Fiscal Solvency of 50 States

[SDBoiler1]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/08/How-Fiscally-Healthy-Your-State

States Currently Most Fiscally Solvent
1 - Alaska
2 - North Dakota
3 - South Dakota
4 - Nebraska
5 - Florida
6 - Wyoming
7 - Ohio

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

Hmmm...Anyone see a trend here? First, states that are highly tied to petroleum industries are most solvent. The states, with the exception of KY. that are in the worst shape are tax and spend oriented and highly Democrat-controlled states.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/08/How-Fiscally-Healthy-Your-State

States Currently Most Fiscally Solvent
1 - Alaska
2 - North Dakota
3 - South Dakota
4 - Nebraska
5 - Florida
6 - Wyoming
7 - Ohio

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

Hmmm...Anyone see a trend here? First, states that are highly tied to petroleum industries are most solvent. The states, with the exception of KY. that are in the worst shape are tax and spend oriented and highly Democrat-controlled states.

Tiny population and access to valuable resources are definitely a boon, but not one related to politics. Kind of just dumb luck. Texas isn't on that list for a reason... So it's not just oil/petroleum.

 

[Purdue97]

And that is also why some countries that have universal or a single payer system, that can actually work half decent, do work. They have low populations and a lot of natural resources that they actually drill/mine. That is what is used to fund the program. That is also what I do not get with liberals/democrats that want a single payer/universal health care. They are typically against mining/drilling.

One spot I disagree is where you say solvency is part dumb luck that a state is low population, high resources, and not related to politics. New York and California have access to a lot of oil(not sure on others) and those two states have decided not to drill or mine. That is politics, not dumb luck.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Tiny population and access to valuable resources are definitely a boon, but not one related to politics. Kind of just dumb luck. Texas isn't on that list for a reason... So it's not just oil/petroleum.

gr8,

Never said petroleum was the only factor, but it is correlated with the top states. Yes, correlation is not causation. (Had to say that, because someone would if I didn't.)

 

[gr8indoorsman]

And that is also why some countries that have universal or a single payer system, that can actually work half decent, do work. They have low populations and a lot of natural resources that they actually drill/mine. That is what is used to fund the program. That is also what I do not get with liberals/democrats that want a single payer/universal health care. They are typically against mining/drilling.

One spot I disagree is where you say solvency is part dumb luck that a state is low population, high resources, and not related to politics. New York and California have access to a lot of oil(not sure on others) and those two states have decided not to drill or mine. That is politics, not dumb luck.

California drills. Not sure where you got that from. Fracking is protested here, but still occurs throughout the state. They did stop drilling off shore a while back, but still have some oil platforms operating inside territorial waters if I am not mistaken.

 

[Purdue97]

California drills. Not sure where you got that from. Fracking is protested here, but still occurs throughout the state. They did stop drilling off shore a while back, but still have some oil platforms operating inside territorial waters if I am not mistaken.

You are right and I know they did do some drilling. I should have been more clear in stating that they are restrictive about it. I was there a few years ago visiting some relatives and I remembered reading an article that stated no new leasing had started since the late 60's on state lands and new leasing on federal bans went into place in mid 80's. Still ongoing. Point being, they could really put themselves in batter spot economically if some of it was opened up IMO. I did a real quick internet search and those time frames still seem to be in play.

 

[tigerchump]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/08/How-Fiscally-Healthy-Your-State

States Currently Most Fiscally Solvent
1 - Alaska
2 - North Dakota
3 - South Dakota
4 - Nebraska
5 - Florida
6 - Wyoming
7 - Ohio

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

Hmmm...Anyone see a trend here? First, states that are highly tied to petroleum industries are most solvent. The states, with the exception of KY. that are in the worst shape are tax and spend oriented and highly Democrat-controlled states.

I doubt if the two most solvent are spending many tax dollars on retirees.Who retires to Alaska or North Dakota?./

 

[SDBoiler1]

I doubt if the two most solvent are spending many tax dollars on retirees.Who retires to Alaska or North Dakota?./

Please, do tell. Which of the following would you like to retire to? None of these places are particularly friendly to retirees, outside of KY, because they have high cost-of-living AND have high gasoline, personal and property taxes. These places (outside of KY) are all well-known tax and spend, Democrat-dominated states. Parts of CA are quite nice but they are often also ridiculously expensive.

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

 

[tigerchump]

Please, do tell. Which of the following would you like to retire to? None of these places are particularly friendly to retirees, outside of KY, because they have high cost-of-living AND have high gasoline, personal and property taxes. These places (outside of KY) are all well-known tax and spend, Democrat-dominated states. Parts of CA are quite nice but they are often also ridiculously expensive.

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

I just doubt if many folks retire to Alaska or North Dakota because of the weather.I never knew anyone who told me they want to retire in a state with severe winters.I have no desire to even visit either of those places.I mean what is in North Dakota?

 

[qazplm]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/08/How-Fiscally-Healthy-Your-State

States Currently Most Fiscally Solvent
1 - Alaska
2 - North Dakota
3 - South Dakota
4 - Nebraska
5 - Florida
6 - Wyoming
7 - Ohio

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

Hmmm...Anyone see a trend here? First, states that are highly tied to petroleum industries are most solvent. The states, with the exception of KY. that are in the worst shape are tax and spend oriented and highly Democrat-controlled states.

I see all sorts of trends:

1. Population size.
2. No Texas which shows that no "states that are highly tied to petroleum industries" are not the most solvent. Ohio and Nebraska are not "highly tied" to the petroleum industries, nor has anyone accused Ohio of being a fiscal dynamo.
3. A focus on a narrow set of criteria that set up the premise that is sought (focusing slowly on debt numbers as if that's the only relevant economic number).
4. It lists Kansas as moderate, but that state is in the midst of a full-blown budget crisis.

 

[Purdue97]

4. I thought this ranked fiscal solvency. It is possible to be going through a rough spot in a budget for a year or two, and still be fiscaly solvent, especially long term. I have looked at some of these studies that look at states solvency lately, and the one thing that is killing both CA and TX is retirees health care in the future. Lot of obligations. KS has little to none compared to them. I think that gets KS a moderate grade-not that they do not have near term issues.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I see all sorts of trends:

1. Population size.
2. No Texas which shows that no "states that are highly tied to petroleum industries" are not the most solvent. Ohio and Nebraska are not "highly tied" to the petroleum industries, nor has anyone accused Ohio of being a fiscal dynamo.
3. A focus on a narrow set of criteria that set up the premise that is sought (focusing slowly on debt numbers as if that's the only relevant economic number).
4. It lists Kansas as moderate, but that state is in the midst of a full-blown budget crisis.

1) LOL, population size? KY and CT have huge populations, right?
2) CA, TX and AZ are faced with huge illegal immigration issues. In the past, TX was more strongly Democrat than they are now. Those past TX legislatures saddled the state with some bad deficit spending. If not for that, TX would be in better shape. As it is, they are still middle-of-the-pack largely because of the petroleum industry. As for NE, isn't the Keystone pipeline supposed to run right through it, if not for the Obama Administration's intransigence? OH is in a hell of a lot better shape than the states you seem to like.
3) This discussion is about fiscal solvency. Duh! The numbers don't back your Progressive line of thinking so they must be wrong, right?
4) Again, this discussion is about long-term financial solvency, not what Gov. Brownback has done in the past couple of years.

 

[Noodle]

What Ohio has is effective leadership, particularly Kasich. Not to mention modest, but growing, oil and gas production--Utica shale has been a significant benefit to the state.

Plus, we got the All-Star Game. Yesterday's Futures Game and Legends & Celebrities softball game were fun. Snoop Dogg has some wheels.

 

[lbodel]

Huh?

Most of Europe relies on importing oil/natural gas - hence why dealing with Russia has been so tricky.

And almost every European country has a higher population density than the US.

And to compare a state like Alaska/North Dakota to New York or California is just not accurate or realistic.

And that is also why some countries that have universal or a single payer system, that can actually work half decent, do work. They have low populations and a lot of natural resources that they actually drill/mine. That is what is used to fund the program. That is also what I do not get with liberals/democrats that want a single payer/universal health care. They are typically against mining/drilling.

One spot I disagree is where you say solvency is part dumb luck that a state is low population, high resources, and not related to politics. New York and California have access to a lot of oil(not sure on others) and those two states have decided not to drill or mine. That is politics, not dumb luck.

 

[Noodle]

Huh?

And to compare a state like Alaska/North Dakota to New York or California is just not accurate or realistic.

I agree. However, it is appropriate to compare states like Illinois and Ohio, or Florida and New York. Those pairs of states are very similar in terms of population, yet their current fiscal health differs significantly.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I agree. However, it is appropriate to compare states like Illinois and Ohio, or Florida and New York. Those pairs of states are very similar in terms of population, yet their current fiscal health differs significantly.

Noodle,

I agree about Kasich. Some Democrats rail about how he is gutting "needed" programs, but he has put Ohio on a much better financial path than they've been on in quite some time. Thankfully for Ohioans, the State Legislature has worked reasonably well with Kasich's administration to get things done. I still have a fair number of relatives in OH, and they seem to be unanimous in their praise of the job Kasich has done as Governor. (And they're not all registered Republicans.)

OH is in much better shape than MI or IL, for instance.

 

[Noodle]

Noodle,

I agree about Kasich. Some Democrats rail about how he is gutting "needed" programs, but he has put Ohio on a much better financial path than they've been on in quite some time. Thankfully for Ohioans, the State Legislature has worked reasonably well with Kasich's administration to get things done. I still have a fair number of relatives in OH, and they seem to be unanimous in their praise of the job Kasich has done as Governor. (And they're not all registered Republicans.)

OH is in much better shape than MI or IL, for instance.

Plenty of Republicans are also not thrilled with some of the things Kasich has done--which, in my opinion, often means that a politician is doing a good job.

 

[Purdue97]

Huh?

Most of Europe relies on importing oil/natural gas - hence why dealing with Russia has been so tricky.

And almost every European country has a higher population density than the US.

And to compare a state like Alaska/North Dakota to New York or California is just not accurate or realistic.

I saw you quoted my post but am really guessing you meant to quote a different quote as it does not really match up or make sense to the quoted quote.

-Never compared Ak/ND to NY or CA.
-When I said countries rely on revenue from natural resources to pay for health care, note I did say some countries, and the world is comprised of other countries besides the USA and Europe. In this case, a lot of the middle east is involved. And if you want to infer from that that I do not think much of Europe is in good financial shape and I do not like their health care-go ahead.
-Population density versus total population are two different things. Anyway, at the end of the day, what matters is the total number of people a state is on the hook for with retirement/pension/health care/liabilities/ etc.

 

[TheCainer]

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/07/08/How-Fiscally-Healthy-Your-State

States Currently Most Fiscally Solvent
1 - Alaska
2 - North Dakota
3 - South Dakota
4 - Nebraska
5 - Florida
6 - Wyoming
7 - Ohio

States Currently Least Fiscally Solvent
44 - California
45 - Kentucky
46 - New York
47 - Connecticut
48 - Massachusetts
49 - New Jersey
50 - Illinois

Hmmm...Anyone see a trend here? First, states that are highly tied to petroleum industries are most solvent. The states, with the exception of KY. that are in the worst shape are tax and spend oriented and highly Democrat-controlled states.

Since solvency also relies on which states get the most federal tax dollars returned in proportion to those the states pay in to the federal government, maybe this study will play into this formula.

The trend here seems to indicate that Red states get more tax dollars in return than they contribute while Blue states get less in return. Might there be a co-relation between a state's solvency and the amount of federal tax dollars they contribute and the amount they get in return?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

State's rights, anyone?

 

[qazplm]

Since solvency also relies on which states get the most federal tax dollars returned in proportion to those the states pay in to the federal government, maybe this study will play into this formula.

The trend here seems to indicate that Red states get more tax dollars in return than they contribute while Blue states get less in return. Might there be a co-relation between a state's solvency and the amount of federal tax dollars they contribute and the amount they get in return?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

State's rights, anyone?

no no, it's all about Democrats bad for the economy, republicans good, even though there are plenty of counter-examples for both propositions.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Since solvency also relies on which states get the most federal tax dollars returned in proportion to those the states pay in to the federal government, maybe this study will play into this formula.

The trend here seems to indicate that Red states get more tax dollars in return than they contribute while Blue states get less in return. Might there be a co-relation between a state's solvency and the amount of federal tax dollars they contribute and the amount they get in return?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

State's rights, anyone?

Nice try at obfuscating. You know damn well that this has little to do with the amount of federal tax dollars.

What this does have to do with is the ability of states to properly manage themselves and the political bents the states' politicians and citizens have. If you can't see the correlation between liberal, Progressive, tax-and-spend policies and poor fiscal solvency then you are either blind or such a Progressive ideologue that you don't care to see the correlation. I live in CT and feel the impact of Progressive tax-and-spend policies on a daily basis. We have higher tax rates on gasoline, personal property, and regular property taxes than most anywhere in the nation. And the politicians like Governor Malloy and the kooks in the state legislature continually look for more ways to "raise revenues", all-the-while ignoring the fact that they have a huge deficit which only gets worse by the year and that maybe the problem they have is on the spending side.

 

[qazplm]

Nice try at obfuscating. You know damn well that this has little to do with the amount of federal tax dollars.

What this does have to do with is the ability of states to properly manage themselves and the political bents the states' politicians and citizens have. If you can't see the correlation between liberal, Progressive, tax-and-spend policies and poor fiscal solvency then you are either blind or such a Progressive ideologue that you don't care to see the correlation. I live in CT and feel the impact of Progressive tax-and-spend policies on a daily basis. We have higher tax rates on gasoline, personal property, and regular property taxes than most anywhere in the nation. And the politicians like Governor Malloy and the kooks in the state legislature continually look for more ways to "raise revenues", all-the-while ignoring the fact that they have a huge deficit which only gets worse by the year and that maybe the problem they have is on the spending side.

Just so I understand, solvency has nothing to do with how/where you get your money?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Just so I understand, solvency has nothing to do with how/where you get your money?

If you're honest with yourself, you'd agree that spending more than you take in leads to deficits, which over time compound and become bigger deficits. That is, they become structural. Maybe if the left stopped promising nearly everything to nearly everybody, the states in which they predominate wouldn't have such large longer-term solvency problems?

Ask yourself this - why do the states TheCainer refers to (is trying to defend) have such a large reliance on Federal tax dollars in the first place? Maybe they have endemic policy problems? Maybe they've promised way more benefits to public sector employees than their budgets can bear, for instance?

 

[qazplm]

If you're honest with yourself, you'd agree that spending more than you take in leads to deficits, which over time compound and become bigger deficits. That is, they become structural. Maybe if the left stopped promising nearly everything to nearly everybody, the states in which they predominate wouldn't have such large longer-term solvency problems?

Ask yourself this - why do the states TheCainer refers to (is trying to defend) have such a large reliance on Federal tax dollars in the first place? Maybe they have endemic policy problems? Maybe they've promised way more benefits to public sector employees than their budgets can bear, for instance?

Yes Minnesota is clearly dying from long term solvency problems...California is falling apart, Washington and Oregon, what messes! Meanwhile, Texas isn't having any economic issues, or any of the Southern states, or Kansas...

Yep, pretty much inarguable points there.

And from TheCainer's link:

"It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low."

"The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars."

"One approach is to shine light on the red-states-as takers paradox: Dominated by Republican voters who profess their distaste for the federal government and its social programs, these are the very states that rank highest on the dependency index. "

 

[gr8indoorsman]

CalPERS missed their return estimates by 3% last year. Just continuing the underfunding issue, even after the reforms. Hopefully Fy16 goes better.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yes Minnesota is clearly dying from long term solvency problems...California is falling apart, Washington and Oregon, what messes! Meanwhile, Texas isn't having any economic issues, or any of the Southern states, or Kansas...

Yep, pretty much inarguable points there.

And from TheCainer's link:

"It’s not just that some states are getting way more in return for their federal tax dollars, but the disproportionate amount of federal aid that some states receive allows them to keep their own taxes artificially low."

"The reddest states on that map at the top—Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, New Mexico, Maine—have exceptionally high poverty rates and thus receive disproportionately large shares of federal dollars."

"One approach is to shine light on the red-states-as takers paradox: Dominated by Republican voters who profess their distaste for the federal government and its social programs, these are the very states that rank highest on the dependency index. "

Is this a joke? CA is ranked "Poor" for cash solvency (the ability to pay short-term obligations). CA is falling apart slowly but surely. How many CA cities have filed for bankruptcy?

Let's see now - as of November 2014
San Bernadino
Stockton
Mammoth Lakes (filed, dismissed in court)

Teetering on the edge, includes:
Compton
Sutter Creek
Chico
San Fernando

Sorry, but you have no real leg to stand on here. CA is NOT in good shape, either at the state or municipal levels.

MN is ranked 31 for fiscal solvency. One of your best examples is by definition below average. Well done.

Also, you call out OR and WA as good liberal examples. OR is ranked 25, and WA is 23. Then you have the audacity to ridicule TX and KS. TX is ranked 19 - above all 4 examples you gave. Again, well done! KS is smack dab between OR and WA. Yes, KS is really hurting. Oh wait, you said OR and WA were not messes. I guess KS isn't either? And certainly TX isn't either?

 

[qazplm]

Is this a joke? CA is ranked "Poor" for cash solvency (the ability to pay short-term obligations). CA is falling apart slowly but surely. How many CA cities have filed for bankruptcy?

Let's see now - as of November 2014
San Bernadino
Stockton
Mammoth Lakes (filed, dismissed in court)

Teetering on the edge, includes:
Compton
Sutter Creek
Chico
San Fernando

Sorry, but you have no real leg to stand on here. CA is NOT in good shape, either at the state or municipal levels.

MN is ranked 31 for fiscal solvency. One of your best examples is by definition below average. Well done.

Also, you call out OR and WA as good liberal examples. OR is ranked 25, and WA is 23. Then you have the audacity to ridicule TX and KS. TX is ranked 19 - above all 4 examples you gave. Again, well done! KS is smack dab between OR and WA. Yes, KS is really hurting. Oh wait, you said OR and WA were not messes. I guess KS isn't either? And certainly TX isn't either?

Yes, I'm wrong because it contradicts your bs "fiscal solvency ranking" when I point out why your bs fiscal solvency ranking is bs.

That's brilliant logic...respond to criticisms of a ranking system by citing the very ranking system being criticized.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Yes, I'm wrong because it contradicts your bs "fiscal solvency ranking" when I point out why your bs fiscal solvency ranking is bs.

That's brilliant logic...respond to criticisms of a ranking system by citing the very ranking system being criticized.

My "bs fiscal solvency ranking"? Try George Mason University.

 

[qazplm]

My "bs fiscal solvency ranking"? Try George Mason University.

ok then it's their bs fiscal solvency ranking.