Pennsylvanians are losing economic freedom according to the Fraser Institute’s annual report, Economic Freedom of North America 2013. The commonwealth is slowly losing ground ranking 33rd in 2009 and dropping to 40th in the latest study.
The index measures the limitations on economic freedom imposed by all levels of government in the 50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces under three broad categories. Pennsylvania performs poorly in each category:
- Size of government: 48th
- Takings and discriminatory wealth redistribution: 34th
- Labor market freedom: 24th
There are several reasons for Pennsylvania’s abysmal performance. Chief among them is Pennsylvania's growing debt and spending, which has created $47 billion in unfunded pension debt and an estimated $1.2 to $1.4 billion budget deficit.
If policymakers want to improve the lives of Pennsylvanians, focus should be on increasing economic freedom and opportunity by enacting pension reform, slowing the growth of overall spending and reducing the size of government.
For more on how to accomplish these goals, check out our newest report: Blueprint for a Prosperous Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania ranks 42nd in overall fiscal condition, according to a report by Sarah Arnett of the Mercatus Center. The report, State Fiscal Condition: Ranking the 50 States, analyzes states' abilities to meet their financial obligations.
Dr. Arnett uses four indices to determine state rankings: cash solvency, budget solvency to cover near-term bills, long-term solvency, and service-level solvency to provide residents with an adequate level of services. Due to low rankings in all four categories, Pennsylvania comes among the bottom 10 states in the overall fiscal condition.
Top performing states matched revenues and expenses, allowing them to pay short term bills and construct strategies for managing long-term liabilities. In contrast, bottom performing states have mismanaged at least one fiscal condition. More specifically, decades of irresponsible bond issuance, underfunded pension systems, rising health-care costs, and the appearance of balanced budgets—in short, poor financial management decisions on top of bad economic conditions—have harmed these states fiscal conditions.
Pennsylvania is guilty on each of these counts.
- The Independent Fiscal Office warns that federal stimulus dollars and reserves are running dry, yet state spending has reached an all-time high, surpassing $66 billion, an inflation-adjusted increase of $12,655 per family of four (or $3,163 more per resident).
- Combined state and local debt has reached $125 billion.
- Unfunded pension liabilities between the state’s two public pension systems total $47 billion.
- Both Fitch Ratings and Moody's have downgraded Pennsylvania’s bond ratings, citing pension liabilities and limited reserves.
Already ranking 10th highest in the nation in state and local tax burdens, Pennsylvania's bills are coming due, and absent reform, the burden on taxpayers will only get heavier.
The time has come to heed these warnings as our state leans further and further off the fiscal precipice.
Pennsylvania's fiscal outlook looks bleak according to a detailed report examining state revenue and spending released by the Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) last week.
The agency projects a general fund budget deficit every year for the next five years. In 2018-19, the IFO projects a budget deficit of almost $2.1 billion. To make matters worse, these projections assume an improvement in economic conditions, which would mean more tax revenue to help pay for state government’s ever-growing expenditures. But such an improvement is far from certain.
This budget shortfall is not a new problem, but one caused by years of overspending. State general fund spending has exceeded state revenue for six consecutive years. This overspending was made possible through federal stimulus funds, along with using the "Rainy Day Fund," and transferring more than $3 billion from other funds for one-time revenue.
The report hits on the two main causes of Pennsylvania’s structural fiscal problems: welfare spending and employee compensation. Recent news reports have brought renewed attention to the rampant waste and fraud in welfare spending. Lawmakers cannot begin addressing our fiscal cliff without taking steps to address abuses and enacting reforms to mend our safety net.
Further, increases in most areas of the state budget will be dwarfed by massive increases in state pension contributions. The report projects state pension contributions will increase from $1.4 billion to almost $3.4 billion, an increase of nearly 143%. This is why pension reform is critical.
Lawmakers must begin to rein in this out-of-control-spending, as these spending trends are unsustainable, and taxpayers—already burdened with the 10th highest state taxes—cannot be asked to simply pay more.
Yesterday, House and Senate leaders came together to negotiate a deal—that passed with bipartisan support in both chambers—to reduce our debt ceiling.
If that sounds unbelievable, I should mention those were state legislative leaders in Harrisburg, not those in Washington, and the unanimous vote was to reduce borrowing under the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program (RACP, or R-Cap).
The legislation (HB 493, sponsored by Rep. Matt Gabler) reduces the total amount of debt that can be owed under RACP by $600 million. The bill also provides greater accountability, oversight and transparency regarding how RACP grants are awarded. HB 493 goes to Gov. Corbett for his signature.
As a refresher, RACP effectively uses borrowed money—paid back with interest by taxpayers—for local "economic development" projects or corporate welfare projects. Some of the more controversial projects include the Arlen Specter Library, the corporate headquarters Tastykake, numerous sports stadiums, and a $3 million grant to the Second Mile, the charity founded by convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky.
While politicians in our nation's capital are once again expanding the federal debt limit on the backs of our children after weeks of partisan rancor, it is refreshing to see lawmakers here in the commonwealth come together and actually reduce the debt burden for current and future generations of taxpayers.
Can Americans afford slower economic growth and a lower standard of living in the future? That will be the impact of growing government debt on the economy, according to a a policy brief released by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Michael J. Boskin explains:
How does a high debt-GDP ratio slow growth? Higher debt ratios eventually crowd out investment, as holdings of government debt replace capital in private portfolios. The lower tangible capital formation reduces future income. To the extent the reduced capital formation slows the development and dissemination of new technology, this effect will be amplified. Every dollar borrowed requires future interest be paid, whose present discounted value equals the debt. So future taxes must go up to cover the interest unless future spending is cut. The prospect and then reality of higher tax rates, plus increased uncertainty about future fiscal policy, slows growth and also raises the specter of higher inflation eroding the value of the government debt and/or a financial crisis, which might sharply raise interest rates.
So despite what some politicians claim, more government deficit spending and debt actually hurts the economy. What's needed for economic growth is private investment, not government investment.
What does lower economic growth mean? If the U.S. government continues to recklessly run up the debt, projections have the average family losing as much as 30 percent of their potential income by 2050. That is, families would be one-third poorer because of the burden of government debt.
Politicians like to set up a false choice between fiscal austerity and stimulating the economy, when in reality, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Debt or prosperity? It's our choice.
Last night's presidential debate (despite the focus on foreign policy) featured much talk on skyrocketing debt and unsustainable entitlement programs. Protecting the middle class from growing debt isn't a problem unique to the federal government. Pennsylvania is facing its own fiscal time bombs, including annual pension costs that are set to rise by more than $1,000 per household over the next five years.
Pension obligations are constitutionally protected, so how do lawmakers fully fund workers' pensions without dramatic tax increases? The answer may be found in reducing the rate of growth in Medicaid, the largest item in the state budget.
Pennsylvania Medicaid spending from all funding sources has grown by 7.7 percent annually for the last 20 years. Forecasts from the Independent Fiscal Office and the federal Government Accountability Office indicate Medicaid spending will continue to grow faster than the economy, absent reform.
Simply slowing this rate of growth would save billions in future Medicaid spending. As the chart below shows, if Medicaid spending grew by 3 percent per year instead of its historic rates of growth, Pennsylvania would save $4.2 billion annually by 2017.
By addressing the largest cost driver in the state budget, lawmakers can fund our pension obligations with no tax increases, and can even improve Medicaid outcomes. As Florida has proven, more local control improves the quality of care and reduces waste, slowing the growth in spending.
However, any change to Medicaid programs requires federal flexibility. Solving the commonwealth's fiscal crisis—including funding pensions for public employees—without further burdening taxpayers must begin with granting states authority to manage Medicaid.
One of our PolicyBlog readers asks: What bills would help address the Four Alarm Fire you keep speaking about? Here are a few bills we have been tracking:
Taxpayer Protection Act (would limit growth of government spending)
- SB 7 - Statutory limit to state spending. More info on the Taxpayer Protection Act.
- HB 974 - Statutory limit to state spending (identical to SB 7).
- HB 116 - Constitutional limit to state spending.
- SB 1540 - Shift to defined contribution plan for new state and school employees.
- HB 2453 - Shift to defined contribution plan for new state employees, with incentives for current employees.
- HB 2454 - Shift to defined contribution plan for new school employees, with incentives for current employees.
- There are additional House bills that put some workers (like state lawmakers) into defined contribution plans, some bills offering "hybrid" plans, and some with optional defined-contribution plans.
- None of these bills represent the comprehensive 5 point pension reform plan.
- SB 10 - Constitutional amendment to prevent implementation of health insurance mandate.
- HB 42 - Prevents implementation of health insurance mandate.
- Forthcoming legislation from Rep. Stan Saylor (co-sponsor memo) - prevent Medicaid expansion in Pennsylvania.
- HB 1261 - Welfare code, imposes work requirements and other changes to save an estimated $173 million. ENACTED
- HB 1948 - Addresses abuse of EBT cards.
- HB 386 - Allows tax credits for charitable services in lieu of government program.
- HB 185 - Tax credits for private long-term care coverage (would move individuals from relying on Medicaid for Long-Term Coverage into private insurance).
- HB 2175 - Reforms and reduces the RACP program, which borrows money for "redevelopment projects" (includes Arlen Specter Library, sports stadiums, and corporate headquarters). Program should be eliminated, but reforms are a step in the right direction.
- SB 100 - Would implement the cost-savings recommendations of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative, estimated to save $253 million over five years. ENACTED
- HB 135 - Expected to contain language to implement the reinvestment recommendations of the Justice Reinvestment Initiative. More details.
Ending taxpayer collection of dues for government unions' political efforts
- HB 1418 - Payroll deduction could not be part of government union collective bargaining contract.
- SB 1040 - No government payroll deductions for the benefit of a private organization.
If you have question for the next PolicyBlog mailbag, email ideas(at)CommonwealthFoundation.org.
Yesterday, Moody's Investor Services downgraded Pennsylvania's bond rating one level. The downgrade implies Pennsylvania bonds are riskier than previously assessed, and it could make it more expensive for the commonwealth to borrow because of the resulting higher interest rates. As the state plans to issue more than $1.5 billion in bonds over the next year, this could result in millions in additional interest payments each year.
The downgrade was based on the substantial unfunded pension liabilities and required future payments to fund state and school employees' pensions. The rating action also criticizes Pennsylvania for spending more than revenue (dipping into reserves) over the past few years. According to Moody's, Pennsylvania's challenges include:
- A financial position that remains weak, made worse by needing to use budget reserves to cover spending.
- High debt driven by unfunded pension obligations, coupled with underfunding pension systems for seven years. Over the next few years, higher pension payments will consume more state dollars and reduce flexibility.
- Slow economic growth due to demographic trends. Population growth is below average, and Pennsylvanians are older than average, factors that will diminish future tax revenues.
Effectively, Moody's is sounding the alarm for the Four Alarm Fire the Commonwealth Foundation has been warning about. Our policy points on pension costs notes the state government and school district contributions to pensions will nearly triple over the next five years.
On the other hand, Moody's praises "recent improvements in governance," including passing a budget on time for the second year, and a willingness to be proactive when fiscal challenges arise. It will take more of that to fireproof Pennsylvania's economy.
Legislative leaders and Gov. Corbett have been negotiating a state budget and, according to the latest reports, are $233 million apart in terms of General Fund spending. Why the disagreement if there is "money to spend"?
For starters, overall state spending increased 40 consecutive years prior to the current budget, causing a four-alarm fire in Pennsylvania's fiscal house. Dramatic increases in pension contributions, along with rising debt payments, welfare costs, and corrections spending will take more tax dollars in the future unless we address the problems now.
Moreover, the budget approved by the Senate in May would spend $300 million more than expected revenues for next year. Despite last year's reduction, state spending has still outpaced inflation and population growth over the last decade.
The Pennsylvania Budget Chart Book offers visuals of these and other key trends surrounding the debate over state spending.
The chart of the day shows the growth in Pennsylvania General Fund Debt service over the past decade: from $350 million in fiscal year 2002-03 to $1.1 billion in Gov. Corbett's proposed budget.
Total state debt grew 90 percent from 2002 to 2011. This growth in state debt represents one siren of the Four Alarm Fire threatening Pennsylvania's fiscal house.
Total Records: 61
Who are We?
The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank. The Commonwealth Foundation crafts free-market policies, convinces Pennsylvanians of their benefits, and counters attacks on liberty.