{"title":"From the Field: It's Always Something: Maryland's Path Through the 'Great Recession'","authors":"Warren G. Deschenaux, David B. Juppe","doi":"10.1111/pbaf.12067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Like most states, Maryland experienced a significant revenue decline following the “Great Recession” of 2008. The State balanced its annual budgets using a combination of spending cuts, new revenues, use of general fund balance and reserves, modifications to State–local government revenue and spending relationships, and transfers from various dedicated special fund balances. During this period, states also received generous federal support via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This case study differs in two ways from previous analyses of state budget balancing actions during times of fiscal distress. First, it demonstrates how elected officials established and implemented action to preserve spending priorities; chiefly relating to the social safety net and primary/secondary education. Secondly, it documents the combination of budget balancing actions adopted over a multi‐year period and shows the extent to which each type of action was relied upon. Future study can build upon this research, to show to what extent other states relied upon similar or divergent measures when balancing their budgets in post‐recessionary periods. Along with other states, Maryland was substantially affected by the so called “Great Recession.” But unlike many other places, Maryland did not substantially curtail employment or services. In particular, Maryland resisted substantial reductions in spending on health and education even after federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 support was exhausted, while maintaining a 5 percent balance in its Rainy Day Fund. This entailed a combination of spending restraint, balance transfers, rededication of revenues, health provider taxes, gambling, and higher taxes. This paper describes the actions taken each year, and illustrates how spending priorities were protected to the extent possible.","PeriodicalId":135866,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Public Budgeting & Finance","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Public Budgeting & Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pbaf.12067","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Like most states, Maryland experienced a significant revenue decline following the “Great Recession” of 2008. The State balanced its annual budgets using a combination of spending cuts, new revenues, use of general fund balance and reserves, modifications to State–local government revenue and spending relationships, and transfers from various dedicated special fund balances. During this period, states also received generous federal support via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This case study differs in two ways from previous analyses of state budget balancing actions during times of fiscal distress. First, it demonstrates how elected officials established and implemented action to preserve spending priorities; chiefly relating to the social safety net and primary/secondary education. Secondly, it documents the combination of budget balancing actions adopted over a multi‐year period and shows the extent to which each type of action was relied upon. Future study can build upon this research, to show to what extent other states relied upon similar or divergent measures when balancing their budgets in post‐recessionary periods. Along with other states, Maryland was substantially affected by the so called “Great Recession.” But unlike many other places, Maryland did not substantially curtail employment or services. In particular, Maryland resisted substantial reductions in spending on health and education even after federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 support was exhausted, while maintaining a 5 percent balance in its Rainy Day Fund. This entailed a combination of spending restraint, balance transfers, rededication of revenues, health provider taxes, gambling, and higher taxes. This paper describes the actions taken each year, and illustrates how spending priorities were protected to the extent possible.
像大多数州一样,马里兰州在2008年的“大衰退”之后经历了显著的收入下降。国家平衡年度预算,综合运用削减支出、增加收入、使用一般基金余额和储备、调整国家和地方政府收支关系以及从各种专项基金余额中调拨资金等方法。在此期间,各州还通过2009年《美国复苏与再投资法案》获得了慷慨的联邦支持。本案例研究在两个方面不同于以往对财政困难时期国家预算平衡行动的分析。首先,它展示了民选官员如何制定和实施行动,以保持支出的优先次序;主要涉及社会安全网和小学/中学教育。其次,它记录了在多年期间采取的预算平衡行动的组合,并显示了每种行动的依赖程度。未来的研究可以建立在这项研究的基础上,以显示其他州在经济衰退后时期平衡预算时,在多大程度上依赖于类似或不同的措施。与其他州一样,马里兰州也受到了所谓的“大衰退”的严重影响。但与其他许多地方不同,马里兰州并没有大幅削减就业或服务。尤其值得注意的是,即使在2009年联邦《美国复苏与再投资法案》(American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009)的支持耗尽后,马里兰州仍拒绝大幅削减医疗和教育支出,同时在雨天基金(Rainy Day Fund)中保持5%的余额。这包括限制支出、平衡转移、收入再分配、医疗服务提供者税、赌博和更高的税收。本文描述了每年采取的行动,并说明了如何尽可能地保护优先支出。