For the past several years, Democratic Governor Dan Malloy of Connecticut and Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey have engaged in a public war of words over fiscal policy. Despite the economic similarity of their northeastern states, the two men have repeatedly clashed on television over their strategies for restoring fiscal discipline in government.
Malloy, following traditional Democratic doctrine, has chosen to maintain government spending in the face of economic malaise by raising taxes in order to eliminate budget shortfalls. Meanwhile, Christie, adhering to classic Republican policies, has slashed spending and reduced taxes in pursuit of the same goal.
So which strategy has proven itself to be the successful one? Regrettably, neither one has done so. During the past month, in fact, both Governors have acknowledged failure.
The first failure occurred in Connecticut, where Governor Malloy had been accused by his political foes of generating $500 million in excess cash by over-borrowing on debt. He had announced plans to spend the cash by mailing $55 checks to Connecticut households as election year tax refunds.
But then the anticipated $500 million budget surplus suddenly vanished with the collapse of overly optimistic economic assumptions. Because the excess cash was needed to finance normal government operations, the proposed tax refund vanished as well.
Meanwhile, in New Jersey, a similar collapse of overly optimistic economic assumptions forced Governor Christie to slash required payments to the state’s employee pension plans. To compensate for unexpectedly low tax revenues, the Governor decided to redirect the funds to finance normal government operations.
Ironically, Governor Christie himself initially agreed to authorize pension plan contributions at levels that would help the state “catch up” for many previous years of fully or partially cancelled payments. His predecessors had often balanced their budgets by redirecting pension funds to meet current needs.
But when Christie found himself in the same situation that had plagued his predecessors, he opted for the same choice that they had made: to shift budgeted pension funds into current year expenditures.
And so the “shell game” of government fiscal policy continues on both sides of the political aisle. Whenever debt generated funds or pension plan funds are shifted to finance current government operations, future budgets become more difficult to balance while the size and scope of government remains unaffected.
How would you modify the budgetary practices of our government officials to ensure the long term fiscal solvency of our states?