{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

21 commission on fiscal imbalance 41 expenditure

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: nding school districts, but without any decrease in spending by the higher spending districts. Dissatisfaction with the property tax has been another important reason for the relative shift from local to state education finance. Surveys of attitudes about taxation have generally found that the property tax is the least preferred tax source, likely because the tax is normally remitted all at once. 6 There has been no increase in the share of state revenues that go to local education. 21 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance 4.1. Expenditure Conclusion Shifts in the share of spending at the state/local level also suggest greater decentralization. Both state and local governments have seen significant increases in the post-war period. But, whether this means greater devolution depends on whether any functions have shifted to the state/local level. Much of the pattern is attributable to a change in priorities that have reduced defense, which is federally funded, relative to other programs. This can hardly be seen as a significant increase in devolution. Thus, the case for greater devolution must be based on the greater role played by states in the income maintenance program. During the past 25 years, state spending has increased because of shifting responsibilities for food stamps, TANF and in particular Medicaid. Some state control over Medicaid (such as the waiver given to Tennessee for the TennCare program) and for the block grants for TANF allow some decentralized decisionmaking as well suggesting real devolution. Still, federal control over these matching programs means there is much less national to state decentralization than appears to exist. 5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL TRANSFERS As in essentially every country, intergovernmental assistance is an important source of sub-national government finance in the U.S. In a general sense federal to state/local transfers have become less important as a revenue source. Federal grant programs were very large in the 1970s and were significantly cut beginning at the end of the Carter administration and then during the Reagan administration of the 1980s (see Table 9). Federal grants have been growing again in relative importance since the late 1990 but this is almost exclusively attributable to the rapidly rising Medicaid program and not to general growth in federal assistance. Federal transfers to local governments have not rebounded to nearly the extent that has occurred for state governments. It should be noted that state transfers are overstated and local transfers understated because the federal government transfers funds to states that are intended for local governments. TABLE 9 TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS A PERCENT OF DIRECT GENERAL EXPENDITURE State 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Local 44.4 44.6 43.8 43.1 42.3 38.7 37.5 37.8 37.8 37.9 36.4 35.8 35.6 35.5 36.6 38.8 41.0 41.8 41.1 41.3 41.2 40.9 9.8 10.6 10.2 9.5 9.1 8.0 7.5 6.9 6.6 5.7 5.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.6...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online