Charts comparing Hunter and Gregoire supplemental budgets

I have prepared two pie charts that allow a comparison of Rep. Hunter’s supplemental budget proposal to the "Book 1" supplemental budget that Gov. Gregoire released in November. By the governor’s reckoning at that point in time, the state faced a shortfall of nearly $2 billion in the general fund–state budget for the remainder of the 2011–13 biennium. (This number was predicated on her desire that projected reserves [the ending balances the GF-S itself and the budget stabilization account] total $600 million.)

The first chart divides Gov. Gregoire’s solution to the problem into five slices: $176 million in transfers of funds to the GF-S; $74 million in reductions in distributions of funds from the GF-S to state and county governments; $389 million from delaying payments to school districts; $1,240 million net in policy level reductions to appropriations for the biennium and $102 million in maintenance level reductions to appropriations for the biennium. (Maintenance level reductions largely reflect reductions in the forecasts of costs of entitlement programs such as medical assistance and state funding for basic education.)

2.22.12 pic

Gov. Gregoire also prepared a second "Book 2" budget proposal, which included $836 million of new revenue. With the additional revenue, policy level spending cuts would be reduced to $404 million.

The second chart shows the solution embodied in Rep. Hunter’s budget, which builds upon the supplemental budget passed during the December special session of the legislature. Rep. Hunter’s solution gets about as much from fund transfers, reduced distributions to cities and counties, and delayed payments to school districts as did Gov. Gregoire. The recent revision the forecast of GF-S revenues provides $45 million; new revenue (the change with respect to unclaimed property enacted during the December special session, and proposals to tax roll-your-own cigarette machines and to limit the B&O 1st mortgage deduction so that it only applies to community banks) provides $85 million; and reducing the projected ending reserves to $500 million contributes about $100 million.

2.2.12 2 pic

The biggest differences between the Hunter and Gregoire supplemental proposals involve policy level and maintenance level spending cuts. Recent caseload forecast reductions allow $430 million in maintenance level spending cuts in Rep. Hunter’s supplemental; consequently his supplemental requires only $677 million in policy level cuts, which is a little mort than one-half of the policy level cuts in Gov. Gregoire’s Book 1 budget.

Add new comment