by Derrick A. Max(This column was first published by the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy)

Fear of commitment is a common theme in Hollywood — where romantic comedies are replete with characters that sidestep long-term commitment primarily out of fear that someone better may come along. Think of Runaway Bride, where Maggie, played by Julia Roberts, keeps running away from her betrothed at the altar out of such fear.

The budget amendments passed last Wednesday with bipartisan support and praise from Governor Youngkin are replete with commitment issues. The approved tax cuts and new spending were written to have very little impact beyond the current budget cycle. Like Maggie, both Governor Youngkin and the Senate Democrats are clearly standing at the budget altar hoping for better options after the November elections.

The approved amendments include $1.05 billion in tax deductions on top of the $4 billion in tax relief already adopted by the General Assembly last year for this budget cycle. My colleague, Steve Haner notes that many low-income earners in Virginia have now had their entire tax burden erased during the last two years. This is a huge amount of tax reductions under Governor Youngkin and should be celebrated!

The agreed-upon amendments increase the standard deduction for individuals by another $500 and $1,000 for couples which is estimated to be a $48 million tax reduction. It also provides Taxpayer Relief Checks of $200 for individuals and $400 for couples, a $906 million tax reduction. There are also modest adjustments to military retirement tax incidents and business interest deductions. In short, the vast majority of the cuts, over 85%, are one-time adjustments that will have zero impact beyond this year. Again, worth celebrating and a big boost to taxpayers, but of limited long-term impact.

Sadly, the budget amendments also include $3.7 billion in new spending. Yes, this means that there is almost $3 in new spending for every $1 in tax cuts (something that is hard to celebrate, but maybe the best one could do in a split General Assembly). And like the tax cuts, the majority of new spending approved in the budget amendments is for non-recurring activities that will have almost no impact on the new budget next year. For example, $644 million is allocated for one-time spending on natural resources, $420 million for one-time K-12 flexible spending (with the focus mostly on programs to reach literacy goals), $200 million for one-time commerce and trade expenses, $155 million in one-time behavioral health spending, and $190 million for higher education, among other new one-time spending appropriations. The amendments also include a 2% pay increase for state employees, including teachers at a cost of $115 million.

The budget amendments also reduce estimated surpluses to account for the cost of previously made tax cuts and to build emergency funds, and it reinstates the sales tax holiday for school supplies and hurricane preparedness (a popular tax cut, but one that is economically inferior to rate cuts, as pointed out by the Tax Foundation).

By not making many structural changes, like indexing the tax code for inflation as the Thomas Jefferson Institute has long advocated, and not making many long-term spending obligations, the General Assembly will likely be looking at similar surpluses next year and the year after assuming the economy continues to recover. Thus, the question of how those surplus funds will be spent or returned to taxpayers is left up to the winner of the November elections.

So, to belabor my Runaway Bride analogy, will the Richard Gere character of Ike in Virginia’s budget commitment comedy be played by Glenn Youngkin and a Republican majority in the General Assembly, or by the Democrats if they should win control of Richmond? For Virgnians, let’s hope the handsome groom at the altar after the election supports the bride’s deep desire for greater and more permanent cuts in taxes and much less spending.

Derrick Max is President of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. He can be reached at DMax@thomasjeffersoninst.org.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “Virginia’s “Runaway” Budget Negotiators”

  1. Virginia’s “Runaway” Budget Negotiators

    I found one in my garage this morning. Huddled in a corner, weeping. Cold. Hungry. Tired. His spirit broken. I bought him a large pumpkin spice mochaccino with whipped cream and those little multi-colored candy sprinkles on top and dropped him off at the Greyhound station. Poor fellow.

    I would not wish the position of “Budget Negotiator” for the General Assembly on my worst enemy.

    Well, maybe my worst enemy…

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The better budget negotiators can with just a one hour head start lose their orange jumpsuits, pick up a hoodie, blue jeans, a backpack and evade hundreds of reporters in the woods for two weeks. The best ones gain weight.

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    The comments of the author regarding the spending amendments

    in the new budget are shallow and largely erroneous or, at best, misleading.

    First of all, he criticizes the level of new spending. There is no effort made to analyze the purposes of the spending and tell us why it was bad. It is spending, so that automatically makes it bad, it seems.

    Second, he criticizes the “one-time” aspect of the spending. For him, it demonstrates how the budget negotiators were “runaways” in hiding. What is wrong with one-time spending? Would the author have preferred that all the new spending be on-going

    and folded into the base budget for the next biennium? If so, that would restrict the Governor’s flexibility in developing the new biennial budget and any tax cuts he may want to propose. Finally, it is not unusual for the legislature to propose one-time spending. That is the nature of some items or activities.

    Third, and this is where the errors factor in, much of the

    new spending was not one-time at all or they are traditionally one-time. The individual amendments are not yet available, so it is difficult to tell for some items whether they are one-time, but it is possible to label many one-time or continuing,

    Natural resources–$644.5 million.

    This is the mandated deposit into the Water Quality Improvement Fund. It is true that this specific amount will not be rolled into the new biennial budget, but this money goes into established special
    funds and is used for ongoning programs. After every fiscal year, there is a mandated deposit of this sort, with the amount dependent on the year-end balance. Therefore, to criticize this as “one-time” funding is highly misleading.

    K-12 $420 million

    This is the new amount intended to help implement the Virginia Literacy Act. Although the House briefing paper labeled it “one-time” funding, as has been discussed previously on this blog, it does not make a lot of sense for this to be one-time funding. It remains to be seen whether the Governor, in his introduced budget, treats it as one-time funding.

    Commerce $200 million

    $50 million of this was implementing a contingency imposed in 2022.This is for funding for “business-ready sites.” It is placed in a special fund and used for an established on-going program. It is one-time funding in the sense that it is not folded into the base for the biennial budget. However, appropriations are made each year
    for this fund in varying amounts. The Governor’s introduced budget had $200 milllion for FY 2022 and $250 million for FY 2023 for this program. The GA is adding to the pot.

    Behavioral Health $154.6 million

    The lack of individual amendment makes it especially hard in this area to determine what is one-time. The $20 million for crisis
    teams is likely one-time because the Governor specified in this proposal for $10 million for this program that it was to be one-time spending. The $18 million Community Mental Health

    compensation is definitely on-going; that is for salaries. The Governor also proposed funding for supportive housing, school pilot programs, and hospital‐based psychiatric emergency alternatives, without indicating any of that was to be one-time funding and the nature of those programs suggeststhey would be on-going. Therefore, the additional $47.5 million that the legislature put in for these programs would be on-going, as well.

    Higher Ed $190 million

    The bulk of this funding was $150 million for maintain affordable
    access ($75 million), increasing financial aid ($62.5 million), and addressing nursing shortages ($5.8 million). The legislature included the following language for each of these items: “Funds shall be ongoing and incorporated into each institution’s base budget for the next biennium.” That is pretty clear.

    1. Thank you for the excellent analysis.

      If it was up to me, I’d lower the tax reductions by 1/3 and increase ‘K-12’ and ‘Behavioral Health’.

Leave a Reply