Posts Tagged ‘Oregon’

Oregon is in recession, but the state budget is booming

Tuesday, 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 Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is facing another financial crisis

Monday, 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?

Thursday, 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.

Op-Ed: Public Employee Retirement System will cost taxpayers

Tuesday, 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.

Economic and fiscal impacts of Oregon’s greenhouse gas policies

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

Eric Fruits GHG PresentationEric Fruits presented at the first Cascade Policy Institute Legislative Leadership Forum for the 2009 legislative session.  The topic was Oregon’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: Projected Economic and Fiscal Impacts (PDF). Some highlights from the presentation:

  • Oregon has one of the world’s most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals: A 40 percent reduction per person by 2020.
  • There is a strong relationship between economic activity and carbon emissions: A 1% decrease in carbon emissions is associated with 0.71% lower GDP.
  • Technological advances cannot fully mitigate the costs of a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions. Replacing capital is expensive and take years.  Households and firms would have to face years of significantly higher energy prices before investments in more energy efficient technologies replace existing technologies.
  • Meeting Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction goals will slow the state’s economic growth:
    • Output would be $48.3 billion lower because of the State’s GHG emissions targets,
    • 90,000 fewer people would be employed,
    • State and local government revenues would be $4.4 billion lower.

Citation:

Fruits, E. and Pozdena, R. J. (2008). Oregon Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies: The Economic and Fiscal Impact Challenges. Cascade Policy Institute.

Oregon taxpayers face higher income taxes

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

j0149345Oregon’s personal exemption tax credit is the most widely claimed state income tax credit.  The most recent information from the state indicates that 93 percent of taxpayers claim the credit.

The average taxpayer has a $308 personal exemption tax credit.

Without the personal exemption tax credit, the average taxpayer would pay almost 10 percent more in state income taxes than they do now.

House Bill 2067 eliminates more than 20 different tax credits.  One of those eliminated is the personal exemption tax credit. When the credit sunsets, the average Oregon personal income taxpayer will be faced with a 10 percent increase in their state income taxes.

In addition to the personal exemption, other tax credits that are eliminated under HB 2067 include credits for:

  • Elderly or permanently and totally disabled
  • Additional personal exemption credit for persons with severe disabilities and their spouses
  • Loss of function of both legs or both arms or one leg and one arm
  • Expenses in lieu of nursing home care
  • Retirement income
  • Carry forward of dependent care expenses necessary for employment
  • Long term care insurance
  • Individual development accounts
  • Persons providing rural medical care and affiliated with certain rural hospitals
  • Employee and dependent scholarship program payments
  • Youth apprenticeship sponsorship
  • Early intervention services for child with disability
  • Political contributions
  • Income tax credit for new business facility in reservation enterprise zone
  • Crop donation
  • Voluntary removal of riparian land from farm production
  • Screening devices, by-pass devices or fishway
  • Farmworker housing projects and loans
  • Electronic commerce in designated enterprise zone
  • Loans under an owner-occupied community rehabilitation program
  • Energy conservation loans to residential fuel oil customers or wood heating residents