|
Every recession, they go in the red and cut budgets.
Usually the economic predictions aren't great, and they still assume no reduction in revenue; late in the fiscal year they suddenly realize the need to cut spending. Then they find they could have cut the budget by 5% at the start of the year, or by 30% 4/5 of the way through the year; still, they invariably decide to set things up for the deeper cuts.
Moreover, when the recession's over and revenue's increasing again, they know that there'll be another recession in a few years, and that the fiscally wise thing to do is to only moderately increase spending the first year and put aside enough money to cover that spending increase for two years. The second year they can increase spending again, as long as they have enough money set aside to cover *that* increase in spending for a couple of years. Then there'd be a rather large cushion to accommodate recessions without cutting programs.
Except that in both cases politics screws over the citizenry, which act stupid: In the former, the politicians don't want to cut programs because if they do, they don't get rewarded with votes. It's esp. bad in an election year--and most years there's an election for something partisan. So they don't cut programs until it's too late, and the cuts have to be deeper than necessary--not a problem, as long as they can blame somebody else. In the second case, a politician can't stand the sight of money unspent that could be spent to bolster his (or her) changes for re-election, or to implement his/her value system, or to promote his/her ideology. Have a reserve fund that's not serving the constituency? Horrible, it must be spent, there's an election and a politician has to be able to say how many people he's "helped" by legally compelling others to do stuff.
In any event, you don't want states to borrow money: It's much easier for a state to have a recession when the rest of the country doesn't have one. The federal government can average such things out; the states usually can't. A single state can also be a bit loonier than the country as a whole, a bit less stable (because, again, it's a smaller sample so averages are less stable). Moreover, they have a different kind of bond funding system, since they don't have a treasury department and can't regulate their economies or control their borders to nearly the same extent as the feds try.
The feds' ability to run a deficit is too extreme and should be curtailed, IMO, before the financial world curtails it by simply not buying the debt that's offered--with the consequence that there's no leeway in borrowing even if it's an absolute necessity, leaving the government with the choice of ignoring the necessity or encouraging extreme levels of inflation.
|