Partying like it’s 2013

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

KetzenbergerEven after the Great Recession and throughout the stubborn economic recovery, it’s getting harder to recall when Indiana’s fiscal house was a shambles.

Budget deficit? That’s so 2004.

So what I have to say might seem impertinent a week after Gov. Mike Pence hailed “a great victory” when the Republican-dominated General Assembly approved a budget with new tax cuts and a projected surplus. But I can’t shake the old Prince tune “1999”—especially the chorus, “2000 zero zero party over, oops out of time.”

Lawmakers and Gov. Frank O’Bannon cut taxes for business, homeowners and families by a projected $600 million during the 1999 session. The state’s revenue surplus then was $1.6 billion and the mood was to lighten the load on taxpayers and boost education spending.

Sound familiar?

The recession began to eat into the surplus in late 2000, and by 2001 the Democrat O’Bannon and the politically split General Assembly struggled to reach agreement on a deficit budget.

O’Bannon and majority Democrats in the House openly disagreed on budget priorities and the governor drew the ire of a majority of lawmakers when he vetoed their carefully crafted pay raise. The next two-year budget included more money for education but little else as the state scrambled to reduce a projected $800 million deficit between revenue and expenditures.

Let’s step out of the Wayback Machine now and step up to a graph of economic growth since World War II. The pattern of growth and retraction looks like rolling waves, up for a few years, then down for a year or so, then back up. It gets a little distorted over the last 20 years, but you get the idea.

We don’t want to believe it, but the economy will shrink again. When the next recession happens, it will magnify the loss of tax revenue caused by the reduction of income and financial institutions taxes, and the elimination of the inheritance tax. At some point, the General Assembly will recalibrate. Lawmakers will cut spending and they might even raise taxes. It’s the way things happen.

None of this is meant to dismiss or demean the policy choices exhibited in the new budget. As the governor observed right after the budget passed, it “put taxpayers first.” State revenue will decline $500 million a year due to the tax reductions.

The state plans to use cash to pay off some debt early and build some university buildings without bonds. Increased appropriations for education and roads also will reduce the surplus. Yet last month’s rosy economic forecast leads to a projected surplus of $1.5 billion to $2 billion when fiscal year 2015 ends.

Were there other options? Sure. Instead of income tax cuts, lawmakers could have put more money into education, roads or assistance programs. Even with the 3-percent increase for primary education in this budget, the appropriation is about on par with the fiscal year 2010-2011 budget, because $300 million was cut during the recession and not restored in the current budget.

Indiana’s fiscal strength allowed the General Assembly many policy options, and it chose to reduce taxes and boost some appropriations. These are logical and reasonable choices.

Yet try as we might, we cannot control the economic cycles. Gov. Robert Orr wasn’t even through his second year in office before he called a 1982 special session to raise income and sales taxes after the last worst recession since the Depression.

History’s tough.•


Ketzenberger is president of the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


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. So as I read this the one question that continues to come to me to ask is. Didn't Indiana only have a couple of exchanges for people to opt into which were very high because we really didn't want to expect the plan. So was this study done during that time and if so then I can understand these numbers. I also understand that we have now opened up for more options for hoosiers to choose from. Please correct if I'm wrong and if I'm not why was this not part of the story so that true overview could be taken away and not just parts of it to continue this negative tone against the ACA. I look forward to the clarity.

  2. It's really very simple. All forms of transportation are subsidized. All of them. Your tax money already goes toward every single form of transportation in the state. It is not a bad thing to put tax money toward mass transit. The state spends over 1,000,000,000 (yes billion) on roadway expansions and maintenance every single year. If you want to cry foul over anything cry foul over the overbuilding of highways which only serve people who can afford their own automobile.

  3. So instead of subsidizing a project with a market-driven scope, you suggest we subsidize a project that is way out of line with anything that can be economically sustainable just so we can have a better-looking skyline?

  4. Downtowner, if Cummins isn't getting expedited permitting and tax breaks to "do what they do", then I'd be happy with letting the market decide. But that isn't the case, is it?

  5. Patty, this commuter line provides a way for workers (willing to work lower wages) to get from Marion county to Hamilton county. These people are running your restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and retail stores. I don't see a lot of residents of Carmel working these jobs.