Thursday, April 23, 2015

Is Walker moonwalking a key campaign commitment: Sen. Micciche asks an important question, the answer indicates the Administration is back peddling ...

Is Governor Walker beginning to back peddle (or to borrow Michael Jackson's phrase for his equivalent dance step, "moonwalk") on his commitment to sustainable budgets?  It is beginning to sound that way after listening to Office of Management and Budget Director Pat Pitney's response to a key question from Senator Micciche during today's Senate Finance hearing.

Over the past several years Dr. Scott Goldsmith of UAA's Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) has published a series of papers focused on developing a sustainable budget for the state. The papers are collected here.  The most recent ("The Path to a Fiscal Solution: Use Earnings from All Our Assets"), which we will write about more later, was published earlier today.

During the campaign, Governor Walker on his campaign website and during various speeches said this about sustainable budgets:
I will make the hard choices necessary for a sounder fiscal future, including putting in place a sustainable budget. I will make sure the investment climate in Alaska supports those goals, which includes a favorable fiscal climate for citizens and companies investing in our economy.
​When asked during the campaign what he meant by a "sustainable budget," then candidate Walker repeatedly referred to the analysis and work done by Goldsmith.  In Goldsmith's most recent work on the subject, done earlier this year, he put the sustainable level of spending -- the sustainable budget "number" -- at $4.5 billion.

​Earlier this year during his State of the Budget Governor Walker said he had "asked [his] commissioners to tell [him] what their departments would look like in four years if their budgets were 25 percent smaller than they are today." The level "their budgets ... are today" he was referring to was roughly $6 billion, and so a 25% reduction from that level would bring state spending down to the $4.5 billion sustainable level outlined in Goldsmith's most recent work.  Presumably, given Walker's campaign statements that was not a coincidence.

​So, with that in mind Sen. Micciche asked Pitney during the hearing for an update on what to expect going forward.  Given the Governor's previous commitment to "make the hard choices necessary ... [to put] in place a sustainable budget," Micciche essentially described this year's cuts as the initial effort, and asked Pitney what the Legislature and Alaskans should be expecting going forward.

Pitney's response was, well from the standpoint of honoring Walker's campaign commitment, horrible.

Over the course of her answer to Sen. Micciche, and then a follow up from Sen. Dunleavy, Pitney said at various times "we're not ready" make those cuts, talked about "areas of inflexibility" and said that the Administration was beginning to look at "more holistic solutions," which Sen. Dunleavy in his follow up correctly characterized as "taxes."

Indeed, Pitney seemed even to attempt to walk back from the first round of cuts incorporated in the current budget -- which those around the table characterized as being "about 9%" from previous levels -- saying in response to Sen. Dunleavy's follow up, in some cases the current round of cuts "have gone too far."

Sen. Micciche characterized her answer as "disappointing."  From the standpoint of someone who has worked on these issues a long time and sees the impact which the state's failure to achieve sustainability will have both on future Alaskans and investors's perceptions of the state -- the two constituencies which Walker repeatedly mentioned during the campaign -- it is something much more than that.

Going forward it is useful to keep in mind that in order to collect each $200 million in new revenue through taxes, the state will need to raise the equivalent of roughly $275 per Alaska man, woman and child (or $1,100 per family of four).

Assuming the Senate and House finally resolve their differences somewhere in the middle, this year's budget likely will come in around $5.5 billion.  As Goldsmith points out in his last two papers, even assuming the state uses both of its revenue streams (oil and investment earnings), and including a healthy increment of new revenues from a successful LNG project, the state's long term revenue level will average out only at around $4.5 billion.

That means if the Administration stops cutting spending now, and relies instead on taxes (or other "revenue" options such as cutting the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) in order to divert more money to state government) to make up the difference, the state will need to raise the equivalent, each year, of $1,375 per Alaska man, woman and child, or $5,500 per family of four.

What those in the Administration fail to recognize is the significant impact that will have on Alaska's private economy.  At a personal level, for example, think how many fewer things you will purchase from Alaska merchants if, as a family of four, you are sending $5,500 per year you previously had to spend or save through your family budget instead to the state government.

Moreover, the prospect of diverting $5,500 per family of four out of the private economy into the government economy raises serious concerns about other impacts.

In a previous study analyzing in part the effects of reducing the PFD in order to increase the money flowing to state government, Goldsmith said that in Alaska, increased government spending generally goes to capital projects, a form of spending that generally "generates less employment and increased income inequality" than broad based spending in the private sector.  So, the Administration's approach not only would damage Alaska's private economy, it may worsen both employment and income equality at the same time.

Candidate Bill Walker was right.  Alaska's leaders need to make "the hard choices necessary for a sounder fiscal future, including putting in place a sustainable budget."  If Pitney's comments are any indication, Governor Bill Walker is going the exact opposite direction.

Senators Micciche and Dunleavy, along with the remainder of the Senate Finance Committee, are to be commended for asking important questions to which Alaskans deserve answers.  They were disappointed with the answers; Alaskans should be very concerned as well.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

And now for the debate on taxes and cutting the PFD ...

At least judging from my Twitter and Facebook (this generation's water cooler) exchanges, while the Senate Finance press availability yesterday succeeded in raising awareness of the state's current fiscal situation, it also triggered off the start of what is likely to be an increasingly intense debate on taxes and cutting the PFD (in order to transfer a portion to government spending).

This from my Twitter feed this morning (which started when I wrote a note to my friends in Great Alaska Schools):

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

Why tap into savings at all? Why not cut more instead? ...

As readers of these pages will know, I favor using money from the earnings reserve to fund the deficit projected for the FY 2016 budget, instead of money from the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR). The reason is because, under Art. 9, Sec. 17(c) of the Constitution, drawing money from the CBR requires an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature.   That is the reason -- and the only reason -- why the House Majority currently is negotiating with the House Minority over the budget. Going that route clearly will increase spending from those levels previously passed by the House.

Using money from the earnings reserve, on the other hand, is governed by Art. 2, Sec. 14 of the Constitution and only requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the membership of each house.  No negotiations with the Minority -- and thus, no compromises that result in increased spending -- are required to tap this reserve.

Today, some suggested as a third route reducing spending to the levels necessary to avoid tapping either reserve.  ("Why tap into savings at all? Why not cut more instead? ...")

This is a portion of the exchange that resulted.  For those interested, the full discussion, which took various other twists and turns, is available here.

[T]he need to use the CBR gives Tuck and the Democrats power they haven't had in years. ...
Like · Comment ·
  • ...
  • David Nees ... if they really want to depower Democrats. They just use earning reserve
    9 hrs · Like · 1
  • Carol Carman I am perplexed... why tap into savings at all? Why not cut more instead? Here is just one example of overspending that does NOT accomplish a single thing (compare test scores with money spent):
  • ...
  • Andy Sorensen Why not have majority pass scaled down budget w/o CBR. Then propose second budget that requires CBR and let Tuck/Dems pass or not?
    1 hr · Like
  • ...
  • Brad Keithley Carol & Andy ... Spending in the current year will likely end up around $6.2 - 6.3 billion. At that level we will fully deplete the SBR by the end of the current Fiscal Year. The proposed budget level passed by the Senate and House for this coming year is roughly $5.3 - $5.5 billion, a roughly 12% cut from the current year. The amount of oil and other revenues (i.e., before adding investment income) projected in the Spring update for this coming year is roughly $2.2 billion. So, the amount of additional cuts that would need to be made to avoid calling on additional reserves is roughly another $3.3 billion, which in total would require a roughly 68% reduction (cut) from current year spending levels. Put another way, if it shut everything -- and I mean everything -- else down, at that revenue level the state possibly could cover 90% of the levels budgeted for K-12 and Medicaid. Everything else would be completely and totally gone. The threat of doing that, of course, is completely unrealistic and if made, would just prolong this agony further. The realistic choice is to either fund the difference from the CBR or the earnings reserve. The CBR requires a 3/4 vote of each body and, as we are seeing, will cost a lot to achieve. The earnings reserve requires only a majority vote of each body and can be done with agreement between the two majorities without involvement of the minority. Those are the facts ... 

Thursday, April 9, 2015

And more on Medicaid Expansion ...

As the debate on Medicaid expansion starts coming to a head in Juneau, it also starts heating up elsewhere.  From this morning's exchanges ...

  • Dave Metheny providing healthcare to poor people is illogical? did you go to the Marquis de Sade School of Philosophy?
  • Brad Keithley Dave ... Nope, went to the fiscal responsibility school of government. Medicaid is now the second largest category of state spending behind, and on a faster trajectory of growth than even, K-12. Alaska has opted into more optional services than any other state, has the highest medicaid reimbursement rates of any other state (and, along with Wyoming, is only one of two states where Medicaid reimbursement rates exceed Medicare) and has the highest qualifying criteria (in terms of percent of the poverty rate, sometimes in excess 200%) of any state. By repeatedly using the justification of "the federal government will pay most of the costs," Alaska has worked its way into a position where Medicaid costs now are eating away at the state's ability to continue to fund K-12, the University system, police, corrections and any number of other programs. In order to avoid crashing other programs Medicaid needs to be reformed, not added to. Once we achieve reform there may well be room for adopting expansion, but until then there isn't any room remaining in Alaska's fiscal structure.

The full exchange, which started with my concern about recent votes by three legislators and what that means for where things may be headed on Medicaid expansion is here.