Article summary
Please read this handout and summarize the main points.
Ronald C.
Fisher
Demographic changes—including aging of the
population, changes in ethnic composition, and
regional population shifts—have affected both ser –
vice demand and productivity of the existing rev-
enue structure. The decline of manufacturing and
the corresponding growing importance of service,
information, and financial industries also have had
a dramatic effect. States have discovered that their
tax structures may be poorly designed for the new
economy and that reforms to the tax system are
elusive. The increasing income inequality resulting
in large part from the economic restructuring ha
s
increased the demand for a variety of state and
local services, notably welfare and education. The
rising relative cost of energy and increasing environ-
mental concerns are additional factors pushing
states and localities to develop or adopt new tech-
nologies for service provision. Certainly the reces-
sion has had a severe impact, but even after the
economy recovers, state and local governments will
continue to be affected by these long-term trends.
T
he recession that began in late 2007 cer-
tainly is the most recent factor creating
turbulent times for state and local govern-
ments. Some would say the current envi-
ronment may be more reflective of a cyclone than
mere turbulence, although the first decade of this
century has been a continuing period of transition
for these governments. After an era of remarkable
growth from the end of World War II until the mid-
1970s, these governments experienced remarkable
stability from the mid-1970s to the end of the cen-
tury. In the first decade of the twenty-first century,
however, major structural changes in the economy,
substantial demographic shifts, a blurring of the
distinction between the private and public sectors,
and now a long and deep recession have combined
to alter the fiscal environment and behavior of
these governments. The obvious issues are the
nature of these factors influencing state and local
governments to change, how these governments
are responding, and what happens next.
This paper provides an overview of the state-local government sector, a review of the short-run
impact of the 2007-09 recession on state and local governments, and a brief summary of key
long-run challenges state and local governments will encounter in the next decade. State and
local governments in aggregate represent about one-seventh of the U.S. economy, with education
and welfare (mostly Medicaid) accounting for more than half. These governments currently face
nearly unprecedented fiscal turmoil as a result of the recent recession. Even after the economy
recovers, states and localities will face challenges both to improve effectiveness and efficiency in
public service provision and to generate revenue sufficient to fund these crucial public services.
(JEL E62, H1, H7
)
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regional Economic Development, 2010, 6(1), pp. 4-22.
Ronald C. Fisher is a professor of economics at Michigan State University. The author thanks Amarpreet Jhita and Ravi Shah, undergraduate
research assistants at Michigan State University, whose work was invaluable in tabulating and reporting data used in this paper. He also appre-
ciates the assistance of the Governments Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, especially Christopher Pece and Stephen Owens, who arranged
early access to Census of Governments data.
© 2010, The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Federal Reserve System, the Board of Governors, or the regional Federal Reserve Banks. Articles may be reprinted, reproduced,
published, distributed, displayed, and transmitted in their entirety if copyright notice, author name(s), and full citation are included. Abstracts,
synopses, and other derivative works may be made only with prior written permission of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.
4 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0
5
These issues are reviewed in this paper, begin-
ning with an overview of the state-local government
sector. How large is it? Where does their money
come from? How is the money spent? How do states
differ from each other? Attention then turns to the
key short-term policy issue: the aftermath of and
response to the recession. To what degree have
states responded with tax increases compared with
expenditure reductions, and is there a preferred
source for additional revenue? Finally, a number
of fundamental long-term policy issues—key issues
to resolve over the next 10 years—are noted, includ-
ing the structural problems with the revenue sys-
tem and challenges to service provision.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE
STATE-LOCAL SECTOR
The Magnitude of State and Local
Governments
The state-local sector is an exceptionally impor-
tant component of the U.S. economy, much more
so than is often recognized. Individuals and federal
officials may think only of their own state or city,
which may indeed be small, but the aggregate
impact of states and localities is substantial. In 2008,
state and local governments spent nearly $9,00
0
per person. Spending by the sector accounted for
about 14 percent of gross domestic product (GDP),
double the share represented by consumer pur-
chases of durable goods. State and local govern-
ments employ about 1 in 8 of all workers in the
nation. When spending is measured by the levels
of government that actually make the final expen-
ditures (after accounting for grants received from
higher-level governments), the state-local sector
accounts for 43 percent of aggregate public spend-
ing and 52 percent of domestic public spending
(excluding defense and international expenditures)
(Figure 1
).
Perhaps most important, state and local
governments are responsible for the public services
most apparent to citizens, including education,
health and welfare, transportation, public safety,
and water and sanitation.
State-local spending grew much faster than
income in the 1950s, 1960s, and most of the 1970s
but has remained between 20 and 24 percent of
personal income since the late 1970s (Figure 2).
Compared with changes in population and infla-
tion, real spending per person increased from 1950
to 2000, and especially fast from 1950 to 1990, but
has remained essentially constant over this decade.
Fisher
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Expenditures from
Own Sources
Expenditures
After Grants
Domestic Expenditures,
Own Sources
Domestic Expenditures,
After Grants
Percentage of GDP
Federal
State-Local
Figure
1
Government Expenditures as a Percentage of Personal Income
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
6 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
Types of Services and Expenditures
Two categories—education (35 percent) and
welfare (17 percent, which includes Medicaid)—
account for more than half of state-local spending.
No other single category accounts for more than
10 percent of aggregate spending, including high-
ways (7 percent), government administration (5
percent), police protection (4 percent), and correc-
tions (3 percent). Government administration may
be particularly noteworthy, as critics sometimes
argue that state-local fiscal problems could be elimi-
nated simply by cutting government “overhead”
and reducing the number of officials, a claim that
seems dubious given its low, 5 percent share of
the total budget. There are important differences
between state and local government spending pat-
terns. Welfare, including Medicaid expenditure,
is the largest spending category for state govern-
ments (21 percent), whereas education (38 percent)
is the largest spending category for local govern-
ments. Both categories are a bit deceptive, however,
as a large portion of state spending for Medicaid is
funded by grants from the federal government, and
state governments provide substantial grants to
cities and school districts to fund education.
The composition of aggregate state-local
budgets has been remarkably stable for 30 years,
with education and public welfare accounting for
about half of total spending (Figure 3). Taking a
longer view, welfare spending increased as a share
of the total budget, fueled initially by anti-poverty
programs in the 1960s and then by Medicaid in
recent decades. In contrast, expenditure for high-
ways has not increased as fast as total spending,
as construction of major roads and highways was
completed and spending turned more to mainte-
nance than expansion. Although the aggregate com-
position of state-local spending has not changed
appreciably, there have been important changes
within spending categories. For example, the share
of education spending for K-12 schools increased,
whereas the share for higher education institutions
declined. Similarly, cash grants to low-income
families have declined as a share of welfare spend-
ing, more than replaced by spending for health
care.
Fisher
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
19
5
2
19
5
7
19
62
19
67
19
72
19
77
19
82
19
87
19
92
19
97
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
0
3
20
0
4
20
05
20
0
6
20
07
Percentage
State-Local Total
State-Local Own Source
State Total
State Own Source
Figure 2
State and Local Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP: 200
8
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (State and Local Government Finance).
Fisher
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Percentage of General Expenditure
Education Public Welfare Health and Hospitals
Highways
Governmental Administration
Police ProtectionCorrections
19
62
19
67
19
72
19
77
19
82
19
87
19
92
19
97
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
Figure 3
Distribution of State-Local General Expenditure
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (State and Local Government Finance).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
19
61
-6
2
19
66
-6
7
19
71
-7
2
19
76
-7
7
19
81
-8
2
19
86
-8
7
19
91
-9
2
19
96
-9
7
19
97
-9
8
19
98
-9
9
19
99
-0
0
20
00
-0
1
20
01
-0
2
20
02
-0
3
20
03
-0
4
20
04
-0
5
20
05
-0
6
20
06
-0
7
Percentage of General Revenue
Federal Government Property Tax
Sales and Gross Receipts
Individual Income
Current Charges Miscellaneous Revenue
Figure 4
Distribution of State-Local General Revenue
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (State and Local Government Finance).
8 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
Fisher
now apply to a smaller fraction of income because
exempt forms of income have grown in importance.
And property tax exemptions for industrial and
commercial properties intended to spur local eco-
nomic development have reduced property tax
bases.
Intergovernmental Relationships
Intergovernmental fiscal flows (resource trans-
fers) between governments are an inherent char-
acteristic of federal systems and particularly
important fiscally in the United States. State govern-
ments receive 28 percent of their revenue from the
federal government; local governments receive 4
percent from the federal government and 34 percent
from state governments. The interdependence flows
in both directions—federal and state governments
provide substantial financial support to lower levels,
and federal and state governments rely on states
and localities, respectively, to provide services
effectively with those funds.
Intergovernmental fiscal flows in the United
States are especially important for the two largest
subnational government service areas (Figures 5
and 6): school districts, which receive the largest
Sources of Revenue
As shown in Figure 4, for the past 20 years
state and local governments in aggregate have had
a stable and balanced revenue structure based on
five roughly equal major sources: federal aid (20
percent), sales and gross receipts taxes (18 percent),
property taxes (17 percent), current charges and
fees (15 percent), and individual income taxes (13
percent). Again, states differ a bit from local govern-
ments, with sales and excise taxes providing the
largest source of own-source state revenues (24 per-
cent) and property taxes the largest source of local
revenues (28 percent). Since the early 1960s, the
property tax and sales tax categories have declined
in relative importance, whereas those for income
tax and charges have increased.
As with spending, the apparent stability of
this balanced revenue structure masks important
changes within each tax category. For all three
major state-local taxes, tax bases have been nar-
rowed both by policy decisions and changes in
the economy. Sales taxes apply to a smaller fraction
of purchases largely because of the growth of spend-
ing on services and online purchases. Income taxes
Medical
Assistance
44%
Cash Assistance
4%Food Assistance
5%
Highways
7%
Education
8%
Other
(1,000 programs)
32%
Figure 5
Federal Aid to State and Local Governments:
2008 (Total $469.8 billion)
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (State and Local Government
Finance).
County
2
3%
Municipal
17%
Township Special
2%
District
3%
School District
55%
Figure 6
Distribution of State Aid by Type of Local
Government: 2007 (Total $446.7 billion)
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (State and Local Government
Finance).
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 9
component of state aid, and medical assistance
(mostly Medicaid), which receives the largest com-
ponent of federal aid. As a result, local K-12 public
education institutions receive 55 percent of their
revenue from the state and federal governments,
whereas state welfare expenditures receive 60 per-
cent of their funding from the federal government.
Fiscal Diversity
This aggregate perspective of the state-local
sector can be deceiving, however, because indi-
vidual states or localities usually differ from the
mythical “average” state or locality. Indeed, fiscal
diversity is the fundamental and essential charac-
teristic of federal systems. Individual state and
local governments have substantial autonomy to
select fiscal structures that best reflect their citizens’
desires or are optimal for that jurisdiction’s eco-
nomic and social circumstances. Without diversity,
there is little reason for subnational governments.
If all states had identical laws, taxes, and public
services, there might as well be only one.
In fact, state and local governments in the
United States differ substantially in structure, levels
of spending and revenue, sources of revenue and
categories of spending, and the institutional char-
acteristics of taxes and expenditure programs. It
is impossible in this brief overview to detail all of
these differences, but a few examples can serve
well to illustrate the nature and magnitude of the
variation.
Spending differences among states remain large,
influenced by variation in the desired quantity or
quality of services demanded, differences in costs
of providing public services, and even differences
in which services are deemed to be public respon-
sibility. In 2007, state-local spending per person
varied from more than $12,000 (in Wyoming) to
about $6,000 (in Tennessee).1 The information in
Table 1 reveals that state spending differences
declined substantially during the past century;
in 1982 the difference between the highest- and
lowest-spending states was relatively greater than
in 2002. But spending differences apparently have
widened again this decade, as the ratio of the
highest to lowest is larger for 2007 than in 2002.
Diversity also exists among state revenue sys-
tems. Individual states often use less-balanced
revenue structures than is true for the full sector.
Nine states have no income taxes. Although 46
states have general sales taxes, only 14 tax food
purchases. Often, state tax structures are designed
for the economic conditions in that state. For
instance, Florida and Hawaii rely on sales taxes
to take advantage of their many visitors; states
with substantial mineral deposits, such as Alaska,
Louisiana, Montana, and Wyoming, rely dispropor-
tionately on severance taxes; and Oregon (income
tax, no sales tax) and Washington (sales tax, no
income tax) have selected tax structures essentially
opposite despite their neighboring location partly
because of the differences in the two states’ econ –
omies. Perhaps nothing better illustrates the variety
among states as much as the differences in tobacco
excise taxes, which vary from $3.46 per pack of
cigarettes (in Rhode Island) to $0.07 per pack (in
South Carolina, naturally).
SHORT-TERM POLICY ISSUE:
THE EFFECT OF AND RESPONSE
TO THE RECESSION
The recession that began late in 2007 has
imposed a nearly unprecedented fiscal decline on
state and local governments. As shown in Figure 7,
tax revenue for the overall sector declined for four
consecutive quarters beginning in the third quarter
of 2008. The changes by type of tax are shown in
Figure 8; only the property tax maintained stabil-
ity and continued to grow into 2009. As a conse-
quence, nominal state-local tax revenue during
calendar year 2009 was less than both 2007 and
2008 and about at the same level as 2006. The
decrease in state-local tax revenue was led by dra-
matic declines in the individual income tax, which
decreased more than 25 percent in the second
quarter of 2009.
The effect on the revenue of state governments
alone was substantially greater than for the sector
as a whole because most state governments did not
have the benefit of a stable property tax. State
Fisher
1
This excludes Alaska and Washington, D.C., jurisdictions with even
higher per capita expenditure but special circumstances that make
comparisons to other states deceptive.
Fisher
1 0 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
Ta
b
le
1
V
a
ri
a
ti
o
n
i
n
P
e
r
C
a
p
it
a
S
ta
te
-L
o
ca
l
G
e
n
e
ra
l
E
xp
e
n
d
it
u
re
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t
M
ax
im
u
m
-t
o
–
Y
e
ar
S
ta
te
s
M
e
an
(
$)
o
f
va
ri
at
io
n
M
ax
im
u
m
(
$)
M
in
im
u
m
(
$)
m
in
im
u
m
r
at
io
19
82
A
ll
1,
99
2
0.
47
7,
95
8
1,
34
5
5.
9
19
92
A
ll
3,
90
0
0.
30
9,
89
3
2,
75
1
3.
6
19
98
A
ll
5,
22
4
0.
23
11
,5
02
4,
03
7
2.
9
20
02
A
ll
6,
21
7
0.
23
13
,4
66
4,
88
9
2.
8
20
07
A
ll
7,
83
2
0.
24
15
,5
95
6,
02
5
2.
6
19
82
A
ll
, e
xc
lu
d
in
g
A
la
sk
a
a
n
d
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
, D
.C
.
1,
84
1
0.
19
3,
15
7
1,
34
5
2.
3
19
92
A
ll
, e
xc
lu
d
in
g
A
la
sk
a
an
d
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
, D
.C
.
3,
70
8
0.
17
7,
78
8
2,
75
1
2.
1
19
98
A
ll
, e
xc
lu
d
in
g
A
la
sk
a
an
d
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
, D
.C
.
5,
02
5
0.
12
7,
35
1
4,
03
7
1.
8
20
02
A
ll
, e
xc
lu
d
in
g
A
la
sk
a
an
d
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
, D
.C
.
5,
85
6
0.
13
8,
52
3
4,
88
9
1.
7
20
07
A
ll
, e
xc
lu
d
in
g
A
la
sk
a
an
d
W
as
h
in
g
to
n
, D
.C
.
7,
38
3
0.
16
12
,0
24
6,
02
5
2.
0
S
O
U
R
C
E:
U
.S
. C
e
n
su
s
B
u
re
au
(
S
ta
te
a
n
d
L
o
ca
l
G
o
ve
rn
m
e
n
t
Fi
n
an
ce
).
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 1 1
Fisher
5.8
6.5
3.9
5.5
2.2
4.6 4
.1
–5.1
–11.4
–6.9
0.8
–0.5
–14
–12
–10
–8
–6
–4
–2
0
2
4
6
8
2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009
Percent
Figure 7
Percentage Change in State-Local Tax Revenue (quarter over quarter)
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue).
–0.30
–0.25
–0.20
–
0.15
–
0.10
–
0.05
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009
Individual Income
General Sales and Gross Receipts
Property
Motor Fuel
Percent
Figure 8
Percentage Change in State-Local Tax Revenue by Tax Category (quarter over quarter)
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau (Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue).
government tax revenue has declined for five con-
secutive quarters, through the fourth quarter of
2009 (and preliminary estimates at the time of this
writing suggest a further decrease for most states
in the first quarter of 2010). The decreases were so
large that state government nominal tax revenue
in calendar year 2009 was at about the same level
as 2005; essentially, state governments lost three
years of revenue growth.
State and local governments responded in a
number of ways to the recession, as one might
expect. Declining revenue coupled with increased
demand for services caused states to face potential
deficits, or “budget gaps,” of more than $60 billion
for fiscal year (FY) 2009 and more than $120 billion
for FY 2010, according to the National Governors
Association and the National Association of State
Budget Officers (NGA and NASBO) estimates.
About 30 states raised taxes or fees for FY 2010,
including 12 that increased the income tax, mostly
for higher-income taxpayers. But the number of
states increasing various excise taxes or various
charges and fees was much greater (NGA and
NASBO). States and localities also benefited from
federal stimulus support provided by the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA)—
about $140 billion for the period July 2008 to
December 2010, intended to increase federal gov-
ernment financing of Medicaid and support state
financing of public education. By all accounts,
ARRA funding had its largest effect in FY 2010.
Even with tax increases and more federal support,
states still enacted cost-saving measures and
reduced spending by about 4 percent in 2009 and
an additional 5 percent in 2010.
The conventional wisdom since World War II
had been that state and local governments in aggre-
gate have been a countercyclical force during reces-
sions, using reserves and tax increases to maintain,
or even increase, spending. As noted by Robert
Rafuse (1965) in a classic article, “abstracting from
trend, state and local expenditures have been a
stabilizing factor in the economy during every post-
war expansion and contraction.” Such a policy
was supported by the development of “rainy day,”
or budget stabilization, funds in many states and
the automatic (unemployment compensation, fed-
eral matching funds for Medicaid, food stamps,
and so on) and discretionary federal support that
flows to states during recessions.
The current response by state and local govern-
ments to the recent recession seems to be different
from that to previous recessions, however, as shown
by the analysis in Table 2. Comparing the 2010
response to the 2007-09 recession with the 1984
response to the 1981-82 recession, which was the
last economic decline of a similar magnitude,
reveals the following. In the current cycle, state
and local governments have had smaller relative
revenue increases and larger relative spending
decreases, with relatively less reliance on broad-
based taxes (income and sales) and relatively more
reliance on narrow excise taxes (tobacco, alcohol,
gambling). In 1984, spending decreases totaled less
than 1 percent because 29 states increased taxes
by a total of more than 3.1 percent of aggregate
revenue. In 2010, spending decreases totaled more
than 5 percent, whereas 30 states increased taxes
by a total of only about 1.75 percent of aggregate
revenue.
A number of factors may account for the differ-
ence, but one is clear. States acted in the 1990s and
earlier in this decade to reduce taxes substantially—
relatively more than in the past. From 1994 through
2001, when the economy was growing rapidly,
states acted explicitly to reduce taxes substantially.
Then for FYs 2005-06 through 2008-09, about half
the states acted in each prior year to reduce taxes
or tax rates. Indeed, states acted 62 times in this
later period to reduce income taxes, with a net
reduction of about $4.4 billion. So, state and local
governments took advantage of periods of economic
growth to reduce tax rates, which both limited the
buildup of reserves and made these governments
vulnerable to subsequent economic declines.
With expectations that employment and income
will grow slowly and that federal stimulus support
will end in 2010, it is projected that states will face
potential deficits for FY 2011 and FY 2012 in the
magnitude of $55 to $70 billion annually (NGA
and NASBO). What should states do? Many options
have been used already. As noted, expenditure
reductions were greater than revenue increases
for 2010, even though more than half of the states
increased taxes. State-local employment was
reduced, wages were cut, state grants to local gov-
Fisher
1 2 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 1 3
Fisher
Ta
b
le
2
S
ta
t
e
F
is
ca
l
A
ct
io
n
s
in
R
e
ce
ss
io
n
P
e
ri
o
d
s
S
ta
te
s
A
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
o
f
In
co
m
e
t
ax
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
o
f
P
e
ak
in
cr
e
as
in
g
re
ve
n
u
e
i
n
cr
e
as
e
*
st
at
e
g
e
n
e
ra
l
an
d
s
al
e
s
ta
x
st
at
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
u
n
e
m
p
lo
ym
e
n
t
Fi
sc
al
y
e
ar
re
ve
n
u
e
*
($
b
il
li
o
n
)
re
ve
n
u
e
*
in
cr
e
as
e
s*
ch
an
g
e
*
ra
te
(
%
)
19
84
29
10
3.
10
–0
.7
10
.8
19
92
31
15
2.
50
20
; 1
8
5.
1
7.
8
20
03
23
8
0.
65
5;
1
1
1.
5
6.
3
20
10
29
24
1.
75
(
e
st
im
at
e
)
10
; 8
–5
.4
10
.1
N
O
T
E:
*
A
t
th
e
t
im
e
b
u
d
ge
ts
w
e
re
e
n
ac
te
d
.
S
O
U
R
C
E:
N
G
A
a
n
d
N
A
S
B
O
(
T
h
e
F
is
ca
l
S
u
rv
ey
o
f
th
e
S
ta
te
s)
.
ernments were reduced, and funds from available
balances and reserves were shifted to cover budget
gaps. My expectation is that tax increases will be
necessary. Indeed, I believe they are desirable. And
if tax increases are warranted, I suggest that state
income taxes seem the best revenue option.
Maintaining state services and spending, even
with tax increases, will have a positive effect on
the recovery. Spending by state and local govern-
ments can provide important stimulus to both local
and national economic recovery, especially when
spending by consumers is weak. Some may be con-
cerned about increasing taxes during the down-
turn, but it is difficult to understand how laying
off teachers and police officers, wage reductions,
lowering reimbursement to health care providers,
or reducing maintenance or construction of public
facilities will help the economy grow.
Income taxes are the fairest source of additional
revenue, especially given the differential effects of
the recession. Unemployment remains high, and
workers in some industries who are still employed
have made wage concessions. Workers in strong
or growing businesses have, in contrast, enjoyed
wage increases. Income tax increases are collected
from those still working in proportion to earnings.
Individuals faring the best during the recession
and recovery pay the most, and tax increases may
even be targeted to higher-income taxpayers through
the use of graduated rates. By contrast, even people
who are out of work may pay sales taxes or excise
taxes on such things as gasoline, cigarettes, or
alcohol.
Income tax rate increases, even if temporary,
provide the best prospect for future revenue growth
as economic conditions and employment improve.
Research shows clearly that income taxes have
the largest long-run revenue elasticity and thus
respond much more in the long run to economic
growth than either excise taxes or general sales
taxes. Indeed, that is precisely why income tax
revenues declined so drastically during the reces-
sion. As employment and income grow, states will
want to generate revenue to replace the lost fed-
eral stimulus funds, reinstate service reductions
required by the recession, and rebuild balances
and state rainy day funds in preparation for the
future. Income taxes provide states and localities
the best opportunity to accomplish these goals
quickly.
Income tax increases, especially if targeted to
higher-income taxpayers, are effectively a way for
states to leverage additional stimulus support from
the federal government. Because state-local income
taxes are deductible in calculating federal income
tax for individuals who itemize deductions, a $100
increase in state taxes costs a taxpayer in the 35
percent tax bracket as little as $65. The difference
is reduced federal tax. Thus, for every $100 of
additional income tax revenue received by states
and localities, residents pay substantially less; the
remainder is effectively additional federal stimulus.
Finally, as shown in Figure 8, income taxes
declined more than any other state-local revenue
source since 2005 because of direct state decisions
and the recession. When the economy was growing,
states acted to reduce income taxes or income tax
rates. When the recession hit, income taxes were
affected more than any other source of funding
for states and localities. Temporary income tax
increases as the recovery begins and accelerates
would simply replace that lost revenue. If states
are going to reduce tax rates during periods of
economic growth, rather than using the growth to
establish substantial reserves, then it seems reason-
able for them to increase tax rates when the econ-
omy (and revenue) is not growing.
LONG-TERM POLICY ISSUES
Revenue Structure
Substantial economic, demographic, and
technological changes have already affected state
and local government revenues greatly. With the
prospect of these changes continuing, or even inten-
sifying, state and local governments are expected
to continue to consider a number of substantial
reforms to their revenue structure. Five of these
crucial challenges are noted briefly below:
(i) State and local income taxes often provide
preferential treatment for retired individuals
by taxing the types of income earned by
retired individuals at lower rates than other
forms of income and by providing additional
exemptions or credits. With the population
Fisher
1 4 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 1 5
aging and relatively more retired individuals,
the cost of such preferential treatment is
expected to increase greatly. This issue is
considered in greater detail below.
(ii) Most state and local retail sales taxes were
designed initially to apply to sales of tangible
property and thus, even today, often do not
apply to sales (or consumer purchases) of
most services. As the consumption of ser –
vices continues to represent a rising share of
consumer spending, the exemption of ser –
vices means that sales taxes apply to a declin-
ing share of spending. Over time, therefore,
sales tax revenue will not increase as fast as
consumer spending and higher tax rates may
be necessary. There also may be important
distributional effects because those taxpayers
who buy relatively more services pay less tax.
The Federation of Tax Administrators
(2008) reports that of 168 specific services
identified, only 8 states tax the sale of at
least half of those services and only 23 tax
more than one-third. Only about half of the
states tax ticket sales for entertainment and
sporting events, and professional services
by doctors, lawyers, and so on are taxed in
only seven states. In contrast, Hawaii and
New Mexico are known for having broad-
based sales taxes that include most of these
services.
(iii) State and local sales taxes were designed as
“destination-based” taxes, with liability
determined by the location of the buyer
rather than the location of the sale. Under
current federal law, states and localities
cannot require out-of-state sellers to collect
a sales tax unless the seller has a physical
presence (“nexus”) in that jurisdiction, such
as a retail branch. In addition, it is often dif-
ficult for states to collect sales and use taxes
from buyers if the sale transaction occurred
in another location. The increasing preva-
lence of cross-jurisdiction sales as a result
of Internet transactions is another reason
state and local sales taxes may apply to fewer
purchases and become less productive.
In essence, both the issue of taxation of
service purchases and the difficulty of taxing
cross-border purchases illustrate how the
typical state sales tax structure is outmoded,
having been designed for a different time
and economy. So, the challenge to states is
either to redesign the sales tax or scrap it
entirely for a different consumption tax.
(iv) The dislike of property taxes, even compared
with other state-local taxes, has been a recur-
ring theme in state-local finance for a number
of years. But recent challenges to the prop-
erty tax seem to be motivated by different
factors rather than traditional concerns and
may imply a renewed wave of proposals for
reducing or constraining this tax, which has
continued to provide nearly 30 percent of
local government revenue and 75 percent of
local tax revenue. Three factors seem to have
been important in driving recent concerns
about property taxes and proposals for reduc-
tions: (i) uneasiness and uncertainty created
by the growth of property taxes, especially
related to growth in housing values for home-
owners, (ii) concern about the value of fis-
cally independent local governments as
opposed to tax revenue collection or direct
provision of services by state governments,
and (iii) concern about the distributional
impact of property taxes compared with
alternative state-local taxes. This seems quite
different from the 1980s and 1990s when
disparities in property tax wealth and the
resulting implications for financing schools
were the prime motivators of “reform”
efforts.
Recent research reported in Fisher,
Bristle, and Prasad (2010) suggests that the
rapid growth in property taxes and resulting
taxpayer uncertainty, especially for home-
owners, has been the major impetus for the
most recent wave of proposals to reduce
property taxes. It is not clear whether this
focus on rising property taxes reflects concern
about the uncertainty of property tax bills
when taxes change often and substantially,
an illusion that homeowners are not wealth-
ier despite large capital gains, uncertainty
about the permanence of capital gains, or a
perception that homeowners are now bear-
Fisher
ing an “unfair” share of public service costs
due to the relative growth of residential
property taxes.
(v) Public finance economists have long noted
that pricing of state-local services (that is,
financing either construction or use of facil-
ities and services with fees as opposed to
taxes) has potential advantages for some
services often provided through state and
local governments. Prices (fees) can target
direct users in proportion to the benefit,
assist in measuring the demand for public
services, and be used to allocate use during
periods of congestion. Such pricing is most
common for services that have largely private
benefits, such as water, electricity, health
care at public hospitals, higher education,
recreational facilities, and transportation.
Indeed, fees collected for health care and
higher education accounted for more than
half of state-local charges and fees in 2007.
Two recent trends suggest that the use of
pricing (fees) may become more attractive
in the future. First, state governments across
the nation have decided that public higher
education students should pay a larger frac-
tion of the cost of education. For all public
institutions, tuition has increased from 23
percent of revenue to 37 percent in the past
13 years. Even with the large increases in
prices, enrollment in public higher educa-
tion continues to grow. It seems unlikely
that this trend will be reversed, and in fact
the concept may be applied to other govern-
ment-provided services. Second, changes in
technology have made it easier, less costly,
and more efficient to collect fees and tolls
for roads, public transit, and other public
utilities (think electronic monitoring and
meters). I imagine that some of that technol-
ogy might eventually be applied to other
public services as well.
Income Taxation and Senior Citizens
Although many of these issues have been
widely discussed and dissected in detail, here I
review one—senior citizen taxation—that has not
had the same attention but illustrates the combined
economic and political aspects of the issues dis-
cussed here.
In 1960, wages and salaries of workers
accounted for two-thirds of total personal income,
whereas Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and
Disability Insurance [OASDI]) provided less than
3 percent (Table 3). By 2009, wages and salaries
had fallen to only 52 percent of personal income
and Social Security (OASDI) benefits had risen to
nearly 10 percent. Income from interest, dividends,
and employee pension and insurance funds also
Fisher
1 6 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
Table 3
Sources of Personal Income (percentage distribution)*
Income source 1960 1980 2000 2009
Wage and salary disbursements 66.3 59.7 57.3 52.3
Employer contributions for employee pension and insurance funds 3.5 8.0 7.2 8.7
Employer contributions for government social insurance 2.3 3.9 4.1 3.8
Personal interest income 6.0 11.9 12.0 10.3
Personal dividend income 3.3 2.8 4.5 4.6
Old-age, survivors, disability, and health insurance benefits 2.7 6.7 7.4 9.6
Family assistance 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2
Other personal transfer receipts 1.1 3.2 4.2 7.7
NOTE: *Columns do not total 100% due to unreported categories.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 1 7
had grown in relative importance. This changing
relative importance of income sources reflects the
aging of the U.S. population and the growth of
both public and private retirement benefits—facts
relevant to states, which historically have provided
favorable tax treatment for senior citizens. Accord –
ing to a report by Davis Baer (2007), 26 states and
Washington, D.C., exempt Social Security benefits
from state income taxation, 23 states exempt pri-
vate pension benefits (at least partially), and 28
states plus Washington, D.C., provide additional
personal tax exemptions for seniors.
Michigan is an extreme example. Menchik
(2003) reports that the effective state income tax
rate for senior citizens in that state is negative—
seniors as a group pay no state income tax but
receive refunds or credits. Specifically, in Michigan
Social Security and public pension benefits are
tax exempt, there is a large exemption for private
pension benefits, and seniors receive an additional
personal exemption, a partial capital income
exemption, and a generous and refundable property
tax credit administered by the state income tax.
As the demographic trend continues in the
next decades and retired individuals comprise a
growing fraction of the population, income taxes
in states with such tax benefits will be applied to
a declining share of income and thus become less
productive. So, an obvious philosophical and pol-
icy question arises: Should senior citizens pay
toward state services? Certainly they continue to
benefit directly and indirectly from state services
after retirement. Many of the state income tax pro-
visions noted were enacted when a substantial
proportion of senior citizens lived near or below
the poverty level. But the growth of Social Security,
pensions, and other benefits has changed the envi-
ronment. Today, fewer than 10 percent of senior
households live below the poverty line, which is
less than any other major population segment. Yet,
any official in state government will tell you that
senior citizens are also a powerful political force.
Service Provision
For state and local governments, if the main
long-term revenue challenge is designing a revenue
system for the modern economy, the main long-
term expenditure challenge is improving the
“effectiveness” of service provision—that is, find-
ing ways to get the greatest result for the money
expended. Four services that top this “bang for
the buck” list of issues are reviewed (including
the criminal justice system, which is discussed in
further detail below). In addition, the structure of
state-local government, which is itself becoming a
major issue, is also discussed.
(i) State education policy has shifted from the
focus in the 1980s and early 1990s on reduc-
ing disparities in school resources to a
focus in this decade on considering methods
of evaluating and improving educational
results. The story is now quite well known.
Increased state government financing of K-12
education reduced spending differences
among schools and increased real per stu-
dent spending substantially, which resulted
in specialized attention and dramatically
smaller class sizes. Yet, educational out-
comes measured by a variety of standardized
tests or school completion rates have not
improved substantially.
Not surprisingly, the state and federal gov-
ernments reacted. States adopted enhanced
graduation requirements (47 states), gradua-
tion tests (23 states), school “report cards,”
and opportunities for nontraditional teachers
and schools (“charter schools”). The federal
government’s “No Child Left Behind” law
mandates annual evaluation and improve-
ment, with a set of prescribed remedies for
schools that are not improving. This has
been a dramatic change, with centralized
governments assuming increased responsi-
bility for traditionally local issues. With the
growing importance of education in the inter-
national job market, one expects this push
for “improvement” in educational outcomes
to continue.
(ii) Improving the effectiveness of criminal
justice systems has become a focus of state
governments across the nation. Especially
during the 1990s and earlier in this decade,
state-local spending on public safety and
corrections increased rapidly, in large part
Fisher
because the number of people in state prisons
increased substantially. As incarcerations
grew, corrections and public safety occupied
an increasingly larger fraction of state budgets
amid concern that public safety outcomes
have not improved proportionately. As a
result, states are now reconsidering criminal
justice policy. This issue is considered in
greater detail below.
(iii) Although not exclusively a state-local issue,
expanding access to and controlling the
costs of health care are exceedingly impor-
tant for state and local governments. Health
care costs affect states both in their role as
the primary financial supporter of health
care for low-income families (principally
through Medicaid) and in their role as a
major employer. Medicaid expenditures are
approaching 15 percent of total state-local
spending, and various estimates of aggregate
health-related spending by state and local
governments (including Medicaid, public
health programs, health care benefits for
employees, and the cost of health care for
prisoners) suggest a range between 25 and
30 percent of total state-local expenditures.
If health care costs continue to increase at
relatively fast rates nationally, then these
expenditures could easily take an even larger
share of state-local budgets.
The recent adoption of new health insur-
ance legislation by the federal government
certainly is expected to affect state-local gov-
ernment expenditures, although the nature
and magnitude of those effects are not yet
clear. Changes in Medicaid rules are expected
to increase eligibility in some states, adding
to the number of people covered; but on the
other hand, requirements for businesses and
individuals to purchase health insurance
may reduce the number of persons requiring
Medicaid assistance. To the extent that pro-
visions in the law intended to reduce the
growth rate of health care costs are successful,
those reductions will reduce budget pressure
for state and local governments. Thus, indi-
vidual states and localities are in much the
same position as private businesses, having
to respond to rising health care costs but not
being in a position to alter those national
trends independently.
(iv) Public employees have been a target in the
state-local government response to the reces-
sion, with widespread reductions in employ-
ment and salaries, but concern about public
employee pension and benefit plans had
arisen even before the recession. Three issues
are often discussed. First, most state-local
employees continue to be covered by defined-
benefit pension programs, even as many
private employers have shifted to defined-
contribution or 401(k) plans. Second, often
public employees are eligible for retirement
and receipt of pension benefits at relatively
young ages, sometimes after working 25 or
so years, even when retirement ages for
Social Security and some private pensions
are rising. Third, in many cases, state-local
employee contracts have required that these
workers pay a smaller fraction of health
insurance costs than many employees in
the private sector.
These differences resulted from a number
of factors. Sometimes public employees
were paid lower salaries than comparable
private sector workers, with the difference
offset by more-generous benefits. Sometimes,
as also happened in the private sector,
employers agreed to generous retirement
benefits because those costs were deferred
into the future. And in some cases, retirement
at relatively young ages was in recognition
of the strenuous nature of some jobs, as often
cited in the case of public safety workers,
for instance. Changing circumstances have
called all of these into question. Life expec –
tancy and quality of health have improved
substantially, with people now commonly
working well into their 60s. Individual
retirement savings plans are now the norm.
With many past state-local employees now
retired, state and localities are bearing the
retirement costs that were once considered
“deferred.” And states are worried about
the implicit debt that the future retirement
costs of current employees represents. Thus,
Fisher
1 8 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 1 9
it seems almost certain that all of these
aspects of state-local employee contracts
will be reexamined in the future.
(v) Finally, even the basic structure of local
government is being reexamined, with two
aspects often mentioned. First, with about
89,500 local governments—including coun-
ties, municipalities, townships, school dis-
tricts, and other special districts, some
with overlapping responsibilities and bound-
aries—questions are being raised as to
whether some consolidation in this structure
would reduce costs or improve accountabil-
ity to citizens. The more than 14,500 school
districts are a second concern. Many school
district boundaries were set many years ago
and often do not correspond to boundaries
of other local governments. And the bound-
aries established in the past coupled with
population change and migration means that
school districts vary greatly in both area
and number of students. So, it seems likely,
especially in some states, that the structure
of these local governments may be recon-
sidered as the pressure for more effective
and lower-cost service provision continues.
Criminal Justice Policy
Criminal justice expenditures and policy, espe-
cially for corrections, deserves further discussion,
partly because this has been an especially fast-
growing component of state-local budgets and
partly because it raises important issues of social
policy as well as fiscal policy. As with taxation of
senior citizens, criminal justice policy also illus-
trates the interaction between economic and politi-
cal forces.
In 2007, state and local governments spent
about $68 billion on corrections and about $191
billion on criminal justice services in aggregate.
Although spending in this category grew excep-
tionally fast in the 1980s and 1990s, with average
annual growth of about 10 percent, spending is still
a relatively low fraction of state and local budgets.
Criminal justice expenditures in aggregate (includ-
ing police, courts, and prisons) are about 7 percent
of state-local expenditures, and corrections spend-
ing alone is less than 3 percent. However, because
of this category’s rapid spending growth, its share
of state-local budgets has doubled since the early
1980s.
Despite the increased spending and the impli-
cations for states’ fiscal conditions, it seems to me
that the key issues here are ones of efficiency and
social policy. The United States has the highest
incarceration rate in the world, with 1.6 million
persons incarcerated in federal and state prisons
in 2008, or 504 per 100,000 people. Incarceration
rates doubled in the 1980s, increased by 60 percent
in the 1990s, but have increased only 5 percent
since 2000. And the incarceration rate actually
decreased in 2008 for the first time in many years,
suggesting that states have begun to make policy
adjustments. The efficiency of criminal justice
policy based on jail time can be questioned partly
because recidivism remains high. After release,
many former prisoners violate release conditions
or commit other crimes and return to prison. And
crime rates had declined nationally even while
incarceration rates continued to increase
substantially.
The criminal justice policy followed by the
state and local governments in the 1980s and 1990s
not only led to a high rate of incarceration but also
had disproportionate effects among the population.
In 2008, 58 percent of federal and state prisoners
were black or Hispanic, with 35 percent being black
males; both rates far exceed the ratio of those minor-
ity groups in the population. Indeed, the incarcer-
ation rate for black males (3,161 per 100,000) is
six times greater than that for the total population.
A general equilibrium perspective is helpful,
I believe, in interpreting these disproportionate
effects of criminal justice policy. Policy decisions
concerning illegal drugs substantially contributed
to increased incarceration rates. Indeed, 53 percent
of prisoners in federal prisons and 20 percent of
state prisoners were sentenced for drug-related
offenses, some involving supply and some use.
Involvement with illegal drugs may be related to
the success or failure of our public education sys-
tem, also a service provided through state and local
government. High school completion rates in many
large urban school districts remain low, possibly
contributing to the drug business and subsequently
Fisher
to prison populations. Finally, a disturbing statistic
is that about half of the prisoners in state and fed-
eral prisons are parents of minor children (Loury,
2007). So, high incarceration rates contribute to
the number of single-parent households, which
is the group with the greatest concentration of
poverty in the United States today and a substantial
component of those whose health care is financed
through Medicaid. Therefore, one important aspect
of state-local budgets—corrections costs—is influ-
enced by another important state-local service
(education) and influences the fastest-growing
component of state spending (Medicaid).
SUMMARY OF THE STATE-LOCAL
“STATE”
State and local governments in aggregate rep-
resent about one-seventh of the U.S. economy, with
education and welfare (mostly Medicaid) account-
ing for more than half. For the past 20 years, the
state-local sector has been stable in relative size,
with spending varying only between 21 and 24
percent of personal income. These governments
rely on five roughly balanced revenue sources—
income, property, and sales taxes and federal grants,
with a growing role for pricing of services through
fees and charges. State and local governments cur-
rently find themselves under stress from both the
recession and long-term economic and demographic
changes. So, they are faced with a set of challenging
questions. Where will future revenue come from?
How can they provide services more effectively?
What structural changes are warranted?
Given the magnitude of the challenges, it
seems likely that this transition decade will lead
to a period of major change. In the short run, taxes
may be increased to restore fiscal stability as the
economy recovers. Of course, tax increases alone
will not be enough. Several options have been
widely discussed, including redesigning corrections
systems, reconsidering public employee pension
and benefit plans, broadening tax bases, building
more substantial fiscal reserves (often called rainy
day funds), and even reorganizing local government
structure.
To minimize fiscal problems in the future, state
and local governments seem likely to be forced to
consider a number of long-term structural changes.
Most important, it seems there is little support for
relative growth of spending (that is, spending that
rises faster than income or population), but chang-
ing demands and costs likely will result in a differ-
ent mix of services produced differently than
currently. It is not difficult to forecast a continued
focus on improving K-12 outcomes and access to
health care while simultaneously controlling health
care costs. These two large programmatic areas
dominate state-local budgets, so fiscal stability
and service efficiency seem impossible without
addressing these concerns.
In terms of revenue, discussion certainly will
continue about broadening tax bases to make the
main state government taxes (income and sales)
more relevant to the modern economy. Whether
the appropriate policy changes will be implemented
seems more problematical, as those changes face
substantial political challenges. There are interest-
ing parallels between reforming and modernizing
income and sales taxes at the state government level
and reforming and modernizing Social Security at
the federal government level. Everyone seems to
think it is necessary, but implementation is another
matter. And if these difficult political decisions
are not made, then the fiscal problems of the rele-
vant governments certainly seem likely to worsen.
Finally, given the continuing aversion to taxes and
the growing use of digital technology, increased
interest in charging for services provided through
state and local governments seems likely.
Although many fiscal changes seem probable
for the state-local government sector of our econ-
omy, one fundamental fact seems unlikely to
change: State and local governments will continue
to be central in the lives of most citizens through
the public services they provide—schools and
universities; roads, parking, public transit, and
airports; health care and public hospitals; police
and fire protection; courts and state prisons; water
and sanitation; waste collection and disposal; parks
and recreation opportunities; income support for
low-income families; and environmental protec-
tion—essential services for everyday living.
Fisher
2 0 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 2 1
REFERENCES AND OTHER READINGS
Baer, David. “State Taxation of Social Security and Pensions in 2006.” AARP Public Policy Institute Issue Brief,
No. 84, November 2007.
Boyd, Donald J. and Dadayan, Lucy. “State Tax Decline in Early 2009 Was the Sharpest on Record.” Nelson A.
Rockefeller Institute of Government State Revenue Report, No. 76, July 2009.
Dadayan, Lucy. “Overall State Tax Revenue Is Up, But Losers Still Outnumber Gainers.” Nelson A. Rockefeller
Institute of Government State Revenue Flash Report, June 3, 2010.
Federation of Tax Administrators. “FTA Survey of Services Taxation—Update.” By the Numbers, July 2008;
www.taxadmin.org/fta/pub/services/btn/0708.html.
Federation of Tax Administrators. “State Excise Tax Rates on Cigarettes.” March 2010;
www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/tax_stru.html.
Fisher, Ronald C. State and Local Public Finance. Third Edition. Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western, 2007.
Fisher, Ronald C. “What Policy Makers Should Know About Property Taxes.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
Land Lines, January 2009, pp. 8-14. Reprinted in State Tax Notes, February 23, 2009, 51(8), pp. 591-97.
Fisher, Ronald C. “Major State-Local Policy Challenges: Outside-the-Box Solutions Needed,” in Sally Wallace, ed.,
State and Local Fiscal Policy: Thinking Outside the Box. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010,
pp. 9-27.
Fisher, Ronald C.; Bristle, Andrew and Prasad, Anupama. “An Overview of the Implications of Eliminating the
Property Tax: What Do Recent State Debates and Prior State Experience Tell Us?” in M. Bell, D. Brunori, and
J. Youngman, eds., The Property Tax and Local Autonomy. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,
2010, pp. 165-202.
Fisher, Ronald C. and Prasad, Anupama. “An Overview and Analysis of State Intergovernmental Aid Programs.”
Presented at the National Tax Association Annual Conference on Taxation, Denver, CO, November 12-14, 2009.
Glaze, Lauren E. and Bonczar, Thomas P. “Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008.” U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2009;
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1764.
Johnson, Nicholas. “Budget Cuts or Tax Increases at the State Level: Which Is Preferable When the Economy Is
Weak?” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, updated April 28, 2010; www.cbpp.org/files/1-8-08sfp .
Johnson, Nicholas; Collins, Catherine and Singham, Ashali. “State Tax Changes in Response to the Recession.”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, March 8, 2010; www.cbpp.org/files/3-8-10sfp .
Loury, Glenn C. “Racial Stigma, Mass Incarceration and American Values.” Tanner Lectures in Human Values,
Stanford University, April 2007.
Menchik, Paul L. “Michigan’s Personal Income Tax,” in C. Ballard et al., eds., Michigan at the Millennium:
A Benchmark and Analysis of Its Fiscal and Economic Structure. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University
Press, 2003, pp. 535-57.
Fisher
Milken Memorial Fund, the National Association of State Budget Officers, and the Reforming States Group.
2002-2003 State Health Care Expenditure Report. Washington, DC: 2005;
www.milbank.org/reports/05NASBO/index.html.
National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers. The Fiscal Survey of States.
Washington, DC: various years; www.nasbo.org/.
Papke, Leslie E. “Public Pensions and Pension Policy in Michigan,” in C. Ballard et al., eds., Michigan at the
Millennium: A Benchmark and Analysis of Its Fiscal and Economic Structure. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press, 2003, pp. 413-34.
Rafuse, Robert W. Jr. “Cyclical Behavior of State-Local Finances,” in Richard A. Musgrave, ed., Essays in Fiscal
Federalism. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1965, pp. 63-121.
Sabol, William J.; West, Heather C. and Cooper, Matthew. “Prisoners in 2008.” U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Statistics Bulletin, December 2009.
State Higher Education Executive Officers. State Higher Education Finance, FY 2009. Boulder, CO: 2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. State and Local Government Finance (various years); www.census.gov/govs/estimate/.
U.S. Census Bureau. Quarterly Summary of State & Local Tax Revenue (various years); www.census.gov/govs/qtax/.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. National Economic Accounts Data (various years);
www.bea.gov/.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Services. Digest of
Education Statistics: 2007. Washington, DC: 2008.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC;
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/.
Fisher
2 2 VO LU M E 6 , N U M B E R 1 2 0 1 0 F E D E R A L R E S E R V E B A N K O F S T. LO U I S R E G I O N A L E C O N O M I C D E V E LO P M E N T
- The State of State and Local Government Finance
AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE-LOCAL SECTOR
The Magnitude of State and Local Governments
Types of Services and Expenditures
Sources of Revenue
Intergovernmental Relationships
Fiscal Diversity
SHORT-TERM POLICY ISSUE: THE EFFECT OF AND RESPONSE TO THE RECESSION
LONG-TERM POLICY ISSUES
Revenue Structure
Income Taxation and Senior Citizens
Service Provision
Criminal Justice Policy
SUMMARY OF THE STATE-LOCAL “STATE”
REFERENCES AND OTHER READINGS