美国经济分析（中金公司）

美国经济 Issue No: 09/27 2009 年 7 月 10 日 未经授权不得翻阅 高华经济研究网站 经济研究来自高华客户网 https://portal.ghsl.cn 各州和地方前景：巨大的财政拖累！ 在人们开始谈论另一轮的联邦财政刺激计划时，美国经济正遭遇来自州和地方政府 的财政拖累。媒体广泛报道的加利福尼亚 州财政困境仅仅是全美各州、市政府普遍 面临的严重财政失衡问题的一个极端案 例。 尽管 2 月份通过的联邦计划包含旨在援助 各州和地方政府应对不断出现的预算缺口 的多项条款，但从目前状况来看这些缺口 似乎仍在不断扩大。我们预计，联邦援助 只能抵消州政府官员在今年春天预计的 2010 财政年度 1,210 亿美元预算缺口的 三分之二。 除了要填补剩余 400-450 亿美元的缺口 外，州政府在未来一年还将面临更大的收 入下行压力。总而言之，我们认为，他们 将需要增税或削减开支 800-1,000 亿美元 （占 GDP 的 0.6%-0.7%）。 如果经济增长低于我们的温和预测，或者 如果地方政府发现，由于房价下跌和/或 陷入困境的房主救济的压力不断加 大，房地产税（历来是收入增长的一个稳 定来源）逐渐下降，那么上述预测可能还 太低。 在本周发布的极其有限的数据中，大多数 都好于预期。特别是大大低于预期的 5 月 份贸易赤字促使我们将二季度实际 GDP 折年增幅预测从此前的-3%上调至-1%。 我们对三、四季度 GDP 增长率的预测维 持在+1%不变。 预算缺口继续扩大 $121.2 $102.7 $31.8 $15.6 $15.0 $40.3 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 2009 2010 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. Billions of dollars Billions of dollars As of: Jan '09 Nov '08 Before Budget Adoption Apr '09 Fiscal Year 州财政的拖累作用可达 1,000 亿美元 Billions of Dollars Estimated Fiscal 2010 Gap $121bn Less: Federal Stimulus $76bn-$81bn Equals: Amount for States to Plug $40bn-$45bn Plus: Revenue Shortfalls Personal Income Taxes $23bn-$38bn Sales Taxes $15bn Corporate Profits Taxes $3bn Equals: Total Drag $81bn-$101bn Source: National Association of State Budget Officers. Our Estimates. Jan Hatzius jan.hatzius@gs.com 212 902 0394 Ed McKelvey ed.mckelvey@gs.com 212 902 3393 Alec Phillips alec.phillips@gs.com 202 637 3746 Andrew Tilton andrew.tilton@gs.com 212 357 2619 David Kelley david.kelley@gs.com 重要信息披露见本最后部分 US Economics Analyst Issue No: 09/27 July 10, 2009 Gao Hua Economics Research at https://portal.ghsl.cn The State and Local Outlook: What a (Fiscal) Drag! Jan Hatzius jan.hatzius@gs.com 212 902 0394 Ed McKelvey ed.mckelvey@gs.com 212 902 3393 Alec Phillips alec.phillips@gs.com 202 637 3746 Andrew Tilton andrew.tilton@gs.com 212 357 2619 David Kelley david.kelley@gs.com 212 902 6726 As talk of another dose of federal fiscal stimulus surfaces, the US economy is bracing for a fiscal drag from state and local governments. California’s much-publicized woes are merely the most extreme example of a serious imbalance that pervades state capitols and city halls across the land. Although the federal package passed in February contained several provisions aimed at helping states and localities cope with emerging budget gaps, those gaps now look much wider. We reckon that the federal help will offset only two-thirds of the $121bn in budget gaps projected by state officials this past spring for fiscal 2010. In addition to plugging the remaining $40bn- $45bn hole, state officials are apt to face more downside revenue surprises over the next year. Altogether, we think they will need to impose tax hikes or spending cuts of $80bn-$100bn, or 0.6%-0.7% of GDP. This range could be too low if the economy underperforms our modest expectations or if local governments find that property taxes— historically a stable source of revenue growth—give way to falling home prices and/or mounting pressure for relief from beleaguered homeowners. Most of the very limited data released this week came in ahead of expectations. In particular, the much smaller-than-anticipated trade deficit in May has led us to mark up our second-quarter real GDP estimate to -1% at an annual rate, from -3% previously. Our expectation for growth in the third and fourth quarters remains unchanged at +1%. Budget Gaps Keep Growing $121.2 $102.7 $31.8 $15.6 $15.0 $40.3 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 2009 2010 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. Billions of dollars Billions of dollars As of: Jan '09 Nov '08 Before Budget Adoption Apr '09 Fiscal Year The State Fiscal Drag Could Reach $100 Billion Billions of Dollars Estimated Fiscal 2010 Gap $121bn Less: Federal Stimulus $76bn-$81bn Equals: Amount for States to Plug $40bn-$45bn Plus: Revenue Shortfalls Personal Income Taxes $23bn-$38bn Sales Taxes $15bn Corporate Profits Taxes $3bn Equals: Total Drag $81bn-$101bn Source: National Association of State Budget Officers. Our Estimates. Important disclosures appear at the back of this document. GS Global ECS US Research US Economics Analyst Issue No: 09/27 2 July 10, 2009 I. The State and Local Outlook: What a (Fiscal) Drag! As talk of another dose of federal fiscal stimulus surfaces, the US economy is bracing for a fiscal drag from state and local governments. California’s much publicized issuance of $3.6 billion (bn) in registered warrants, more commonly known as IOUs, is only the most extreme example of the budget stress that now pervades state capitols and city halls across the land. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), state governments have projected budget gaps totaling $121bn (0.9% of GDP) for their upcoming fiscal 2010 years, most of which began on July 1. By our reckoning, the federal fiscal stimulus enacted in February covers only about two-thirds of this gap. Moreover, tax revenues are apt to continue falling far short of projections if the economic recovery is as anemic as we expect. Altogether, we estimate that fiscal drag from state governments will amount to $80bn-$100bn (0.6%-0.7% of GDP) over the next 12 months. Risks tilt to the side of a larger drag if the economy disappoints or if local jurisdictions suffer losses in property tax revenue. Historically a Cushion during Recessions… In theory, state and local governments should be a pro-cyclical force in the US economy, especially in the direction of aggravating recessions as they unfold. Almost all state governments are constitutionally required to balance their operating budgets while most local jurisdictions face similar constraints, imposed either by law or by limited access to external financing. This would seem to force austerity when tax revenues start to flag in a recession and perhaps reinforce recovery as revenues turn up in response to increases in consumer spending and employment. In practice, however, the pattern has been more countercyclical for four reasons: 1. A revenue lag. While state and local governments collect much of their revenue in real time—via payroll withholdings, sales and excise tax receipts, and fees— the April-May tax season is still important for assessing the full scale of a shift in the economy’s momentum, as most state income taxes piggy-back onto the federal tax code and collection process. This is especially true when sharp changes in equity prices prompt the realization of unusual capital gains or losses, in turn inducing the affected taxpayers to adjust estimated tax payments for the following year. 2. A budgeting lag. This timing is quite unfortunate because most states and localities operate on a July-to- June fiscal year. Thus, state legislatures and other governing bodies have only a short window of time in which to adjust budgets for the upcoming fiscal year to unexpected revenue shortfalls. The result is often an incomplete response, which in turn leads to midcourse corrections in years of persistent weakness. 3. The development of “rainy day” funds. Over the years, state governments have responded to these stresses by establishing fiscal stabilization funds, commonly known as “rainy day” funds, and building them up during years of strong tax flows. These funds then provide a cushion for the next round of weakness, allowing lawmakers to postpone tax hikes and budget cuts. 4. The short duration of most US recessions. The downturn now underway is only the third since World War II to last more than 11 months. In combination with the first three factors, this means that state and local spending has usually continued to contribute to real GDP growth during recessions, but sometimes at the cost of a drag in the ensuing recovery. These drags have been particularly noticeable in the last two cycles, when jobless recoveries limited the growth in income tax revenues. All but the final factor have been on display over the past 18 months. According to the NCSL, in early 2008 31 states and Puerto Rico estimated an aggregate budget gap of $40.3bn for the ensuing fiscal 2009 year.1 After that hole was plugged during the budget season, a new one opened up as revenues continued to fall short of expectations. As shown in Exhibit 1 (on page 3), this new gap doubled from an already hefty $31.8bn in November to $62.4bn as of April, by which time 43 states and Puerto Rico were involved. Although the NCSL tally ends here, the cumulative shortfall for fiscal 2009 was almost certainly somewhat higher than the $103bn shown in Exhibit 1, as both the Rockefeller Institute for Government and the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) reported deep declines in income tax receipts during the April filing season.2 1 This figure is the sum of the highest gaps projected individually by state budget officers at any time for the upcoming fiscal year rather than a total estimated on a given date. Like the NCSL, we regard this figure as the best measure of the budget measures state governments have to enact in order to restore balance. 2 See Lucy Dadayan and Donald J. Boyd, “April is the Cruelest Month,” the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, June 18, 2009, and The Fiscal Survey of States, June 2009, published jointly by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers. GS Global ECS US Research US Economics Analyst Issue No: 09/27 3 July 10, 2009 Despite this rapid deterioration in state finances, this sector’s outlays continued to rise in real terms through the third quarter of 2008—i.e., nine months into the recession—as budget cuts were not deep enough to overturn a rising trend of outlays, including those for debt-financed construction. While these figures exclude the impact of tax hikes on growth, revenue- raising measures were worth only $1.5bn according to NASBO. More importantly, state governments covered almost one-quarter of the total shortfall by drawing more than $25bn out of rainy day and other funds, as shown in Exhibit 2. …But Time Has Run Out… However, as the recession deepened last fall it outran the state and local sector’s ability to cushion the slide. Real outlays turned down in the fourth quarter of 2008 and fell further in the first quarter of 2009, adding about ¼ percentage point (at an annual rate) to the downward momentum in real GDP over this period. (Data for the second quarter are not yet available.) Although this is a small drag for a sector that absorbs more than one-eighth of US GDP, the risk is that state finances worsen dramatically in fiscal 2010 as the deepest and longest recession since World War II yields to anemic rather than vigorous recovery. It is this risk that US policymakers have tried to head off by allocating part of the federal fiscal stimulus enacted in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) to help state and local governments make ends meet. However, it now appears that these efforts will not be enough. As shown in Exhibit 1, the state and local budget shortfall heading into fiscal 2010 is, in the words of the NCSL, a “jaw-dropping gap of at least $121.2 billion.” This is $40bn-$45bn more than we estimate will be available from ARRA during the state governments’ 2010 fiscal year.3 …And Downside Revenue Risks Remain Large Finding $40-$45bn in additional budget savings might seem like child’s play after the experience of the past year. However, we expect this amount to balloon as revenue shortfalls persist in an anemic recovery, with real GDP rising only about 1¼% between now and the middle of 2010 according to our forecast. Moreover, rainy day funds will not provide as reliable a cushion as they did this year. Although these funds still cover almost 6% of expected expenses, nearly two-fifths of the $36.7bn held at the end of fiscal 2009 was in Alaska and Texas, leaving other funds at only about 3½% of state expenditures. With fiscal 2011 deficits already projected at $44.5bn, state budget officers will be much more reluctant to draw on these funds this year than they were last year. Thus, revenue shortfalls in fiscal 2010 are apt to force more meaningful mid-course corrections than they did in fiscal 2009. To gauge the potential size of these shortfalls, we examined the relationship between each of the three main sources of state revenue—taxes on personal income, sales, and corporate profits—and their underlying determinants. We then used our forecasts for the latter to derive state revenue forecasts for the mid-2009 to mid-2010 fiscal year and compared them to the expectations built into the state budget recommendations made this spring, which seem unduly optimistic to us. According to NASBO, “states are projecting a growth of 1.7 percent in tax collections for fiscal 2010 recommended budgets 3 According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), various state-related provisions of ARRA would cost the federal government $74.2bn during its 2010 fiscal year, which starts three months later than most state fiscal years. Most of this money is for state fiscal stabilization and Medicaid, with smaller sums for law enforcement and education. The $76bn-$81bn we have used in the text adjusts the CBO estimate for the timing difference in fiscal years and for the slower- than-expected payout in fiscal 2009. Exhibit 1: Budget Gaps Keep Growing $121.2 $102.7 $31.8 $15.6 $15.0 $40.3 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 2009 2010 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 Source: National Conference of State Legislatures. Billions of dollars Billions of dollars As of: Jan '09 Nov '08 Before Budget Adoption Apr '09 Fiscal Year Exhibit 2: Rainy Day Funds Have Fallen 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010* 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Billions of Dollars (left) Percentage of Expenditures (right) Billions of dollars Source: National Association of Budget Officers (NASBO). Percent * Estimated by NASBO. "Rainy Day" and Other Funds GS Global ECS US Research US Economics Analyst Issue No: 09/27 4 July 10, 2009 relative to fiscal 2009 current-year estimates,” although it is quick to suggest that disappointments in April receipts may have modified these expectations. The results of this exercise were as follows: 1. Personal income tax receipts could drop by double-digits in fiscal 2010 instead of stabilizing, as state officials now seem to expect. The top panel of Exhibit 3 plots year-to-year changes in the personal taxes paid to state and local governments (almost all to the states) against the year-to-year growth rate for personal income. The link is obviously close, though sharp divergences sometimes occur as movements in equity prices cause capital gains or losses to fluctuate. As the exhibit shows, our forecast for a year-to-year flattening in personal income over the next 12 months (due to net declines in employment and stagnation in wages) sets the stage for a major shock to projections of a slight (1.3%) upturn in income tax receipts built into state budget forecasts as of April. Judging from the exhibit, actual receipts could fall by 10%-15%, or $32bn-$47bn below these projections. Proposed tax law changes account for about $9bn of this difference, leaving a potential shortfall of $23bn-$38bn.4 2. Sales tax receipts are also apt to weaken further, also surprising officials. A comparable analysis for sales taxes—the largest component of state and local tax revenue—yields similar results, as shown in the middle panel. Although we expect nominal consumer spending to turn back up in year-to-year terms later this year, averaging 0.6% for the fiscal year as a whole, the increase is too small to support state budget expectations of a 3% rebound in sales tax receipts. Our best estimate is that these receipts will fall 2%; in this case the econometric results (which find statistical significance in changes in the jobless rate and lagged tax receipts as well as changes in consumption) yield a similar forecast of -1.5%. The five-point difference is worth $21bn, or almost $15bn after accounting for proposed changes in state sales taxes. 4 We also performed a multiple regression analysis on fiscal year changes in income tax receipts, finding that the concurrent growth rate in personal income, the level of unemployment, and changes in the S&P 500 in each of the two preceding calendar years are all significant determinants. This equation produced a somewhat smaller drop of about 8% for fiscal 2010, implying a surprise of $17bn after adjusting for proposed tax law changes. However, because the lead-lag relationship between taxes and income has changed over time, the statistical analysis probably biases the coefficients toward zero; notably, the equation understated this year’s weakness in taxes. For these reasons, we favor the less formal approach taken in the text, recognizing that there is significant uncertainty in any such process. Exhibit 3: More Revenue Disappointments …for Personal Taxes -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 99 01 03 05 07 09 -22.5 -15.0 -7.5 0.0 7.5 15.0 22.5 Personal Income (left) State and Local Personal Income Tax Receipts (right) Percent change, yoy Percent change, yoy Source: Dept of Commerce. NASBO. Our calculations. State budget forecasts (+1.3%) …Sales Taxes… -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 99 01 03 05 07 09 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 Personal Consumption Expenditures (left) State and Local Sales Taxes (right) Percent change, yoy Percent change, yoy Source: Department of Commerce. NASBO. Our calculations. State budget forecasts (+3%) …and Corporate Taxes -50 -25 0 25 50 99 01 03 05 07 09 -50 -25 0 25 50 State and Local Taxes on Corporate Income Corporate Profits Before Tax Percent change, yoy Percent change, yoy Source: Department of Commerce. NASBO. Our calculations. State budget forecasts (-1.7%) GS Global ECS US Research US Economics Analyst Issue No: 09/27 5 July 10, 2009 3. Corporate profit taxes may also disappoint, though the magnitude of the surprise should not be large. The main reason for this conclusion is that corporate profit taxes are much smaller—only about $44bn in fiscal 2009. Also, state officials are looking for a slight further decline of about 1.7% in corporate profit taxes, in contrast to projections of increases in other categories. As shown in the bottom panel of Exhibit 3, our forecast of a modest further decline in pre-tax corporate profits (without adjustments for distortions due to inventory valuation or accelerated depreciation) implies about a 10% drop in corporate tax revenue. The difference is worth about $3bn. Altogether, we reckon that state governments could be called upon to administer $80-$100bn (0.6%-0.7% of GDP) in tax hikes or spending cuts for the fiscal year that just began, as detailed in Exhibit 4. About two- fifths of this should be reflected in the budgets already agreed upon, though eight states have yet to finalize budgets. The remainder is yet to come, as state budget officers find that their expectatio