The Impact of Sequestration... (Scott Pattison, 2013 ABFM Conf)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

The Impact of Sequestration... (Scott Pattison, 2013 ABFM Conf)

on

  • 545 views

"The Impact of Sequestration (and other federal activities) on State Budgets" presentation by Scott Pattison, National Association of State Budget Officers, presented during "Sequestration's Impact on ...

"The Impact of Sequestration (and other federal activities) on State Budgets" presentation by Scott Pattison, National Association of State Budget Officers, presented during "Sequestration's Impact on State Budgets" plenary session, 2013 ABFM Annual Conference, October 3, 2013

Statistics

Views

Total Views
545
Views on SlideShare
320
Embed Views
225

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 225

http://abfm.org 225

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

The Impact of Sequestration... (Scott Pattison, 2013 ABFM Conf) Presentation Transcript

  • 1. The Impact of Sequestration (and other federal activities…) on State Budgets Association for Budgeting & Financial Management October 3, 2013 Scott Pattison Executive Director National Association of State Budget Officers 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 642 • Washington, DC 20001 • (202) 624-5382 • www.nasbo.org
  • 2. NASBO 2 The New Normal
  • 3. NASBO 3 Background on State Fiscal Situation
  • 4. NASBO Slow Budget Growth -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 % General Fund Expenditure Growth (%) *36-year historical average annual rate of growth is 5.5 percent *Fiscal 2014 numbers are recommended Source: NASBO Spring 2013 Fiscal Survey of States *Average
  • 5. NASBO 5 Federal Fund Expenditures by Function, Estimated Fiscal 2012 Elementary & Secondary Education 10.9% Higher Education 3.5% Medicaid 43.9% Public Assistance 2.6% Corrections 0.2% Transportation 8.0% All Other 30.9% Source: NASBO State Expenditure Report
  • 6. NASBO 6 Total State Spending by Function, Estimated Fiscal 2012 K-12 19.8% HigherEducation 9.9% Medicaid 23.9% Public Assistance 1.4% Corrections 3.2% Transportation 8.1% All Other 33.7% Source: NASBO State Expenditure Report
  • 7. NASBO 7 General Fund Expenditures by Function, Estimated Fiscal 2012 Elementary & Secondary Education 34.7% Higher Education 10.0% Medicaid 19.6% Public Assistance 1.5% Corrections 7.0% Transportation 0.5% All Other 26.6% Source: NASBO State Expenditure Report
  • 8. NASBO 8 Sequestration
  • 9. NASBO Impact of Sequestration on State Budgets in 2013 9 Source: Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS) (Note: Above figures only include programs that are part of FFIS VIP Series.)  The largest grant programs (in terms of funding) are exempt from sequestration  82% of federal funds for major grant programs to states are exempt
  • 10. NASBO Impact of Sequestration on State Budgets in 2013 10 Source: Federal Funds Information for States (FFIS) (Note: Above figures only include programs that are part of FFIS VIP Series.)  Sequester affected the majority of grant programs for states, which are mostly discretionary, however…
  • 11. NASBO The Example of Maryland: Sequester Impacts  $1.6 billion in foregone wages by MD workers  $2.1 billion total economic impact from sequester  MD has set $100 million aside in anticipation of lost revenues due to the sequester. 11
  • 12. NASBO Other Examples  Virginia – Sequestration contributed to sales tax decline since April; state missed revenue estimates for all tax sources  Connecticut –concerned about long term economic impacts more than direct budget effects of the sequester  Wisconsin – Concerned about economic effects more so than grant funding losses 12
  • 13. NASBO Sequestration: How it Works in FY 2014 and Beyond  For FY 2014-2021, works differently for discretionary programs  Implemented by reducing BCA spending caps  Still 50/50 split between defense and nondefense  Cuts administered through appropriations process (in theory)  Enforced by sequestration (triggered after Congress adjourns in January)  Cuts to non-exempt mandatory programs work same as in FY 2013 13
  • 14. NASBO Sequestration: Economic Effects  On September 26, 2013, CBO released a letter on how cancelling automatic spending reductions would affect 2014 economy  CBO estimated that cancelling the cuts (beginning in FY 2014) would increase GDP by 0.6 percent and increase employment by 800k by the last quarter of calendar year 2014  Although output and employment would be higher, cancelling the cuts would lead to greater federal debt 14
  • 15. NASBO Major state grant programs affected by sequestration 15  Major discretionary programs covered by sequester include…  Title I Education grants  Special Education (IDEA) grants  Head Start  LIHEAP  Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition grants  Few mandatory programs affected  Example: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG)
  • 16. NASBO Major state grant programs exempt from sequestration 16  Most mandatory programs are exempt, such as:  Medicaid and CHIP  SNAP (food stamp program)  Child nutrition programs  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  Most highway and other surface transportation programs also exempt
  • 17. NASBO Sequestration Implementation Issues 17  State contingency planning challenges  In general, states do not have funds to make up for all federal cuts  Looming uncertainty, first over whether sequester would be triggered, now over whether it will remain in place  Lack of clear guidance from federal agencies  Legal questions and conflicts  Secure Rural Schools  Mineral royalty payments
  • 18. NASBO Overall Impact on States 18  Most grant funding exempt from sequester, but numerous programs will be affected (especially in education)  Grants that support local programs disproportionately affected  States are generally more concerned about indirect effects than direct budgetary impact  Lower tax collections, economic slowdown, especially in states with many federal employees and/or large defense presence
  • 19. NASBO 19 Shutdown…
  • 20. NASBO 20 Federal Dysfunction “Today the country’s main businesses sit on nearly $2 trillion in cash, afraid to invest in part because corporate bosses cannot imagine any of Washington’s feuding partisans fixing anything.” The Economist, March 16, 2013
  • 21. NASBO  MD OMB Secretary Eloise Foster said that every day that the federal government is shut down would cost the state $5 million in lost revenue, including about $1 million in lost sales-tax dollars.  VA Secretary of Finance Ric Brown said “The biggest impact on us is probably the economic impact on the federal workforce.”  CT OPM Secretary Benjamin Barnes said a shutdown could have “a serious negative impact on state revenues,” 21
  • 22. NASBO  Exempted Active Guard and Reserve members may be waiting a while to get paid, but will be paid retroactively once Washington funds the government again. The members that are under emergency furlough will not get retroactive pay unless Congress passes a law authorizing that pay.” 22
  • 23. NASBO 23 Future Outlook
  • 24. NASBO 24 Shutdown Outlook?
  • 25. NASBO Future of Sequestration  House wants to keep sequester in place, but reallocate cuts to protect defense  Nondefense programs would see even larger cuts  Senate and President Obama want to replace sequester with a combination of targeted spending cuts and revenue increases  Chained CPI proposal  No “grand bargain” in sight  May be modest changes made, but will likely stay in effect for the most part 25
  • 26. NASBO 26 www.nasbo.org Scott Pattison Executive Director (202) 624-8804 spattison@nasbo.org