commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

The statelocal share has risen relative to the total

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: ch 19 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance limitations, but these do represent strong controls over state revenues. Congressional responses of these types are not surprising since the federal government takes the political heat for any expansions in state revenue capacity and administrative practices, but does not receive any of the revenue. 4. EXPENDITURE DECENTRALIZATION Decentralization of government expenditures is also strongly underway. The expenditure pattern is similar to the revenue pattern. The state/local share has risen relative to the total government expenditures since World War II (Table 7). Though both state and local governments have experienced rapid increases, the largest relative increase has been at the state level. Expenditure data before 1994 are difficult to compare with those after 1994 because the U.S. Bureau of the Census no longer collects and disseminates data on the national government spending and revenue. Thus, the data are best interpreted by seeing a decline in the federal share of expenditures until 1994 and a continued set of declines after 1994. The declining role of defense spending has been a key reason for the smaller federal role in recent years. TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES Total 1902 1913 1922 1927 1934 1940 1946 1952 1957 1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Federal State Local 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 34.1 29.8 39.4 30.4 38.9 46.1 84.1 69.4 61.0 57.6 55.1 47.8 48.1 52.6 52.4 47.6 45.3 57.7 54.3 52.1 51.5 8.1 9.2 11.2 12.4 15.9 14.1 4.1 9.2 12.0 13.2 15.3 19.2 19.4 18.6 19.1 22.0 23.3 18.2 19.4 20.1 20.2 57.8 61.0 49.5 57.2 45.2 39.8 11.8 21.4 27.0 29.2 29.6 33.0 32.5 28.8 28.5 30.5 31.4 24.1 26.4 27.8 28.2 Shifts from federal to state delivery of welfare programs (though still with considerable federal finance) have been another important factor in the federal decline. The need to fund matching grants for federal welfare programs has been a very important component of growth in state expenditures. The federal Medicaid program has been the source of much of the increase. Medicaid costs have grown very rapidly with increases in overall health care costs in the U.S. Spending grew 5.9 percent annually in the 1980s and 9.8 percent annually in the 1990s. Transfers in the form of welfare (formerly called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and now called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) and the food stamp program have also been added to state budgets, though they are primarily financed by federal dollars. Overall, state welfare programs have grown from 22.9 percent of state expenditures in 1978 to 31.4 percent in 1998. State spending on corrections has been another source of pressure on state expenditures. State versus local expenditure responsibility is primarily determined by state governments and their constitutions and differs widely across the states. On average, states raise 56.1 percent of the combined revenues and spend 41.7 percent of the combined expenditures (see Table 8). The variation is wide, with state government raising 81.5 percent of revenues in Alaska, but only 44.5 percent in Rhode Island. Simil...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online