Tag Archives: Nick Tuszynski

Institutions matter, state legislative committee edition

Last week, Mercatus published a new working paper that I coauthored with Pavel Yakovlev of Duquesne University. It addresses an understudied institutional difference between states. Some state legislative chambers allow one committee to write both spending and taxing bills while others separate these functions into two separate committees.

This institutional difference first caught my eye a few years ago when Nick Tuszynski and I reviewed the literature on institutions and state spending. Among 16 different institutions that we looked at—from strict balanced budget requirements to term limits to “item reduction vetoes”—one stood out. Previous research by Mark Crain and Timothy Muris had found that states in which separate committees craft taxing and spending bills spend significantly less per capita than states in which a single committee was responsible for both kinds of bills. As you can see from the figure below (click to enlarge), the effect was estimated to be many times larger than that found for almost any other institution:

InstitutionsBut as large as this effect seems to be, the phenomenon has largely been ignored. To our knowledge, Crain and Muris are the only ones to have studied it. Their paper was now two decades old and was based on a relatively small sample of years from the 1980s.

As I wrote in yesterday’s Economics Intelligence column for US News:

To get a fresh look at the phenomenon, my colleagues and I consulted state statutes, legislative rules, committee websites and members’ offices. We created a unique data set that for some states spans 40 years. We took a cautious approach, coding taxing and spending functions as not separate in any chambers in which it was possible for a tax bill to come out of a spending committee and vice versa. We found that in 25 states, these functions are separate in both chambers, in 7 states they are separate in one chamber, and in the rest, these functions are separate in neither chamber.

To control for other confounding factors, we also gathered data on economic, demographic, and institutional differences between the states. Controlling for these factors, we found that separate taxing and spending committees are, indeed, associated with less spending. To be precise:

Other factors being equal, we find that those states with separate taxing and spending committees spend between $300 and $450 less per capita (between $790 and $1,200 less per household) than other states.

Our full paper is here, a summary is here, and my post at US News is here. Comments welcome.

States Look to Rainy Day Funds to Avoid Future Crises

For the past nine quarters, state revenue collections have been increasing and are now approaching 2008 levels after adjusting for inflation. Many state policymakers are no longer facing the near-ubiquitous budget gaps of fiscal year 2012, but at the moment those memories seem to remain fresh in their minds.

Many states are looking to rainy day funds as a tool to avoid the revenue shortfalls they have experienced since the recession. In Wisconsin, for example, Governor Walker recently made headlines by building up the states’ fund to $125.4 million. In Texas, the state’s significant Rainy Day Fund has reached over $8 billion, behind only Alaska’s fund that holds over $18 billion.

A June report from the Tax Foundation shows Texas and Alaska are the only states with funds that are significant enough to protect states from budget stress in future business cycle downturns. As the Tax Foundation analysis explains, state rainy day funds can be a useful to smooth spending over the business cycle. Research that Matt Mitchell and Nick Tuszynski cite demonstrates that rainy day funds governed by strict rules about when they may be tapped do achieve modest success in smoothing revenue volatility. Because most states have balanced budget requirements, when tax revenues fall during business cycle downturns, states must respond by raising taxes or cutting spending, both pro-cyclical options. If states are required to contribute to rainy day funds when they have revenue surpluses and then are able to draw on these savings during downturns in order to avoid tax increases or spending cuts, this pro-cyclical trend can be avoided.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation points out some of the benefits of large rainy day funds:

Maintaining large “rainy day” funds  benefits Texas and Alaska in three ways:

1) These states do not rely  on large pots of one-time funding to pay for ongoing expenses, but rather balance their books by bringing spending in line with revenues;

2) These states  have reserves on hand to deal with emergencies; and

3) Having a large “rainy day” fund improves the states’ bond rating which means lower interest rates for borrowing.

However, even as more states begin making significant contributions to their rainy day funds, they have not fulfilled their pension obligations. According to states’ own estimates of their pension liabilities, states’ unfunded pension liabilities total about $1 billion. However using private sector accounting methods, states are actually on the hook for over $3 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities. Because states do not use the risk-free discount rate to value these liabilities, the surpluses they think they have to contribute to rainy day funds are illusions.

Even if states were already contributing appropriately to their pension funds and systematically contributed to rainy day funds during revenue upswings, it’s not clear that rainy day funds are a path toward fiscal discipline.  Because of the perpetual tendency for government to grow, it’s unlikely that state policymakers will take any steps to reduce the growth of government during times of economic growth. If states successfully save tax revenues in rainy day funds to avoid having to make spending cuts during recessions, states will not have to decrease spending at any point during the business cycle. States’ balanced budget requirements can provide a mechanism that helps states cut spending in some areas when revenues drop off, but rainy day funds obviate this requirement. Successful use of rainy day funds could contribute to the trend of states’ spending growing fast than GDP.

Supporters of substantial rainy day funds should acknowledge that these cushions — which on the one hand may provide significant benefits to taxpayers — come at the expense of cyclical opportunities to cut the size of state governments to bring them in line with tax revenues. Without the necessity of cutting spending at some point, state budgets might grow more rapidly that they already are, hindering economic growth in the long run. Whether or not rainy day funds increase the growth rate is an empirical question that advocates should research before recommending this strategy, and this possible drawback should be weighed against their potential to reduce revenue volatility.

Would a Biennial Federal Budget Save Money?

According to news reports, a number of members of Congress are urging the “Super Committee” to recommend that the Federal Government move to a two-year budget cycle. The advocates of biennial budgeting span the political spectrum and include Democrats Jeanne Shaheen and Kent Conrad as well as Republicans Paul Ryan and Johnny Isakson.

The idea has long been championed by fiscal conservatives who hope that it will reduce spending. But does it? According to Paula Kearns of Michigan State University, the theoretical impact of a biennial budget process is ambiguous. It might decrease spending if it shifts power from the legislature to the executive, but it might increase spending if it makes the spoils of lobbying that much more durable and encourages special interest groups to lobby for largesse. In a 1994 study, Professor Kearns examined the impact of biennial budgeting at the state level. After controlling for other factors, she found that states with a biennial budget process actually spend more per-capita than states with an annual budget process.

This result was confirmed in a 2003 study by Mark Crain (now of Lafayette College, though he was at GMU when he conducted this research). Crain found that, other factors being equal, states with a biennial budget process spend about $120 more than states with an annual budget process (I’ve converted this figure into 2008 dollars).

Of course, per-capita spending isn’t everything. Maybe biennial budgeting leads to more spending, but it is better spending?

For a review of this and other institutions that affect spending, see my new working paper with Mercatus Center Masters Fellow, Nick Tuszynski.