Do temporary cuts in public education spending affect outcomes?

January 14th, 2010

As Oregonians mull their ballots for Measures 66 and 67, proponents remind them of the Doonesbury year.  The year was 2003 and Oregonians overwhelmingly rejected an increase in income taxes to fund what legislators call “vital services,” namely K–12 education. That year and the next, many Oregon schools cut spending. The result was a temporary increase in class sizes in some schools.  The Doonesbury comic strip picked up on the theme and ran a week-long series highlighting Oregon’s situation.

Tax proponents were insulted, fearing that Oregon had become a “laughing stock.”  Other’s were more sanguine.  One school obtained a signed copy of one of the strips and auctioned it at a school fund raiser.  When life gives you lemons, make lemonade.

Fast forward to today and the fear of Doonesbury returns.  One economist/blogger opines:

When your taxes and public services are among the lowest in the country, the benefits from improving poor public services—especially education—are likely to outweigh the costs of modest increases in taxes.

Missing from the discussion is the most important question of all: Do temporary cuts in public education spending affect outcomes?

Information from the U.S. Department of Education says no.  As the figure above shows, Oregon graduation rates were no different from U.S. graduation rates—even during the Doonesbury years.

That makes sense.  Education outcomes are developed over years. Temporary spending cuts have the same impact as having a bad teacher for a year or two.  It’s painful at the time, but has no noticeable long-run impact.

Unintended consequences: Measure 66 may tax your retirement savings

January 11th, 2010

The business press and investment advisers have declared this year to be the Year of the Roth IRA.

Roth IRA: “One of the best deals in retirement planning”

With a Roth IRA, virtually all income growth and withdrawals are tax-free.  Because retirees don’t pay taxes on their withdrawals, the Roth IRA has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

With the turn of the New Year, the income limits that have prevented many individuals from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth have been eliminated.   The loosening of the rules is particularly well-timed for a period when workers are losing their jobs and are no longer employed with the company that holds their retirement account.

There is a catch, though.  If you convert your traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth IRA, you must pay taxes on the converted money as if it was earned income.

Even so, the Federal government has made this part less painful in 2010. You can report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year. Or, you can spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. For example, if you convert $50,000 next year and choose not to declare the conversion on your 2010 return, you must declare $25,000 on your tax return for 2011 and $25,000 on you return for 2012. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.

Many Roth IRA conversions may be subject to Measure 66’s higher rates

While most of the attention on Measure 66 has been directed at the impacts on entrepreneurs and investors, the increased taxes will also affect the thousands of middle class households that are considering a Roth IRA conversion.  Oregon’s Measure 66 will make such conversions especially painful because some or all of the money that investors have saved over the years may be subject to Measure 66’s highest tax rates.

Measure 66 imposes two new tax brackets affecting 2010 income:

  • A new marginal tax rate of 10.8 percent would be levied for taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000 for joint filers and $125,000 and $250,000 for single filers.
  • A new 11 percent marginal tax bracket would be created for taxable income above $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers.

More than 40 percent of all families in the U.S. participate in some type of employment-based retirement plan.  These plans include defined benefit (pension) plans and defined contribution plans such as a 401(k) or 403(b).  In addition, approximately 1 in 3 families has an IRA or Keogh account.

Among those with either a defined contribution plan or an IRA/Keogh account, the average account balance is $148,440.  For those age 55 and older, the average account balance is more than $250,000.  More than 1 in 10 families have account balances in excess of $500,000.

A family converting $300,000 in retirement funds would have to come up with another $900 in Oregon taxes if subject to Measure 66.  A family converting a $600,000 retirement account would have to find another $6,500 in cash to pay additional Measure 66 taxes.

As an unintended consequence, Measure 66 may deny many Oregonians the chance to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get into what has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

The Wall Street Journal provides a summary of the provisions of the Roth IRA conversion program.  The Employee Benefit Research Institute provides statistics on retirement plans and balances in the plans.

Oregon is in recession, but the state budget is booming

November 17th, 2009

Oregon Legislatively Approved Budgets - Economics International Corp.

Oregon’s legislators are quick to complain that they had to find $2 billion in state budget cuts in the last legislative session. These  complaints are a bit disingenuous when, in fact, as the figure above shows, the legislatively approved budget has increased by $7.6 billion since the last budget.

Whenever one writes about state budgets, the more wonkish among us will argue that “total” state spending is the wrong number to look at. They argue that much of the funding and spending sits in dedicated accounts and that the Legislature has no discretion over much of the state’s spending.

This is what is known as the “colors of money” argument: Every dollar has a color—blue dollars can only be spent on roads, red dollars can only be spent on health services, green dollars are in the general fund, and so on. It is said that the colors cannot be mixed and the rules cannot be changed. But they can and the Legislature can change them.

Oregon Legislatively Approved DHS Budget - Economics International Corp.

An example of this this “colors of money” fallacy is the massive expansion of Oregon’s state-provided and state-subsidized health insurance. The expansion was championed by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. The expansion was entirely within discretion of Oregon’s elected officials.

Over the next four years, the program will impose $1.2 billion in new and increased taxes on hospitals and health insurance—taxes that will be passed down to taxpayer/consumers. Oregon hopes that the Federal government will match Oregon’s increased spending so that new and expanded programs would spend at least $2.8 billion over the next four years. [This is what is known as the "Coupon Fallacy," which is a topic for a future post.]

The Legislature, however, has painted all this money with its own color. In this way, politicians can complain about spending fewer green dollars while spending more red dollars and increasing total state spending.

Oregon’s unemployment levels off, but workers are leaving the state’s labor force

November 16th, 2009

Oregon Unemployment - Economics International Corp.

Oregon Employment - Economics International Corp.

The Oregon Employment department reports (pdf) that the state’s unemployment rate for October 2009 was 11.3 percent. That is unchanged from September.

Oregon is now has the 6th highest unemployment in the U.S.

The increase in unemployment rate is due to an decrease in the number of people working. Offsetting this decline was that 1,080 people have left Oregon’s workforce.

Most of the “improvements” in Oregon’s unemployment can be explained by a shrinking work force as people give up looking for work in the state or move out of the state.

Oregon’s Employment Department seems mystified by Oregon persistently high unemployment. In this memo (pdf), they provide a mishmash of reasons for Oregon’s high unemployment rate, including:

  • Oregon’s labor force is small (but other “small” states have very low unemployment);
  • Oregon has nice weather;
  • More seasonality in employment (which suggests that Oregon has nice weather, but only part of the time).

As noted in earlier posts, Oregon’s unemployment problems are largely the result of policies that discourage hiring and employment:

Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is facing another financial crisis

November 16th, 2009

skinny-piggy-bank

Phil Keisling served as Oregon Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999 and is most famous for having championed the state’s vote-by-mail system. Now, he is turning his attention to the impending crisis in Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System, known as PERS. His 54-page memo is called PERS in Crisis: The Sequel.

PERS impending crisis is driven by rules that mandate that PERS accounts earn at least 8 percent per year.  Even if PERS investments have double digit losses, the accounts must earn at least 8 percent. The gap between the mandated earnings and what is actually earned is filled with increased taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments or reduced spending on government programs.

The PERS crisis is well-documented.  An crisis earlier in decade prompted a set of reforms, many of which were rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court. As noted in a recent op-ed, despite efforts by some state and local governments to slow the impacts of the crisis on their own budgets, the crisis continues, even though the PERS Board touted Oregon’s system as the best funded in the country (pdf).

Some of Kieslings findings:

  • An estimated $1.5 billion of additional tax dollars will be required by state, K-12, and local government employers in 2011-13 to meet PERS-related obligations.
  • By 2013-15 PERS obligations will require $2.5 billion in new, additional money that could otherwise be used to provide government services and/or reduce taxes.
  • By early 2009, leaders and financial officials in Oregon governments were keenly aware—or should have been, based on available public documents produced by PERS, its staff, and hired experts—that PERS’ problems were going to cause significant budget pressures on state and local governments. Nonetheless, no widely visible, public debate of the enormous implications of this scenario occurred in key arenas—especially during the 2009 Oregon legislature—foreclosing the possibility of certain actions that could have been taken ameliorate the current crisis.

Pew Center on the States: Will Oregon Follow California to “Failed State” Status?

November 12th, 2009

The Pew Center on the States examined nine states, in addition to California, that are particularly affected by the recession (pdf). Pew notes that all of California’s neighbors—Arizona, Nevada and Oregon—were severely hit by the bursting housing bubble, landing them on Pew’s list of states facing fiscal difficulties similar to California’s. Pew blames Oregon’s problems on the state’s lack of sales tax, its Kicker law, and its relatively undiversified economy.

The following provides an economist’s view of selected portions of the Pew report.  While most of the study is more reportage than analysis, some of the facts and analysis would have benefited from a more rigorous review.

[The recession has] prompted lawmakers to respond with $2 billion in spending cuts, aggressive use of federal stimulus dollars and more than $1 billion in new taxes, including $733 million in proposed income tax hikes that will be challenged at the polls in January 2010.

oregon_approved_budget_2009-11Oregon’s Legislative Fiscal Office reports (pdf) that the state budget has increased by 9.3 percent (enlarge figure).  The Legislature increased spending by $4.8 billion.

Between the second quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009, Oregon’s unemployment rate more than doubled, outpacing California’s job loss increases and surging faster than that of any other state. … To understand Oregon’s soaring unemployment rate and its corresponding decline in tax revenue, look no further than the goods the state produces—many of which are going unsold. Oregon’s once-mighty wood products industry, whose workforce has been shrinking due to automation and technology advances, is projected to lose a jarring 21 percent of its jobs in 2009. Driving the collapse is the nation’s housing bust: When new homes are not being built, timber sales slump.

Oregon almost always has some of the highest unemployment in the U.S., whether or not the country is in boom or recession. While the decline in the timber industry and the housing bust may explain Oregon’s chronic high employment, eventually a time comes to ask whether the state’s policies are contributing to the unemployment.

Some policy makers, including the governor, believe that one sector of Oregon’s economy, clean energy, offers hope. Oregon had a bigger share of its jobs in clean energy than any other state as of 2007, according to a Pew report. Kulongoski has worked hard to build a green legacy—insisting on generous tax credits for renewable-energy firms even as other Democrats sought to reduce them, for example, and publicly test-driving electric cars in an effort to lure their manufacturers to Oregon. … But some experts question whether the sector can lead Oregon out of its economic doldrums. “There are worries that we’re getting in a little late, especially with all the investment that China is doing,” said Jessica Nelson, an economist with the Oregon Employment Division.

It is becoming more and more clear that the “generous tax credit” could more accurately be described as a money grab bordering on scandalous.

Confronted with a staggering loss of jobs and tax revenue that accompanied the state’s economic nosedive, Oregon Democrats seized upon the supermajorities they won in last year’s legislative elections. On February 5, less than a month after the session began and about two weeks before President Obama signed the federal stimulus package into law, Kulongoski signed Oregon’s own, state-level stimulus initiative, a $175 million borrowing plan that promised to create jobs while making improvements to the state’s roads and schools. At the same time, lawmakers made about $2 billion in cuts ….

Again, these “cuts” were actually an increase of $4.8 billion.

But the more than $1 billion in tax increases that Democrats pushed through to balance the budget and pay for major new initiatives in transportation and health care have proven most controversial. To help fund a massive road-improvement plan they said would create thousands of jobs, lawmakers raised the gas tax from 24 to 30 cents per gallon and hiked the cost of vehicle registration from $54 to $86. To expand health care for to up to 115,000 uninsured children, they created a new 1 percent tax on health insurance premiums and raised hospital taxes.  … The vast majority of new tax revenue, $733 million, came in the form of new personal and corporate income tax rates that have drawn national attention and will go before the voters in a crucial special election in 2010.

As noted on this blog, over the next four years, increased taxes on hospitals and health insurance will be as large as the increased personal and corporate income taxes.  All of these new taxes amount to $2.6 billion in new taxes.

Oregon’s minimum wage is another line of demarcation. The $8.40 hourly rate is the second- highest in the nation, and while liberals see it as helpful to the poor, fiscal conservatives claim that it hurts businesses and even some low-wage workers who might not get jobs because of it.

Actually, this has nothing to do with “liberals” and “conservatives.”  Empirical research demonstrates that Oregon’s minimum wage is associated with an unemployment among young workers that is 5 to 10 percentage points higher than it would be if the state’s minimum wage was the same as the federal minimum wage.

The state-level stimulus has provided its own controversy, similar to the national debate over the federal stimulus. The Oregon Legislative Fiscal Office credits the program with having “created or retained a total of 3,236 jobs” in its first three months.201 But an Associated Press investigation questioned the way the state counted those jobs and found that each job lasted a total of 35 hours, or less than a week of full-time employment.

Oregon is quickly reaching the point where employment impacts published by state agencies cannot be trusted [1, 2, 3].

PERS: Oregon’s 800-pound gorilla that the Pew report missed

It is well known that Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) has been a major driver of Oregon’s high state and local government spending.  It is a system of generous promises that shifts to taxpayers nearly all of the risks of investing in asset markets.  The PERS crisis earlier this decade pushed the state to the edge of insolvency.  There is still a risk of another crisis in the future.

At the end of 2007, Pew published a report that said Oregon had THE BEST funded pension system in the U.S. (pdf). Even though the PERS Board knew of the flaws in Pew’s study, it promoted the report as proof of the system’s soundness (pdf).

Pew seemed unaware that the state and many local governments issued pension obligation bonds to plug the huge deficits in their accounts.  This practice shifted money out of the pension system and onto the books of the individual government entities.  It did not solve the problem, it simply made a pension problem into a bond problem.  Pew missed this crucial fact of Oregon’s pension system, which means that Pew’s conclusions are meaningless.  The PERS Board should have known this and flagged it for Pew.  Instead, the PERS Board trumpeted the flawed findings.

California—and Oregon’s—fiscal problems are spending problems not revenue problems

The Pew report focuses almost exclusively on states’ challenges to find new or additional revenues.  Much of the fiscal problem facing states are spending problems: Misdirected tax credits, ambitious programs, and skyrocketing public employee expenditures.

The Pew report does not describe how much is spent on Oregon’s Business Energy Tax Credits.  The Pew report only briefly mentions the massive expansion of state-run and state-subsidized health care in the state.  These new programs will cost as much or more than the amount returned to taxpayers with the last Kicker payment.

Bend Bulletin: Energy credit is under fire

November 12th, 2009

578-dynamo-9393img_0236The following is based on and excerpted from the Bend Bulletin.

A number of Oregon companies, nonprofits and government agencies in Oregon have benefited from the Business Energy Tax Credit, known as BETC, or “Betsy.”

Critics of the BETC say that program is too generous and that it does not deliver on its promises of economic development.

Oregon Governor Kulongoski’s spokeswoman Anna Richter Taylor said the governor is focused on improving the program, as evidenced by new rules governing the program. “The governor agrees that it’s time to review the program and its economic benefit to the state,” she said.

For proof of that benefit, BETC supporters point to a February 2009 study done for the energy department by the Portland consulting firm ECONorthwest. Among its conclusions: that $73 million of tax credits in 2007 created 900 more jobs than if the money had been spent on other state-funded programs.

But Eric Fruits, a conservative economist who teaches at Portland State University, is not impressed. Using Oregon’s public records law earlier this year, he obtained an earlier draft of the report that did not paint the same picture of unblemished success.

Instead, the draft ECONorthwest report showed that for some types of BETC spending, the money would have produced more jobs if invested in other state programs.

Fruits also obtained a Jan. 16 e-mail from the study’s author, Stephen Grover, noting the mixed results, and asking the Energy Department’s then-assistant director whether he should change the report. He offered to combine categories in the final draft, thus making the negative results go away.

In the end, that’s what happened. The final report showed only positive impacts of the program.

Asked about the e-mail, Grover said the changes were intended to correct for potential inaccuracies. He said that such changes are common in presenting a report.

But when directed to Fruits’ blog, which details the changes to the draft, Sen. Chris Telfer, R-Bend, called it “disappointing.” “You’ve got my blood boiling now,” she said.

Read the full story in the Bend Bulletin (registration required).

Hoodwinking our way out of recession: Oregon DHS uses economic sleight of hand to sell a billion dollars of new taxes

November 11th, 2009

Oregon's New Taxes - Economics International Corp.

Over the next four years, Oregonians will face $2.4 billion in new taxes.

In January 2010, Oregonians will vote on ballot measures that will raise personal income taxes by $847 million and raise corporate income taxes by $530 million over the next four years. The campaigns for and against these new taxes ensure that nearly every Oregonian will know about them by Christmas.

$1 Billion in Taxes on Health Insurance and Hospital Care

Less well known are the massive tax increases—$1.0 billion—affecting health insurance and hospital care provided in Oregon. These new taxes are set in stone. There will be no vote and they go into effect soon.

Oregon HB 2116 (PDF) raises taxes through a tax on hospitals and a tax on health insurance providers. The figure above shows that the hospital tax is projected to raise $307 million in 2009-11 and the health insurer tax will raise $105 million in 2009-11. In 2011-13, the increased hospital taxes will amount to $450 million and the health insurance tax will amount to $154 million.

State Agency Fudges Employment Impacts—Again

Such huge tax increases in the middle of one of the worst recessions in memory will slow Oregon’s recovery from the current recession and damage employment growth in the state.

That is why it is so surprising that Oregon’s Department of Human Services (DHS) has reported to Oregon Business magazine that the tax increases will boost employment in the state by 3,600 jobs.

In response to a public records request, DHS has provided documents describing how the agency came up with results that are contrary to fundamental economic analysis.

As it turns out, the agency employed the Broken Window Fallacy to its benefit. The agency counted only the estimated additional money that would flow into the state from Federal sources, such as matching funds.  The agency did not account for the tax money that will be extracted from taxpayers by the State of Oregon. Thus, the agency considered only the benefits of the program, but did not consider the costs.

This is not the first time that state agencies have cooked to books to fudge the economic and fiscal impacts of its tax policies.

The Bend Bulletin (registration required) has picked up these stories and provides a summary of the recent rounds of economic sleight of hand.

Note: This post has been revised since it was originally published.

Op-Ed: Public Employee Retirement System will cost taxpayers

November 10th, 2009

Oregon PERS - A Financial Train WreckThe Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is an impending train wreck. We can delay the wreck and we can move some passengers to the back of the train. Nevertheless, the PERS train will wreck and taxpayers are going to pay for it.

When financial markets tanked earlier this decade, governments were facing huge increases in the amounts they would have to contribute to their employee’s PERS accounts to fill the defined benefit gap. The Oregon economy was in recession and the electorate had little or no tolerance for increased taxes. In response, the state and some local governments issued pension obligation bonds.

The plan carried some risks: While it would make high returns higher, it could make low returns disastrous. At the time, the stock market was about to begin a four-year run of double digit annual returns, the housing market was taking off and interest rates were nearing record lows. These factors caused state and local governments to determine that the benefits of issuing bonds outweighed the downside risks. The governments that used the bonds have moved themselves toward the back of the train, but they nevertheless remain on the train.

Read the entire op-ed at the Statesman-Journal, or download a PDF.

Proposed revisions to FRCP would expand the scope of the work product privilege regarding communications between attorneys and expert witnesses

November 9th, 2009

The Judicial Conference of the United States approved an amendment to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court, the amendment would  expand the scope of the work product privilege regarding communications between attorneys and expert witnesses.

As recommended, Rule 26 would include the following provisions

Rule 26(b)(4)(B):

Trial-Preparation Protection for Draft Reports or Disclosures. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect drafts of any report or disclosure required under Rule 26(a)(2), regardless of the form in which of the draft is recorded.”

Rule 26(b)(4)(C):

Trial-Preparation Protection for Communications Between a Party’s Attorney and Expert Witnesses. Rules 26(b)(3)(A) and (B) protect communications between the party’s attorney and any witness required to provide a report under Rule 26(a)(2)(B), regardless of the form of the communications, except to the extent that the communications:

(i) relate to compensation for the expert’s study or testimony;

(ii) identify facts or data that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert considered in forming the opinions to be expressed; or

(iii) identify assumptions that the party’s attorney provided and that the expert relied upon in forming the opinions to be expressed.

The Committee justified the amendment as “profoundly practical” and “rest[ing] not on high theory but on the realities of actual experience with present discovery practices.”

The Committee explained that the extension of work-production protection to attorney-expert communications and drafts, “begins with the shared experience that attempted discovery on these subjects almost never reveals useful information about the development of the expert’s opinions. Draft reports somehow do not exist. Communications with the attorney are conducted in ways that do not yield discoverable events.”

The Committee added, “The losses incurred by present discovery practices are not limited to the waste of futile inquiry. The fear of discovery inhibits robust communications between attorney and expert trial witness, jeopardizing the quality of the expert’s opinion.”

Source: Wisconsin Law Journal