Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act Was Predicted, By 2010, To Result In Yearly State Budget Shortfall of Billions

Recent Dayton Daily News articles seem to put blame for Ohio’s huge budget deficits on the recession and completely ignore the big impact Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Act has on state revenue.  In 2005, when this Reduction Act was being debated, there were warnings that the state could never recover from the huge revenue deficits caused by the Tax Reduction, and that, because of the Tax Reduction Act, huge deficits would occur in Ohio’s budget by 2010.  Those warnings are coming true today.

An article published in 2005, for example, for Ohio Policy Matters said, “Closer scrutiny reveals that the study does not take into account massive cuts in state spending, or alternative tax increases, that will be required to make up for the revenue shortfall of about $2.8 billion in 2010, the fifth and final year of the tax reform plan’s phase out period.”

It appears that it was part of the Republican plan all along that deficits would occur and that these deficits would cause a constriction of state spending and state services. The recession has made these deficits more severe, but, the impact of the Tax Reduction Act by itself would have been huge, regardless if there had been no recession.

After Laura Bischoff’s Dayton Daily News December 1 article, “State’s budget deficit growing,” in which Bischoff blamed the state budget crises on the recession, I telephoned Bishoff and asked why she had not mentioned in her article the impact of the 2005 Tax Reduction Act. I wrote this article for DaytonOS explaining my concern.

Yesterday, in Sunday’s DDN, Bishoff again wrote about the state budget crises and gave her article an amazingly weak and misleading headline: “Some blame tax cuts for much of Ohio’s budget woes.”

“Some blame”?

Bishoff’s headline implies that only nitpickers would think to link Ohio’s massive 2005 Tax Reduction Act — that reduced income taxes by 21% and corporate and business taxes by about 50% — to the fact that in 2009, as the tax reductions are fully implemented, Ohio is running out of money. But regardless of the weak headline, Bishoff’s article does report that in the proposed two year budget, $5.6 billion of the projected $7 billion deficit comes from the decrease in state taxes caused by the Tax Reduction Act.

Bishoff’s article ascribes the $5.6 billion revenue loss to a decrease in personal income tax, but I think this $5.6 billion is the total decrease and includes corporate and business tax reductions as well as personal income tax reductions.  The amount of revenue loss for the state from reducing personal income taxes is about $2.2 billion each year or $4.4 billion for a two year budget.  Bishoff’s article ignores the fact that Ohio’s corporate and business taxes were also significantly reduced — by about 50%. This corporate and business tax reduction amounts to another $1.5 billion each year in lost revenue to the state.

Bishoff fails to report an important aspect of the Income Tax Reduction Act.  Like the Bush income tax cuts at the federal level, the 2005 Ohio Tax Reduction Act gives a disproportionate amount of the tax cut to the wealthy —  26% of the entire income tax reduction goes to incomes in excess of $340,000 (averaging $650,000).  Every year, because of this 2005 Tax Reduction Act, of the $2.2 billion income tax reduction, these wealthiest citizens of Ohio receive $572 million.

Bischoff’s article also neglects to tell that the fifth year of the five year Tax Reduction Act begins in January, 2009. In this fifth year, over $400 million in new income tax reductions will take effect, and, again, the top incomes — those in excess of $340,000 — will get the lion’s share, over $100 million.

At the same time that Ohio is giving a generous handout to its wealthiest citizens, Ohio, with Strickland taking the lead, plans on asking the federal government for a huge handout for its general budget. It doesn’t pass the standard of good sense that Ohio should reduce its tax burden to the point that it is not capable of its own self sufficiency, and, then, at the same time, should have the boldness to ask the feds for a huge handout.  I wrote about this situation here: “Gov. Strickland Should Seek Revision In Ohio’s 2005 Tax Reduction Law — Before He Asks The Feds For Cash Handout.”

Republicans completely dominated the state in 2005 when the Tax Reduction Act was passed. The Tax Reduction Act fits the Republican philosophy of low taxes, small government, small government services.

According to this report, when comparing Ohio’s state tax revenues to the state tax revenues of other states, After years of Republican control, Ohio is a low tax state.  For state revenue, Ohio ranks 38th in per capita taxation ($2164 per capita), and 35th in the percentage of personal income going to state taxes.  The fact that Ohio is going bankrupt is the result not just of the recession, but because of a very flawed Republican philosophy — that called for a dramatic reduction in taxes — imposed upon this state.  Ohio’s financial problems are a result of Republican flawed thinking and Republican incompetence.   When Ohio passed its Tax Reduction Act in 2005, people paying attention were predicting that by 2010 Ohio would be in deep financial trouble.  Such predictions should have been listened to.  How is it reasonable that a state could drastically reduce its income and not expect to be forced to make hard budget cuts?

I think it is safe to say that only a tiny percentage of Ohio’s citizens even remember the 2005 Tax Reduction Act, or have given much thought to reasons for the plight of Ohio’s budget.  To suggest that “Some blame” Ohio’s financial crisis on the 2005 Tax Reduction Act is to imply that the question of the impact of the 2005 Law is open to debate.  Our democracy doesn’t stand a chance so long as the public is kept ignorant.

Posted in M Bock, Opinion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Mike Turner Voted “No” On Auto Bailout Because He Feared GM Would Send Money To Brazil

Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District Representative, Mike Turner, voted “No” on the recent $14 billion Detroit auto bailout legislation.

Turner’s web-site doesn’t say a peep about Turner’s reasons for voting “No,” so, I telephoned his Dayton office and was told that Turner has made no press release about the matter. I telephoned Turner’s Washington office and was told that Turner would soon make a press release explaining his “No” vote.

The man I spoke with in Turner’s Washington office told me that it was his understanding that Turner voted “No,” because the legislation contained no provision to block GM from using the bailout money overseas — particularly, Brazil — rather than in the US. This man said that Turner hoped that any version of the legislation coming from the Senate would add restrictions to the legislation prohibiting automakers from using any of the bailout money overseas.

Posted in Special Reports | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Joseph Stiglitz Says Anti-Regulation Ideology Caused Financial Meltdown

Interesting article in Vanity Fair, Capitalist Fools, by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, traces our financial crisis to terribly flawed ideology — one that says markets are self-adjusting and that the role of government should be minimal. Stiglitz reports on Alan Greenspan’s testimony on Capital Hill this fall where, finally, Greenspan admits his ideology of unregulated markets was terribly wrong and the source of our financial crisis.

Stiglitz says that it is important to understand the history that brought us to our present crisis. He writes: “Behind the debates over future policy is a debate over history—a debate over the causes of our current situation. The battle for the past will determine the battle for the present. So it’s crucial to get the history straight.”

He says, “Mistakes were made at every fork in the road—we had what engineers call a ‘system failure,’ when not a single decision but a cascade of decisions produce a tragic result,” and outlines five key developments in the history of the crisis:

No. 1: Firing the Chairman

Stiglitz writes, “In 1987 the Reagan administration decided to remove Paul Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and appoint Alan Greenspan in his place. But Volcker understood that financial markets need to be regulated. Reagan wanted someone who did not believe any such thing, and he found him in a devotee of the objectivist philosopher and free-market zealot Ayn Rand. … If you appoint an anti-regulator as your enforcer, you know what kind of enforcement you’ll get. A flood of liquidity combined with the failed levees of regulation proved disastrous.”

Stiglitz writes that regardless of the well known dangers of derivatives — Warren Buffett early on called them ‘financial weapons of mass destruction’ — “the deregulators in charge of the financial system decided to do nothing”

No. 2: Tearing Down the Walls

Stiglitz writes, “In November 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act—the culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial-services industries, and spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm. … When repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top. There was a demand for the kind of high returns that could be obtained only through high leverage and big risk taking. …

“In April 2004 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, at a meeting attended by virtually no one and largely overlooked at the time, to allow big investment banks to increase their debt-to-capital ratio (from 12:1 to 30:1, or higher) so that they could buy more mortgage-backed securities, inflating the housing bubble in the process…. As we stripped back the old regulations, we did nothing to address the new challenges posed by 21st-century markets. The most important challenge was that posed by derivatives…. Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, his deputy, Larry Summers, and Greenspan were adamant—and successful—in their opposition. Nothing was done.”

No. 3: Applying the Leeches

Stiglitz writes, “Then along came the Bush tax cuts, enacted first on June 7, 2001, with a follow-on installment two years later. The president and his advisers seemed to believe that tax cuts, especially for upper-income Americans and corporations, were a cure-all for any economic disease—the modern-day equivalent of leeches…. The war in Iraq made matters worse, because it led to soaring oil prices. With America so dependent on oil imports, we had to spend several hundred billion more to purchase oil—money that otherwise would have been spent on American goods.

“The cut in the tax rate on capital gains contributed to the crisis in another way. It was a decision that turned on values: those who speculated (read: gambled) and won were taxed more lightly than wage earners who simply worked hard. But more than that, the decision encouraged leveraging, because interest was tax-deductible. If, for instance, you borrowed a million to buy a home or took a $100,000 home-equity loan to buy stock, the interest would be fully deductible every year. Any capital gains you made were taxed lightly—and at some possibly remote day in the future. The Bush administration was providing an open invitation to excessive borrowing and lending—not that American consumers needed any more encouragement.”

No. 4: Faking the Numbers

Stiglitz writes, “On July 30, 2002, in the wake of a series of major scandals—notably the collapse of WorldCom and Enron—Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act…. Unfortunately, in the negotiations over what became Sarbanes-Oxley a decision was made not to deal with what many, including the respected former head of the S.E.C. Arthur Levitt, believed to be a fundamental underlying problem: stock options…. Stock options provide incentives for bad accounting: top management has every incentive to provide distorted information in order to pump up share prices.

“The incentive structure of the rating agencies also proved perverse. Agencies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s are paid by the very people they are supposed to grade. As a result, they’ve had every reason to give companies high ratings.”

No. 5: Letting It Bleed

Stiglitz writes, “The final turning point came with the passage of a bailout package on October 3, 2008—that is, with the administration’s response to the crisis itself….

“The bailout package was like a massive transfusion to a patient suffering from internal bleeding—and nothing was being done about the source of the problem, namely all those foreclosures. Valuable time was wasted as Paulson pushed his own plan, “cash for trash,” buying up the bad assets and putting the risk onto American taxpayers. When he finally abandoned it, providing banks with money they needed, he did it in a way that not only cheated America’s taxpayers but failed to ensure that the banks would use the money to re-start lending. He even allowed the banks to pour out money to their shareholders as taxpayers were pouring money into the banks.”

“The administration talked about confidence building, but what it delivered was actually a confidence trick. If the administration had really wanted to restore confidence in the financial system, it would have begun by addressing the underlying problems—the flawed incentive structures and the inadequate regulatory system.”

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist in 2001, is a professor at Columbia University. He was Chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors from 1995 to 1997 for Bill Clinton. He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank.


Posted in Special Reports | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments