| Cato Policy Analysis No. 257 | July 26, 1996 |
A Fiscal Policy Report
Card on America's Governors:1996
by Stephen Moore and Dean Stansel
Stephen Moore is director of fiscal policy studies and Dean Stansel is a fiscal policy analyst at the Cato Institute.
Executive Summary
This study presents an objective, comparative analysis of the spending and tax policies of 46 of America's governors. It is a report card on their fiscal conservatism. Governors who have cut spending and taxes the most get the highest grades; governors who have raised spending and taxes the most get the lowest grades.
For each of the governors who took office before 1993, we constructed a 14-variable index of fiscal performance. Those variables measure the change in state spending, tax burdens, and tax rates during each governor's tenure. For the 20 governors who were first elected in 1993 or 1994, we explore similar, but fewer, fiscal policy variables based on budget and tax changes proposed and enacted for fiscal 1996 and 1997.
In general, we find that the states have moved dramatically in a fiscally conservative direction since 1994, with most states cutting taxes and holding general fund expenditures at or below inflation in 1995 and 1996. Three governors had outstanding records of fiscal restraint and received an A grade on our Report Card: George Pataki of New York, Steve Merrill of New Hampshire, and Fife Symington of Arizona. Four governors received an F: Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, Tom Carper of Delaware, Lawton Chiles of Florida, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Other prominent governors and their grades are William Weld of Massachusetts, B; Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, B; John Engler of Michigan, B; Evan Bayh of Indiana, B; Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, B; Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, B; Pete Wilson of California, C; and Jim Edgar of Illinois, D. With few exceptions, the 16 Republican governors elected in 1993 and 1994 have admirable records of supply-side tax cuts and budget downsizing.
Introduction
From Albany, to Trenton, to Lansing, to Phoenix, the culture of big-government liberalism is in clear retreat and fiscal conservatism is on the rise in the states. Nineteen ninety-five was the largest tax-cutting year for states in more than a decade. [1]
Twenty-one states--led by New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania--cut taxes last year. This year the tax-cutting torrent continues: 27 governors recommended lower taxes in their latest budgets. [2] Just as impressive, no states have enacted major tax increases over the same time period.
The state spending buildup of the late 1980s and early 1990s--particularly in the Northeast where budgets expanded at double-digit annual growth rates--has also subsided. Since 1994 many states, such as Michigan, New Hampshire, and most recently New York, have held spending at or below the rate of inflation. This year state general fund expenditures are projected by the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) to grow by just 2 percent--the smallest increase in 14 years. [3] Even with the national economy growing at only a modest pace, most states now have a clean bill of fiscal health.
It appears that, for now at least, the supply-side philosophy that low tax rates and expenditure controls are the key fiscal tools for promoting state economic competitiveness is the new governing doctrine in the nation's state capitals. [4] Unquestionably, the primary torchbearers for the government-downsizing agenda are the 16 new Republican governors elected to the statehouse in 1993 and 1994. "We are overthrowing all the unworkable liberal abstractions of the past and replacing them with a revolution of conservative ideas," boasts George Pataki, who defeated Mario Cuomo in New York. [5] The reality does not always match the rhetoric, but an ideological sea change is evident in most state capitals.
It is in this new era of state fiscal constraint that we provide the results of the Cato Institute's third biennial "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors." [6] The study is a comparative analysis of the budget and tax record of 46 governors. (Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Paul Patton of Kentucky, and Mike Foster of Louisiana are not included because they assumed office too recently for their records to be fully assessed. Tony Knowles of Alaska is excluded because of peculiarities in Alaska's budget that make interstate tax comparisons problematic.) The Report Card provides an index of the fiscal restraint imposed by each governor. Those who cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades. Those who raised taxes and spending the most receive the poorest grades.
The grading mechanism is based on purely objective measures of fiscal performance. With a few notable refinements in the grading system, the study is based on the procedures developed in the previous two studies. All of the spending and revenue data come from the Bureau of the Census, NASBO, and individual state budget and revenue departments.
For the purposes of grading the fiscal record of the governors, we divide them into two groups: the 26 who were first elected in 1992 or before (pre-1994 governors) and the 20 first elected in 1993 or 1994 (new governors). The grading system is based on the performance of each governor relative to the rest of the group. For that reason, the numerical scores are only meaningful relative to the rest of the governors in the group. [7] Tables 1 and 2 show the results. Three governors receive an A on our 1996 Report Card: Steve Merrill of New Hampshire, Fife Symington of Arizona, and George Pataki of New York. Four governors receive an F: Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, Thomas Carper of Delaware, Lawton Chiles of Florida, and George Voinovich of Ohio.
Several trends uncovered in our study warrant special mention. First, the new governors tend, as a class, to be substantially more fiscally conservative than those first elected before 1993. Only 3 of the 20 new governors recommended real increases in the budget for 1996 and 1997. But nearly half of the more senior governors recommended real increases in spending for those years. While about half of the pre-1994 governors have enacted tax increases during their tenure, no new governors have pushed for major tax hikes in their first two years and most have recommended tax cuts of one kind or another. For that reason, none of the new governors received the grade of F.
Second, the northeastern states in particular have moved in the most fiscally conservative direction in the last two years--thus reversing the tax-and-spend policies of previous governors, such as Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, James Florio of New Jersey, Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts, and Mario Cuomo of New York. [8] George Pataki of New York, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and John Rowland of Connecticut have all enacted major tax cuts in the past two years. Although the Northeast is still far above average in tax burden and per capita spending, if the trend toward pro-growth tax cutting continues in those states, their relative economic performance is likely to improve. [9]
Third, party affiliation is not an overriding factor in predicting the fiscal performance of individual governors.
Table 1
| Overall Fiscal Policy Grade--Pre-1994 Governors | |||
| Governor | State | Score | Overall Fiscal Policy Grade |
| Steve Merrill (R) | New Hampshire | 69 | A |
| Fife Symington (R) | Arizona | 66 | A |
| William Weld (R) | Massachusetts | 63 | B |
| Roy Romer (D) | Colorado | 59 | B |
| Howard Dean (D) | Vermont | 58 | B |
| Tommy Thompson (R) | Wisconsin | 58 | B |
| John Engler (R) | Michigan | 57 | B |
| Kirk Fordice (R) | Mississippi | 54 | B |
| Edward Schafer (R) | North Dakota | 54 | B |
| Evan Bayh (D) | Indiana | 54 | B |
| Bob Miller (D) | Nevada | 54 | B |
| Benjamin Nelson (D) | Nebraska | 52 | C |
| Terry Branstad (R) | Iowa | 52 | C |
| James Hunt (D) | North Carolina | 50 | C |
| Arne Carlson (R) | Minnesota | 50 | C |
| Pete Wilson (R) | California | 49 | C |
| Zell Miller (D) | Georgia | 49 | C |
| Mike Leavitt (R) | Utah | 49 | C |
| Jim Edgar (R) | Illinois | 47 | D |
| Mike Lowry (D) | Washington | 46 | D |
| Mel Carnahan (D) | Missouri | 46 | D |
| Marc Racicot (R) | Montana | 45 | D |
| George Voinovich (R) | Ohio | 43 | F |
| Lawton Chiles (D) | Florida | 42 | F |
| Tom Carper (D) | Delaware | 41 | F |
| Gaston Caperton (D) | West Virginia | 36 | F |
Table 2
| Mid-Term Fiscal Policy Grade--New Governors | |||
| Governor | State | Score | Overall Fiscal Policy Grade |
| George Pataki (R) | New York | 80 | A |
| Christine Whitman (R) | New Jersey | 62 | B |
| Tom Ridge (R) | Pennsylvania | 57 | B |
| John Rowland (R) | Connecticut | 54 | B |
| William Janklow (R) | South Dakota | 53 | B |
| Gary Johnson (R) | New Mexico | 51 | B |
| George Bush (R) | Texas | 49 | B |
| David Beasley (R) | South Carolina | 46 | B |
| Frank Keating (R) | Oklahoma | 42 | C |
| George Allen (R) | Virginia | 40 | C |
| Fob James (R) | Alabama | 37 | C |
| John Kitzhaber (D) | Oregon | 36 | C |
| Jim Geringer (R) | Wyoming | 36 | C |
| Philip Batt (R) | Idaho | 35 | C |
| Angus King (I) | Maine | 34 | C |
| Bill Graves (R) | Kansas | 34 | C |
| Don Sundquist (R) | Tennessee | 33 | C |
| Parris Glendening (D) | Maryland | 31 | D |
| Benjamin Cayetano (D) | Hawaii | 29 | D |
| Lincoln Almond (R) | Rhode Island | 28 | D |
Although Republicans tended to do somewhat better (their average grade is C+ versus an average grade of C- for Democrats), there were notable exceptions. Two of the top five pre-1994 governors were Democrats: Roy Romer of Colorado and Howard Dean of Vermont. Two of the five most pro-tax-and-spend old governors were Republicans: George Voinovich of Ohio and Marc Racicot of Montana. The worst fiscal record of the new governors was compiled by Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Almond, who is out of step with his northeastern neighbors.
Finally, this study inevitably reflects the impact of the state legislature on the fiscal outcomes in the states during the tenure of each governor. Governors with more fiscally conservative legislatures tend to perform better on the Report Card on average than governors from states with more pro-spending legislatures. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin is handicapped by the fact that he works with a liberal legislature. Roy Romer of Colorado and Bob Miller of Nevada have more conservative legislatures, which improves their grades somewhat. To at least partially offset the influence of the legislature, we examine each governor's budget recommendations and proposed tax rate changes, which are independent of the legislature, as a component of the rating.
The Republican Ascendancy in the States
In recent years the electorate has voted increasingly for free-market-oriented governors--particularly in the South and in the New England states that have typically been the bastion of government activism. [10] The 1993 and 1994 elections brought to the nation's statehouses 20 new governors; 16 of them are Republicans. With few exceptions, this new class of governors ran for office on an agenda of cutting taxes, stripping away bureaucratic red tape, and downsizing state government. Not all have governed that way, but the brake on government expansion in the states is unmistakable. "The ideological conservatives who want to shrink government are seizing control of state government," concludes state fiscal policy expert Steven Gold of the Urban Institute. [11]
The GOP takeover of the nation's governorships has been nothing short of astonishing. Five years ago 28 of the nation's governors were Democrats. Today 32 governors are Republicans, and 17 are Democrats. Eight of the nine most populous states have GOP governors; Florida is the only exception. Hence, two-thirds of Americans now live in states where a Republican occupies the governor's mansion.
We should underscore a critical point raised earlier: we consistently find in this Report Card series that the label "Republican" is not always interchangeable with "fiscal conservative." In general, however, Republicans tend to be somewhat more likely to support budget controls and tax cuts than Democrats. Hence, the shift toward Republican control of the statehouses has been a primary factor in the less-government, more-economic-freedom philosophy in the states in the past two years.
Restraint in state budget policies has also been prompted by the defeat at the polls of many of the most pro-tax-and-spend governors as identified in our previous Report Cards. After our last Report Card in 1994, 7 of the 10 governors with the most profligate spending records either were voted out of office or chose not to run again. Not a single governor of the 13 that received the grade of A or B on our Report Card lost reelection, and 10 of them are still in office. The public, at least in recent state elections, has given approval at the ballot box to tax and budget cutters, while voting out governors who expanded the size and cost of state government.
State legislatures have tilted in a Republican direction in recent years as well. In 1994 the Republicans gained a net 600 state legislative seats. [12] Many of those gains were achieved in the South--a region where Democrats have typically had a near-monopoly on the state legislative apparatus. In 1991, 31 state legislative chambers were controlled by Democrats. Today 19 have Republican majorities, and 16 have Democratic majorities.
Recent Fiscal Trends in the States
The first half of the 1990s was a period of economic stagnation, steeply rising tax burdens, and rising state expenditures. [13] The years 1990 and 1991 saw the largest state tax increases. Moreover, rates of income tax, the most destructive form of state taxes, [14] were raised substantially in many states. Pete Wilson in California, James Florio in New Jersey, Lowell Weicker in Connecticut, Bruce Sundlun in Rhode Island, Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, and George Voinovich in Ohio all enacted progressive "soak the rich" income tax increases. Those states suffered substantial losses of jobs, income, and investment capital relative to the rest of the nation following those tax hikes. [15]
In 1995 the trend was dramatically reversed. Twenty-nine governors recommended tax cuts last year, and 21 states enacted them. "This was the largest tax-cutting year for states in a decade," concludes Laffer and Canto's annual report ranking the tax competitiveness of the states. [16]
In Michigan John Engler celebrated his 60 percent reelection margin by signing into law his 14th and 15th tax cuts in five years. Wisconsin's Tommy Thompson cut property taxes. Governor Fife Symington is crusading to make Arizona the second state in history to entirely repeal a state income tax. [17] This year he delivered the down payment on that pledge by chopping tax rates by 20 percent.
Unquestionably the single politician in America most responsible for the sudden flurry of state tax cuts is New Jersey's Christine Todd Whitman. In her 1993 race to unseat James Florio, Whitman sagged so low in the polls that her campaign was given last rites by the political pundits. With two months to go, Whitman embraced a plan, conceived by supply siders Steve Forbes and Lawrence Kudlow, to cut state income tax rates by 30 percent. That plan was the absolute antithesis of what Florio called progressive populism.
Last year, to the surprise of everyone, not least of all conservatives, Whitman delivered fully on her promise. A July 1995 New York Times editorial grudgingly conceded, "In political terms, Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey has had a sensational first year and a half in office. She has cut income taxes as promised in two years instead of three, without shredding local aid or social programs." [18] Whitman, a social liberal, enjoys solid public approval. Revenues are growing at a more rapid pace in the Whitman era of tax rate reductions than they did during the Florio era of rate increases. Nearly half of the 275,000 jobs that were lost during the Florio era returned to New Jersey in Whitman's first two years. [19]
Many of the freshman Republican governors have embraced Whitman-style tax cuts. [20] Most impressive have been John Rowland of Connecticut, Gary Johnson of New Mexico, George Pataki of New York, Frank Keating of Oklahoma, and Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, all of whom endorsed dramatic income tax relief in their first-year budgets.
Meanwhile, incumbent Republicans Pete Wilson of California, Terry Branstad of Iowa, John Engler of Michigan, and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin also proposed new income tax cuts of varying degrees. [21] Even many liberal-leaning Democratic governors have embraced a platform of tax cuts. In 1995 James Hunt of North Carolina, Washington's Michael Lowry, Benjamin Nelson of Nebraska, and Delaware's Thomas Carper all proposed business or income tax cuts to improve their states' economic competitiveness. In the past those governors had pursued more traditional tax and spend policies.
Tax cuts have not meant runaway budget deficits. On the expenditure side of state budgets, outlays are more constrained today than in many years. From the late 1980s through the early 1990s state budgets expanded at about twice the inflation rate. Now state budgets are growing just slightly above inflation. For fiscal 1997, 11 governors have recommended budgets below the 1996 level. Thanks to the slowdown in spending, the states have bulky budget reserves, and the red ink crisis of the early 1990s has fully subsided. [22]
Economic realities seem to be driving the new fiscal trends. The economic case for state tax cuts and government downsizing has simply become too compelling for many state policymakers to ignore. [23] Ohio University economist Richard Vedder recently showed that since 1980, 1,000 people every day have packed their bags and moved from the 10 highest tax to the 10 lowest tax states. [24] That's a migration of more than 5 million people--mostly young, industrious, and economically productive citizens.
Business Week compared the performance of high- and low-tax states and discovered that "job growth in low-tax states over the last eight years has been a stunning 65 percent higher than in high-tax states." [25] One of the states where jobs are being created in vast numbers is Michigan. [26] In fact, under John Engler, Michigan has ended welfare for 80,000 able-bodied residents, closed entire departments, reduced spending to below inflation for five years, and reduced the average household tax burden by more than $500. Under Engler's leadership, Michigan has created as many new manufacturing jobs as the rest of the nation combined.
Today pro-growth legislators and governors recognize that improving their states' competitive environment requires lowering tax rates and giving taxpayers greater value for their tax dollars by rolling back unproductive state agencies.
Purpose of the Fiscal Policy Report Card
We focus on the fiscal record of governors for several reasons. One is that state governments have evolved into large, multi-billion-dollar enterprises. The California and New York state budgets now both exceed $60 billion and are each larger than those of most nations. In 1994 total state spending was $779 billion, which, after adjusting for inflation, is up from $648 billion in 1990 and $464 billion in 1980. The states now spend roughly $12,000 per family and $150 per $1,000 of personal income. The primary job of a governor in the 1990s is to serve as the equivalent of the state's chief financial officer. In that capacity, the governor has a substantial impact on the fiscal and economic health of the state.
Another reason to focus on governors' policies is that the occupants of the statehouses are hugely influential political figures in America. Today a governorship is regarded as a solid stepping stone to the White House, as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton have proven. Moreover, Republican governors John Engler of Michigan, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey, Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania, and George Voinovich of Ohio are all considered possible vice presidential candidates in 1996. [27]
Governors are also leading public policy innovators. The states are increasingly fulfilling their roles as incubators for untested policy proposals and as "laboratories of democracy." Currently, Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin is recognized as a pioneer on welfare policy; John Engler of Michigan is the preeminent architect of a government-downsizing agenda; William Weld of Massachusetts is an advocate of privatization; and Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey and Fife Symington of Arizona are driving forces for supply-side tax cuts. [28] Moreover, as the new Congress continues to push for block grants and a new federalism that relies more on the states, governors will take on an escalating role as architects of government programs and policies in the future.
The Cato "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors" is unique in that it is overtly based on criteria of fiscal restraint and tax reduction (see Appendix A). Conventional measures of governors' success are based on government activism. According to that measure of success, governors who are willing to spend money to solve problems are touted as the best and most successful. [29]
The purpose of the Cato Institute's Report Card is to assess the policies of each governor from the taxpayer's perspective. There are currently dozens of prominent taxpayer rating systems for members of Congress. To our knowledge this is the only objective analysis of the fiscal performance of governors.
Limitations of the Report Card
This is the third Cato "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America's Governors." This year we have refined the methodology in order to improve the results. Nonetheless, at the outset we acknowledge several unavoidable problems in grading the fiscal performance of the governors.
First, as mentioned above, the Report Card does not entirely isolate the impact of the governor from the fiscal decisions made by the state legislature. In most states the legislature's influence on budget outcomes is at least as great as the governor's. In addition, if the state legislature is controlled by a different party than the governor, then the governor's command over fiscal policy outcomes is normally diminished. (Appendix B summarizes the fiscal policy record of each governor and makes note of whether the legislature is of the same party as the governor.) There are 11 governors in our survey who work with legislatures controlled by the other party.
One refinement of the 1996 Report Card is that we account for the budget and tax recommendations put forward by the governors, not just the budget outcomes. That allows us to assess the governors' budget priorities independent of the legislature.
Another limitation of this study is that some states grant their governors substantially more constitutional authority over the budget process than others. For example, in Wisconsin Tommy Thompson is empowered with an item-reduction veto that allows him to unilaterally reduce agency funding. By contrast, James Hunt of North Carolina is the only governor in the country who does not have veto authority. Moreover, the supermajority vote requirement to override a veto varies among states. Those factors give the governors differing levels of control over budgetary outcomes, which are not accounted for in this study.
Another complication in this study is that every state has peculiarities in its expenditure and tax policies that can impede interstate tax and spending comparisons. For instance, in Hawaii most school funding comes from the state, not local governments, which inflates Hawaii's spending figures. Alaska and several northwestern states receive tax revenues from severance taxes on oil produced or minerals mined in the state. Those taxes can be exported to out-of-state residents. Furthermore, the fiscal condition of those states can improve or deteriorate dramatically in response to changes in the market price of commodities. We believe that severance taxes are a significant distortion only for Alaska and therefore exclude that state from the study.
Many states have moved in recent years toward placing restrictions and regulations on local property taxes as part of school finance reform initiatives. For example, in Michigan John Engler endorsed an increase in the state sales tax in exchange for a larger dollar reduction in the local property tax. In some cases the state government has taken over more responsibility for spending on the schools. That artificially inflates the spending levels in some states by simply shifting the funding responsibility from the local government to the state government. Local property tax changes of that type have been implemented in recent years in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. While such centralization of an inherently local function of government is, in our opinion, seriously misguided, [30] we have attempted in each of those cases to make reasonable adjustments to state spending and tax variables to account for the net impact (taking into account local property tax cuts) of those property tax and school finance reforms.
We have substantially more data for assessing the fiscal performance of the pre-1994 governors than the new governors. For example, Census Bureau data are available for all the pre-1994 governors but none of the new governors, for whom we rely exclusively on general fund budget data from NASBO and data provided by the finance and budget agencies of each state. Since the new governors' report cards are based on only their first two budget submissions, we believe their grades should be viewed as midterm report cards.
Finally, the general fund budget data used in portions of this study do not include all sources of spending and taxes and are less reliable than the Census Bureau's data. They are, however, the best numbers currently available.
Report Card Methodology
In this study we compute three separate grades for each governor: a spending grade, a tax grade, and an overall fiscal policy grade. All of the revenue and expenditure data used in this study come from the Census Bureau, NASBO, and individual state budget and revenue agencies. [31]
Twenty governors were elected in 1993 or 1994. We do not yet have official Census Bureau data with which to measure all of the spending and tax changes that have been implemented in the first year or two that they have held office. Therefore, we divide the governors into two groups: those who were first elected before 1993 and those who were elected later. For the 20 new governors, we rely on general fund budget data and tax rate changes through fiscal year 1996 and recommended budget changes through FY97.
Grading Procedure
For the pre-1994 governors we examine 14 policy variables: 5 for spending and 9 for taxes. For each variable we use a procedure to standardize the data, such that the governor with the worst score receives a zero and the governor with the best score a 100. We then assign an equal weight to each variable (with the exception of two tax rate variables that are weighted at 0.5 each, because we view them as having less fiscal importance) and average the scores to obtain an overall fiscal policy grade for each governor. We obtain separate grades for spending and for taxes by averaging the scores achieved in each category.
The same basic procedures are used for grading the 20 new governors except that only nine variables are used.
Policy Variables Examined for Pre-1994 Governors
One objective of our analysis is to compile a comprehensive picture of the budget and tax changes recommended and approved by each governor. [32] We attempt to do that by examining a broad range of fiscal policy measures that take account of economic, demographic, and other factors within each state. All but two of the variables measure the change in the fiscal policy variable during each governor's tenure. The remaining two variables measure the levels of taxes and spending of each state in 1994.
Expenditure Variables
1. Overall level of state spending approved by each governor in 1994 per $1,000 of personal income.
2. Average annual change in real state spending per family of four under each governor through 1994. [33]
3. Average annual change in state spending per $1,000 of personal income under each governor through 1994.
4. Average annual change in real state general fund spending per family as recommended by the governor from 1991 through 1997. [34]
5. Average annual change in state general fund spending per $1,000 of personal income from 1994 to 1996.
Tax Rate and Revenue Variables
1. Average annual change in real state revenues per family under each governor through 1994. [35]
2. Average annual change in state revenues per $1,000 of personal income under each governor through 1994.
3. Average annual tax changes recommended by the governor as a percentage of the prior year's budget from 1991 through 1997.
4. Average annual change in state general fund revenue per $1,000 of personal income as recommended by the governor from 1991 through 1996.
5. Percentage point change in the top marginal individual and corporate income tax rates approved or recommended by each governor.
6. Change in top state individual income tax rate paid by median-income wage earner approved or recommended by each governor.
7. Sum of the top marginal individual and corporate income tax rates in 1996.
8. Change in the state sales tax rate approved or recommended by each governor.
9. Change in the state gasoline tax rate approved or recommended by each governor.
Policy Variables Examined for New Governors
Nine fiscal policy variables are examined for the 20 new governors.
Expenditure Variables
1. Overall level of state spending in 1994 per $1,000 of personal income.
2. Average annual change in real state general fund spending per family as recommended by the governor through 1997.
3. Average annual change in state general fund spending per $1,000 of personal income through 1996.
Tax Rate and Revenue Variables
1. Average annual tax changes recommended by the governor as a percentage of the prior year's budget through 1997.
2. Average annual change in real state general fund revenue per family as recommended by the governor through 1997.
3. Average annual change in state general fund revenue per $1,000 of personal income through 1996.
4. Percentage point change in the top marginal individual and corporate income tax rates approved or recommended by each governor.
5. Sum of the top marginal individual and corporate income tax rates in 1996.
6. Change in the gasoline tax per gallon approved or recommended by each governor. [36]
Ratings of the Pre-1994 Governors
Expenditures
A summary of the results and ratings on five expenditure variables is given in Table A-1. Tables A-2 through A-6 list the five biggest spenders and five biggest budget cutters for each individual spending category.
The governors tied with the best budget restraint record were Weld (Massachusetts), Engler (Michigan), and Dean (Vermont). Each of those governors recommended a decline in state spending per family during his tenure. State spending fell from 1992 through 1994 by more than $400 per family in Vermont under Dean. In Michigan general fund spending per $1,000 personal income has plummeted by more than 5 percent since 1994 under Engler.
By far the biggest spender of the pre-1994 governors is Gaston Caperton of West Virginia, who received an F on spending. In West Virginia under Caperton real state spending has exploded by almost $700 per family per year. The state budget has outpaced personal income by an enormous 4 percentage points per year. As a result of Caperton's unrivaled budget buildup, state spending in West Virginia relative to income is today about 25 percent more burdensome than the national average. Other big-budget governors receiving an F on spending were James Hunt of North Carolina and Mel Carnahan of Missouri.
The spending scores highlight huge differences in fiscal direction of the states in recent years. In North Carolina state spending expanded by nearly $800 per family in 1994 under Hunt. In that same year under Edward Schafer, state spending fell by $694 per family in North Dakota.
In the 1994-96 budget cycle the governors who approved the steepest spending cuts are John Engler of Michigan and Steve Merrill of New Hampshire. The biggest recent budget increases of more than 5 percent of personal income were approved by Thomas Carper of Delaware and Mel Carnahan of Missouri.
Tax Rates and Revenues
Tables A-7 through A-16 present the results for the pre-1994 governors on tax rates and revenues. The premier tax cutters in recent years have been Symington (Arizona) and Merrill (New Hampshire), both of whom received an A on taxes. Symington, who has pledged to end Arizona's income tax, has recommended tax reductions of about 2 percent per year since his reelection in 1994. Merrill cut the state tax burden by an impressive $650 per family in New Hampshire in 1994 and has continued to recommend further tax cuts in 1995 and 1996. That is a remarkable achievement in a state that already had the lowest tax burden in the nation when he took office.
The biggest tax hikers have been Racicot (Montana), Chiles (Florida), and Carper (Delaware), each of whom received an F in this category. The tax burden in Florida rose by roughly $1,000 per family during Chiles's first term. Chiles has continued to recommend more taxes in each of his recent budget proposals. Carper approved $1,200 in tax increases per family in his first budget. Racicot has recommended the largest state tax increases over the period 1994-97.
Four governors have brought down income tax rates substantially during their tenures: Branstad (Iowa), Symington (Arizona), Thompson (Wisconsin), and Merrill (New Hampshire). Those tax rate reductions have actually led to an increase in income tax revenue collections in those states. Meanwhile the largest tax rate increases have been enacted under Carnahan (Missouri) and Schafer (North Dakota). Pete Wilson's huge income tax increase of 1991, which produced almost no new revenues, has now expired, and the top rate is back down where it was when he took office. There are signs that that has helped to propel an economic rebound in California.
The largest sales tax hikes were enacted or recommended by Racicot (Montana), Branstad (Iowa), and Engler (Michigan). Racicot recommended a new 4 percent sales tax, but voters rejected it in a referendum. Engler's 2 percentage point sales tax rate increase was tied to a sizable reduction in Michigan property taxes. The package was a $1 billion net tax cut for Michigan residents. The only governors to cut the sales tax were Leavitt (Utah) and Carnahan (Missouri). The largest gasoline tax increase (10 cents per gallon) was approved by Caperton (West Virginia). Only two governors, Hunt (North Carolina) and Nelson (Nebraska), enacted slight cuts in the gas tax.
Ratings of the New Governors
Of the 20 new governors, George Pataki of New York had far and away the most impressive fiscal record in his first two years and receives a midterm grade of A. None of the governors had enacted major tax increases or expensive new programs, so we did not assign any governor an F. Lincoln Almond of Rhode Island, Benjamin Cayetano of Hawaii, and Parris Glendening of Maryland each receive midterm grades of D.
Expenditures
The results for each of the three spending categories we investigated for the new governors are given in Tables
A-17 through A-20. The recommended spending cuts in Pataki's first two budgets amounted to more than $1,000 per family. General fund spending tumbled by more than 5 percent in his first year, reversing big budget buildups in the early 1990s under Mario Cuomo.
On a per family basis, only 2 of the 20 new governors recommended real spending increases in their first two budgets: Geringer (Wyoming) and Kitzhaber (Oregon). Actual spending as a share of personal income rose in only two states from 1995 through 1996: Connecticut under John Rowland and Maryland under Parris Glendening.
Tax Rates and Revenues
Tables A-21 through A-27 give the results for the tax records of each of the new governors. The champion tax cutter of this group was also Pataki. His recommended tax cuts for 1996 and 1997 amount to a savings of $900 per family. Whitman's tax cuts were the next largest, amounting to about $750 per family, and Rowland of Connecticut is not far behind with recommended tax cuts of $550 per family. Only Benjamin Cayetano (Hawaii), Lincoln Almond (Rhode Island), and Angus King (Maine) recommended net tax increases--and each recommended increase was only slight.
Income tax rate reductions were most pronounced in New Jersey under Whitman, Pennsylvania under Ridge, and New York under Pataki, where the top rates were cut by roughly 1 percentage point. No new governors raised the income tax or the sales tax. The gas tax was cut by 6 cents a gallon by Gary Johnson of New Mexico and raised by 1 cent a gallon by Lincoln Almond in Rhode Island. This year Phil Batt of Idaho recommended a 4-cent-a-gallon tax hike.
Overall, the fiscal record of the new governors has been exemplary, with far more showing a willingness to cut taxes than raise them.
Conclusion
Since 1991 voters across the country have ousted 10 tax-and-spend governors and replaced them with (mostly Republican) governors with more fiscally conservative agendas. That has translated into an era of tax reduction and spending restraint in at least half the states since 1994. While supply-side economic policies are spurned in Washington, D.C., as failed Reaganomics, many governors have pursued strategic income tax cuts as a way to create prosperity and reduce the tax burdens on their states' families and businesses.
The new era of fiscal restraint is most pronounced in many of the nation's more politically liberal states. California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont are a few of the traditionally high-tax-and-spend states that have most improved their economic competitiveness since 1994.
Whether the fervor for tax cuts in the nation's statehouses will continue beyond 1996 is an open question. But for now, at least, the policy of open checkbooks and "soak the rich" tax increases to pay for vast new state programs is out of favor with voters and governors.
Appendix A: Detailed Tables
Table A-1
Spending Variables - Pre-1994 Governors
| Governor | 1994 Total State Spending per $1,000 Personal Income | Average Annual Change in Real Total State Spending per Family of 4 through 1994 | Average Annual Change in Total State Spending per $1,000 Personal Income through 1994 | Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund per Family of 4, 1991 - 1997 |
Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income, 1994 - 1996 | Overall Spending Score | Grade |
| Dean (VT) | $171 | -$215 | -2.7% | -$32 | -1.2% | 62 | A |
| Weld (MA) | $153 | $37 | 0.6% | -$178 | -0.7% | 62 | A |
| Engler (MI) | $151 | $210 | 0.8% | -$59 | -5.5% | 62 | A |
| Schafer (ND) | $192 | -$694 | -2.3% | $58 | -2.1% | 61 | B |
| Romer (CO) | $116 | $145 | 0.8% | -$41 | -0.3% | 60 | B |
| Miller (NV) | $133 | $179 | -0.6% | -$57 | 0.6% | 59 | B |
| Merrill (NH) | $127 | $351 | 3.9% | -$58 | -5.4% | 58 | B |
| Racicot (MT) | $190 | -$40 | -3.9% | -$37 | 0.9% | 55 | B |
| Carlson (MN) | $161 | $290 | 1.3% | -$191 | 1.0% | 54 | B |
| Edgar (IL) | $112 | $242 | 2.0% | $3 | 1.9% | 52 | C |
| Thompson (WI) | $153 | $248 | 1.1% | -$12 | -1.6% | 51 | C |
| Fordice (MS) | $175 | $297 | 1.0% | -$105 | -1.1% | 50 | C |
| Symington (AZ) | $148 | $329 | 2.6% | -$49 | -1.6% | 50 | C |
| Nelson (NE) | $126 | $302 | 2.2% | -$54 | 2.6% | 49 | C |
| Miller (GA) | $127 | $269 | 1.9% | $35 | 0.7% | 49 | C |
| Wilson (CA) | $155 | $404 | 3.9% | -$222 | 1.4% | 49 | C |
| Bayh (IN) | $137 | $420 | 3.3% | -$18 | -2.0% | 49 | C |
| Chiles (FL) | $114 | $337 | 3.1% | $130 | -1.0% | 46 | D |
| Lowry (WA) | $171 | $601 | 4.1% | -$134 | -2.8% | 45 | D |
| Branstad (IA) | $157 | $267 | 1.6% | $97 | -1.6% | 44 | D |
| Voinovich (OH) | $154 | $326 | 1.8% | $98 | -1.1% | 43 | D |
| Leavitt (UT) | $171 | $98 | -0.7% | $75 | 2.6% | 42 | D |
| Carper (DE) | $172 | -$158 | -2.0% | $96 | 6.5% | 41 | D |
| Hunt (NC) | $147 | $780 | 5.7% | -$49 | -0.9% | 37 | F |
| Carnahan (MO) | $113 | $219 | 2.7% | $178 | 5.5% | 35 | F |
| Caperton (WV) | $211 | $697 | 4.0% | -$37 | 1.4% | 24 | F |
Table A-2
State Spending per $1,000 Personal Income in 1994 - Pre-1994 Governors
| Five Smallest Budgets | Amount | Five Largest Budgets | Amount | ||
| 1. | Edgar (IL) | $112 | 1. | Caperton (WV) | $211 |
| 2. | Carnahan (MO) | $113 | 2. | Schafer (ND) | $192 |
| 3. | Chiles (FL) | $114 | 3. | Racicot (MT) | $190 |
| 4. | Romer (CO) | $116 | 4. | Fordice (MS) | $175 |
| 5. | Nelson (NE) | $126 | 5. | Carper (DE) | $172 |
Table A-3
Average Annual Change in Real State Spending per Family of Four through 1994 -- Pre-1994 Governors
| Cut Spending | Amount | Increased Spending | Amount |
| 1.Schafer (ND) | -$694 | 1.Hunt (NC) | $780 |
| 2.Dean (VT) | -$215 | 2.Caperton (WV) | $697 |
| 3.Carper (DE) | -$158 | 3.Lowry (WA) | $601 |
|
4.Racicot (MT) |
-$40 |
4.Bayh (IN) |
$420 |
| No Others | 5.Wilson (CA) | $404 |
Table A-4
Average Annual Change in State Spending per $1,000 Personal Income through 1994 -- Pre-1994 Governors
| Cut Spending | Percentage | Increased Spending | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Racicot (MT) | -3.9% | 1. | Hunt (NC) | 5.7% |
| 2. | Dean (VT) | -2.7% | 2. | Lowry (WA) | 4.1% |
| 3. | Schafer (ND) | -2.3% | 3. | Caperton (WV) | 4.0% |
| 4. | Carper (DE) | -2.0% | 4. | Merrill (NH) | 3.9% |
| 5. | Leavitt (UT) | -0.7% | 5. | Wilson (CA) | 3.9% |
Table A-5
Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund Spending per Family of Four, 1991-1997 --
Pre-1994 Governors
| Cut Spending | Amount | Increased Spending | Amount | ||
| 1. | Wilson (CA) | -$222 | 1. | Carnahan (MO) | $178 |
| 2. | Carlson (MN) | -$191 | 2. | Chiles (FL) | $130 |
| 3. | Weld (MA) | -$178 | 3. | Voinovich (OH) | $98 |
| 4. | Lowry (WA) | -$134 | 4. | Branstad (IA) | $97 |
| 5. | Fordice (MS) | -$105 | 5. | Carper (DE) | $96 |
Table A-6
Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income, 1994-1996 -- Pre-1994 Governors
| Cut Spending | Percentage | Increased Spending | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Engler (MI) | -5.5% | 1. | Carper (DE) | 6.5% |
| 2. | Merrill (NH) | -5.4% | 2. | Carnahan (MO) | 5.5% |
| 3. | Lowry (WA) | -2.8% | 3. | Leavitt (UT) | 2.6% |
| 4. | Schafer (ND) | -2.1% | 4. | Nelson (NE) | 2.6% |
| 5. | Bayh (IN) | -2.0% | 5. | Edgar (IL) | 1.9% |
Table A-7
Revenue and Tax Rate Variables -- Pre-1994 Governors
| Revenue Variables | ||||||
| Governor | Overall Revenue Score* | Grade | Average annual Change in Real Own-Source Revenue Per Family of 4 through 1994 | Change in Own-Source Revenue per $1000 Personal Income through 1994 | Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as % of Prior Year's Budget, 1991-1997 | Recommended Change in General Fund Revenue per $1000 Personal Income, 1991-1996 |
| Symington (AZ) | 76 | A | $120 | 0.7% | -1.7% | -4.0% |
| Merrill (NH) | 75 | A | -$655 | -7.7% | -0.3% | -4.6% |
| Weld (MA) | 64 | B | $270 | 2.9% | -0.7% | -3.0% |
| Thompson (WI) | 61 | B | $232 | 0.9% | -1.3% | -1.1% |
| Romer (CO) | 59 | B | $36 | -0.3% | 0.0% | -3.4% |
| Hunt (NC) | 59 | B | $234 | 0.7% | -0.6% | -2.9% |
| Branstad (IA) | 57 | B | $276 | 2.3% | 0.1% | -0.4% |
| Fordice (MS) | 57 | B | $446 | 4.3% | -0.5% | -5.1% |
| Bayh (IN) | 57 | B | $118 | 0.3% | -0.4% | -1.5% |
| Dean (VT) | 56 | B | -$284 | -3.9% | 2.2% | -3.6% |
| Nelson (NE) | 54 | C | $335 | 3.3% | -0.2% | -1.2% |
| Engler (MI) | 54 | C | $326 | 2.5% | -0.7% | -3.3% |
| Carnahan (MO) | 53 | C | -$64 | -0.7% | -0.4% | -0.2% |
| Leavitt (UT) | 52 | C | $516 | 4.1% | -0.7% | -1.6% |
| Miller (NV) | 50 | C | $172 | -0.6% | 1.5% | -3.4% |
| Wilson (CA) | 50 | C | $164 | 2.2% | 0.1% | -0.2% |
| Schafer (ND) | 49 | C | -$380 | -0.8% | 0.6% | 1.6% |
| Miller (GA) | 49 | C | $300 | 3.1% | -0.1% | 1.1% |
| Carlson (MN) | 48 | C | $366 | 2.3% | 0.1% | -1.9% |
| Lowry (WA) | 47 | C | $324 | 3.6% | 1.9% | 0.2% |
| Caperton (WV) | 44 | D | $274 | 1.0% | 0.5% | -0.8% |
| Edgar (IL) | 43 | D | $266 | 2.8% | 1.5% | -0.4% |
| Voinovich (OH) | 43 | D | $471 | 3.2% | 0.7% | 0.3% |
| Carper (DE) | 41 | F | $1,283 | 8.0% | -0.6% | -3.4% |
| Chiles (FL) | 39 | F | $333 | 3.8% | 1.9% | 4.7% |
| Racicot (MT) | 39 | F | -$145 | -4.8% | 2.5% | -3.6% |
Table A-7
Continued
| Tax Rate Variables | |||||
| Governor | Percentage Point Change in Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual+Corporate)** | Percentage Point Change in Top Individual Income Tax Rate on Median Income** | 1996 Total Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual+Corporate) | Percentage Point Change in Sales Tax Rate** | Change in Gas Tax Rate (Cents per Gallon)** |
| Symington (AZ) | -1.9 | -1.05 | 14.6 | 0 | 0 |
| Merrill (NH) | -1.0 | 0 | 7.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Weld (MA) | -0.8 | -0.8 | 15.45 | 0 | 0 |
| Thompson (WI) | -1.03 | -0.69 | 14.83 | 0 | 5.9 |
| Romer (CO) | 0.25 | -0.67 | 10.0 | 1.0 | 4.0 |
| Hunt (NC) | -0.75 | 0 | 15.5 | 0 | -0.3 |
| Branstad (IA) | -4.02 | -1.2 | 21.98 | 2.0 | 7.0 |
| Fordice (MS) | 0 | 0 | 10.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bayh (IN) | 0 | 0 | 11.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Dean (VT) | -0.4 | -0.28 | 18.15 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Nelson (NE) | -0.17 | -0.38 | 14.8 | 0 | -0.1 |
| Engler (MI) | -0.25 | -0.2 | 6.7 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Carnahan (MO) | 1.25 | 0 | 12.25 | -0.25 | 2.0 |
| Leavitt (UT) | 0 | 0 | 12.2 | -0.125 | 0 |
| Miller (NV) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75 | 7.25 |
| Wilson (CA) | -0.93 | -0.4 | 18.6 | 1.25 | 3.0 |
| Schafer (ND) | 1.2 | 0 | 16.0 | 0 | 1.0 |
| Miller (GA) | 0 | 0 | 12.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carlson (MN) | 0.5 | 0 | 18.3 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Lowry (WA) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Caperton (WV) | 0 | 0 | 15.5 | 0 | 10.0 |
| Edgar (IL) | 0.65 | 0.25 | 10.3 | 0 | 0 |
| Voinovich (OH) | 0.6 | 0 | 16.4 | 0 | 2.0 |
| Carper (DE) | -0.4 | 0.3 | 15.8 | 0 | 4.0 |
| Chiles (FL) | 0 | 0 | 5.5 | 0 | 0.9 |
| Racicot (MT) | 0 | 0 | 17.75 | 4.0 | 7.0 |
Table A-8
Average Annual Change in Real Own-Source Revenue per Family of Four through 1994 -- Pre-1994 Governors
|
Cut Taxes |
Amount |
Increased Taxes |
Amount |
||
| 1. | Merrill (NH) | -$655 | 1. | Carper (DE) | $1,283 |
| 2. | Schafer (ND) | -$380 | 2. | Leavitt (UT) | $516 |
| 3. | Dean (VT) | -$284 | 3. | Voinovich (OH) | $471 |
| 4. | Racicot (MT) | -$145 | 4. | Fordice (MS) | $446 |
| 5. | Carnahan (MO) | -$64 | 5. | Carlson (MN) | $366 |
Table A-9
Average Annual Change in Own-Source Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 1994 -- Pre-1994
Governors
| Cut Taxes | Amount | Increased Taxes | Amount | ||
| 1. | Merrill (NH) | -7.7% | 1. | Carper (DE) | 8.0% |
| 2. | Racicot (MT) | -4.8% | 2. | Fordice (MS) | 4.3% |
| 3. | Dean (VT) | -3.9% | 3. | Leavitt (UT) | 4.1% |
| 4. | Schafer (ND) | -0.8% | 4. | Chiles (FL) | 3.8% |
| 5. | Carnahan (MO) | -0.7% | 5. | Lowry (WA) | 3.6% |
Table A-10
Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as a Percentage of Prior Year's Budget, 1991-1997 -- Pre-1994
Governors
| Cut Taxes | Percentage | Increased Taxes | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Symington (AZ) | -1.7% | 1. | Racicot (MT) | 2.5% |
| 2. | Thompson (WI) | -1.3% | 2. | Dean (VT) | 2.2% |
| 3. | Leavitt (UT) | -0.7% | 3. | Lowry (WA) | 1.9% |
| 4. | Weld (MA) | -0.7% | 4. | Chiles (FL) | 1.9% |
| 5. | Engler (MI) | -0.7% | 5. | Miller (NV) | 1.5% |
| 6. | Edgar (IL) | 1.5% |
Table A-11
Average Annual Recommended Change in General Fund Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income, 1991-1996 --
Pre-1994 Governors
| Cut Taxes | Percentage | Increased Taxes | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Fordice (MS) | -5.1% | 1. | Chiles (FL) | 4.7% |
| 2. | Merrill (NH) | -4.6% | 2. | Schafer (ND) | 1.6% |
| 3. | Symington (AZ) | -4.0% | 3. | Miller (GA) | 1.1% |
| 4. | Racicot (MT) | -3.6% | 4. | Voinovich (OH) | 0.3% |
| 5. | Dean (VT) | -3.6% | 5. | Lowry (WA) | 0.2% |
Table A-12
Percentage Point Change in Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual + Corporate) -- Pre-1994 Governors*
|
Cut Taxes |
Percentage Points |
Increased Taxes |
Percentage |
||
| 1. | Branstad (IA) | -4.02 | 1. | Carnahan (MO) | 1.25 |
| 2. | Symington (AZ) | -1.9 | 2. | Schafer (ND) | 1.2 |
| 3. | Thompson (WI) | -1.03 | 3. | Edgar (IL) | 0.65 |
| 4. | Merrill (NH) | -1.0 | 4. | Voinovich (OH) | 0.6 |
| 5. | Wilson (CA) | -0.93 | 5. | Carlson (MN) | 0.5 |
*Includes proposed changes and extensions of temporary changes scheduled to expire.
Table A-13
Percentage Point Change in Top Individual Income Tax Rate on Median Income -- Pre-1994 Governors*
|
Cut Taxes |
Percentage Points |
Increased Taxes |
Percentage Points |
|
| 1. Branstad (IA) | -1.2 | 1. | Carper (DE) | 0.3 |
| 2. Symington (AZ) | -1.05 | 2. | Edgar (IL) | 0.25 |
| 3. Weld (MA) | -0.8 | No Others | ||
| 4. Thompson (WI) | -0.69 | |||
| 5. Romer (CO) | -0.67 |
Table A-14
1996 Total Combined Top Individual and Corporate Income Tax Rates -- Pre-1994 Governors
| Percentage | Percentage | ||||
| Lowest Taxes | Points | Highest Taxes | Points | ||
| 1. | Miller (NV) | 0 | 1. | Branstad (IA) | 21.98 |
| 1. | Lowry (WA) | 0 | 2. | Wilson (CA) | 18.6 |
| 3. | Chiles (FL) | 5.5 | 3. | Carlson (MN) | 18.3 |
| 4. | Engler (MI) | 6.7 | 4. | Dean (VT) | 18.15 |
| 5. | Merrill (NH) | 7.0 | 5. | Racicot (MT) | 17.75 |
Table A-15
g>Percentage Point Change in Sales Tax Rate -- Pre-1994 Governors*
| Cut Taxes |
Percentage Points |
Increased Taxes |
Percentage Points |
||
| 1. | Carnahan (MO) | -0.25 | 1. | Racicot (MT) | 4.0 |
| 2. | Leavitt (UT) | -0.125 | 2. | Branstad (IA) | 2.0 |
| No Others | 2. | Engler (MI) | 2.0 | ||
| 4. | Wilson (CA) | 1.25 | |||
| 5. | Romer (CO) | 1.0 | |||
| 5. | Dean (VT) | 1.0 |
*Includes proposed changes and extensions of temporary changes scheduled to expire.
Table A-16
Change in Gasoline Tax Rate -- Pre 1994 Governors*
| Cut Taxes | Cents per Gallon | Increased Taxes | Cents per Gallon | ||
| 1. | Hunt (NC) | -0.3 | 1. | Caperton (WV) | 10.0 |
| 2. | Nelson (NE) | -0.1 | 2. | Miller (NV) | 7.25 |
| No Others | 3. | Branstad (IA) | 7.0 | ||
| 3. | Racicot (MT) | 7.0 | |||
| 5. | Thompson (WI) | 5.9 |
*Includes proposed changes and extensions of temporary changes scheduled to expire.
Table A-17
Spending Variables
| Governor | Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund Spending per Family of 4 through 1997 | Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1000 Personal Income through 1996 | 1994 Total State Spending Per $1000 Personal Income | Overall Spending Score | Grade |
| Pataki (NY) | -$503 | -5.6% | $171 | 83 | A |
| Janklow (SD) | -$146 | -3.9% | $142 | 64 | B |
| Whitman (NJ) | -$218 | -2.3% | $141 | 61 | B |
| James (AL) | -$51 | -3.4% | $151 | 54 | B |
| Cayetano (HI) | -$310 | -3.9% | $212 | 53 | B |
| Allen (VA) | -$31 | -0.7% | $111 | 52 | B |
| Bush (TX) | -$56 | -0.9% | $119 | 52 | B |
| Ridge (PA) | -$97 | -2.2% | $148 | 52 | B |
| Johnson (NM) | -$238 | -5.3% | $227 | 50 | C |
| Batt (ID) | -$91 | -2.3% | $155 | 50 | C |
| King (ME) | -$1 | -4.1% | $168 | 49 | C |
| Sundquist (TN) | -$18 | -1.0% | $127 | 48 | C |
| Keating (OK) | -$41 | -2.4% | $154 | 48 | C |
| Rowland (CT) | -$315 | 2.0% | $141 | 47 | C |
| Graves (KS) | -$57 | -0.6% | $132 | 47 | C |
| Almond (RI) | -$154 | -1.4% | $177 | 43 | C |
| Glendening (MD) | -$27 | 0.8% | $120 | 43 | C |
| Beasley (SC) | -$103 | -2.3% | $183 | 42 | C |
| Kitzhaber (OR) | $96 | -1.1% | $154 | 34 | D |
| Geringer (WY) | $2 | -2.3% | $213 | 28 | D |
Table A-18
Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund Spending per Family of Four through 1997 -- New
Governors
| Cut Spending | Amount | Increased Spending | Amount | |
| 1. | Pataki (NY) | -$503 | 1. Kitzhaber (OR) | $96 |
| 2. | Rowland (CT) | -$315 | 2. Geringer (WY) | $2 |
| 3. | Cayetano (HI) | -$310 | No Others | |
| 4. | Johnson (NM) | -$238 | ||
| 5. | Whitman (NJ) | -$218 |
Table A-19
Average Annual Change in General Fund Spending per $1,000 Personal Income through 1996 -- New Governors
| Cut Spending | Percentage | Increased Spending | Percentage |
| 1. Pataki (NY) | -5.6% | 1.Rowland (CT) | 2.0% |
| 2. Johnson (NM) | -5.3% | 2.Glendening (MD) | 0.8% |
| 3. King (ME) | -4.1% | No Others | |
| 4. Cayetano (HI) | -3.9% | ||
| 5. Janklow (SD) | -3.9% |
Table A-20
State Spending per $1,000 Personal Income in 1994 -- New Governors
| Five Smallest Budgets | Amount | Five Largest Budgets | Amount |
| 1.Allen (VA) | $111 | 1.Johnson (NM) | $227 |
| 2.Bush (TX) | $119 | 2.Geringer (WY) | $213 |
| 3.Glendening (MD) | $120 | 3.Cayetano (HI) | $212 |
| 4.Sundquist (TN) | $127 | 4.Beasley (SC) | $183 |
| 5.Graves (KS) | $132 | 5.Almond (RI) | $177 |
Table A-21
Revenue and Tax Variables -- New Governors
| Revenue Variables | ||||||
| Governor | Overall Revenue Score* | Grade | Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as % of Prior Year's Budget through 1997 | Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund Revenue per Family of 4through 1997 | Average Annual Change in General Fund Revenue per $1000 Personal Income through 1996 | |
| Pataki (NY) | 78 | A | -2.3% | -$451 | -4.9% | |
| Whitman (NJ) | 63 | B | -1.4% | -$253 | -3.0% | |
| Ridge (PA) | 60 | B | -0.6% | -$123 | -5.4% | |
| Rowland (CT) | 57 | B | -2.6% | -$284 | 0.5% | |
| Johnson (NM) | 52 | B | -1.0% | -$130 | -3.3% | |
| Beasley (SC) | 48 | B | -1.5% | -$170 | -5.7% | |
| Janklow (SD) | 47 | B | -1.3% | -$146 | -3.7% | |
| Bush (TX) | 47 | B | 0.0% | -$169 | -6.4% | |
| Geringer (WY) | 40 | C | 0.0% | -$40 | -5.7% | |
| Keating (OK) | 38 | C | -1.9% | -$90 | -2.0% | |
| Kitzhaber (OR) | 37 | C | -0.4% | -$102 | -5.7% | |
| Allen (VA) | 34 | C | -1.4% | -$87 | -1.2% | |
| James (AL) | 27 | C | 0.0% | -$65 | -1.9% | |
| Batt (ID) | 26 | C | -1.0% | -$23 | -2.7% | |
| Graves (KS) | 25 | C | -1.3% | $48 | -1.0% | |
| King (ME) | 25 | C | 0.1% | -$4 | -3.8% | |
| Sundquist (TN) | 24 | C | 0.0% | -$1 | -1.0% | |
| Glendening (MD) | 24 | C | 0.0% | -$13 | -1.9% | |
| Almond (RI) | 19 | D | 0.7% | -$138 | -1.7% | |
| Cayetano (HI) | 14 | D | 0.7% | -$155 | 1.7% | |
| Continued on next graph | ||||||
Table A-21
Continued
| Governor | Percentage Point Change in Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual+Corporate)** | 1996 Total Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual+Corporate) | Change in Gas Tax Rate (Cents per Gallon)** |
| Pataki (NY) | -0.875 | 16.575 | 0 |
| Whitman (NJ) | -1.005 | 15.37 | 0 |
| Ridge (PA) | -1.0 | 12.79 | 0 |
| Rowland (CT) | -0.75 | 15.25 | 0 |
| Johnson (NM) | -0.5 | 15.6 | -6.0 |
| Beasley (SC) | 0 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Janklow (SD) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Bush (TX) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Geringer (WY) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keating (OK) | 0 | 13.0 | 0 |
| Kitzhaber (OR) | 0 | 15.6 | 0 |
| Allen (VA) | 0 | 11.75 | 0 |
| James (AL) | 0 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Batt (ID) | 0 | 16.2 | 4.0 |
| Graves (KS) | 0 | 15.1 | 0 |
| King (ME) | 0 | 17.43 | 0 |
| Sundquist (TN) | 0 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Glendening (MD) | 0 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Almond (RI) | 0 | 19.89 | 1.0 |
| Cayetano (HI) | 0 | 16.4 | 0 |
Table A-22
Average Annual Recommended Tax Changes as a Percentage of Prior Year's Budget through 1997 -- New
Governors
| Cut Taxes | Percentage | Increased Taxes | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Rowland (CT) | -2.6% | 1. | Almond (RI) | 0.7% |
| 2. | Pataki (NY) | -2.3% | 2. | Cayetano (HI) | 0.7% |
| 3. | Keating (OK) | -1.9% | 3. | King (ME) | 0.1% |
| 4. | Beasley (SC) | -1.5% | No Others | ||
| 5. | Allen (VA) | -1.4% | |||
| 6. | Whitman (NJ) | -1.4% |
Table A-23
Average Annual Recommended Change in Real General Fund Revenue per Family of Four through 1997 -- New
Governors
| Cut Taxes | Amount | Increased Taxes | Amount | ||
| 1. | Pataki (NY) | -$451 | 1. | Graves (KS) | $48 |
| 2. | Rowland (CT) | -$284 | No Others | ||
| 3. | Whitman (NJ) | -$253 | |||
| 4. | Beasley (SC) | -$170 | |||
| 5. | Bush (TX) | -$169 |
Table A-24
Average Annual Change in General Fund Revenue per $1,000 Personal Income through 1996 -- New Governors
| Cut Taxes | Percentage | Increased Taxes | Percentage | ||
| 1. | Bush (TX) | -6.4% | 1. | Cayetano (HI) | 1.7% |
| 2. | Beasley (SC) | -5.7% | 2. | Rowland (CT) | 0.5% |
| 3. | Kitzhaber (OR) | -5.7% | No Others | ||
| 4. | Geringer (WY) | -5.7% | |||
| 5. | Ridge (PA) | -5.4% |
Table A-25
Percentage Point Change in Combined Top Income Tax Rates (Individual + Corporate) -- New Governors
| Percentage | Percentage | |||
| Cut Taxes | Points | Increased Taxes | Points | |
| 1. | Whitman (NJ) | -1.005 | No tax rate increases. | |
| 2. | Ridge (PA) | -1.0 | ||
| 3. | Pataki (NY) | -0.875 | ||
| 4. | Rowland (CT) | -0.75 | ||
| 5. | Johnson (NM) | -0.5 |
*Includes proposed changes and extensions of temporary changes scheduled to expire.
Table A-26
1996 Total Combined Top and Corporate Income Tax Rates -- New Governors
| Percentage | Percentage | ||||
| Lowest Taxes | Points | Highest Taxes | Points | ||
| 1. | Janklow (SD) | 0 | 1. | Almond (RI) | 19.89 |
| 2. | Bush (TX) | 0 | 2. | King (ME) | 17.43 |
| 3. | Geringer (WY) | 0 | 3. | Pataki (NY) | 16.575 |
| 4. | Sundquist (TN) | 6.0 | 4. | Cayetano (HI) | 16.4 |
| 5. | James (AL) | 10.0 | 5. | Batt (ID) | 16.2 |
Table A-27
Change in Gasoline Tax Rate -- New Governors*
| Cents per | Cents per | ||
| Cut Taxes | Gallon | Increased Taxes | Gallon |
| 1. Johnson (NM) | -6.0 | 1. Batt (ID) | 4.0 |
| No Others | 2. Almond (RI) | 1.0 | |
| No Others |
*Includes proposed changes and extensions of temporary changes scheduled to expire.
Appendix B: Summary of Fiscal Policy Records
of the Governors
Due to rounding, the spending and revenue figures in the tables in this appendix may not match those in Appendix A. The tax
rate figures in this appendix reflect what has been enacted, while those in Appendix A reflect proposed rate changes and
extensions of temporary rate changes scheduled to expire. The figures in Appendix A were used in determining the ranking of
the governors. General fund figures for 1997 are based on the governors' budget proposals. Notes to the following tables are
at the end of this appendix.
Alabama
Fob James, Republican
Legislature: Democratic
Took Office: 1/95
Grade: C
This is James's second go-round as governor. He served in the statehouse from 1979 to 1982 as a Democrat. James
switched to the GOP in a state that is turning more Republican every year. In 1994 he upset incumbent Jim Folsom Jr. by
promising economic development and no new taxes. James has steered clear of tax hikes in his first two years, but he has not
shown any inclination to cut taxes as so many of his fellow freshman governors have done. His most important legislation from
the standpoint of taxpayers has been a judicial reform bill that explicitly curbs the authority of state judges to arbitrarily
assume the power to tax without the consent of the legislature. His first two budgets have held the line on spending; outlays
have grown only at the rate of inflation. In his 1996 budget James promoted welfare reform designed to discourage
illegitimacy, and he locked horns with the education establishment by holding the line on school funding. Overall, James's
record in his first two years is credible but unspectacular.
| General Fund Spending | 1997 | 1995 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $4,159 $52.23 $3,835 | $4,151 $54.89 $3,904 | 0.1% -2.5% -$34 |
| General Fund Revenue | 1996 | 1995 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $4,101 $52.88 $3,819 | $4,078 $53.93 $3,835 | 0.6% -1.9% -$16 |
State Tax Rates
| 1996 | 1995 | |
| Individual income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax |
2-5 $3,000 5.0% 4.0% |
2-5 $3,000 5.0% 4.0% |
| 1996 | 1995 | |
| Corporate income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 5.00 N/A 16.0¢ | 5.00 N/A 16.0¢ |
Arizona
Fife Symington, Republican
Legislature: Republican
Took Office: 3/91
Grade: A
In his first five years in office, Fife Symington has proven to be the nation's premier tax-cutting governor. He has enacted
nearly $1.5 billion in state tax cuts, mostly by chopping personal and business income tax rates. Those tax cuts are not likely
to be reversed any time soon. Symington helped pass a ballot initiative that requires a supermajority vote of the legislature to
raise taxes. He has also championed work-based welfare reform and Arizona's closely watched, cost-saving alternative to
Medicaid. He is also a tireless advocate of statewide parental school choice--an initiative that remains bottled up in the
legislature. Symington is not an aggressive budget cutter. In his first term state spending grew by $1,000 per family. In his
second term, to pay for his tax cuts, Symington has finally begun to slowly rein in the budget, holding spending to below the
rate of income growth. Perhaps the clearest signal that Symington's supply-side fiscal strategies are working is that the
economy in Arizona has surged during his tenure, with jobs, new business creation, and population growing three times the
national average in the 1990s.
| Total State Expenditures | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $10,522 $148 $10,329 | $8,750 $136 $9,341 | 6.3% 2.6% $329 |
| State Own-Source Revenue | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $8,919 $125 $8,755 | $7,863 $123 $8,394 | 4.3% 0.7% $120 |
| General Fund Spending | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $4,429 $52.96 $4,087 | $4,044 $54.82 $3,966 | 4.7% -1.7% $61 |
| General Fund Revenue | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $4,435 $53.03 $4,092 | $4,191 $56.82 $4,110 | 2.9% -3.4% -$9 |
State Tax Rates
| 1996 | 1991 | |
| Individual income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax | 3-5.6 $150,000 4.20% 5% | 3.8-7 $150,000 5.25% 5% |
| 1996 | 1991 | |
| Corporate income tax Range of rates (%) Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 9.00 N/A 18.0¢ | 9.30 N/A 18.0¢ |
California
Pete Wilson, Republican
Legislature: Divided
Took Office: 1/91
Grade: C
Wilson's second term in office could hardly be worse than his first. Wilson's first year was a catastrophe. He muscled through
the legislature--with the willing support of the Democrats and moderate Republicans--a $7 billion tax increase, the largest in
the history of the 50 states. That sent an already ailing economy into intensive care. The income tax hikes were noteworthy in
that they failed to raise any new revenue but sank the state deeper into recession as upper-income families and entrepreneurs
left. Part of the tax hike, a sales tax on food, was repudiated by voters at the polls by a 2-to-1 margin. Despite the fiscal
crisis, in his first term the California budget leaped forward, with expenditures increasing by roughly $1,200 per family. His
second term has been much better so far. His first-term tax hike finally expired this year on schedule, and he even proposed a
further 15 percent income tax rate cut that was rejected by the legislature. He has also become a budget hawk of late,
proposing that spending actually shrink in both of his last two budgets. Wilson's overall record is still below average, but the
trend is very positive. Still, there is much work to be done to regain the prosperous growth of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.
The Small Business Survival Committee calculates that because of California's notorious regulatory morass and the high
business taxes, the Golden State is now the second worst state for small business.
| Total State Expenditures | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $105,831 $155 $13,468 | $93,188 $138 $12,255 | 4.3% 3.9% $404 |
| State Own-Source Revenue | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $85,530 $125 $10,885 | $79,035 $117 $10,394 | 2.7% 2.2% $164 |
| General Fund Spending | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $42,957 $59.10 $5,380 | $40,216 $57.25 $5,122 | 3.4% 1.6% $129 |
| General Fund Revenue | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $42,685 $58.73 $5,346 | $41,068 $58.47 $5,230 | 2.0% 0.2% $58 |
State Tax Rates
| 1996 | 1991 | |
| Individual income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax | 1-9.3 $31,701 8.00% 6% | 1-9.3 $27,646 8.00% 4.75 |
| > | 1996 | 1991 |
| Corporate income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 9.30 N/A 18.0¢ | 9.30 N/A 15.0¢ |
Colorado
Roy Romer, Democrat
Legislature: Republican
Took Office: 1/87
Grade: B
On the national level, as head of the National Governors Association, Romer has been a voice for liberal activist government;
but in Denver, he has governed as a centrist in a conservative state. In some areas--particularly taxes--Romer is clearly to the
left of his constituents. His proposal for a sales tax hike to fund education was defeated several years ago by voters; he
opposed Colorado's successful "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" initiative that requires that any new tax increase be approved by a
vote of the people and limits spending growth to the rate of inflation and population growth (he even called the sponsor of the
initiative a "terrorist); and he vetoed a tax cut passed by the legislature earlier this year. Still, Colorado has had comparatively
low taxes and low spending during Romer's 10 years as governor. To his credit, Romer has curtailed spending through
programs to cut waste and merge duplicative agencies. Spending has been relatively restrained since 1987, especially in
recent years. Romer's fiscal record is clearly aided by a fiscal tightwad legislature that often approves spending and revenues
below the levels Romer requests, by constitutional caps on spending, and by one of the nation's most anti-tax electorates.
| Total State Expenditures | 1994 | 1987 | Average |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) |
|
|
|
| State Own-Source Revenue | 1994 | 1987 | Average |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $8,241 | $7,142 | 2.1% |
| General Fund Spending | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) |
|
|
|
| General Fund Revenue | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $4,050 $47.49 $4,217 | $3,828 $48.48 $4,182 | 2.9% -1.0% $17 |
State Tax Rates
| 1996 | 1987 | |
| Individual income tax* -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax | 5.0 N/A 5.0% 3% | 3-8 $14,150 8.0% 3% |
| 1996 | 1987 | |
| Corporate income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 5.0 N/A 22.0¢ | 5.25-6 $200,000 18.0¢ |
Connecticut
John Rowland, Republican
Legislature: Divided
Took Office: 1/95
Grade: B
For the taxpayers of Connecticut, almost anyone would be an improvement over Lowell Weicker, and Rowland
unquestionably is that. Weicker was the biggest tax increaser in Connecticut history and responsible for passage in 1991 of
the state's first income tax, which has caused an exodus from the state. Connecticut is one of only two states to lose
population in the 1990s. Rowland's success or failure as governor hinges on one issue: will he and can he keep his campaign
pledge to purge the state of Weicker's hated income tax within five years? Rowland's first-year budget contained a $200
million income tax cut--which was a disappointingly small slice of the $2.6 billion raised from the income tax. That tax cut was
less than half the promised first-year reduction and has raised suspicions that the income tax may become a permanent fixture
after all. To his credit, Rowland has reversed the seemingly endless budget buildup engineered by his two big-spending
predecessors, Weicker and Democrat William O'Neill. Connecticut's budget grew by 160 percent from 1980 to 1992--the
third fastest rate of growth of the 50 states. In Rowland's first two years he has slammed on the brakes, with general fund
spending proposals that have actually declined in real terms. Unfortunately, the legislature appropriated $350 million more in
1996 than he requested. He has cut the general assistance welfare budget, public housing aid, and transportation funds, while
imposing a hiring freeze. He wants to sell a portion of the state lottery to private investors. Rowland's growth-oriented agenda
has helped pull the economy out of the depths of the early 1990s recession that devastated the state's insurance, defense, and
banking industries--a recession exacerbated by Weicker's tax grab. But if in two years the income tax is intact, Rowland's
term cannot be considered a success.
| General Fund Spending* | 1997 | 1995 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $8,281 $85.56 $10,131 | $8,399 $88.29 $10,258 | -0.7% -1.6% -$64 |
| General Fund Revenue* | 1997 | 1995 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $8,282 $85.57 $10,132 | $8,480 $89.14 $10,357 | -1.2% -2.0% -$112 |
State Tax Rates
| 1996 | 1995 | |
| Individual income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax | 3-4.5 $16,500 4.5% 6.0% | 4.5 N/A 4.5% 6.0% |
| 1996 | 1995 | |
| Corporate income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 10.75 N/A 37.0¢ | 11.50 N/A 32.0¢ |
Delaware
Thomas Carper, Democrat
Legislature: Divided
Took Office: 1/93
Grade: F
A former five-term member of the U.S. Congress, Carper is one of the last of the truly big-spending governors. Whereas
most states have held spending growth well below inflation over the past two years, the Delaware budget has climbed by 5 to
6 percent per year. Carper continues to push for rapid growth of expenditures for health care, education, and
industrial-policy-type economic development programs. In the past two years Delaware has led the nation in rapid spending
growth. Carper's welfare reform initiative--"A Better Chance"--is designed to push recipients into work and self-sufficiency,
but it is too early to tell whether the rhetoric will be matched with results. Carper's tax record is mixed. In his first year in
office he enacted a series of giant tax hikes--raising revenues by more than 8 percent. He raised the gas tax, turnpike toll
prices, and various other fees. Yet since then he has approved almost $40 million in income tax rate cuts and rollbacks in the
unemployment and utility taxes. On balance, Carper has Delaware headed in the wrong direction fiscally.
| Total State Expenditures | 1994 | 1993 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $2,617 $172 $14,828 | $2,623 $175 $14,986 | -0.2% -2.0% -$158 |
| State Own-Source Revenue | 1994 | 1993 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $2,741 $180 $15,531 | $2,493 $167 $14,248 | 9.9% 8.0% $1,283 |
| General Fund Spending | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $1,664 $99.06 $9,156 | $1,382 $87.34 $7,810 | 9.7% 6.5% $673 |
| General Fund Revenue | 1996 | 1994 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1995 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1995 $) | $1,594 $94.90 $8,771 | $1,489 $94.09 $8,414 | 3.5% 0.4% $179 |
| 1996 | 1993 | |
| Individual income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket -Marginal rate on median income General sales tax | 3.2-7.1 $30,000 7.10% No Tax | 3.2-7.7 $40,000 7.00% No Tax |
| 1996 | 1993 | |
| Corporate income tax -Range of rates (%) -Top bracket Gasoline tax (per gallon) | 8.70 N/A 23.0¢ | 8.70 N/A 19.0¢ |
Florida
Lawton Chiles, Democrat
Legislature: Divided
Took Office: 1/91
Grade: F
Chiles has carefully nurtured a public image as a genuine "new Democrat" with an agenda of reinventing government and
"rightsizing" the bureaucracy of state agencies. The reality of his administration could hardly be further from the rhetoric. In the
first months of his first term in 1992 he pushed for a $1.3 billion tax hike. It was rejected by the legislature, so he settled for
$400 million in various fees and assessments. In 1994 he pushed for a Clinton-style health care reform proposal that the
voters hated. He is also enamored of expensive industrial policy initiatives to develop enterprise in the state. In his first term,
Chiles was one of America's most spendthrift governors, as Florida's state expenditures stampeded from $25.1 billion to
$32.3 billion--a 29 percent rise. Even accounting for inflation and the state's rapid population growth, spending per family
was $1,000 higher by 1994 than when Chiles took office. His second term has been more of the same: rhetoric about
downsizing government, yet spending and revenue increases that continue to outpace income and population growth. Chiles
promised a more "efficient and accountable government" when he became governor. Instead he has given Floridians a much
bigger and costlier state government.
| Total State Expenditures | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $32,284 $114 $9,255 | $27,386 $104 $8,244 | 5.6% 3.1% $337 |
| State Own-Source Revenue | 1994 | 1991 | Average Annual Change |
| Millions of 1994 dollars Per $1,000 personal income Per family of four (1994 $) | $27,398 $97 $7,854 | $22,772 $87 $6,855 | 6.4% 3.8% $333 |
| General Fund Spending | 1996 | 1994< |