This article is from Cal-Tax Digest, published
by the California Taxpayers' Association.
Cal-Tax Home Page | About Cal-Tax | Subscribe
 November 1998

Cal-Tax Research
California Spending
Comparing State and Local Government
Spending to Other States
By Stephen Kroes

No matter how it is measured, California state and local government spending is at an all-time high. Total general spending of the state, counties, cities, special districts, school districts and other agencies amounted to $145 billion in 1994-95, up 5 percent from the $137 billion total in 1993-94, according to the most recent data available from the federal Census Bureau. This translates to about $4,600 per capita and 19.5 percent of California personal income.

Figure 1 shows how the ratio of spending as a percent of personal income has changed over time. Passage of tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978 reduced spending in the late 1970s and early 1980s, but the trend has been upward since 1983-84, with a recession-caused leveling off in the 1990s. It is worth noting that not all of the decline of the early 1980s was caused by Proposition 13 - the graph shows that other states were also experiencing declines at that time because of a national recession.

Ranking the States
Besides looking at California's own spending history, it is useful to rank California spending against other states. However, simple rankings can often be deceiving. Some analysts complain about per capita rankings because regional differences in costs of living and incomes make it difficult to understand what a given level of spending means in terms of services provided or burden on taxpayers. Some prefer to use rankings based on spending per $1,000 of personal income to compensate for those differences.

However, as explained in the September 1998 Cal-Tax Digest article ("Taxing California"), rankings based on personal income ratios are inherently skewed, showing most high-income states ranking very low in spending and low-income states ranking high. States with a small economic base (many of which are also sparsely populated) must by necessity exert a greater tax effort (higher tax rates and higher spending in proportion to income) simply to provide basic infrastructure and services such as schools, highways, prisons, health and welfare. High-income states, like California, are not forced to exert the same kind of tax effort to provide those services and facilities. Indeed, a smaller percentage of income can yield an even greater level of public services if the economic base is large.

For proper comparison, states must be grouped with others of similar income levels. Therefore, the tables and graphs that follow compare California spending only to other high-income states.

 

 

 

Besides looking at California's own spending history, it is useful to rank California spending against other states. However, simple rankings can often be deceiving.

California's Spending Priorities
Figure 2 shows major spending categories, in order from greatest spending to lowest. California's top spending priorities, in terms of dollars spent, are K-12 education, welfare, and health-related programs. Figure 3 shows that these three categories total 46 percent of all state and local spending in California.

Another way to view priorities is to compare spending ratios to other states. The tables on page 4 show how California compares to other high-income states in major spending categories. California ranks very high compared to these states in all public safety categories - police, fire, corrections, and the court system. California also ranks high in welfare, health and hospitals, housing and community development, natural resources, and financial administration.

California ranks very high compared to these states in all public safety categories - police, fire, corrections, and the court system.

Spending of High-Income States, 1994-95
State and Local Government Expenditures Per $1,000 of Personal Income

Total General Spending
  K-12 Education   Higher Education   Libraries
1. New York 239.59 1. New York 52.48 1. Delaware 24.10 1. Nevada 1.15
2. Hawaii 230.10 2. New Jersey 47.36 2. Hawaii 22.78 2. Illinois 1.09
3. California 195.12 3. Delaware 41.58 3. Colorado 20.00 3. Hawaii 1.04
4. Delaware 192.09 4. Colorado 41.46 4. Virginia 16.15 4. New York 1.01
5. New Jersey 181.01 5. Virginia 40.45 5. Maryland 14.76 5. Virginia 0.99
6. Massachusetts 179.38 6. New Hampshire 39.53 6. California 14.71 6. California 0.97
7. Nevada 177.76 7. Maryland 39.43 7. Illinois 13.00 7. Maryland 0.97
8. Colorado 177.19 8. Illinois 38.20 8. Nevada 12.87 8. New Jersey 0.95
9. Illinois 165.56 9. Connecticut 38.20 9. New York 12.19 9. Connecticut 0.92
10. Connecticut 164.53 10. California 38.04 10. New Hampshire 12.05 10. Massachusetts 0.91
11. Maryland 161.97 11. Massachusetts 36.62 11. New Jersey 11.25 11. Colorado 0.85
12. Virginia 160.63 12. Nevada 35.82 12. Connecticut 8.70 12. New Hampshire 0.74
13. New Hampshire 157.46 13. Hawaii 32.86 13. Massachusetts 8.54 13. Delaware 0.60

Welfare
Health & Hospitals Parks and Recreation Natural Resources
1. New York 51.17 1. New York 23.69 1. Hawaii 8.48 1. Hawaii 3.60
2. Massachusetts 35.81 2. California 19.64 2. Illinois 5.98 2. California 3.50
3. New Hampshire 34.69 3. Hawaii 17.79 3. Nevada 5.84 3. Nevada 2.76
4. California 32.07 4. Massachusetts 15.70 4. Colorado 5.28 4. Delaware 2.38
5. Hawaii 30.72 5. Nevada 14.28 5. Maryland 3.48 5. Maryland 2.34
6. New Jersey 30.26 6. Connecticut 12.57 6. California 3.30 6. Colorado 2.16
7. Illinois 28.96 7. Virginia 12.55 7. New Jersey 2.69 7. New Hampshire 1.43
8. Connecticut 28.19 8. Colorado 11.63 8. New York 2.50 8. Massachusetts 1.20
9. Colorado 24.37 9. Illinois 11.25 9. Virginia 2.43 9. Illinois 1.14
10. Maryland 22.92 10. Delaware 10.87 10. Delaware 2.25 10. Virginia 1.08
11. Delaware 22.76 11. New Jersey 8.91 11. Connecticut 1.92 11. New Jersey 0.92
12. Virginia 20.21 12. Maryland 7.78 12. New Hampshire 1.49 12. New York 0.80
13. Nevada 17.68 13. New Hampshire 4.34 13. Massachusetts 1.21 13. Connecticut 0.68

Police Protection
Fire Protection Corrections Judicial and Legal
1. New York 8.62 1. California 4.11 1. California 7.76 1. Hawaii 5.14
2. California 8.60 2. Connecticut 3.83 2. New York 7.68 2. California 4.58
3. Nevada 8.41 3. Massachusetts 3.72 3. Nevada 7.14 3. Nevada 4.41
4. New Jersey 7.57 4. Nevada 3.68 4. Maryland 6.66 4. New York 3.86
5. Illinois 7.17 5. New York 3.04 5. Delaware 6.05 5. Delaware 3.69
6. Hawaii 6.61 6. Maryland 2.96 6. Virginia 5.70 6. New Jersey 3.68
7. Colorado 6.44 7. Hawaii 2.79 7. Colorado 5.08 7. Colorado 2.86
8. Delaware 6.40 8. Illinois 2.70 8. New Jersey 4.75 8. Maryland 2.83
9. Maryland 6.24 9. New Hampshire 2.68 9. Connecticut 4.66 9. Massachusetts 2.72
10. Massachusetts 6.02 10. Virginia 2.62 10. Massachusetts 4.14 10. Connecticut 2.52
11. Virginia 5.45 11. New Jersey 2.58 11. Illinois 3.90 11. New Hampshire 2.52
12. Connecticut 5.05 12. Colorado 2.52 12. Hawaii 3.78 12. Illinois 2.42
13. New Hampshire 4.88 13. Delaware 0.90 13. New Hampshire 2.92 13. Virginia 2.21
Highways Financial Administration Interest on General Debt Housing and Community
Development
1. Nevada 17.60 1. Delaware 6.47 1. Delaware 15.39 1. Hawaii 9.66
2. Delaware 17.14 2. Nevada 4.89 2. New Hampshire 14.89 2. New York 6.35
3. Virginia 14.04 3. California 4.60 3. Hawaii 14.84 3. California 6.19
4. Colorado 12.76 4. Hawaii 4.38 4. New York 14.43 4. Massachusetts 5.91
5. Illinois 12.70 5. Massachusetts 4.33 5. Colorado 11.99 5. Delaware 4.18
6. Massachusetts 12.49 6. Virginia 3.87 6. Massachusetts 11.13 6. Connecticut 3.89
7. Hawaii 12.15 7. Maryland 3.58 7. Nevada 11.07 7. Maryland 3.70
8. New Jersey 12.06 8. Colorado 3.44 8. Connecticut 10.38 8. Illinois 2.94
9. New York 11.92 9. New York 3.38 9. Illinois 9.73 9. Nevada 2.66
10. New Hampshire 10.58 10. Illinois 3.28 10. New Jersey 9.03 10. Colorado 2.61
11. Connecticut 9.90 11. Connecticut 3.24 11. Maryland 8.98 11. Virginia 2.54
12. Maryland 9.61 12. New Jersey 3.05 12. California 8.85 12. New Jersey 2.16
13. California 9.01 13. New Hampshire 2.67 13. Virginia 8.04 13. New Hampshire 1.88
Alaska is not included in these lists because its unusual level of revenues and spending financed largely by oil revenues is not comparable to other states.

In the education-related categories, California is low in elementary and secondary (K-12) spending, but about average in higher education and libraries. However, these figures are before significant increases in funding for K-12 education, including class-size reduction, were approved in recent years. California ranks extremely low in highway spending. In fact, California's highway spending is not only the lowest of the high-income states, but it is also the lowest of all 50 states. It is encouraging to note that California ranks low in spending on interest on general debt.

Sources:
Spending figures for this analysis are from "State and Local Government Finance Estimates" provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The data can be found online http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html). Personal income figures were calculated on a fiscal year basis from quarterly data obtained from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data are available at: http://www.bea.doc.gov.

The spending data included in this report does not include such things as spending by government-owned utilities, funds paid out by government insurance funds, such as workers' compensation, or government employee retirement systems.