
Mississippi budget Partial no shortfall[12] n/a[12]
Missouri budget Yes $388 million[3]  %5.3[3]
Montana budget $67.1 million[3] 3.6%[3]
Nebraska state budget Yes no shortfall[12]
Nevada budget Yes $1.24 billion[3] 31.6%[3]
New Hampshire budget No $12.2 million[3] .8%[3]
New Jersey budget No $8.71 billion[3] 24.4%[3]
New Mexico budget No $440 million[12]
New York budget Partial $2.9 - 3.5 billion[12]
North Carolina budget No $4.6 billion[3]  %20.8[3]
North Dakota budget no shortfall[3] n/a[3]
Ohio budget No $1.29 billion[3]  %.48[3]
Oklahoma budget Yes no shortfall[12] n/a[12]
Oregon budget No $1.6 billion[3]  %18[3]
Pennsylvania budget No $3.97 billion[3] 13.5%[3]
Rhode Island budget Yes $587 million[3] 19.6%[3]
South Carolina budget Yes $797 million[3]
South Dakota budget Yes
Tennessee budget No $1.04 billion[3]
Texas budget Yes $3.3 billion[3] 7.6%[3]
Utah budget No $685 million[3] 13.5%[3]
Vermont budget Partial $28 million[12]
Virginia budget Partial $1.35 billion[12]
Washington budget Yes no shortfall[12] n/a[12]
West Virginia budget Partial $200 million[3] 4.5%
Wisconsin budget No $3.1 billion[3] 20.1%[3]
Wyoming budget No no shortfall[3] N/A[3]

Fiscal Year 2009

Fiscal 2009 General Fund, Actual (Millions)[5]

Region/State Beginning Balance Revenues Adjustments Total Resources Expenditures Adjustments Ending Balance Budget Stabilization Fund
NEW ENGLAND
Connecticut $0 $15,701 $179 $15,880 $16,828 $0 -$948 $1,382
Maine 1 2,855 244 3,100 3,018 56 26 0
Massachusetts 2,406 25,994 0 28,400 27,384 0 1,017 841
New Hampshire 17 1,375 0 1,393 1,472 -80 0 9
Rhode Island -41 3,023 -45 2,937 2,999 0 -62 80
Vermont 0 1,103 66 1,168 1,146 22 0 60
MID-ATLANTIC
Delaware 526 3,148 0 3,674 3,296 0 379 186
Maryland 487 12,901 1,015 14,403 15,080 -764 87 692
New Jersey 1,304 29,060 562 30,926 30,312 0 614 0
New York 2,754 53,801 0 56,555 54,607 0 1,948 1,206
Pennsylvania 583 24,305 166 25,054 27,084 0 -2,030 755
GREAT LAKES
Illinois 141 27,551 1,593 29,285 26,982 2,023 280 276
Indiana 1,050 13,063 0 14,113 13,019 130 964 365
Michigan 458 7,161 1,014 8,633 8,456 0 177 2
Ohio 1,682 26,685 0 28,367 27,362 0 735 0
Wisconsin 131 12,113 573 12,817 12,744 -17 90 0
PLAINS
Iowa 0 5,889 45 5,934 5,934 0 0 519
Kansas 527 5,587 0 6,114 6,064 0 50 0
Minnesota 1,920 15,388 0 17,308 16,861 0 447 395
Missouri 836 7,451 425 8,712 8,449 0 263 260
Nebraska 584 3,351 -182 3,752 3,329 0 424 576
North Dakota 453 1,354 0 1,807 1,237 208 362 325
South Dakota 0 1,141 13 1,154 1,153 0 0 107
SOUTHEAST
Alabama 219 6,753 529 7,501 7,735 -340 105 188
Arkansas 0 4,435 0 4,435 4,435 0 0 0
Florida 321 23,971 0 24,292 23,661 0 631 274
Georgia 2,217 17,842 251 20,310 18,572 0 1,738 217
Kentucky 86 8,553 625 9,263 9,158 66 40 7
Louisiana 866 9,386 119 10,370 9,382 912 76 854
Mississippi 37 4,955 0 4,992 4,984 0 8 315
North Carolina 599 19,146 0 19,745 19,653 0 92 150
South Carolina 324 5,544 0 5,869 5,748 0 121 0
Tennessee 348 9,869 676 10,893 10,804 89 0 557
Virginia 313 15,791 0 16,104 15,943 0 161 575
West Virginia 550 3,902 27 4,479 3,980 18 481 473
SOUTHWEST
Arizona 1 6,966 1,307 8,274 8,754 0 -481 2
New Mexico 735 5,748 264 6,747 6,046 313 389 389
Oklahoma 291 6,147 131 6,568 6,542 0 26 597
Texas 6,815 38,817 -870 44,763 42,411 -75 2,427 6,726
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
Colorado 284 6,743 813 7,840 7,396 0 444 148
Idaho 240 2,466 15 2,720 2,720 0 0 128
Montana 434 1,808 8 2,250 1,858 0 392 0
Utah 0 4,567 470 5,038 5,016 0 22 419
Wyoming 10 1,745 0 1,755 1,750 0 5 398
FAR WEST
Alaska 0 5,858 -401 5,457 5,732 1,175 -1,451 8,898
California 4,071 82,772 -1,757 85,086 90,940 0 0
Hawaii 330 5,008 0 5,338 5,375 0 -37 60
Nevada 316 3,673 0 3,989 3,777 0 212 0
Oregon 5 5,849 -20 5,834 5,834 0 0 113
Washington 790 13,089 928 14,807 14,617 0 189 21
TERRITORIES
Puerto Rico 0 5,008 0 11,250 11,250 0 0 0
Total $36,017 $621,402 - $666,202 $657,908 - $4,458 $29,546

The following chart lists state budget information for the Fiscal Year 2009[3]. If information is in italics, it is based off April data. Otherwise, information for a state's budget is from June and July of 2009 surveys, which is after Fiscal year 2009 ended.

State budget Spending Transparency Shortfall Percent of General Fund Budget
Alabama budget No $269 million[3] 13%[3]
Alaska budget Partial $1.52 billion[3] 21%[3]
Arizona budget No $2.43 billion[3] 24.2%[3]
Arkansas budget No no shortfall[3] n/a[3]
California budget No $19.64 billion[3] 18.8%[3]
Colorado budget No $1.19 billion[3] 15.1%[3]
Connecticut budget No $1.35 billion[3] 7.9%[3]
Delaware budget No $236 million[3] 6.8%[3]
District of Columbia budget No
Florida budget No $3.18 billion [3] 12.3% [3]
Georgia budget Yes $2.93 billion[3] 14.1%[3]
Hawaii budget No $639 million[3] 11.1%[3]
Idaho budget No $405 million[3] 14.8%[3]
Illinois budget Partial $4.32 billion [3] 13.7%[3]
Indiana budget No $973 million[3] 7%[3]
Iowa budget No $35 million[3] .50%[3]
Kansas budget Yes $186 million [3] 2.9% [3]
Kentucky budget Yes $456 million[3] 5.1%[3]
Louisiana budget Yes $341 million[3] 3.5%[3]
Maine budget No $270 million[3] 8.7%[3]
Maryland budget Partial $1.38 billion[3] 9.5%[3]
Massachusetts budget No $2.59 billion [3] 10.5%[3]
Michigan budget No $313 million[3] 3.2%[3]
Minnesota budget No $426 million[3] 1.2%[3]
Mississippi budget Partial $407 million[3] 8%[3]
Missouri budget Yes $779 million[3] 10.4%[3]
Montana budget no shortfall[3] n/a[3]
Nebraska budget Yes $5.3 million[3] .20%[3]
Nevada budget Yes $1.09 billion[3] 28.1%[3]
New Hampshire budget No $250 million[3] 10%[3]
New Jersey budget No $4.4 billion[3] 13.3%[3]
New Mexico budget No $454 million[3] 7.5%[3]
New York budget Partial $1.7 billion[3] 3.4%[3]
North Carolina budget No $2.2 billion[3] 10.3%[3]
North Dakota budget no shortfall[3] n/a
Ohio budget No $1.18 billion[3] 6.1%[3]
Oklahoma budget Yes $6.8 million[3] 0.10%[3]
Oregon budget No $755 million[3] 10.4% [3]
Pennsylvania budget No $2.6 billion[3] 9.2% [3]
Rhode Island budget Yes $449 million[3] 13.7%[3]
South Carolina budget Yes $1.18 billion[3] 17.6%[3]
South Dakota budget Yes $71.4 million[3] 6.2%[3]
Tennessee budget No $1.07 billion [3] 11.5%[3]
Texas budget Yes[3] no shortfall[3] n/a
Utah budget No $875 million[3] 15.6%[3]
Vermont budget Partial $75 million[3] 6.5%[3]
Virginia budget Partial $1.66 billion[3] 9.8%[3]
Washington budget Yes $1.37 billion[3] 8.0%[3]
West Virginia budget Partial no shortfall[3] n/a[3]
Wisconsin budget No $942 million[3] 6.8%[3]
Wyoming budget No no shortfall[3] n/a[3]


ARRA

The chart lists the amount of money States have been awarded, as well as received, from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The chart is recent as of October 21st, 2009[17].


State ARRA Funds Awarded ARRA Awarded Per Capita ARRA Funds Received
Alabama $178.58 million[17] $38[17] $14.82 million[17]
Alaska $260.03 million[17] $379[17] $25.53 million[17]
Arizona $139.39 million[17] $21[17] $29.60 million[17]
Arkansas $59.15 million[17] $21[17] $6.68 million[17]
California $1.14 billion[17] $31[17] $157.92 million[17]
Colorado $553.78 million[17] $112[17] $48.33 million[17]
Connecticut $47.24 million[17] $13[17] $1.04 million[17]
Delaware $30.29 million[17] $35[17] $4.81 million[17]\
District of Columbia $562.32 million[17] $950[17] $22.45 million[17]
Florida $334.59 million[17] $18[17] $48.00 million[17]
Georgia $209.48 million[17] $22[17] $19.20 million[17]
Hawaii $122.43 million[17] $95[17] $12.54 million[17]
Idaho $477.89 million[17] $314[17] $82.19 million[17]
Illinois $473.75 million[17] $37[17] $21.65 million[17]
Indiana $146.37 million[17] $23[17] $12.04 million[17]
Iowa $79.31 million[17] $26[17] $3.13 million[17]
Kansas $118.09 million[17] $42[17] $20.75 million[17]
Kentucky $225.46 million[17] $53[17] $22.82 million[17]
Louisiana $115.02 million[17] $26[17] $33.3 million[17]
Maine $22.62 million[17] $17[17] $16.28 million[17]
Maryland $590.51 million[17] $105[17] $48.24 million[17]
Massachusetts $335.24 million[17] $52[17] $47.62 million[17]
Michigan $315.02 million[17] $12[17] $149.57 million[17]
Minnesota $90.98 million[17] $17[17] $33.00 million[17]
Mississippi $138.94 million[17] $47[17] $10.03 million[17]
Missouri $144.14 million[17] $103[17] $11.45 million[17]
Montana $99.22 million[17] $103[17] $11.45 million[17]
Nebraska $48.44 million[17] $27[17] $1.55 million[17]
Nevada $70.84 million[17] $27[17] $15.51 million[17]
New Hampshire $16.32 million[17] $12[17] $427 thousand[17]
New Jersey $208.11 million[17] $24[17] $29.73 million[17]
New Mexico $514.91 million[17] $259[17] $263.56 million[17]
New York $750.77 million[17] $39[17] $59.97 million[17]
North Carolina $121.27 million[17] $13[17] $11.91 million[17]
North Dakota $95.45 million[17] $149[17] $16.91 million[17]
Ohio $259.27 million[17] $22[17] $23.53 million[17]
Oklahoma $79.86 million[17] $22[17] $10.21 million[17]
Oregon $105.69 million[17] $28[17] $48.57 million[17]
Pennsylvania $626.54 million[17] $50[17] $29.24 million[17]
Rhode Island $7.59 million[17] $7[17] $540,798[17]
South Carolina $253.84 million[17] $57[17] $219.56 million[17]
South Dakota $33.79 million[17] $42[17] $4.64 million[17]
Tennessee $1.11 billion[17] $179[17] $75.58 million[17]
Texas $524.02 million[17] $22[17] $47.08 million[17]
Utah $194.36 million[17] $71[17] $17.37 million[17]
Vermont $12.58 million[17] $20[17] $495 thousand[17]
Virginia $366.32 million[17] $47[17] $80.01 million[17]
Washington $2.22 billion[17] $339[17] $228.82 million[17]
West Virginia $58.19 million[17] $32[17] $4.37 million[17]
Wisconsin $46.16 million[17] $8[17] $12.29 million[17]
Wyoming $18.38 million[17] $35[17] $585 thousand[17]

See also

External links

References

  1. Watchdog, State and Local Government Spending Outpaces Private Sector, Aug 18, 2010
  2. West Virginia Watchdog, GAO: State, Local Governments ‘Will Steadily Decline’, Sept. 13, 2010
  3. 3.000 3.001 3.002 3.003 3.004 3.005 3.006 3.007 3.008 3.009 3.010 3.011 3.012 3.013 3.014 3.015 3.016 3.017 3.018 3.019 3.020 3.021 3.022 3.023 3.024 3.025 3.026 3.027 3.028 3.029 3.030 3.031 3.032 3.033 3.034 3.035 3.036 3.037 3.038 3.039 3.040 3.041 3.042 3.043 3.044 3.045 3.046 3.047 3.048 3.049 3.050 3.051 3.052 3.053 3.054 3.055 3.056 3.057 3.058 3.059 3.060 3.061 3.062 3.063 3.064 3.065 3.066 3.067 3.068 3.069 3.070 3.071 3.072 3.073 3.074 3.075 3.076 3.077 3.078 3.079 3.080 3.081 3.082 3.083 3.084 3.085 3.086 3.087 3.088 3.089 3.090 3.091 3.092 3.093 3.094 3.095 3.096 3.097 3.098 3.099 3.100 3.101 3.102 3.103 3.104 3.105 3.106 3.107 3.108 3.109 3.110 3.111 3.112 3.113 3.114 3.115 3.116 3.117 3.118 3.119 3.120 3.121 3.122 3.123 3.124 3.125 3.126 3.127 3.128 3.129 3.130 3.131 3.132 3.133 3.134 3.135 3.136 3.137 3.138 3.139 3.140 3.141 3.142 3.143 3.144 3.145 3.146 3.147 3.148 3.149 3.150 3.151 3.152 3.153 3.154 3.155 3.156 3.157 3.158 3.159 3.160 3.161 http://www.ncsl.org/documents/fiscal/StateBudgetUpdateJulyFinal.pdf National Conference of State Legislatures, State Budget Update July Final]
  4. Watchdog, GAO: State, local governments ‘will steadily decline’, Aug. 26, 2010
  5. 5.00 5.01 5.02 5.03 5.04 5.05 5.06 5.07 5.08 5.09 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 "The Fiscal Survey of States" National Governors Association and National Association of State Budget Officers June 2010
  6. Watchdog, GAO: $10 trillon gap threatens government services, Aug. 25, 2010
  7. Wall Street Journal, The States and the Stimulus, January 2, 2010
  8. Government Accountability Office, Planned Efforts and Challenges in Evaluating Compliance with Maintenance of Effort and Similar Provisions, November 2009
  9. 9.0 9.1 US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 6.2D. Compensation of Employees by Industry, August 20, 2009
  10. Government Accountability Office, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS, November 2009
  11. American Economic Association (AEA), WILL PUBLIC SECTOR RETIREE HEALTH BENEFIT PLANS SURVIVE? ECONOMIC AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF UNFUNDED LIABILITIES, January 2009
  12. 12.00 12.01 12.02 12.03 12.04 12.05 12.06 12.07 12.08 12.09 12.10 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.14 12.15 National Conference of State Legislatures, FY 2010 Post-Enactment Budget Gaps & Budget Cuts
  13. Center on Budget & Policy Priorities, “New Fiscal Year Brings No Relief From Unprecedented State Budget Problems,” September 3, 2009
  14. The Arizona Republic,"Few options left for fixing Arizona budget," January 11, 2010
  15. California Department of Finance, “Governor’s Message,” January 9, 2009
  16. The News Journal,"Delaware lawmakers return, once again facing tough choices with budget shortfall," January 10, 2010
  17. 17.000 17.001 17.002 17.003 17.004 17.005 17.006 17.007 17.008 17.009 17.010 17.011 17.012 17.013 17.014 17.015 17.016 17.017 17.018 17.019 17.020 17.021 17.022 17.023 17.024 17.025 17.026 17.027 17.028 17.029 17.030 17.031 17.032 17.033 17.034 17.035 17.036 17.037 17.038 17.039 17.040 17.041 17.042 17.043 17.044 17.045 17.046 17.047 17.048 17.049 17.050 17.051 17.052 17.053 17.054 17.055 17.056 17.057 17.058 17.059 17.060 17.061 17.062 17.063 17.064 17.065 17.066 17.067 17.068 17.069 17.070 17.071 17.072 17.073 17.074 17.075 17.076 17.077 17.078 17.079 17.080 17.081 17.082 17.083 17.084 17.085 17.086 17.087 17.088 17.089 17.090 17.091 17.092 17.093 17.094 17.095 17.096 17.097 17.098 17.099 17.100 17.101 17.102 17.103 17.104 17.105 17.106 17.107 17.108 17.109 17.110 17.111 17.112 17.113 17.114 17.115 17.116 17.117 17.118 17.119 17.120 17.121 17.122 17.123 17.124 17.125 17.126 17.127 17.128 17.129 17.130 17.131 17.132 17.133 17.134 17.135 17.136 17.137 17.138 17.139 17.140 17.141 17.142 17.143 17.144 17.145 17.146 17.147 17.148 17.149 17.150 17.151 17.152 17.153 http://www.recovery.gov/pages/textview.aspx?data=homeMapRecipient&datasource&datasource=recipient Recovery.org, State And Agency Data Reported by Federal Contract Recipients]