Lesson from the Recovery Act

The 2009 Recovery Act offered a good example of how state fiscal relief, in addition to the temporary boost in Medicaid funding, can aid in recovery from economic problems caused by the current health emergency in the United States.

Editor’s Note: This is an excerpt of a larger report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “Immediate and Robust Policy Response Needed in Face of Grave Risks to the Economy.” It points to lessons policy makers can take regarding state fiscal relief in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, enacted to move recovery from the Great Recession. For the full CBPP report, click here.

Providing Additional Needed State Fiscal Relief

Given the severe threat to the economy — and the resulting threat to state finances — states will likely need additional fiscal relief beyond what (a temporary increase in the share of Medicaid costs borne by the federal government, or FMAP) … would provide. During the last recession, states faced budget shortfalls totaling about $600 billion. The Recovery Act’s FMAP provisions provided roughly $100 billion in fiscal relief — a big help, but well short of what it would have taken for states to avoid laying off teachers and other workers and cutting services in other ways that deepened the recession. Increasing the FMAP is the single most important way to get fiscal relief efficiently to states, but Congress should also enact additional emergency fiscal aid to states. We recommend that this added fiscal relief take a similar form to the Recovery Act’s State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), which provided roughly $60 billion in fiscal aid to states.

Given the wide range of fiscal challenges states are facing, they should have significant flexibility over how to spend this aid. The SFSF required states to spend 82 percent of the aid on education, including both K-12 and higher education. A new version of the SFSF should allow states to spend a smaller percentage of the aid on education, so that states are free to best respond to the COVID-19 outbreak and its economic fallout, but still require that a substantial share be used to support state education systems. While many schools and universities will likely be closed in the next few weeks, teachers still need to be paid (to avoid hardship and further drag on the economy). And if revenues decline as sharply as expected, states will face serious difficulties in adequately supporting their schools in the coming fiscal year, when schools will be trying to make up for lost class time. Education accounts for roughly 40 percent of state spending, the single largest part of state budgets, making it very difficult for states to avoid cutting educational services when revenues decline sharply.

As under the Recovery Act, states would be required to distribute funding to schools using their existing funding formulas, which favor low-income districts, or by distributing funding directly to Title I schools (schools that serve a large number of disadvantaged students). States should also be encouraged to use the funding to increase college tuition assistance for low-income people facing a tough job market and students whose families’ ability to help pay for school has diminished. Targeting state fiscal aid to protect education systems in the coming year would benefit the nation’s economy in the longer term by improving the educational outcomes of students, many of whom are now missing weeks of school. And requiring states to distribute a substantial share of this aid to schools would help protect against some states accepting the aid and then using it instead to cut taxes. As under the Recovery Act, this new version of the SFSF should include a maintenance-of-effort provision that requires states to maintain their own education spending at current levels.

Finally, Congress should also consider certain forms of direct aid to localities, whose own budgets will also be deeply harmed. For example, Congress should consider direct aid to public transit systems, whether buses or subways, which stand to lose much of their fare revenue in coming weeks — losses that many of these systems will likely have difficulty recovering from on their own and that will further strain local budgets, risking cuts in other needed public services.

This excerpt is one small section of a CBPP report by Sharon Parrott, Aviva Aron-Dine, Michael Leachman, Chad Stone, Dottie Rosenbaum, LaDonna Pavetti, Ph.D., Peggy Bailey, Chuck Marr, and Kathleen Romig. We share it on the Iowa Policy Project blog as an example of one approach that research and experience have shown will be needed as states and local governments attempt to contribute to recovery from the current health emergency.

Robbing the hungry tomorrow to help the sick today?

Deficit demagogues make points in Congress, but miss the point about good recovery policy.

Andrew Cannon, research associate
Andrew Cannon

Should we rob the hungry tomorrow to help the sick today?

Economic recovery efforts should be aiding both — and other vulnerable populations — and neither at the expense of the other.

Congress is showing renewed interest in passing an extension of the temporary increase in the federal government’s share of Medicaid financing.

The proposed extension, however, could come at a steep price. To offset the cost of extending the Medicaid increase, Congress is looking at reducing Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly known as food stamps) by $6.7 billion.

Deficit demagogues may be making points in Congress, but they miss the point about good recovery policy.

It’s no secret that the federal budget deficit has grown over the past decade. But the long-term deficit is primarily due to a few select causes: the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 that heavily favored the highest earners, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the dip in tax revenues due to the recession.

Recession recovery efforts, such as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which included the original increase in federal Medicaid payments, add a negligible amount to the long-term deficit, while providing immediate benefits to the most vulnerable Americans and stimulating the economy. An analysis of Recovery Act provisions by Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy and former economic adviser to Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, estimated that every federal dollar invested in SNAP generates $1.74 of economic activity.

Congress will need to address deficit concerns. But doing so at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans doesn’t make sense fiscally, morally or economically.

Posted by Andrew Cannon, Research Associate

Help economy, fix revenue problem

Today’s startling report from the Iowa Revenue Estimating Conference removes any doubt about the impact of the recession on top of routine tax-cutting: Iowa has a big revenue problem.

Now, more than ever, Iowa needs to put reality into the rhetoric that everything is on the table in this fiscal crisis, and that points to three immediate responses:

• Use stimulus money to restore funds already cut from the budget;

• Restore funding and avoid further cuts where possible to help the economic recovery and to keep services going at a critical time;

• Recognize that stimulus funds and tax reforms are necessary to bridge the revenue gap created by the recession.

Iowa needs to fight off the temptation to cut budgets further. Budget cuts can damage the Iowa economy, creating more layoffs, at the same time they deny needed public services when more Iowans are hurting.

REC projections today painted a more dire picture than the one that led the governor to slash spending across the board by 1.5 percent for this year and propose 6.5 percent cuts in many services for next budget year, beginning July 1.

The projections mean Iowa has a $130 million larger gap for this year, and a $270 million larger gap for fiscal year 2010. Besides addressing the current budget-year gap, the governor and legislators will have to put a fiscal 2010 budget in place assuming those REC projections.

Many Iowa Fiscal Partnership reports have detailed the revenue roots of Iowa’s current fiscal challenges. Of particular concern are the explosion in corporate tax expenditures, including many giveaways that provide no accountability to Iowa taxpayers that they money is being spent as intended, or that experience has validated that intent.

In the current situation, there can be no more excuses for ignoring the revenue side of Iowa’s budget problems. See IFP’s news release today.

Federal stimulus impacts on Iowa

Here is a look at some of the impacts of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act in Iowa:

FMAP (Medicaid percentage increase) FY2009-11 — $550.0 million

State Fiscal Stabilization (Flexible block grant) — $ 86.0 million

Education/ Child Care:

State Fiscal Stabilization fund (education) FY2009-10$386.4 million

Title 1 (supplemental support) — $65.3 million

IDEA (special education state grants)—$120.9 million

Child Care & Development Block Grant FY2009-10 — $18.1 million

Child Support FY2009-10 — $27.2 million

Unemployment Insurance (UI):

UI Benefit Increase ($25/week) — 212,422 recipients

UI Emergency Extension to 12/09 — 27,600 new beneficiaries

Employment Services FY09:

Youth Services — $5.2 million

Dislocated Workers — $6.3 million

Adult Activities — $1.6 million

Making Work Pay Credit — 1,110,000 taxpayers

Food Stamps FY2009-13:

Benefit Increase — $161 million and 279,000 recipients

Administration — $2.7 million

Child Tax Credit (tax year 2009 — lowers threshold to make credit available to families at $3,000 earnings):

Number helped lowering $8,500 threshold — 133,000

Number helped lowering $12,550 threshold — 156,000

Emergency Shelter Grant Pgm FY091 Add’l Funds — $16.8 million and 4,500 households