How federal tax policies could crush state budgets

Two-thirds of states enter the year with deficits; 32 spent less in real terms in 2016 than in 2008. Now states must also shift their attention to the gathering fiscal storm clouds in Washington.

Gerald Herbert/AP/File
Louisiana Senate President John Alero, R-Westwego, applauds after the National Anthem during the opening of a special legislative session in the state House chamber in Baton Rouge, La. (Feb. 14, 2016).

Still recovering from the Great Recession and grappling with troubling fiscal trends, state budgets are already causing headaches for governors and legislators across the country. Two-thirds of states enter the year with deficits, and 32 states spent less in real terms in 2016 than 2008. But states must also shift their attention to the gathering fiscal storm clouds in Washington, DC.

Last Thursday, four experts in state fiscal policy—Joe Henchman from the Tax Foundation, John Hicks from the National Association of State Budget Officers, Nick Johnson from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and Urban’s Kim Rueben— discussed the issues that will keep statehouses busy this year at an Urban Institute panel. (You can watch video of the event here.) All four state experts mostly talked about the federal government. And for good reason.

As a new State and Local Finance Initiative brief, “State Budgets in the Trump Era,” explains, both President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans back major changes in federal fiscal policy. Because most state income tax systems are tied to federal rules, and one-third of state expenditures are federally funded, changes in Washington reverberate in all 50 statehouses. Hicks said the future for states is “cloudy with a chance of storms.” The question is will states merely get wet or will they be swept away in a flood.

Take federal tax reform. Trump and House Republicans have called for major changes to the federal tax code, though with significant differences. Some of their ideas, such as eliminating tax preferences, would increase state revenues. Others, such as cutting taxes on investment income, would hurt state revenues. Still others, such as eliminating or curbing the state and local tax deduction could force states to rethink the way they raise money.

But the biggest consequence of federal tax changes may come to state spending because declines in federal revenues could also result in fewer federal transfers to state and local governments. As Henchman said, turning plans into law forces tradeoffs, specifically on growth, distribution, and deficits. While many GOP lawmakers and some Trump advisers insist any tax bill will not add to the debt, the Tax Policy Center estimates that as written both plans would reduce revenue: $6.2 trillion for Trump and $3.1 trillion for the House GOP over the next decade. Losses of that magnitude will likely lead to spending cuts. And with Trump looking to increase defense spending, and pledging not to reduce Medicare and Social Security spending, the remaining possible program cuts would hit state budgets hard.

Even without big tax cuts, the GOP is likely to target domestic spending and aid to states. A shift in the federal-state relationship is not unprecedented, but the scale could be much bigger this time. As Johnson pointed out, the 1996 welfare reform turned a match program for state assistance to needy families into a block grant called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The law capped federal funds and gave states more flexibility in administering the program. But federal funding hasn’t kept pace with inflation so states now have less money (in real dollars). Further, states spend only a fraction of TANF funds on cash aid, choosing instead to fund other programs such as child care, worker training, marriage counseling, and higher education scholarships. These might be useful, but they don’t provide cash to many of the states’ neediest families.

But as Hicks explained, TANF is pennies compared with health care. Last year, 29 percent of total state expenditures (including federal funds) were for Medicaid. For comparison, TANF was closer to 1 percent. Changing Medicaid from a matching formula to a block grant, as both Trump and House Republicans have proposed, would completely alter state budgets.

Trump and House Republicans are also promising to repeal the Affordable Care Act, though they have reached no agreement on what will replace it. As Rueben noted, repeal could force states to choose between ending the Medicaid expansion—thus taking health insurance away from millions of people—or finding ways to cover the huge cost out of already tight budgets.

And there is more: Possible major changes in infrastructure, education, and other federal programs. Johnson said that rending the current partnership in all these areas would upend state budgets and the social safety net.

At the moment, no one knows exactly what the new administration and Congress will do. However, there is broad agreement that states need to recognize the uncertainty and prepare for a possible storm.

This story originally appeared on TaxVox.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to How federal tax policies could crush state budgets
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today