commission on fiscal imbalance 合集

Thus intergovernmental finance is a revenue of the

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: 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 Further evidence of the magnitude of intergovernmental assistance in the U.S. is that federal and state governments are each responsible for a larger share of total revenues than of total expenditures (compare Tables 3 and 7). Only local governments are responsible for more expenditures than revenues. Expenditures (Table 7) are categorized according to the level of government where the service is delivered and not where the revenues are raised. Thus, intergovernmental finance is a revenue of the granting government and an expenditure of the receiving government. Almost all transfers from the national to state and local governments are given in the form of specific grants, many of which are for income maintenance purposes. Federal transfers amounted to 26.0 percent of state general revenues in 22 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance 1998 and 3.9 percent of local government general revenues. No form of revenue sharing exists, having been eliminated a decade ago. Major programs, such as Medicaid, food stamps, and TANF, are all part of the income maintenance program that is now provided by the states. Medicaid, the largest of these programs, is financed with matching grants, with each state’s share determined by the per capita personal income. The federal share varies from 50.0 to 76.8 percent of the cost. The federal government fully finances food stamps. Following many years of shared finance, the federal share of TANF is financed by a block grant to states. Highway aid, particularly for interstate highways, is another major federal program that is often financed with matching grants. TABLE 10 INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUE FROM STATE GOVERNMENT AS A SHARE OF TOTAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT DIRECT GENERAL EXPENDITURE Percent United States Total Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi 36.0 37.4 35.1 41.5 43.1 46.3 26.2 29.0 47.5 28.9 32.2 10.9 40.3 30.1 35.8 36.4 35.5 37.5 34.4 28.6 29.0 39.9 48.8 37.6 38.6 Percent Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 32.5 35.0 27.4 35.3 14.2 31.4 51.6 33.1 40.6 34.6 35.7 37.1 38.5 36.1 29.9 33.8 26.5 29.7 28.5 37.7 28.1 30.4 36.6 46.9 44.0 39.2 Generalizations about state to local intergovernmental aid programs are difficult to make, given the independence that states have in financing services (Table 10). States provide both specific grants and shared tax revenues, with local governments having received 36.0 percent of their direct general expenditures from state transfers in 1998, but with wide variation by state. Hawaii is at the low end, with transfers equal to10.9 percent and New Mexico is at the high end with 51.6 percent transfers. The largest specific state grant is for e...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/06/2013 for the course ECON 220 taught by Professor Paulo during the Spring '13 term at University of Liverpool.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online