Texas faces deeper cuts to balance budget

[George Gervin's Afro]

Texas faces deeper cuts to balance budget
By Sheila McNulty in Houston

Published: November 10 2010 17:31 | Last updated: November 10 2010 17:31

Rick Perry may have won his third term as Texas governor this month, but the prize is a state budget deficit analysts estimate has grown as high as $25bn.

The projected deficit, to be announced in January, would leave Texas with tough decisions about how to meet spending commitments, as its constitution requires a balanced budget. It faces scaling back already lean budgets for education, healthcare and public safety.

Texas is one of 39 states that have projected budget gaps for the 2012 fiscal year, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Republicans who were swept to power in state capitols in midterm elections on November 2 are promising big spending cuts in response, from trimming social services and reducing benefits for public workers to selling off state assets.

Texas is among seven states with no personal income tax; imposing one would mean revising the state constitution. Raising taxes is not an option for its Republican governor.

“You might not remember the $10bn deficit ...  in 2003,’’ Mr Perry said in his recent campaign. “Rather than jack up taxes, we took the same approach you’d take if your business had a shortfall; we drew a line between wants and needs then cut spending. We won’t hesitate to take that approach again.’’

The Dallas Morning News quoted senior legislative staff this month saying the deficit has gone as high as $25bn and could rise if the economy does not pick up.

Analysts agree, citing falling sales taxes, which account for about 65 per cent of revenue. Other sources, including the motor vehicle sales tax, franchise tax, natural gas tax, insurance premium taxes and lottery proceeds, have all been hit by a weak economy.

“It’s going to be a really bad couple of years for public schools,” said Mark Jones, political scientist at Rice University. Education accounts for 55 per cent of state spending, he said.

Other areas highly dependent on the state are healthcare, accounting for 25 per cent of spending, and public safety, accounting for roughly 10 per cent.

Richard Murray, political scientist at the University of Houston, said the state had not fully recovered from the cuts made in 2003. For example, 26 per cent of Texans are uninsured – a higher percentage than in any other state. The estimated average salary of public school teachers ranks 39th among states, with state and local expenditures per pupil in public schools ranking 44th.

Given an increasingly elderly population, large numbers of uninsured and a rise in those using public education, Mr Murray said drastic cuts would be needed.

Harvey Kronberg, head of the Quorum Report, which reports on Texas politics, said: “There are a lot of constituencies out there who are unaware how deep this is going to reach.’’


Interesting to see what Perry and the legislature will do. Are they going to f*ck the schools, elderly, or poor people..?

[clambake]

crickets

[coyotes_geek]

Just some gossip I picked up here at work. I've heard that every state agency has been told to plan for a 25% cut in their budget.

Texas has been incredibly fortunate thus far to have not felt anything close to the pain that most of the other states have. But this time we're all going to feel it.

[CosmicCowboy]

Another proposal that I'm confident will pass is to convert new state employees into 401K's instead of defined benefit retirement plans. It's about fucking time. The private sector did it years ago.

[coyotes_geek]

Another proposal that I'm confident will pass is to convert new state employees into 401K's instead of defined benefit retirement plans. It's about fucking time. The private sector did it years ago.

Definitely agree.

There's also going to be some pretty significant state government layoffs.

[johnsmith]

Interesting to see what Perry and the legislature will do. Are they going to f*ck the schools, elderly, or poor people..?

I hope it's the elderly, cause they are old so who gives a fuck?

[RandomGuy]

Just some gossip I picked up here at work. I've heard that every state agency has been told to plan for a 25% cut in their budget.

Texas has been incredibly fortunate thus far to have not felt anything close to the pain that most of the other states have. But this time we're all going to feel it.

It was 5% actually.

Here is a chunk of info from an interesting article:


state agencies, including UT, once again face the possibility of a 10 percent budget cut during the next legislative session after a 5 percent budget cut this year. But the regents and other chief administrators have not considered raising tuition to make up for those cuts as they wait for more concrete information on the budget, said Kevin Hegarty, UT’s chief financial officer.

http://uwire.com/2010/11/05/u-texas-tuition-rates-increased-134-in-last-decade-report-shows/
(U. Texas tuition rates increased 134% in last decade, report shows )

If you are sending your kids to college in the next 3 years, expect some hefty tuition increases.

They cut funding to state colleges, and the revenue had to be made up from somewhere. I was astonished how much higher tuition was when I finished my undergrad degree than when I started.

We are making college less accessable, and eating our seed corn.

[coyotes_geek]

It was 5% actually.



The last legislative session was 5%. This time around it's going to be much larger. There's not another stimulus check headed our way for Gub'ner Goodhair to rail against on his way to the bank to cash it.

[CosmicCowboy]

It was 5% actually.

Here is a chunk of info from an interesting article:



http://uwire.com/2010/11/05/u-texas-tuition-rates-increased-134-in-last-decade-report-shows/
(U. Texas tuition rates increased 134% in last decade, report shows )

If you are sending your kids to college in the next 3 years, expect some hefty tuition increases.

They cut funding to state colleges, and the revenue had to be made up from somewhere. I was astonished how much higher tuition was when I finished my undergrad degree than when I started.

We are making college less accessable, and eating our seed corn.

So why is it still so hard to get into a good school?

[RandomGuy]

The last legislative session was 5%. This time around it's going to be much larger. There's not another stimulus check headed our way for Gub'ner Goodhair to rail against on his way to the bank to cash it.

Ding ding ding ding!!

You are completely correct.

The big bad ol' stimulus plugged a LOT of holes in state budgets.

Those holes haven't gotten any smaller, but now there is nothing to plug them with. Maybe if we got a big enough Tea Bag... I don't see any federal help to the states materializing any time soon.

[RandomGuy]

We are making college less accessable, and eating our seed corn.


So why is it still so hard to get into a good school?

Cost as much as anything.

Not sure what/why you are asking, otherwise I could have gotten a better answer. (???)

[CosmicCowboy]

Cost as much as anything.

Not sure what/why you are asking, otherwise I could have gotten a better answer. (???)

OK, why do Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. keep raising their minimum SAT scores and turning away as many as they accept because they don't have room for all the applicants?

[Sportcamper]

It is time for Texas to implement a 9.78% sales tax on all items other than food & a state personal income tax on earnings & savings like we have in California…Lets hope that Texas can get their fiscal responsibilities in order…

[ChumpDumper]

Ding ding ding ding!!

You are completely correct.

The big bad ol' stimulus plugged a LOT of holes in state budgets.

Those holes haven't gotten any smaller, but now there is nothing to plug them with. Maybe if we got a big enough Tea Bag... I don't see any federal help to the states materializing any time soon.Perry said he is FED UP! with billions of dollars in federal aid.

Yeah!

[baseline bum]

So why is it still so hard to get into a good school?

Much higher demand with both the lack of jobs right now and the certainty of working at Starbucks or Wal-Mart in the future without an education.

[boutons_deux]

And Perry wants TX to opt out of Medicaid, forgoing many federal $Bs

To Help His State Budget, Gov. Rick Perry Wants To Hurt His State Budget By Opting Out Of Medicaid

Not only would Perry be turning away millions in federal spending, Perry would actually be “taking billions out of the state economy that goes on to support hospitals and other providers,” Volsky notes. Thus, “hospitals and doctors would have to swallow the costs of caring for uninsured individuals who will continue to use the emergency room as their primary source of care,” which further burdens the state budget.

The actual “lose-lose” outcome of Perry’s proposal has led many health policy experts to question its legitimacy and sincerity. Perry’s eagerness gut Medicaid while providing no actual viable alternative to cover the poor pushed one Texas hospital’s chief to call his idea “so bizarre as to be unworthy of consideration.”

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/09/perry-texas-medicaid/

[CosmicCowboy]

Heres the other side of the story...I'm not advocating it, just posting in the interest of fairness...


The Challenge
The Medicaid program is a joint state-federal entitlement program designed to provide health care to eligible low income individuals. The Texas Medicaid program primarily serves low income children, pregnant women, elderly, and people with disabilities. Texas expenditures for Medicaid more than doubled between 1996 and 2006, and the program currently accounts for 26 percent of the Texas state budget. Funding for Medicaid continues to compete with other critical programs and priorities, while increasing health care costs have eroded employer-based coverage. In addition to surging Medicaid caseloads and increasing medical costs, 25 percent, or 5.5 million people in Texas, do not have health insurance. This places additional pressure on Medicaid. Public hospitals report spending billions of dollars a year for care provided to the uninsured.
Action / Initiative
After Governor Perry’s 2007 State-of-the-State address, which set forth his vision for reducing the number of uninsured Texans, the 80th Legislature responded by passing Senate Bill 10, which incorporated Governor Perry’s Medicaid reform initiatives. Senate Bill 10 required HHSC to: promote preventive care and reduce hospital care for non-emergent conditions; study the use of health savings accounts; design tailored benefit packages for certain Medicaid recipients to meet special health care needs more effectively; expand breast and cervical cancer treatment; and study premium assistance programs for small employer health benefit plans. The resulting Medicaid reform waiver was submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in April 2008 and is still pending federal approval.


The Outcome
While CMS has yet to approve the Texas waiver, the governor continues to push US Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to approve these state-specific, market- driven reforms. Through the waiver, Texas proposes to create the Texas Health Opportunity Pool (HOP) trust fund by optimizing federal funding sources. Through this fund, Texas will transform access to health care for the uninsured from a heavy reliance on hospital-based care to increased access to primary and preventive care. Texas will provide HOP premium subsidies for uninsured adults and older children (age 19-20) living in households with family income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL)—approximately $41,300 for a family of four. Under the HOP, all consumers will be required to pay something toward the cost of their health care.

Consumers will have a choice among health care coverage options, placing an emphasis on consumer ownership of primary and preventive services. Parallel reform initiatives will address uncompensated care issues, including establishing financial incentives for hospitals to implement strategies to reduce uncompensated care costs.

Through the governor’s leadership, the state is on track to achieve cost savings and cost avoidance, thanks to reform efforts that generate more rational health-care spending on the uninsured, decrease the number of uninsured Texans, improve access to individual and employer-sponsored health coverage, and increase overall system efficiency and effectiveness.

[boutons_deux]

"Under the HOP, all consumers will be required to pay something toward the cost of their health care."

Damn, a socialist "mandate" in TX?

With private insurers upping their rates by up to 30% for next year, increasing co-pays and deductibles, sometimes to catastrophe level, a hard-core public option is the best solution, spreading the nations health costs over the entire populace.

[CosmicCowboy]

I find it amusing how much pleasure the liberals in this forum are getting over the fact that Texas will have to deal with a deficit this year.

The simple fact is that whether the deficit is 8 Billion or 28 Billion, they will deal with it by cutting government expenditures instead of raising taxes.

I think this is a good thing. Don't you?

[clambake]

texas deficit doesn't affect you, just like california doesn't affect me.

get the point?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I find it amusing how much pleasure the liberals in this forum are getting over the fact that Texas will have to deal with a deficit this year.

The simple fact is that whether the deficit is 8 Billion or 28 Billion, they will deal with it by cutting government expenditures instead of raising taxes.

I think this is a good thing. Don't you?

It's a good thing if you don't need assistance. I don't need any assistance but many people do rely on govt help at this time. So I take no pleasure in knowing that the most vulnerable in our society are going to suffer because we live in a red state.

I guess it's ok to stick it to people who won't vote for you anyway. But we are a christian nation!

[scott]

OK, why do Texas, A&M, Tech, etc. keep raising their minimum SAT scores and turning away as many as they accept because they don't have room for all the applicants?

Sounds like you partially answered your own question.

I'm not sure what your angle in on this, so this next statement isn't necessarily targeted at you.

I don't understand why people think everyone should go to college and that we should make higher education accessible to everyone. I'm consistently amazed at the increasingly poor quality of students admitted to the university each year. If we did a better job at the K-12 levels, not everyone would feel the need to go to college because they'd actually have the skills to do something - ANYTHING - after high school. Instead I have to spend time every semester explaining how to calculate a percentage change between two numbers or calculate the area of a triangle.

With that said, I haven't gotten a raise from the university in six years. There hasn't been the budget for it. We absolutely need a balanced budget, but at some point people should be worried that the budgets cuts at the university level are going to drive away the talent in those ranks. While I'm not an educator that the state should worry about losing, I am an example of someone who it is almost becoming not worth it anymore to teach.

[TeyshaBlue]

Sounds like you partially answered your own question.

I'm not sure what your angle in on this, so this next statement isn't necessarily targeted at you.

I don't understand why people think everyone should go to college and that we should make higher education accessible to everyone. I'm consistently amazed at the increasingly poor quality of students admitted to the university each year. If we did a better job at the K-12 levels, not everyone would feel the need to go to college because they'd actually have the skills to do something - ANYTHING - after high school. Instead I have to spend time every semester explaining how to calculate a percentage change between two numbers or calculate the area of a triangle.

With that said, I haven't gotten a raise from the university in six years. There hasn't been the budget for it. We absolutely need a balanced budget, but at some point people should be worried that the budgets cuts at the university level are going to drive away the talent in those ranks. While I'm not an educator that the state should worry about losing, I am an example of someone who it is almost becoming not worth it anymore to teach.

I reached that point about 14 years ago. Glad you can hang in there.

We are reaping the consequences of our bizarre fling with outcome based education. Coupled with Bush's disastrous "No Child Left Behind" and the systemic defunding of voc-ed programs during the 80's and 90's, we were left with a student population that was being averaged into mediocrity. When every one is deemed qualified to attend college, soon no one will be.

[BlairForceDejuan]

It is time for Texas to implement a 9.78% sales tax on all items other than food & a state personal income tax on earnings & savings like we have in California…Lets hope that Texas can get their fiscal responsibilities in order…

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:QcDgS09bXZuySM:http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/8981/handsup.gif&t=1

[scott]

Just got an email that says the administration is expecting 20-33% budget cuts to come down. That's a lot of coin, hopefully quality of education won't suffer.

[clambake]

its texas. they want to cut science.

[ChuckD]

Another proposal that I'm confident will pass is to convert new state employees into 401K's instead of defined benefit retirement plans. It's about fucking time. The private sector did it years ago.

The private sector PAYS better, which is why pensions are better in the public sector. Good luck hiring any high end scientists or computer folks with the same pension and a fraction of the salary.

[CosmicCowboy]

The private sector PAYS better, which is why pensions are better in the public sector. Good luck hiring any high end scientists or computer folks with the same pension and a fraction of the salary.

Really?

I can't speak for state government but Federal employees earn TWICE what their equivalent private sector employees make...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

[ChumpDumper]

Really?

I can't speak for state government but Federal employees earn TWICE what their equivalent private sector employees make...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htmYou might want to read that article again.

Or once.

[RandomGuy]

Really?

I can't speak for state government but Federal employees earn TWICE what their equivalent private sector employees make...

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

That article does not say what you think it does.

Someoby had misread the data, because that data has been misrepresented in a very deliberate (or ignorant) way in order to make a political point.

My apologies, but I think you have been rather cynically manipulated.

You are missing two key data points that would lead a rational person to form a conclusion opposite of the one you have made.

1. Federal workers make more than the AVERAGE private sector worker, not EQUIVALENT private sector worker.


Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs.

2. Federal jobs, ON AVERAGE, require more education and experience than the AVERAGE private sector job.

Do a search in your area, as I did for San Antonio, and browse the results. When I tested this claim on the part of the Federal workers union, I did so for about 5 major metropolitan areas.

The results of my testing is that many jobs required masters or doctorates, and almost all required at least a bachelors.

If the pool of federal workers is skewed to require more education than a pool that is diluted with a lot of average fast-food/retail workers, the comparison is not really all that valid.

Have I proven my point sufficiently to change your mind about that statement, or do you require more data?

[CosmicCowboy]

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

It looks pretty straight forward to me.

[RandomGuy]

It looks pretty straight forward to me.


1. Federal workers make more than the AVERAGE private sector worker, not EQUIVALENT private sector worker.


Jessica Klement, government affairs director at the Federal Managers Association, says the government's official pay analysis shows that federal workers earn less than private workers for comparable jobs.

Given:
1) Average pay rates for federal workers have wages higher than average US workers.
2) Pay rates currently for federal workers are lower than private sector equivalents.
3) Pay rates for average federal workers have increased faster than average US workers.

We can reasonably conclude one of two things.

Either the base pay for federal workers started that time period MUCH lower than an equivalant private sector worker by a margin at least as great as the difference between the average federal worker and the equivalent, if the equivalent private sector worker pay exhibited the similar growth to average private sector workers.

or

Equivalent private sector pay has gone up at roughly the same as average Federal workers' pay.

The relationships are, per the data:

Pay:
Average private US worker<Average Federal worker<Private sector equivalent to Average Federal worker

Skills:
Average Federal worker skills/education = Equivalant private sector worker
Equivalent private sector worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
Average Federal worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.

You are attempting to compare different things. It is not as straightforward as you seem to think.

[CosmicCowboy]

What the data show:

•Benefits. Federal workers received average benefits worth $41,791 in 2009. Most of this was the government's contribution to pensions. Employees contributed an additional $10,569.

•Pay. The average federal salary has grown 33% faster than inflation since 2000. USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations. The analysis did not consider differences in experience and education.

•Total compensation. Federal compensation has grown 36.9% since 2000 after adjusting for inflation, compared with 8.8% for private workers.

[RandomGuy]

Pay:
A>B>C

Skills:
B=C
C>A
B>A

If skills/experience should be rewarded with pay, then for pay,

B should equal C, not what is actually the case B<C.

[CosmicCowboy]

Job=Job

More education is not necessarily = to more skill

[CosmicCowboy]

More pay for more experience?

Pffffft

In a typical repetitive job it takes no more than a year to learn everything.

Doing that job for 20 years is not 20 years experience.

It's one year of experience repeated 20 times.

[CosmicCowboy]

Pay:
A>B>C

Skills:
B=C
C>A
B>A

If skills/experience should be rewarded with pay, then for pay,

B should equal C, not what is actually the case B<C.

:wtf

That makes absolutely no sense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:wtf

That makes absolutely no sense.


Pay:
Average private US worker<Average Federal worker<Private sector equivalent to Average Federal worker

Skills:
Average Federal worker skills/education = Equivalant private sector worker
Equivalent private sector worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.
Average Federal worker skills/education>Average private sector worker.




Pay:
A>B>C

Skills:
B=C
C>A
B>A

If skills/experience should be rewarded with pay, then for pay,

B should equal C, not what is actually the case B<C.


I think what RG is trying to show is that from a logical standpoint your argument (or those who push this arguemnt) is flawed.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think what RG is trying to show is that from a logical standpoint your argument (or those who push this arguemnt) is flawed.

Your conclusion is based on the premise that Federal workers are more skilled than private sector workers.

I don't agree with this premise and you can't prove it is true.

[Crookshanks]

Your conclusion is based on the premise that Federal workers are more skilled than private sector workers.

I don't agree with this premise and you can't prove it is true.

You got that right - some of the dumbest people I've come across work in government agencies - not to mention some of our elected officials!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Your conclusion is based on the premise that Federal workers are more skilled than private sector workers.

I don't agree with this premise and you can't prove it is true.

Well then I suppose comparing the pay scales/differentials/rates for 2 completely different sets of populations is flawed in itself.


Wouldn't you agree?

by the way is

[CosmicCowboy]

Well then I suppose comparing the pay scales/differentials/rates for 2 completely different sets of populations is flawed in itself.


Wouldn't you agree?

Not really. Most administrative jobs can be compared easily.

[Wild Cobra]

That article does not say what you think it does.

Someoby had misread the data, because that data has been misrepresented in a very deliberate (or ignorant) way in order to make a political point.

My apologies, but I think you have been rather cynically manipulated.

You are missing two key data points that would lead a rational person to form a conclusion opposite of the one you have made.

1. Federal workers make more than the AVERAGE private sector worker, not EQUIVALENT private sector worker.
I agree. In fact, I would say that some equivalent jobs earn less. Does the FBI top management make as much as CEO's COO's etc? I think not. Does a federal prosecutor make as much as a trial lawyer? Fat chance.

2. Federal jobs, ON AVERAGE, require more education and experience than the AVERAGE private sector job.

No kidding. I don't see jobs like McDonald's on the federal list. For such a comparison to be true, you would have to exclude jobs like retail, service, etc. Focus on technical, law enforcement, legal etc.

How many federal jobs do not require higher education of some sort?

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree. In fact, I would say that some equivalent jobs earn less. Does the FBI top management make as much as CEO's COO's etc? I think not. Does a federal prosecutor make as much as a trial lawyer? Fat chance.

No kidding. I don't see jobs like McDonald's on the federal list. For such a comparison to be true, you would have to exclude jobs like retail, service, etc. Focus on technical, law enforcement, legal etc.

How many federal jobs do not require higher education of some sort?

Typically, Assistant US Attorneys and US Attorneys take those jobs for the contacts/experience and BECOME high priced trial lawyers later in their careers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I agree. In fact, I would say that some equivalent jobs earn less. Does the FBI top management make as much as CEO's COO's etc? I think not. Does a federal prosecutor make as much as a trial lawyer? Fat chance.

No kidding. I don't see jobs like McDonald's on the federal list. For such a comparison to be true, you would have to exclude jobs like retail, service, etc. Focus on technical, law enforcement, legal etc.

How many federal jobs do not require higher education of some sort?

Wouldn't a more apt comparison would be to comapre DA's with Federal Prosecutors?

[RandomGuy]

:wtf

That makes absolutely no sense.

Sorry I was trying to decrease the verbiage and break it down a bit more simply. I think it is a bit confusing myself.

Sorry I was trying a bit too hard. :lol

[RandomGuy]

USA TODAY reported in March that the federal government pays an average of 20% more than private firms for comparable occupations.

I went back and found the March article that this statement is based on:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

It includes a table that supports that statement, roughly.

What is missing though is something that has already been remarked on, and that is longitivity.

Federal workers tend to stay on the job for MUCH longer, and have accumulated a good deal of experience.

While it is correct that for repetitive jobs, 1 year experience is about the same as 20. Not all jobs, especially ones that are far from repetitive, such as nursing, surgeons, or high level administrators are so.

The union, for its part points to objective analysis done by the OMB (or someething along those lines, dont' quite remember) that shows that it is hard to find exact matches in order to make really valid comparisons.

Certainly the "double" statement is simply too flawed to be workable.

The 20% one is much more closer to a decent comparison, but also misses mitigating factors such as longitivity and experience.

Given that, it is safe to conclude the actual %'s are a bit less than that, factoring in experience.

[boutons_deux]

After the VRWC launched its latest attack to kill govt as employer of over-paid employees, lots of studies came out showing it was just another VRWC lie and hit job.