Category: State Policy

Readers may want to start with our “What We’re Reading” section this week, which is full of good reading on how progressive taxation is needed to fund vital public services, helpful for state and local economic growth, and popular among voters as well. In that spirit, leaders in both New Jersey and New York are looking at small taxes on stock trades to help improve their budgets and tax codes. These last couple of weeks have also featured more state fiscal action than is typical this time of year, for example in North Carolina, where lawmakers decided to use federal aid on a mix of direct payments to households with children, education funding, broadband access, and other needs.

Voters could significantly change the tax landscape through ballot measures this November regarding oil taxes in Alaska and a high-income surcharge for education funding in Arizona. Legislators are doing their part to bring progressive tax ideas to the fore as well, including a possible wealth tax in California, a millionaires tax in New Jersey, and a pied-a-terre proposal in New York. And Nebraska lawmakers reached a property tax and business tax subsidy compromise before closing out their session, but did not identify progressive revenue sources to fund it and will likely be back at the bargaining table before long.

Even in statehouses, many eyes remained on Congress and President Trump this week as state lawmakers advocated for needed federal fiscal relief and debated whether they can afford to join in on the president’s executive order requiring states to partially fund a new version of enhanced unemployment benefits that have otherwise expired.

This week, voters in Missouri approved Medicaid expansion, Nevada lawmakers moved to amend their Constitution to raise taxes on the state’s mining industry, and leaders in California and New York continued to push for needed revenues through tax increases on their richest households.

As many of the country’s major professional sports leagues attempt to return to action amid concerns that the pandemic will find a way to ruin even the best-laid plans, state legislatures find themselves in a similar boat. Lawmakers would normally be enjoying their summer breaks at this time of year, but instead are returning to work in special sessions surrounded by plexiglass and uncertainty. Read on for information on ongoing sessions in states including California, Massachusetts, and Nebraska, as well as upcoming sessions in Missouri and Oregon.

Temperatures and tensions are high right now across the country as Congress debates its next pandemic response and states continue to sweat through difficult decisions. Nevada lawmakers, for example, just wrapped up a special session during which they came within one vote of a proposed tax increase but ultimately chose to balance their shortfall through only funding cuts. But advocates in many states, including California, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island are trying to light a fire under lawmakers to encourage them to enact progressive tax increases on their wealthiest households.

With tax day finally coming at the federal level and in many states this week, policymakers in Nevada and New Jersey began to talk about revenue solutions to their revenue shortfalls, even if they fell well short of wholeheartedly backing needed reforms. Like their counterparts in most states, they remain primarily focused on temporary solutions to their short-term emergencies. Still, advocates in these and other states continue to push for more fundamental fixes to their inadequate and upside-down tax codes, including a new campaign for better tax policy in Massachusetts and efforts to rein in tax subsidies and loopholes in Ohio and elsewhere.

Local leaders in the District of Columbia and Seattle, Washington, approved progressive tax changes to raise needed funding this week for priorities such as coronavirus relief, affordable housing, and mental health. Arizona advocates submitted signatures to place a high-income surcharge on the ballot for November. And as a number of states made decisions on how to use federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds, North Carolina decoupled from costly business tax cuts contained in the act and Nebraska started discussing doing the same.

As ITEP analyst Kamolika Das wrote today, July 1 is typically the beginning of state fiscal years and “a point when one can take a step back and reflect on the wins and disappointments of the past state legislative sessions.” Not so in 2020, she writes, as uncertainty surrounding the virus, state revenues, and potential federal action give state lawmakers no such time to relax and reflect. Although most recent state actions, such as those covered below in California, Mississippi, and West Virginia, have focused on funding cuts and temporary measures to bring budgets into short-term balance, the need for revenue solutions to the revenue crisis “has become increasingly clear.”

State policymakers this week took a variety of approaches to their fiscal situations amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Tennessee lawmakers chose to balance their budget through $1.5 billion in cuts to public services, but not before adding to those cuts by going forward with planned tax cuts. California legislators also passed a budget but relied on a number of temporary measures and delays to do so. Their counterparts in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island opted for interim budgets to tide them over for a few months while they continue to look for lasting solutions. Meanwhile, many states are debating whether to couple to tax cuts in the federal response bills and how to use the aid approved so far, while making the case to Congress that major additional aid is needed.

Despite uncertainty all around the nation, a few states passed budgets this week and many more are negotiating to enact theirs before fiscal years close at the end of June. Colorado notably pared back some of its own tax breaks and limited the potential damage on its budget from new federal breaks. California also passed a budget but few in the state actually think the dealing is done. Iowa quietly enacted its budget too, though advocates in the state are making noise about non-fiscal bills that were added late in the game.

As calls to defund the police demonstrate, state and local decisions about funding priorities and how those funds are raised are deeply embedded in racial justice issues. Tax justice is also a key component in advancing racial justice. Racial wealth disparities are the result of countless historic inequities and tax policy choices are certainly among […]

This week the immense scale and uneven distribution of economic and health damage from the COVID-19 pandemic continued to come into focus, hand in hand with greater clarity around pandemic-related revenue losses threatening state and local revenues and the priorities—such as health care, education, and public safety—they fund. Officials in many states, including Ohio and Tennessee, nonetheless rushed to declare their unwillingness to be part of any solution that includes raising the tax contributions of their highest-income residents. On the brighter side, some leaders are willing to do just that, for example through progressive tax increases proposed in New York and corporate tax subsidy reductions discussed in California.

State policymakers are navigating incredibly uncertain waters these days as they attempt to get a firmer grasp on the scale of their revenue crises, identify painful budget cuts they may have to make in response, and look for ways to raise tax revenues coming from the households and corporations still bringing in large incomes and profits amid the pandemic—all while hoping that additional federal aid and greater flexibility in how they can use federal CARES Act funds will help relieve some of these difficult decisions.

State lawmakers are starting to use fiscal policy levers to address the COVID-19 pandemic, but the actions vary greatly and are just a start. Mississippi, for example, is one state still clarifying who has authority to determine how federal aid dollars are spent. Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and Ohio are among the many states identifying painful funding cuts they will likely make to shared priorities like health care. The Louisiana House and the Minnesota Senate each advanced tax cuts and credits that could dig their budget holes even deeper. Connecticut leaders are looking at one of the more comprehensive packages, which includes funding cuts as well as revenue measures to reduce the severity of those cuts by cancelling the scheduled expiration of prior-year business tax increases.

April has brought relentless showers of troublesome tax and budget news as the COVID-19 pandemic wreaked havoc on communities and the public services and institutions that both support and depend on them. There is hope, however, that these troubles have opened the eyes of policymakers and that May will bring more clarity and strong action in the form of federal fiscal relief as well as home-grown state and local responses.

In different ways, Earth Day and the COVID-19 pandemic convey a similar lesson: people around the world face shared struggles and disparate impacts, which they must work together to overcome through both emergency action and systemic change. In keeping with that lesson, state fiscal policy news this week was strikingly similar around the country, as states take account of the major threat posed by the pandemic to their budgets and attempt to grapple with its disproportionate impacts on communities of color and low-income families.