|
Section II: State ':. +" Y
<br /> tote Rankings �';; '.;,,�:x�
<br /> This state rankings section is a new addition to Si nificant .,' '. :.-: `i� , >
<br /> Features. It comes in res onse to the numerous queries that ACIR staff - :r�; `�;: Y- ;,i-f '
<br /> members receive in the course of the year. These rankings should assist '-t..` .;`,M• .. 1
<br /> those policymakers and researchers who wish to know how their state ,; ' ( -;., <r".
<br /> compares on a number of revenue and spending measures. ' .,Z. ',.
<br /> Data for state and local governments were combined for each state . ?.��^Tk ,"-: 4
<br /> rather than listed separately for a very fundamental reason: particular.. . y :s•,,--:r`�
<br /> functions of government are financed and delivered at the state level in -,, ,= x ''_;; ; a':,'
<br /> some states while in others those same services may financed and provided % R
<br /> : :FT,:;-, ;
<br /> by local governments. In order to rank the states on a variety of revenue :&' f`'
<br /> and expenditure items, one must first ensure that such comparisons are .'... `, ` ' '
<br /> �', -
<br /> appropriate. The combining of state government data with local government�:��:•��,_'^, . : .; .-
<br /> data does this. z,;, ?:`:,;;`::
<br /> Simply because a state has a particularly high or low ranking on a:a . •.-;- ``
<br /> =N , .� ',, ...,4;
<br /> specific revenue or spending item does not necessarily mean that a given:.: . ,,. '.: : '..
<br /> state is pursuing an inappropriate level of taxation or level of government ?.4:'� :r,, "'= -0
<br /> service. Many would cite the diversity that exists between the states. as WI. . : ` ''
<br /> one of the virtues of the federal system of governance in the United-',c,f, , ":-_: ':';; -: -
<br /> States. So, although these state rankings will be helpful to policymakers; i•. ''_;:. A
<br /> and .citizens.in- determining how the sta•t.es- compare on a variety of puhi..i,c %.. _' '; ;, ., _;j
<br /> f iriance: measures, only normative- .rather than absolute judgments can-be .' * _:.:; ,:o
<br /> made regarding these rankings. i ,
<br /> :. These - state rankings were produced using ACIR's Government Finance}`x`t':;;, :. ' -'2
<br /> 1,'... :' :-,
<br /> Spreadsheet Diskettes for Microcomputers. These diskettes can be ordered+?;':;b,1. •;
<br /> from the ACIR should policymakers and researchers desire access to the,'.-`<=
<br /> data underlying these rankings in microcomputer spreadsheet form. In;"G:,„ '-., `:::`;- ,
<br /> addition, these diskettes allow researchers to look at state or local:'''''e : '��.F+
<br /> government data (aggregated at the state level) separately. '-' ,• -.=
<br /> r'' to ;''
<br /> Guide to Interpreting the Tables 1:4
<br /> Each revenue or expenditure item it ranked from highest to lowest on ;.; i- `: -,•
<br /> a per capita basis and a percents a-of-income basis. - To find the rankin 1. _
<br /> of a particular state, first read down the column to find the Zip Code.• �ti 4' •;;;)
<br /> abbreviation for the state (see following faege) then read across to th ,u• :!;1:i .;,
<br /> left-most or right-most column to -find the appropriate ranking. For.'F.; + ; w
<br /> example, to find the rank of Alabama for. state-local per capita tax:<z• :j�.' <.':; :': -,
<br /> revenue, read down the third bank of columns on Table 106. Note that ,;,:_
<br /> Alabama raises $916 per capita in state-local tax revenue. Now look over;: : }t '_ ';:'?;. .:.i
<br /> to the right-most column to determine that Alabama ranks 48th among the' :'`
<br /> 50 states and the District of Columbia in state-local tax revenue. ' `N-''4 i`-�,
<br /> ; fT...
<br /> .Z f�:;- I
<br /> .
<br /> 180 , ;.' :; s
<br /> U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Re s,4„,., 1
<br />
|