As the current economic storm continues to batter state budgets, policymakers in numerous states are continuing to talk of raising taxes to help mitigate cuts in state services.  In Maryland, lawmakers are debating an extension of the state’s temporary “millionaires’ tax,” while a new policy brief out of Georgia proposes to eliminate an unwise (and rare) deduction currently only offered in just seven other states — Arizona, Hawaii, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Maryland's legislature is currently considering whether to extend a temporary "millionaires’ tax" enacted as part of a major 2007 tax reform effort. ITEP staff testified Thursday at a hearing of the state House Ways and Means Committee. ITEP's testimony highlighted several important details, such as the fact that the millionaires’ tax modestly reduces the overall unfairness of Maryland's tax system. With the tax in place, low-income families still pay more of their income in Maryland taxes than millionaires must pay — and if the tax is repealed, this inequity will become even worse.

The testimony also explains why claims by anti-taxers that millionaires have fled the state in response to the millionaires’ tax are unfounded. As ITEP's analyses have shown, the primary cause of the decline in the number of Maryland millionaires in the past year is that they stopped being millionaires due to the recession.  The claim that the decline in the number of millionaires is due to the high income tax would be news to lawmakers in Utah (the only other state in which there is publicly available data on the change in the number of millionaires between 2007 and 2008). In the same year that Maryland lost 30 percent of their millionaires, Utah lost 60 percent of theirs. And while Maryland hiked their income tax on wealthy taxpayers the previous year, Utah cut theirs.

In Georgia, some attention is beginning to be paid to a progressive idea passed by the New Mexico legislature just last week.  On Thursday, the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute (GBPI) released a brief explaining why the state’s deduction for state income taxes paid — which costs the state $450 million each year — should be eliminated to help fill the state’s budget gap.  The vast majority of states already disallow this deduction (which originates from federal tax rules) in order to avoid the bizarre, circular situation in which one’s state tax payment can be used to reduce their state taxes.  

Finally, a new report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) helps put these developments in Maryland and Georgia into perspective.  The report notes that states have increased taxes by a combined $32 billion during the current recession.  In total, thirty three states have raised taxes to help fill their budget gaps, with twenty two of those having enacted “significant” tax increases, meaning increases that total more than 1 percent of their total revenues.  The report’s appendices provide an excellent summary of the multitude of state tax changes that have been enacted during these difficult budgetary times.

Like their counterparts in most states, legislators in Maryland are expected to face some pretty rough sledding as they attempt to craft a balanced budget for the coming fiscal year.  As a result of the ongoing national recession, revenues have remained well below prior projections and the state now faces a budget shortfall of roughly $2 billion in FY 2011 alone.  Fortunately, as Neil Bergsman of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute pointed out this past week, legislators who recognize that revenue increases are an important part of a balanced approach to addressing budget deficits have multiple options available to them.  

Two of the most progressive of those options are the preservation of Maryland’s so-called “millionaires’ tax” and the implementation of combined reporting.  As ITEP explains in its latest report, to compensate for the loss of revenue arising from the repeal of a tax on computer services, Maryland enacted a temporary change in its income tax in 2008. That change, the so-called “millionaires’ tax,” created a new top income tax bracket with a rate of 6.25 percent applicable solely to taxable income over $1 million.  As ITEP observes, the change is slated to expire at the end of 2010, but preserving it would generate close to $100 million in annual revenue, while affecting fewer than 5,000 Marylanders each year.

Adopting combined reporting – as Texas, West Virginia, New York, Michigan, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin have all done within the last five years – would have a similarly salutary effect on Maryland’s long-term fiscal outlook. 

As this issue brief from ITEP argues, combined reporting represents the most comprehensive option available to states seeking to halt the erosion of their corporate tax bases and to curtail corporate tax avoidance. 

Indeed, a 2009 study by Maryland’s Office of the Comptroller suggested that the implementation of combined reporting in Maryland could yield as much as $100 million per year in additional revenue, simply by preventing large corporations from using legal and accounting maneuvers to shift income out of state.

Of note, according to the Maryland Gazette, Delegate Roger Manno has already introduced legislation that pairs these two options to help improve pension funding in the state.

Recent developments in Oregon and Massachusetts demonstrate how relying too heavily on tax breaks to accomplish policy goals can quickly cause things to get out of hand.  Policymakers in Maryland should heed these warnings when considering the Governor’s recent proposal to create new tax incentives for businesses, despite the state’s dire budgetary outlook.

In Oregon, the controversy involves the state’s Business Energy Tax Credit (BETC, or “Betsy”).  The BETC program is purportedly designed to encourage the growth of “green” energy companies in Oregon.  Under pressure from the Governor’s office, the Oregon Department of Energy is reported to have deliberately (and drastically) low-balled the cost-estimate attached to the BETC program.  This lower cost estimate allowed the program to be enacted with much less scrutiny than would otherwise have been the case.  Of course, if the program had instead been operated as a traditional spending program, its overall size would have been limited to whatever dollar amount the legislature decided it deserved during the appropriations process.

The Oregon credit has also taken heat in recent weeks for its lack of accountability – specifically, by providing benefits to businesses that have done little or anything to create jobs or improve the environment.  And moreover, because of the “transferability” of these credits, the program has also resulted in huge windfall benefits to businesses, including Walmart, that have made absolutely no attempt to promote the credit’s environmental goals.

In order to quell the outrange expressed by Oregonians at this blatant misuse of state resources, the Governor has since proposed, among other things, to cap the overall size of the BETC program and force the government to prioritize potential projects in order to bring the cost of the program beneath that cap.  It remains to be seen whether the Governor’s recommendations will be enough to salvage this so far disastrous program.

While Oregon’s recent experience with BETC provides anecdotal evidence of the danger of relying upon the tax code as a tool of economic development, evidence from Massachusetts provides an even more comprehensive picture of this problem.  The Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center’s (MBPC) recent analysis of economic development tax incentives shows that while traditional government “spending” has been forced downward by the economic recession, spending on business tax incentives has continued to rise sharply.  The 2.8% drop in FY10 appropriations, for example, contrasts sharply with a 4.2% increase in FY10 economic development tax breaks.  MBPC explains the cause of this asymmetry as follows:

“Tax expenditures are in many ways similar to direct appropriations. Both seek to achieve certain policy goals through the use of the state’s economic resources, and both have an effect on the state’s bottom line. A primary difference is that budget appropriations must be reauthorized by the Legislature each year, while tax expenditures remain in effect without the Legislature having to take action.  The effectiveness of these tax expenditures is rarely examined in any detail and very little data is available to analyze.”

In order to correct this bias in favor of special tax breaks, the MBPC proposes six reforms designed to shine a brighter light on these programs.  The first such reform, “provide information on the purpose and effectiveness of each tax expenditures,” mirrors a proposal made by CTJ just last month.

On the heels of this disappointing news from Oregon and Massachusetts comes a proposal from Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley to provide businesses with a $3,000 tax credit for each employee they hire.  While the Governor has thankfully proposed to cap the overall credit at $20 million, one can’t help but wonder whether another economic development tax break is really the best use of the state’s very scarce resources.

This week, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in partnership with state groups in forty-one states, released the 3rd edition of “Who Pays? A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All 50 States.”  The report found that, by an overwhelming margin, most states tax their middle- and low-income families far more heavily than the wealthy.  The response has been overwhelming.

In Michigan, The Detroit Free Press hit the nail on the head: “There’s nothing even remotely fair about the state’s heaviest tax burden falling on its least wealthy earners.  It’s also horrible public policy, given the hard hit that middle and lower incomes are taking in the state’s brutal economic shift.  And it helps explain why the state is having trouble keeping up with funding needs for its most vital services.  The study provides important context for the debate about how to fix Michigan’s finances and shows how far the state really has to go before any cries of ‘unfairness’ to wealthy earners can be taken seriously.”

In addition, the Governor’s office in Michigan responded by reiterating Gov. Granholm’s support for a graduated income tax.  Currently, Michigan is among a minority of states levying a flat rate income tax.

Media in Virginia also explained the study’s importance.  The Augusta Free Press noted: “If you believe the partisan rhetoric, it’s the wealthy who bear the tax burden, and who are deserving of tax breaks to get the economy moving.  A new report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy and the Virginia Organizing Project puts the rhetoric in a new light.”

In reference to Tennessee’s rank among the “Terrible Ten” most regressive state tax systems in the nation, The Commercial Appeal ran the headline: “A Terrible Decision.”  The “terrible decision” to which the Appeal is referring is the choice by Tennessee policymakers to forgo enacting a broad-based income tax by instead “[paying] the state’s bills by imposing the country’s largest combination of state and local sales taxes and maintaining the sales tax on food.”

In Texas, The Dallas Morning News ran with the story as well, explaining that “Texas’ low-income residents bear heavier tax burdens than their counterparts in all but four other states.”  The Morning News article goes on to explain the study’s finding that “the media and elected officials often refer to states such as Texas as “low-tax” states without considering who benefits the most within those states.”  Quoting the ITEP study, the Morning News then points out that “No-income-tax states like Washington, Texas and Florida do, in fact, have average to low taxes overall.  Can they also be considered low-tax states for poor families?  Far from it.”

Talk of the study has quickly spread everywhere from Florida to Nevada, and from Maryland to Montana.  Over the coming months, policymakers will need to keep the findings of Who Pays? in mind if they are to fill their states’ budget gaps with responsible and fair revenue solutions.

With legislative sessions starting in just a few months, advocates and the press are weighing in on the options available to cash-strapped states. Kentucky lawmakers are urged to find a real solution to the state's fiscal woes. Idaho's Governor is suddenly open to delaying an improvement in an important tax justice tool. Maryland advocates urge a balanced approach to this year's budget, Arizona researchers offer insight into the cost of previous tax cuts, and Ohio lawmakers rethink their own previously enacted tax cuts.

Kentucky

Late last week, Kentucky's Lexington-Herald Leader published an editorial urging lawmakers to reform that state's tax code, saying "Our representatives and senators turned to a 'smoke and mirrors' approach to budgeting because they simply lacked the backbone to do the right thing: Pass the kind of real tax reform that could provide state government with a stable, sustainable revenue base." They fear that during this session lawmakers will continue to cut important programs instead of fixing the state's revenue stream. The paper warns the lawmakers appear to be on track to continue "robbing Peter to pay Paul...Only this time, Peter is a schoolchild."

Idaho

Tax fairness advocates in Idaho may be facing a similar uphill battle. Governor Butch Otter, once a strong proponent of the state's grocery tax credit (which helps to offset the state's sales tax on food), has now left the door open for delaying an increase in the credit amount in order to save the state $15.5 million. Of course, now is precisely the wrong time to delay such an important credit specifically targeted to help offset the state's regressive sales tax on food. While it's important to keep all options on the table, during this time of fiscal upheaval delaying the increase in this credit is an option that should be quickly dismissed.

Maryland

Recently the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute released a paper urging lawmakers to approach the state's budget woes in a balanced way. The report makes a strong case against a cuts-only budget. "An all-cuts budget solution would sacrifice too many of the things that make Maryland such a great state." The report goes on to offer a list of concrete revenue-raising options available to lawmakers interested in preserving the state's education, health, and transportation programs.

Arizona

Arizona's budget woes are dire. A new report from the Arizona Children's Action Alliance describes the state's budget crater, which is projected to be $1.5 billion for FY10 and $2.5 billion in FY11. The report is useful for any Arizona advocate interested in understanding the impact that previous rounds of tax cuts have had on the resources available to fund public services. It explains "why any [budget] package that results in further net loss to the state general fund endangers the common benefits that Arizona counts on." The report goes on to offer ten reasons why the state should freeze and reverse the harmful tax cuts from recent years.

Ohio

Last week, the Ohio House of Representatives voted to suspend the state's scheduled income tax rate reductions for two years to help plug a budget hole. Governor Ted Strickland congratulated members of the House, saying they "acted quickly, courageously and responsibly to protect Ohio schools from devastating cuts while reducing their own pay in solidarity with struggling Ohio families and businesses." Now the legislation moves to the state's Republican controlled Senate. Let's hope lawmakers there follow in the House's footsteps and put the needs of Ohio first.

Anyone who has ever wondered about the extent of corporate tax avoidance in Maryland need wonder no longer: a new analysis from the state’s Bureau of Revenue Estimates (BRE) suggests that it is quite substantial.  The analysis, mandated by law two years ago, answers some very important questions: if Maryland had used combined reporting as part of its corporate income tax in 2006, how much more revenue would the state have collected and how would it have affected the taxes paid by certain businesses and industries? 

Combined reporting, as this ITEP issue brief explains, is the single most effective means of curbing corporate tax avoidance available to state policymakers. Given the degree of corporate tax avoidance at the state level, its adoption should, overall, be expected to generate significant amounts of additional tax revenue. This is true even if some corporations, due to varying levels of profitability among their subsidiaries, end up paying less in taxes.

Not surprisingly, that is what the BRE’s analysis finds.  Had combined reporting been part of Maryland’s tax code in 2006, the state, on net, would have collected as much as $170 million in additional revenue, an amount equivalent to nearly 20 percent of total corporate income tax collections that year. 

What’s more, as a related analysis from the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute (MBTPI) points out, it is typically larger businesses that would pay additional taxes under combined reporting.  The data released by the BRE indicate that as much as 70 percent of corporations with incomes over $25 million would have owed higher taxes in 2006 had combined reporting been in effect.

To be sure, the BRE’s analysis goes to great lengths to emphasize that, given current economic conditions and other factors, Maryland would not immediately realize $170 million in new revenue if the Assembly and the Governor were to enact combined reporting legislation tomorrow or next week – and you can be certain that opponents of combined reporting will strive to make the same point. 

Still, as the MBTPI argues, there’s no time like the present for action.  Combined reporting is not some new or risky gambit. The majority of states that have corporate income taxes now use it. (Some have used combined reporting for over sixty years.) Nor will waiting longer to adopt it help address Maryland’s long-term fiscal problems.  Fortunately, it appears that some Maryland legislators, such as Senator Paul Pinsky, may be ready to take up the issue once the Assembly reconvenes next year.

There’s a lot that can go wrong when a state turns to legalized gambling as a source of revenue.  This is a fact that Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and others should keep in mind during their continuing efforts to push for expanded gambling as a solution to their budget woes

For starters, a poor economy, opposition by local residents, legal challenges, and a number of other factors can delay the opening of newly legal gambling establishments.  And without functioning gambling venues, there’s no money for the state.  Recent stories out of Maryland and Pennsylvania demonstrate the very real nature of this threat.  Additionally, recent polling done in Illinois suggests that opposition to gambling at the local level – fueled in part, no doubt, by the Not-In-My-Back-Yard (NIMBY) syndrome – could cause similar delays there.  And legal challenges in Ohio indicate that the Buckeye state could be in for delays in gambling implementation as well.

But even after a state manages to get its gambling operations up and running, the revenue stream produced by gambling may not be as lucrative as advertised.  A recent New York Times story details the degree to which gambling revenues (from casinos, racetracks, lotteries, etc) are disappointing states this year.  The most obvious culprit in this case is the slumping economy, though some experts believe that increasing competition for gamblers both between states, and within states – known as “market saturation” – may be at least partially to blame.  Worries about market saturation have been on full display in Ohio, where racetrack owners are on edge about the effect that casino legalization (to be voted on by Ohioans this November) could have in cutting into their profits.

In other cases, it may simply be the case that gambling just isn’t as popular as first expected.  The perceived need among many states to legalize slot machine gambling as a means of drawing gamblers back to struggling racetracks is evidence of this problem.  Unfortunately, the failure of this method in Indiana has drawn into question the wisdom of this revenue-raising strategy as well.

Other methods, such as loosening the restrictions on betting limits or alcohol sales (which were originally imposed to secure support for gambling from reluctant lawmakers) are being tried as well.

Ultimately, the fact is that gambling is far from a fiscal panacea for the states, and given the tendency for implementation delays, is exceedingly unlikely to result in much revenue to fix the current round of state budget shortfalls.  Take a look at this ITEP policy brief for more on the gambling issue.

For several decades, the American economy has shifted from producing consumer goods to providing services. As a result, states that tax the purchase of goods but not the purchase of services will increasingly find themselves unable to raise the revenue needed to support public services.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report this week that explains why states should expand their sales tax bases to include services. The report offers various reasons why taxing services is a good policy prescription including: increased short- and long-term revenues, the potential for less volatility in the sales tax, and the potential for more administrative compliance.

A helpful discussion of the pros and cons of taxing business-to-business services is also included. Advocates interested in knowing how much revenue could potentially be raised from expanding the sales tax base to include services will also find the state-by-state estimates included in the paper very informative.

The Maryland Business Tax Reform Commission met last Thursday specifically to discuss trends in business taxation across the country. During the meeting ITEP offered testimony regarding the wide variety of options policymakers have when seeking to reform their business taxes.

For example, in the past several years, a handful of states, including Ohio and Texas, have completely changed how they tax businesses operating within their boundaries. Other states like California have modified their basic apportionment formulas, while still more continue to offer a variety of tax credits and inducements with the aim of luring or retaining employers.

ITEP's remarks specifically focused on one particular trend: the move to require combined reporting of a corporate group's nation-wide income to state tax authorities. Under combined reporting, a multi-state corporation calculates its income for tax purposes by adding together the income of all its subsidiaries -- without regard to their location -- into one total. That total is then apportioned to the state using the combined apportionment factors of the entities that comprise the corporation.

Without this reform, corporations can use various accounting tricks and sham transactions (which exist only on paper) to shift profits into a state that has no corporate income tax. Simply put, combined reporting represents the most comprehensive option available to states seeking to halt the erosion of their corporate tax bases and to curtail corporate tax avoidance.

Since 2004, seven states have adopted combined reporting. In fact, a majority of the states that levy a corporate income tax of some kind now use this approach to determining the tax liabilities of multi-state businesses. Read ITEP's testimony here on the importance of combined reporting and the gains experienced by states that have enacted the measure.

Earlier this month, Maryland Comptroller of the Treasury Peter Franchot submitted a letter to Governor Martin O'Malley and the state's legislative leadership that, among other things, maintained that the number of millionaires filing tax returns in the state had dropped significantly. News outlets, such as the Washington Examiner, subsequently seized on his assertion, arguing that tax changes enacted over the past two years were driving the affluent out of the Free State. As this latest release from ITEP demonstrates, Maryland's millionaires may be moving, but their likely destination is a lower income group. Preliminary data from the Maryland Comptroller's Office suggest that the number of returns falling in the ranges of income below a million dollars have grown at above average rates in the past year. This, in turn, may indicate that the wealthy haven't left; rather, They've just been left with less money due to the economic downturn. Nevertheless, as ITEP's release points out, using preliminary data at this point in the tax collection process to draw conclusions about tax policy changes is a fool's errand. In 2007, preliminary returns for filers with taxable incomes over $1 million comprised less than one-third of the total returns the state ultimately received from taxpayers in that income group.

Despite their obvious unfairness, tax amnesties are a tool frequently used by states during tough budgetary times. By waiving late fees and sometimes reducing the interest rate charged on overdue taxes, state policymakers can provide their state with a quick band-aid fix without having to make the much harder choice of raising taxes or cutting valued services. But penalizing similar taxpayers at different rates dependent only upon whether they decide to pay up during an amnesty period is plainly unfair. The problems associated with amnesties become even worse, however, as soon as a state establishes a habit of repeatedly offering amnesties during tough economic times.

With the possibility of another amnesty always on the horizon, delinquent taxpayers will think twice before settling their debts with the state during normal times, and at normal penalty rates. Creating multiple sets of penalties (one for normal times, and one, lower penalty when budgets shortfalls are projected) therefore reduces fairness by penalizing similar taxpayers differently based only on the timing of their payment, and can also reduce the effectiveness of enforcement efforts and the tax system broadly. These effects can continue long after the most recent amnesty period ends. (Note that this is very similar to the argument against allowing corporations to "repatriate" their profits to the U.S. at a lower rate, a proposal which was recently rejected at the federal level).

Despite the obvious problems, Maryland and New Mexico are both considering legislation to once again provide temporary tax amnesty programs some time in the coming months. New Mexico last provided an amnesty less than a decade ago, while Maryland's last amnesty came in 2001. After that 2001 amnesty, the Maryland comptroller's office noted that "repeated use of amnesties is likely to create cynicism among law-abiding taxpayers, and lessen the need for voluntary compliance with state tax laws, which is vital for our system of taxation". Should another amnesty be offered less than a decade after the 2001 amnesty, growth in taxpayer cynicism seems unavoidable, especially in light of the fact that a similar program offered in 1987 in the state was billed as a "once-in-a-lifetime" opportunity for delinquent payers.

Without a doubt, the momentum in favor of such programs is strong. Alabama is already in the mist of an amnesty period (the state last offered an amnesty in 1984). Massachusetts is currently in the process of deciding upon a date for its amnesty program (Massachusetts last provided amnesty in 2003). Connecticut's program is already slated to take effect on May 1st (Connecticut's last amnesty took place in 2002). And Oklahoma just recently closed its most recent amnesty period, just seven years after its 2002 amnesty.

In this environment, it is extremely important for state policymakers to not only oppose more amnesties, but also to convincingly state that another amnesty will not be offered any time in the near future. For states looking to responsibly close their tax gaps, stepping-up enforcement spending is often a route that can produce sizeable returns, and is undoubtedly much more fair than trying to get something for nothing by arbitrarily waiving penalties in an effort to boost voluntary "compliance". For more specific alternatives to the tax amnesty approach, take a look at these recent enforcement recommendations from Oregon's Department of Revenue.

At the state level, the usual response to recommendations that taxes be increased to preserve vital state services has generally been: "Now is not the time". The most notable exception to this trend so far has been with the cigarette tax, as we've explained before. Increasingly, however, policymakers appear to be coming around to the idea of boosting gas tax rates in order to raise the revenue needed to maintain our nation's infrastructure. Given that most state gas taxes haven't been increased for quite a few years, and that during that time inflation has significantly eroded the value of most gas tax rates, our only response can be, "It's about time."

In Maryland, for example, the Senate President recently expressed an interest in raising the gas tax, urging that "there's got to be an increase in the transportation trust fund somewhere, and there's got to be a way we can find people with the political will to make it happen". Numerous governors have echoed this call as of late, most recently in Massachusetts, and Idaho.

In Idaho, especially, the Governor was able to hit the nail on the head with his observation that, "[we last raised] the fuel tax... 13 years ago. And now here we are trying to accomplish 2009 goals with 1996 dollars. Everyone in this room or listening to me throughout Idaho today -- everyone who has a household budget or runs a business -- knows that just doesn't work".

In response to this problem, Idaho Governor "Butch" Otter has recommended bumping the gas tax upward by 2 cents in each of the next 5 years. Addressing the root of the problem even more directly, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has proposed indexing the gas tax rate to inflation -- a practice that had existed in Wisconsin up until 2006. Maine and Florida continue to index their gas tax rates today, with very favorable results in terms of providing each state with a somewhat more adequate and sustainable source of transportation revenue.

Importantly, the federal gas tax is not indexed to inflation, meaning that the Federal Highway Trust Fund is suffering from many of the same problems we see plaguing the states mentioned above. The federal gas tax has not been increased in over 15 years. President Obama's new Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has previously gone on the record as supporting raising the gasoline tax. The views of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood are not yet clear. What is clear, however, is that something will have to be done at the federal, as well as the state level, if gas tax revenues are to be restored to their previous purchasing power.

Of course, the gas tax is not perfect. Aside from the long-term issues arising out of improved fuel efficiency (which we need to begin planning for now), the regressivity of the tax is very worrisome, especially in these difficult times. Fortunately, low-income gas tax credits, as we've advocated on multiple occasions, are very capable of remedying this shortcoming.

Arizona voters wisely rejected Proposition 105, a proposal that would have placed a nearly insurmountable obstacle in the way of Arizona residents seeking to raise their own taxes through the referendum process.

Arkansas voters approved a measure to institute a state lottery. While the state could certainly use the additional revenue, Arkansans should be wary of funding their government through regressive revenue sources such as the lottery.

Maine residents rejected an increase in the alcohol and soda taxes to fund health care. While it's certainly a bad thing that these taxes are regressive (as well as unlikely to exhibit sustainable growth in the coming years), the ludicrousness of the fervent opposition this relatively minor tax created can be read about in this Digest article and this blog post.

Maryland residents also decided to secure additional revenues for their government via expanded gambling, in the form of 15,000 new slot machines. Check out this Digest article to learn about some of the problems with this proposal.

Missouri also attempted to increase its haul from gambling. Increased gambling taxes and the elimination of limitations on the amount of money one is allowed to lose were approved by voters this Tuesday. This Digest article explains how the proposal leaves much to be desired.

Minnesota voters decided to go through with a 3/8ths percent sales tax hike. While the environmental causes to which the funds will be dedicated are undoubtedly worthy, the regressive way in which voters decided to go about funding the projects (through the sales tax) is far from ideal.

Nevada residents voted to amend their constitution to require that all new sales and property tax exemptions be subjected to a benefit-cost analysis, and accompanied by a sunset provision that will force their reexamination in the future. While the proposal sounds good in theory, its requirements are relatively loose in practice. It will be up to Nevadans to carefully watch their representatives to ensure that the spirit of this law is adhered to. Learn more about this proposal here.

Maryland is one of more than twenty states struggling with mid-year budget shortfalls as a result of a weak economy and the corresponding slump in tax collections. While this fact wasn't the original impetus for this November's ballot proposal to introduce 15,000 slot machines into the state, it has swayed some observers into supporting the measure, despite the fact that it would be years before the first slot machine lever is ever pulled.

As in Missouri, the backers of the proposal have tried to dress up slots in Maryland by linking the new revenue to education. But since no requirement exists that total education funding actually increase, there is no barrier to using revenues from the machines to simply replace revenue currently coming out of the general revenue fund. This hasn't deterred many supporters, though, as the increasingly dire situation of the Maryland budget has boosted the appeal of gaining additional government revenue (no matter how far off in the future) without raising taxes.

But taxes, particularly the income tax, have some notable advantages over gambling revenues as a means of paying for government. Though supporters of the measure have dismissed the idea of raising taxes during these tough economic times, they fail to acknowledge that gambling revenues are disproportionately collected from those less well-off individuals most harmed by the weak economy. Taxes also do not create the inevitable social ills that accompany gambling, which can end up draining a significant portion of the revenues expected from introducing slots.

Two other problems also plague the specific proposal facing Maryland. First, some question has been raised as to the accuracy of the revenue figures provided by Legislative Analysts in the state. Those estimates are unavoidably sensitive to economic conditions at the time of the introduction of slots, and to the gambling policies of other states.

Second, as Jeff Hooke of the Maryland Tax Education Foundation has pointed out, the proposal offers an unwarranted sweetheart deal to the horse raising industry, in the form of government subsidized winnings, or "purses". About $100 million of the government's portion of slot machine revenues will be dedicated to boosting racing purses. Hooke argues that this will do nothing to help Maryland's racing industry, and the majority of the money will go to out-of-state horse owners. Though this subsidy to racing purses has been reduced substantially from what was originally proposed, it is still an irresponsible use of slot machine revenues.

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius this week again voiced support for a 50 cent cigarette tax hike, proposing that the revenue be dedicated to expanding health care coverage to more low-income Kansans. This story should sound familiar, as numerous tax-phobic states in search of ways to pay for popular government services have recently turned to the cigarette tax.

The benefits that a higher cigarette tax would produce in terms of reduced smoking deaths and improved public health are well-documented in the recommendations included in a recent report from the Kansas Health Policy Authority. But it's the tension such an arrangement would create between efforts to reduce smoking, and efforts to fund health care, that is controversial.

Arkansas this year attempted to pass a similar cigarette tax hike dedicated to funding a new health trauma system. South Carolina pursued similar legislation (eventually vetoed by the Governor) that was designed to direct new cigarette tax hike revenues into a popular health-care expansion.

In each of these cases, legislators were seeking to fund vital programs (each of which naturally increases in cost over time) with a revenue source that is sure to decline with time. South Carolina briefly considered one interesting approach to this problem (indexing the amount of its tax to a measure of medical cost inflation) but that proposal was ultimately dropped from the final bill.

Sustainability issues arise not only from inflation, however, but also from decreases in the popularity of smoking, and increases in the incentives to purchase cigarettes in low-tax areas. This latter component of the sustainability problem, in particular, has received a good bit of attention as of late.

With cigarette tax rates having increased substantially in many parts of the country, the rewards to smokers associated with shopping in low-tax areas have grown. A recent study by Howard Chernick entitled "Cigarette Tax Rates and Revenue" found that a 10% increase in the cigarette tax rate of one state can boost the revenue collections of a neighboring state by about 1%. Maryland provides one stark example of this phenomenon, where a recent tax hike has yielded significantly less than expected as a result of cross-border cigarette purchases and smuggling. The experience of New Hampshire, however, may suggest that this point has only limited applicability (see next story).