Reports highlight need for more government action on slumping economy, wages

September 3, 2010

As we enter the Labor Day weekend, it is very appropriate to look at how the recession has not only left many people unemployed, but it also flattened wages. The income gap between rich and poor has been widening. Meanwhile, there is growing concern that the nation could be heading for a double-dip recession, which would be most harmful for lower-wage workers who have the least financial cushion. A recent series of reports highlight the need for additional federal and state action to create more and better-paying jobs.

An August 27 commentary from the Center on Budget and Policy Priority says the latest Gross Domestic Product numbers show that “the economy is growing far too slowly to reduce unemployment and it is still too early to declare that the recovery is on solid footing. The recovery could definitely use a boost from further stimulus.”

That same day, the National Employment Law Project (NELP) released a report titled: “Where the Jobs are: A First Look at Private Industry Job Growth and Wages in 2010.” It concludes that post-recession job growth is uneven, and the growth occupations include many front-line, non-college degree jobs that tend to have lower wages. The report found that, although the private sector had added 630,000 jobs in the past seven months:

Net job losses in 2008-09 were widely distributed and included significant losses in higher-wage industries; by contrast, net job growth has been driven disproportionately by industries with median wages below $15 and hour.

On August 31, the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) issued a report called “Recession hits workers’ paychecks,” which not surprisingly found that the recession slowed wage growth. EPI’s unpublished state-level data showed that Minnesota’s median weekly wages remained essentially flat from the second quarter of 2009 to 2010, growing by less than one percent.

“The damaging effects of high unemployment are not just felt by the workers (and the families of workers) who have lost jobs,” EPI’s report said. “Workers who have kept their jobs or found new work during this downturn have also suffered from a broad-based collapse of wage growth over the last two years.”

This recent trend will not help workers overcome the widening income gap in the United States, an issue that predates the recession. The EPI report notes that from 1989-2007, 56 percent of all U.S. income growth went to the top one percent of households. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities echoes that trend in a recent report which finds that the income gap between the richest one percent and most other Americans has more than tripled over the last three decades.

One key approach to putting the economy on more solid footing is additional support to those most affected by the economic downturn, such as increased unemployment or food stamp benefits. Such policies not only help those most in need, but also result in increased consumer spending which boosts the economy.

Second, as state and national leaders look to create jobs, they need to pay attention to fostering good quality jobs, those that pay decent wages. Any job creation program should be evaluated not just on numbers of jobs, but also on wages those jobs pay.

-Scott Russell

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Let high-income tax cuts expire, redirect money to stimulate economy

September 2, 2010

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities makes a strong case for letting $40 billion in Bush tax cuts for high-income households expire as scheduled at the end of this year. That $40 billion could instead be redirected to help stimulate the weak national economy.

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), if this money were used for job-creation tax credits, continued federal aid to states and extended unemployment insurance benefits, it would create more jobs and generate more economic growth than simply extending the Bush tax cuts for the top income households in the nation (i.e., those with incomes over $250,000 a year). Why? Because higher income households are more likely to save this extended tax windfall than spend it. What the economy needs right now, however, is more consumer spending.

In fact, “CBO found extending the tax cuts for high-income households to be the worst of all options under consideration for preserving or creating jobs and boosting economic growth while the economic is weak,” the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes.

In the near term, the CBO found that some actions would create more economic growth and more jobs per dollar spent than extending the high-income tax cuts. For example:

  • A temporary jobs tax credit (a temporary payroll reduction on new hires).
  • Extending federal fiscal aid to states to help them avoid bigger and deeper spending cuts. (Congress in fact has recently taken this action, which may provide $430 million for health care and education in Minnesota.)
  • Extended unemployment insurance benefits for the unemployed. This provides the greatest “bang for the buck,” as benefits paid out to the unemployed would undoubtedly be injected right back into the local economy in spending by the unemployed to meet basic living needs.

When Congress returns from its summer recess in September, expect a fierce debate over the future of the expiring tax cuts (along with whether or not Congress will extend tax credits targeted to low- and moderate-income working families, such as the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit). Extending the tax cuts for high-income households is the worst option for spurring economic growth, and would add $1 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. Congress should allow the Bush tax cuts to expire. In the short-term, Congress should redirect that money toward initiatives that will truly stimulate the economy and help struggling working families. Once the nation’s economy is on more solid footing, the resources can be used to make a dent in the nation’s deficit.

-Steve Francisco

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Federal legislation would create a level playing field for sales tax collection

August 23, 2010

Proposed federal legislation would modernize state sales tax collections in the growing age of e-commerce. The legislation would create fairer competition between businesses, and make it easier for states such as Minnesota to collect sales tax that is owed on out-of-state Internet and catalog purchases. According to National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the legislation would help Minnesota collect approximately $455 million in FY 2012 sales tax revenue that it is owed, but under current law it would struggle to collect.

Massachusetts U.S. Rep. William Delahunt introduced H.R. 5660 or the Main Street Fairness Act on July 1. It allows states that meet certain tax code requirements to require remote retailers to collect the sales tax. The NCSL praised the legislation, saying: “This action will create a level playing field for all sellers, regardless if they are a brick-and-mortar retailer on Main Street or an online seller in another state.”

Items bought online or through mail-order catalogs are subject to sales tax. But unlike purchases from conventional retailers, these remote sellers are not required to collect the sales tax. Online retailers can get a 5 to10 percent price advantage over traditional retailers because they do not charge sales tax, said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, in its 2009 report: “Amazon’s arguments against collecting sales taxes do not withstand scrutiny.”

In Minnesota, individual buyers are supposed to pay their own sales tax on Internet or catalog purchases, if they buy more than $770 of taxable items in a calendar year. In FY 2010, Minnesota collected $58,956 from such payments, a drop in the bucket. People either don’t know they are supposed to pay, or simply don’t pay. As more and more commerce takes place on the Internet, Minnesota likely will lose more and more sales tax revenue if it has no effective way to collect it.

The proposed federal legislation would change current practice, which follows the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Quill v. North Dakota. North Dakota tried to get Quill, a mail order office supply retailer, to collect taxes on the $1 million worth of supplies it shipped to North Dakota buyers every year. The Supreme Court said the state couldn’t require a company to collect the tax unless the company had a physical presence or ”nexus” within the state, such as buildings or staff.

Much has changed since the Quill ruling; in 1992, e-commerce had not started. Further, two decades ago, states each had their own unique sales tax policies, making it difficult for multi-state companies to comply. But states have been working to make their sales tax policies more uniform. Under the proposed federal legislation, states could require remote retailers to collect sales tax, but only if they are part of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement. Minnesota is a member. The agreement’s goal is to simplify and modernize sales tax administration across states. For instance, it makes sure states have uniform definitions for such things as “clothing” to make it easier for retailers to comply.

While action is taking place on the federal level, some states already enacted legislation to collect sales tax from Internet and catalog retailers. These are typically referred to as “Amazon laws.” New York passed an Amazon law in April 2008. “All states with sales taxes should give serious consideration to doing [similar laws],” said the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in its report: New York’s ‘Amazon Law’: An important tool for collecting taxes owed on Internet purchases.

Modernizing Minnesota’s sales tax collections, and better compliance with existing laws, could generate approximately $900 million for the coming biennium. That’s about 16 percent of the projected $5.8 billion budget shortfall.

-Scott Russell

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Governor Pawlenty should OK Minnesota’s share of additional federal funding

August 20, 2010

We recently reported that Minnesota will receive an additional $263 million in federal Medicaid funding. Minnesota policymakers have been waiting since January for Congress to approve this funding, but there is one last step: Governor Tim Pawlenty must certify that he will accept it by September 24.

The additional federal health care dollars would come at a time when the state is facing large budget deficits, and could prevent deeper budget cuts than would be necessary without the federal money. Temporary aid to states, such as the extra Medicaid money, is one of the most effective things the federal government can do to keep and create jobs and increase demand in the economy. The enhanced Medicaid payments approved by Congress and signed into law by the President will provide Minnesota and other states with continued vital federal aid through the end of the current state fiscal year (June 30, 2011).

Minnesota has already received nearly $1.3 billion in additional federal Medicaid dollars since February 2009 when Congress passed the first round of economic recovery legislation; money that has protected health care for thousands of Minnesotans and saved health care jobs in our state.

Governor Pawlenty has supported this additional funding for Minnesota in the past, and included it in his supplemental budget proposal on February 15. However, Congress had not yet made a final decision by the time the state budget was wrapped up in May, so that final agreement did not count on federal funding that was uncertain.

Minnesota cannot afford to leave $263 million in federal funding sitting on the table. Minnesota is facing a $5.8 billion deficit next biennium. Not accepting the federal money would put the state in a weaker position for what already will be very difficult budget decisions for FY 2012-13.

We urge Governor Pawlenty to certify that he will accept the additional $236 million in federal aid that is desperately needed in this difficult economic environment. He should note that the additional federal aid to states does not add to the federal deficit, because it was offset by other spending cuts and tax changes.

- Steve Francisco and Scott Russell

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine


Minnesota July revenues up, budget future still grim

August 18, 2010

Minnesota’s general fund revenues came in $41 million (or six percent) above forecast in July, the first month of FY 2011, according to Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB). Both income tax and sales tax revenues were higher than expected.

That may be good news, but keep in mind that these revenue estimates are preliminary and could change. The numbers  indicate whether state revenues are following the official economic forecast, last issued in February. The February forecast is still the official measuring stick for the state budget until the November forecast is released later this year.

Despite the July revenue uptick, the long-term budget picture does not appear to be improving. Minnesota is still running behind in revenues for the biennium. MMB released the July 2010 Economic Update last month, giving the initial picture of how the state fared in FY 2010, which ended June 30. The preliminary numbers show the state’s revenues were $99 million below estimates for the fiscal year, off by about one percent.

Further, MMB is projecting that next biennium’s deficit will grow. The state had projected a $5.8 billion deficit for FY 2012-13. The July economic update said: “it appears that the 2012-13 budget gap is likely to be materially wider than end-of-session estimates.” For more on the July Economic Update, read our previous blog.

-Scott Russell

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Minnesota to receive $430 million for health care and education

August 13, 2010

Congress has approved and President Obama has signed into law a bill that will send $430 million to Minnesota to help pay for health care and to save public school teachers’ jobs. The breakdown is $167 million for education and $263 million in additional funding for health care provided by Medicaid.

As we have frequently blogged, federal aid to the states is an effective way to help support the economic recovery, as it prevents deeper state budget cuts and related job losses, both of which are a drag on the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has found that temporary federal assistance to the states is, in fact, one of the most effective measures the federal government can take to create jobs and increase demand in the economy. The extension of the federal matching rate for Medicaid is paid for, or offset, by reductions in other spending so that it will not increase the federal deficit.

Minnesota has already received nearly $1.3 billion in additional federal health care dollars thanks to an increase in the federal share of funding for Medicaid in the economic recovery act, funding that has protected health care for thousands of Minnesotans and has saved jobs in the health care sector. The original increase in federal funding for Medicaid will expire December 31, 2010. The new legislation extends the enhanced federal Medicaid funding for an additional six months, through June 2010.

The new legislation also includes additional federal support to local school districts to prevent imminent teacher layoffs. The funds must be used to preserve elementary and secondary education jobs. The U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor estimates that Minnesota could receive $167 million that would be used to fund approximately 2,800 teacher positions. The additional federal aid for education comes with maintenance of effort requirements that Minnesota must keep K-12 and higher education spending at 2006 levels or maintain K-12 and higher education spending at their 2006 share of total revenues.

As it stands, approximately $240 million of the $263 million in new Medicaid money will flow into the state’s general fund. This creates a cushion if a new deficit opens up in FY 2011, and could reduce or eliminate the need for short-term borrowing or additional budget cuts. If not needed to fill a budget gap in FY 2011, these additional federal Medicaid dollars could be used to improve access to health care for struggling Minnesotans.

The remaining $23 million goes in part to enhanced payments to the MinnesotaCare program and in part to counties to reimburse them for small Medicaid contributions. The state will have to spend a small amount of money (probably less than $10 million) to meet federal maintenance of effort  requirements to get the Medicaid money.

The bill passed the U.S. Senate last week by a vote of 61 to 39, with both Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken voting “yes.” On August 9, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 247 to 161. Representatives Ellison, McCollum, Oberstar, Peterson and Walz voted “yes” and Representatives Bachmann, Kline and Paulsen voted “no.”

-Steve Francisco and Scott Russell

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


New website tracks long-term trends in the well-being of Minnesota families

August 2, 2010

The Minnesota Budget Project, along with some amazing research partners, are pleased to announce the launch of Minnesota Data Trends, a website that tracks key indicators of family well-being around the state. The site looks at long-term trends in income, housing costs, transportation costs, access to health insurance, employment and other important measures.

Much has been written in the past year about the struggles of average Minnesotans during the Great Recession. Often lost in the immediate focus on the latest unemployment report or foreclosure data are the longer-term trends showing that low- and moderate-income Minnesota have faced challenges for years and conditions are worsening over time.

For example, the recent Great Recession cannot explain all the job loss in Minnesota. The state gained an average of about 36,000 jobs per year between 1981 and 2000,  but only 1,000 jobs annually between 2001 and 2009. And as jobs become scarcer, housing costs are rising. For nearly two decades (from 1980 until 2000), only eight percent of Minnesota households were paying more than half their income for housing. By 2008, however, nearly 13 percent of households had this level of cost burden.

The goal of Minnesota Data Trends is to provide reliable, baseline information on issues affecting low-and moderate-income Minnesotans. We hope to focus attention on how multiple trends can together place a severe strain on a family’s budget. Any number of factors could put a family with little financial margin into chaos: reduced hours at work, an unexpected car repair or health care bill, or the loss of child care.

The website also acts as a directory of experts on these important issues. In addition to the Minnesota Budget Project, the collaboration has involved the Affirmative Options Coalition, Children’s Defense Fund – Minnesota, JOBS NOW Coalition, Minnesota Community Action Partnership and the Minnesota Housing Partnership.

On the website you will find graphs showing long-term trends that anyone can download and reprint for free. The website also includes the data source for the graph, a brief paragraph summarizing the trend and contact information for further details.

But this is only a beginning – we’ll keep the website updated as new data becomes available.

-Scott Russell & Christina Wessel

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Failure to address climate change harms vulnerable populations

July 27, 2010

Last Thursday, U. S. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid announced that he did not have the 60 votes necessary to pass major climate change legislation. This was very disappointing news for those working to pass comprehensive, equitable legislation to address climate change. It is expected that Congress will instead push through a series of smaller bills focused on addressing liability and safety issues related to the BP oil spill and potentially some other less comprehensive energy efficiency and clean energy measures.

This is a loss not only for our environment, but also for low-income populations and people of color. The failure to pass comprehensive climate change legislations means: 

  • Those who disproportionately bear the negative effects of climate change will continue to be in harm’s way. To learn more about what this means, read how the Red Cross is already working to help vulnerable populations prepare for extreme weather events caused by climate change.
  • The anticipated piece-by-piece legislation to address climate change will not provide a revenue stream for funding priorities like consumer relief from energy price increases, training for green jobs for those traditionally without equitable access to livable wage jobs, and dedicated funds to help nonprofits and low-income households afford efficiency improvements and reduce their energy consumption.

This is an important moment for you to speak up on behalf of disadvantaged populations. Let Minnesota’s congressional delegation know that you are paying attention and are disappointed that Congress failed to pass comprehensive climate change legislation at this critical time.

  •  If your representative in the U.S. House voted in support of The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (Congresswoman McCollum and Congressmen Ellison, Oberstar, Peterson and Walz), thank them for supporting comprehensive climate legislation and ask them to continue working for viable solutions that consider the impacts on vulnerable populations.
  • If your representative in the U.S. House voted against The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (Congresswoman Bachmann and Congressmen Kline and Paulsen), let them know that you are disappointed in their vote and the failure of Congress to address climate change as a serious issue that will continue to bring harm to our environment and to vulnerable populations.
  • Tell Senators Franken and Klobuchar that you are disappointed in the U. S. Senate’s inability to pass comprehensive climate change legislation, but that you appreciate their willingness to champion climate equity issues. Ask them to keep fighting for solutions to climate change that consider the impacts on vulnerable populations.

Find out who represents you and call their offices today! For more information on climate change and implications for vulnerable populations, visit the Minnesota Budget Project Climate Change Resource Page.

-Leah Gardner

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Congress should reject hard caps on discretionary spending

July 26, 2010

Hard caps on nondefense domestic discretionary spending will not significantly reduce long-term deficits. That’s because the biggest factors contributing to long-term deficits are primarily the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the costs associated with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – not domestic discretionary programs. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for almost $7 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019, including associated debt-service costs. 

Domestic discretionary spending is the portion of federal spending included in annual appropriations bills to fund a broad range of national priorities, including education, environmental protection, law enforcement assistance, food safety, nutrition, medical research through the National Institutes of Health and more. Nondefense domestic discretionary spending makes up about 18 percent of all federal spending.   

Earlier this year, Senators Jeff Sessions and Claire McCaskill introduced an amendment to the Federal Aviation Administration bill that would have imposed hard caps on all nondefense domestic discretionary appropriations bills for the next three years. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment would have required cuts totaling nearly $30 billion in fiscal year 2011 or five percent below the President’s budget request. In fiscal year 2012, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment could have required cuts totaling almost $100 billion; a 15 percent cut below the President’s budget request.

In addition to these spending cuts, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment also required a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate to change the hard caps on discretionary spending, with no exceptions for any changes in the national economy or other factors that could make reconsideration of the caps necessary. If the Sessions-McCaskill amendment were adopted, a minority of only 34 out of 100 senators could prevent Congress from raising the spending caps to meet a future economic challenge or emergency.

Placing hard caps on domestic discretionary spending would also impede efforts to raise revenues to reduce long-term federal deficits. That’s because in past deficit reduction agreements, multi-year discretionary spending caps were linked to revenue and entitlement savings. The Session-McCaskill amendment would result in deep cuts to domestic discretionary spending without securing any savings from other parts of the budget, including revenue increases. Simply imposing new caps on discretionary spending places all of the burden for reducing the deficit on one part of the budget and ignores how much tax cuts have contributed to deficits. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 account for $1.7 trillion more in deficits from 2001 to 2008, and $3.4 trillion more over the 2009-2019 period.

Fortunately, the Sessions-McCaskill amendment was not adopted. However, it is likely that there will be continuing attempts throughout the remainder of this year to attach this amendment to individual appropriations bills or to a continuing appropriations bill later this year. A balanced approach to deficit reduction is needed — one that looks at both fair and appropriate spending cuts as well as the elimination of selective tax cuts that are contributing to long-term deficits.

-Steve Francisco

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Congress close to passing unemployment benefit extension, economic boost expected

July 21, 2010

Wednesday evening, the U.S. Senate approved an extension of unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, after clearing a key procedural hurdle on Tuesday. While the bill leaves some key supports for unemployed workers off the table, the action will have an immediate positive impact in Minnesota and around the country. The bill still needs House approval, which also is expected this week.

The legislation provides additional weeks of benefits for the long-term unemployed, similar to the UI extension that expired June 2. It helps individual workers and their families at a critical time and will help the country’s economic recovery as a whole.

MPR reports the extension will restart benefits for 2.5 million unemployed workers nationally, providing up to 86 weeks of benefits for workers unable to find a job.  When the last UI extension expired June 2, eligibility for newly unemployed Minnesotans dropped to 39 weeks. The extension means that 80,000 Minnesotans will get additional benefits. The proposed extension would stay in effect until November 30.

Those unemployed workers who have already received their maximum 86 weeks of benefits will not qualify for additional weeks.

On the down side, the proposed UI extension does not provide some of the benefits in the earlier stimulus. For example, it does not include the $25-a-week additional payment to unemployed workers. For the week ending May 29, that $25 bonus payment provided a total of $3.6 million in additional dollars to unemployed Minnesotans. That money helped them pay for basic needs  – and circulated quickly in the local economy. (Those who started UI before June 2 will continue to get the $25 weekly payments for a period of time, but they will get phased out.)

The proposed UI extension also does not include supports for COBRA payments, helping unemployed workers maintain their health insurance.

According to analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the UI bill will add $34 billion directly into the economy in the form of payments to the unemployed. However, after accounting for the increasing impact of that money being spent and respent, the benefit to the nation’s economy will be closer to $55 billion. In the end, the bill will partially pay for itself, generating $20.5 billion in new federal revenues due to the increased economic activity.

-Scott Russell and Steve Francisco

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine