Report: State must cut spending, hike taxes or both

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State officials next year will have to make more spending cuts, increase taxes or both as they face the most challenging fiscal outlook in 30 years.

Those were the conclusions of an Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute report released Thursday detailing the impact of the recession on the two-year budget that goes into effect July 1, 2011.

Dwindling tax revenues will cause a projected $1.3 billion budget gap as the state enters its next budget, which would have an estimated spending base of $14.6 billion, according to the report.

That deficit equals the amount needed to pay for government functions such as prisons, police, parks and the General Assembly—essentially everything but education and social services.

To make up the gap, the state will have to look at increasing sales or income taxes, eliminating services or a combination of both, said John Ketzenberger, the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute’s president.

“Their only choices are to make cuts and hope that the economy grows enough that cuts and growth offset the deficit—and there’s really no sign the economy is going to grow at a rate that’s enough to make that happen—or make cuts and look at increasing revenues through taxes,” Ketzenberger said.

Gov. Mitch Daniels’ administration refuted the notion that tax increases could be needed.

“We’ve proven time and again we will make the reforms and decisions required to live within our means and keep Indiana in the black without raising taxes,” Chris Ruhl, the director of the state's Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.  “We are leading the nation in recovering lost jobs in large part because we did not raise taxes while other states did. The Institute’s suggestion of a general tax increase on Hoosiers is a terrible and unnecessary idea and one the governor firmly opposes.”

The state has faced tough economic times for the last two years in the midst of a long-lasting recession. A high unemployment rate—now at more than 10 percent—and slow gross domestic product growth have made sales and income tax revenues volatile.

That’s a problem, the report says, because those two taxes make up 80 percent of Indiana’s revenue.

The result is apparent: The state’s revenue collections in 2010 were more than $900 million less than in 2008.

Indiana House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer said the report highlights the challenge Indiana faces.

"Now that we see the results of a study by an independent group of fiscal experts, the public can see that Indiana is not the island of prosperity that the governor has continually talked about these past few years," Bauer, D-South Bend, said in a prepared statement.

In the last few years, a $2.7-billion boost from federal stimulus programs and about $3 billion in spending reductions by Daniels’ administration helped the state survive the losses.

The stimulus and many of the governor’s tactics, however, aren’t sustainable. And the economy is hardly expected to rebound next year.

That means the next budget, according to the report, will require “some creative thinking and tactics.”

If there is good news in the report, it’s that Indiana is hardly alone. The national Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that 46 states faced shortfalls in their 2009 or 2010 budgets.

Compared with states such as Illinois, Ketzenberger said, Indiana is faring well.

“But tough times are on us,” he said.


  • handbagsonsales.com
    very well very well
  • saç ekimi
    it is good luck . it is very good very good.
  • x
  • That Man Mitch
    That man Mitch has been saying Indiana is doing great. The stimulus money Mitch pocketed rather than use it to add to the economy. Will the legislatures take a drastic paycut until the economy recovers. The General Assembly is a big hog, not to metion the Governor's office. Are we still funding Mitch to live elsewhere other than in the Governor's mansion?
  • Easy to fix
    Cut spending on education (we spend way too much) and social services.

    Stimulus? The Fed Govt thinks it can continue to spend $4Trillion and take in $2.5T in taxes. Is there any politician out there that is willing to say THE FREE RIDE IS OVER? No. So we are doomed.
  • Cut spending
    This is not a "budget" problem. A budget is a projected level of income vs. expenses and is not reality. It is time for checkbook accounting using what is reality and not what is merely a hope. You/the State can't spend it if it isn't in the bank and no check bouncing. Same thing applies to various depts. If they don't have it they can't spend it. That is how the citizens of this State must manage their funds and survival. The people in both State & Federal gov't positions think the taxpayers are bottomless pits of money.

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.