1.  Local government revenues and expenditures, size and structure with special focus on the local-central relation in  education and transport in the United States

2. Outline
Fiscal division between Federal State and Local revenues and transfers.
Source of Local&State tax revenue
Sources of Federal tax revenue
Federal to State&Local transfers
Local and state tax deductions (SALT) and Tax reform
Education spending organization
Infrastructure spending organisation

3. Federal State and Local Budgets
Total Government Spending
in the United States
  Fiscal Year 2018  
Federal Gross Spending    
$4.1 trillion    
Intergovernmental  transfers   
$-0.7 trillion 
State Direct Spending    
$1.9 trillion 
Local Direct Spending    
Total Spending    
$7.2 trillion 

6. State
State-Local Tax Burden as a Percent of State Income
Rank
U.S. Average
9.9%
Alabama
8.7% 39
Alaska
6.5% 50
Arizona
8.8% 36
Arkansas
10.1% 17
California
11.0% 6
Colorado
8.9% 35
Connecticut
12.6% 2
Delaware
10.2% 16
Florida 34
Georgia
9.1% 32
Hawaii 14
Idaho
9.3% 26
Illinois 5
Indiana
9.5% 22
Iowa
9.2% 31
Kansas 23
Kentucky 24
Louisiana
7.6% 45
Maine 13
Maryland
10.9% 7
Massachusetts
10.3% 12
Michigan
9.4% 25
Minnesota
10.8% 8
Mississippi
8.6% 41
Missouri 29
Montana 38
Nebraska 30
Nevada
8.1% 43
New Hampshire
7.9% 44
New Jersey
12.2% 3
New Mexico 37
New York
12.7% 1
North Carolina
9.8% 20
North Dakota
9.0% 33
Ohio 19
Oklahoma 40
Oregon 10
Pennsylvania 15
Rhode Island 9
South Carolina
8.4% 42
South Dakota
7.1% 49
Tennessee
7.3% 47
Texas 46
Utah
9.6% 21
Vermont 11
Virginia 27
Washington 28
West Virginia 18
Wisconsin 4
Wyoming 48 DC
10.6%
(10)

14. SALT state and local tax deduction

16. What is the purpose of state level deductions to federal taxes
SALT deductions existed in the tax code since introduction of federal income taxes in 1913 and allowed for deduction of local and state taxes in federal tax calculation. This creates a situation that it is a a regressive tax break at the federal level.As a form of revenue-sharing, it disproportionately helps rich states .It reduces the tax base and requires higher federal income tax rates.California recives over 20% of SALT deductions while it only 14.17% of the national GDP due to very high state and local taxation level and high property prices that due to old deductions created a big drain on federal tax burden for citizens of such states like Ilinois New York or California. Eliminating it without a real replacement like equalization payments would strain state budgets and put extra burden on buisnes and individuals in high tax states. Getting rid of it doesn’t enable less economic distortion through lower tax rates; it keeps income taxation roughly constant but shifts it from states to the federal government.Getting rid of SALT allows GOP to balance the tax cuts in tax reform and this allowed for passing the vote without 60 votes due to budget neutral nature of the bill.

17. Infrastructure spending

23. Education Spending
Of an estimated $1.15 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year , a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where about 92 percent of the funds will come from non- Federal sources.

27. Rep. Massie Introduces Bill to Abolish Federal Department of Education
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Thomas Massie introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the federal Department of Education. The bill, which is one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, ”
​The Department of Education began operating in On September 24, in his Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery, President Ronald Reagan said, “As a third step, we propose to dismantle two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Education.

28. DOE during government shutdown in 2013 deemed 94% of it’s Staff as not essential.
 Contingency Plan for Lapse in FY Appropriation Department of Education
„If the interruption were to last longer than one week, the Department would phase in employees only as necessary to conduct other excepted activities to prevent significant damage to the underlying activity.  At most, a total of not more than 6 percent of the total staff would be called back to work during a longer interruption.  (Some employees would be called in on a partial or rotating basis; the combined number of excepted employees working at any given time would not exceed approximately 6 percent of the Department’s total full-time equivalents (FTEs).)  As of September, the Department employed 4,225 full and part-time employees.”
EXCEPTED POSITIONS
WEEK 1
WEEK 2 – WEEK 4
Necessary to protect life or property (not separately reported in 1996) 23
Presidential appointees (PAS) 10
Excepted to support the Secretary/Deputy Secretary/Under Secretary 11
Excepted to support other Presidential appointees 7
Direct Loan and Pell Grants
138 (TBD)
146 (TBD)
Excepted for authorized payments and obligations
23 (TBD)
45 (TBD)
TOTAL
__212_
_242_