Budget policy disputes in the 2016 elections

* Fiscal policy
* Budgets
* Budget and finances by state
* Tax policy by state
* State Budget Terms
* State government tax collections by source
* Total state expenditures
* State spending by function as a percent of total expenditures
* State debt
* Finance
* Financial regulation in the United States
* Dodd-Frank Act
* Federal Reserve
* Pensions
* Pension policy by state
* Public pension health by state
* Pension reform in San Jose and San Diego
* Pension Terms and Definitions
* Public pensions
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action
* Campaign finance
* Nonprofit regulation
* Education
* Public education by state
* School choice by state
* Charter schools by state
* Higher education by state
* Education policy in the United States
* Public education in the United States
* Education statistics
* Education statistics in the United States
* Education spending per pupil
* Number of schools by school type in the U.S.
* Demographic information for all students in the United States
* Public school system expenditures in the United States
* Public school system revenues in the United States
* Public school teacher salaries in the United States
* Graduation rates by groups in state
* Public high school dropout rates by state
* ACT and SAT scores in the United States
* NAEP scores by state
* Major terms
* Blended learning
* Charter schools
* Common Core
* Dropout rate
* Progressive education
* Regulatory Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
* School vouchers
* Teacher merit pay
* United States education agencies
* Elections
* Voting policy
* Voter identification laws by state
* Online voter registration
* Early voting
* Ballot access
* Ballot access for presidential candidates
* Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
* List of political parties in the United States
* Political party designation
* Redistricting
* State-by-state redistricting procedures
* Majority-minority districts
* Energy and Environment
* Energy Policy by state
* Fracking
* Fracking information by state
* Fracking
* Fracking in the United States
* Energy policy in the United States
* Energy use in the United States
* Oil and gas on federal lands by state
* Energy terms and definitions
* Agencies and legislation
* Environmental Policy by state
* Endangered Species Policy
* Endangered species policy by state
* Environmental policy in the United States
* Environmental statistics
* Endangered species statistics
* Glossary of environmental terms
* Glossary of endangered species terms
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy by state
* Medicaid spending by state
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act by state
* Healthcare policy in the United States
* Affordable Care Act
* Immigration
* Immigration in the United States
* Immigration by state
* Index

Ballotpedia's
Election Analysis

FEDERAL
Battleground elections:
U.S. Senate • U.S. House
STATE
State legislatures • Gubernatorial
State Attorney General
LOCAL
Municipal • School boards
Local courts • Local measures
PUBLIC POLICY
Budget • Education • Election • Energy • Healthcare • Environment
Terms and Concepts
Partisan Risk

Budget policy was a divisive topic in the 2016 election. Budget policy affects the size of government programs, the delivery of government services, and how the government deals with debt. Budgetary decisions impact public policy, as lawmakers must prioritize spending on certain initiatives while deprioritizing spending on others.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Major budget issues in the 2016 election included education funding, military spending, the national debt, and public pension solvency.

* Democrats favored increased spending on social programs and infrastructure, increased taxation on the wealthy, and fewer tax breaks for corporations.

* Republicans advocated for lowering taxes, limiting government spending, and taking measures to pay down the national debt.

This article summarizes some of the key budget policy issues that were debated in 2016, as well as the stances of political parties and candidates on those issues. In addition, this page identifies relevant state and local ballot measures. Click on the tabs below to learn more.

## Contents

* 1 Major issues
* 1.1 Education funding
* 1.2 Military spending
* 1.3 National debt
* 1.4 Public pension solvency
* 2 Analysis
* 2.1 Summary
* 2.2 Revenues
* 2.3 Expenditures
* 3 National races
* 3.1 Party platform summaries
* 3.1.1 Democrats
* 3.1.2 Republicans
* 3.2 Presidential candidates' stances
* 3.2.1 Hillary Clinton
* 3.2.1.1 Budget policy
* 3.2.1.2 Tax policy
* 3.2.2 Donald Trump
* 3.2.2.1 Budget policy
* 3.2.2.2 Tax policy
* 3.2.3 Gary Johnson
* 3.2.3.1 Budget policy
* 3.2.3.2 Tax policy
* 3.2.4 Jill Stein
* 3.2.4.1 Budget policy
* 3.2.4.2 Tax policy
* 4 Ballot measures
* 4.1 Budget ballot measures
* 4.1.1 Certified budget ballot measures
* 4.1.2 Proposed budget ballot measures
* 4.2 Taxation ballot measures
* 4.2.1 Certified taxation ballot measures
* 4.2.2 Proposed taxation and pension ballot measures
* 4.3 See also
* 4.4 Footnotes

# Major issues[edit]

* ON THIS TAB:
* Education funding
* Military spending
* National debt
* Public pension solvency

### Education funding[edit]

Federal, state, and local governments have influence over education budgets. As of 2016, the federal government supplied funding that typically made up about 12% of all direct expenditures for public education, and state and local governments generally contributed about 44% each to education funds, with the exact amount depending on the rest of the state's budget and the decisions of local officials.[1] According to the National Association of State Budget Officers, about 35.2% of total state general fund spending went towards K-12 education in fiscal year 2015, and 10% went towards higher education. Expenditure reports for fiscal year 2016 showed increases in spending for K-12 education.[2]

In 2016, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump advocated for the elimination of the Department of Education, instead preferring for education budgets and policies to be handled locally. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton advocated for increased federal spending on education, with a $350 billion plan to address issues such as student debt and the cost of tuition.[3]

### Military spending[edit]

The Pentagon

In light of major global events such as the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, France, and the June 2016 attack on an airport in Istanbul, Turkey, national security policy was a recurring topic for many politicians in 2016. Defense policy is largely determined at the federal level by the president, Congress, and federal agencies such as the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council. Congress and the president are also responsible for the nation's budget, which includes provisions for military spending.

### National debt[edit]

Seal of the Department of the Treasury

The national debt is the total of all money that the federal government owes to its creditors, which include individuals, governments, and other entities. The national debt is the sum total of the nation's deficits, which are defined as year-to-year shortfalls between government revenues and expenditures. Broadly speaking, the national debt is divided into two categories: debt held by the public and intragovernmental holdings. Debt held by the public is defined as "all federal debt held by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, Federal Reserve Banks, foreign governments, and other entities outside the United States Government." Intragovernmental holdings are "held by government trust funds, revolving funds, and special funds." Put more simply, intragovernmental debt is the "money that the government, as a whole, owes itself." A notable example of intragovernmental debt is the money the federal government owes to the Social Security Trust Fund. The bulk of the national debt—nearly three-fourths—is held by the public.[4][5][6]

In 2016, many Democrats and Republicans agreed that the national debt was a significant issue. However, methods of addressing the national debt varied widely between the parties and also among candidates within the same party.[7]

### Public pension solvency[edit]

Public pensions provide monetary beneﬁts to public workers when they retire. In exchange for making regular contributions throughout their careers, pensioners (retired individuals who participate in a pension plan) are entitled to receive regular monetary benefits that serve as retirement income in addition to other programs such as Social Security. Local and state governments typically manage these pension plans.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, an independent nonprofit organization that researches public policy, 14 states were found to have sustainable state pension plans in 2012. The health of pension plans is determined by a number of factors. For instance, both employers and employees must make contributions to the pension plan. If employers do not supply their contributions alongside the employee, then the pension fund will be harder to sustain. However, even if both parties make regular contributions, the health of the pension fund still relies on the performance of the fund in investments, similar to individual retirement accounts (IRAs) or 401(k) retirement plans. If the health of the economy is bad, then it is not likely that the pension fund will perform well, leading to lower total cash in the pension fund.[8][9]

# Analysis[edit]

### Summary[edit]

The tables below show changes in state revenues and expenditures from 2006 to 2013. The tables also correlate this information with state partisan control in those years. In general, changes in revenues and expenditures tended not to differ substantially between states, regardless of partisan control. Revenues and expenditures are contingent on a variety of factors beyond partisan control, such as economic recession and recovery.

2009 saw major revenue decreases in most states after the recession of 2008. However, every state saw a positive change in revenues in 2010, with increases ranging from 28% to 464%. This recovery carried forward into 2011, with all states except Wisconsin and Alabama seeing positive changes for the second year in a row. Expenditures typically increased every year in most states, with larger increases occurring from 2006 to 2010, and smaller increases after 2010, with an exception in 2013 when expenditures rose 12.04% on average.

Data for the tables below come from the United States Census Bureau; the data can be accessed here. Information from other years can be accessed by selecting the year in the drop-down menu on the left-hand side of the census website.[10]

### Revenues[edit]

The tables below show the average changes in state revenues between 2006 and 2013. Positive numbers reflect an increase in revenues, while negative numbers reflect a decrease in revenues. From 2006 to 2013, total state revenues rose in all states, with most states seeing an increase in most years. In 2010, total state revenues increased in all states. West Virginia saw the smallest increase in revenues at 23.40%; Wisconsin saw the largest increase at 464.52%. The average increase in revenues was 78.27%.

The table below shows the average revenue changes in all states by partisan control. For example, from 2006 to 2007, the average change in revenue across all states with Republican trifectas was 13.43%. The number in parentheses next to a percentage indicates how many states were under the control of the party in that year.

Average percent changes in state revenue by party control, 2006-2013

Party control | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 | 2010-2011 | 2011-2012 | 2012-2013
Republican trifectas | 13.43% (10) | -17.18% (10) | -19.94% (9) | 53.01% (9) | 10.72% (22) | -13.62% (23) | 14.55% (24)
Democratic trifectas | 13.68% (15) | -17.33% (14) | -28.27% (17) | 109.50% (16) | 12.53% (11) | -14.59% (11) | 17.23% (12)
Split governments | 12.49% (25) | -16.54% (26) | -20.75% (24) | 67.38% (25) | 12.23% (17) | -15.79% (16) | 14.29% (14)

The map below shows the change in revenues as a percentage from 2012 to 2013 in each state. A darker shade of green indicates a larger average change, while a lighter shade indicates a smaller average change.

Percent change in revenues from 2012 to 2013 in each state.

The table below shows the average change in state revenue in each state by the type of partisan control. For example, from 2006 to 2013, the average change in state revenue in all years that Alabama was governed by a Republican trifecta was 2.77%, while the average change in all years that Alabama's government was split was 6.99%. "N/A" reflects a state in which that type of partisan control did not occur from 2006 to 2013. The number in parentheses next to a percentage indicates the number of years between 2006 and 2013 that the state was under that type of partisan control. For example, Alabama was governed by a Republican trifecta for three years between 2006 and 2013; split governments held control for four years.

Average change in state revenue by state, 2006-2013

State | Republican trifecta | Democratic trifecta | Split government
Alabama | 2.77% (3) | N/A | 6.99% (4)
Alaska | N/A | N/A | 6.78% (7)
Arizona | 14.27% (4) | N/A | -7.25% (3)
Arkansas | N/A | 5.14% (6) | 16.80% (1)
California | N/A | 6.58% (3) | 21.33% (4)
Colorado | N/A | 29.42% (5) | -2.36% (2)
Connecticut | N/A | 6.29% (3) | 7.08% (4)
Delaware | N/A | 7.70% (5) | -0.97% (2)
Florida | -6.72% (6) | N/A | 98.51% (1)
Georgia | 7.21% (7) | N/A | N/A
Hawaii | N/A | 5.07% (3) | 9.54% (4)
Idaho | 6.14% (7) | N/A | N/A
Illinois | N/A | 10.01% (7) | N/A
Indiana | 2.62% (3) | N/A | 2.95% (4)
Iowa | N/A | 9.87% (4) | 3.76% (3)
Kansas | 3.61% (3) | N/A | 7.48% (4)
Kentucky | N/A | N/A | 4.97% (7)
Louisiana | 0.30% (3) | 22.22% (1) | 1.00% (3)
Maine | -3.23% (2) | 5.21% (4) | 13.70% (1)
Maryland | N/A | 6.93% (7) | N/A
Massachusetts | N/A | 5.18% (7) | N/A
Michigan | 0.18% (3) | N/A | 6.38% (4)
Minnesota | N/A | 18.26% (1) | 6.50% (6)
Mississippi | -1.71% (2) | N/A | 9.01% (5)
Missouri | -4.47% (2) | N/A | 14.98% (5)
Montana | N/A | N/A | 6.69% (7)
Nebraska | 5.09% (7) | N/A | N/A
Nevada | N/A | N/A | 10.41% (7)
New Hampshire | N/A | 7.84% (4) | 1.59% (3)
New Jersey | N/A | -8.01% (3) | 15.16% (4)
New Mexico | N/A | 11.30% (4) | 2.37% (3)
New York | N/A | 37.90% (2) | -0.11% (5)
North Carolina | 6.26% (1) | 15.34% (4) | -0.34% (2)
North Dakota | 11.70% (7) | N/A | N/A
Ohio | 2.92% (3) | N/A | 42.27% (4)
Oklahoma | 4.06% (3) | N/A | 6.77% (4)
Oregon | N/A | 46.58% (5) | -3.73% (2)
Pennsylvania | 2.50% (3) | N/A | 15.87% (4)
Rhode Island | N/A | N/A | 6.32% (7)
South Carolina | 5.59% (7) | N/A | N/A
South Dakota | 12.54% (7) | N/A | N/A
Tennessee | 3.51% (3) | N/A | 6.59% (4)
Texas | 4.84% (7) | N/A | N/A
Utah | 9.45% (7) | N/A | N/A
Vermont | N/A | 1.72% (3) | 6.57% (4)
Virginia | 17.88% (1) | N/A | 6.24% (6)
Washington | N/A | 5.97% (6) | 17.70% (1)
West Virginia | N/A | 4.36% (7) | N/A
Wisconsin | 0.39% (3) | 198.98% (2) | -8.00% (2)
Wyoming | 1.12% (3) | N/A | 10.43% (4)

The table below shows the changes in total revenues in each state between 2006 to 2013.

Changes in state revenue as percentage, 2006-2013

State | 06-07 | 07-08 | 08-09 | 09-10 | 10-11 | 11-12 | 12-13
Alabama | 14.47% | -34.85% | 13.29% | 35.04% | -5.96% | 13.86% | 0.42%
Alaska | 18.21% | 27.26% | -40.90% | 28.42% | 20.51% | 0.42% | -6.44%
Arizona | 7.52% | -14.87% | -14.41% | 43.60% | 13.99% | -15.50% | 14.98%
Arkansas | 10.28% | -16.86% | -17.41% | 59.27% | 14.64% | -19.06% | 16.80%
California | 12.83% | -33.10% | -43.13% | 148.73% | 19.57% | -25.48% | 25.66%
Colorado | 13.18% | -1.41% | -62.24% | 176.95% | 10.15% | -14.88% | 20.63%
Connecticut | 11.72% | -16.44% | -16.26% | 49.32% | 8.71% | -6.38% | 16.55%
Delaware | 8.88% | -10.81% | -13.06% | 37.86% | 14.63% | -12.99% | 12.07%
Florida | 13.30% | -29.85% | -33.63% | 98.51% | 15.96% | -20.50% | 14.37%
Georgia | 18.30% | -8.87% | -18.32% | 33.54% | 16.45% | -22.25% | 31.60%
Hawaii | 12.62% | -16.82% | -24.78% | 67.14% | 10.32% | -17.23% | 22.11%
Idaho | 17.30% | -21.69% | -21.98% | 58.78% | 18.25% | -20.70% | 13.04%
Illinois | 14.09% | -20.55% | -31.91% | 90.65% | 10.06% | -14.89% | 22.63%
Indiana | -0.60% | -10.23% | -4.66% | 27.28% | 9.33% | -7.55% | 6.07%
Iowa | 13.35% | -16.34% | -17.14% | 59.59% | 13.81% | -12.13% | 9.60%
Kansas | 15.16% | -13.22% | -13.93% | 41.90% | 12.36% | -13.12% | 11.58%
Kentucky | 8.99% | -18.89% | -8.48% | 47.13% | 11.81% | -17.29% | 11.50%
Louisiana | 22.22% | -8.25% | -23.08% | 34.34% | 5.59% | -20.84% | 16.15%
Maine | 8.32% | -19.93% | -17.06% | 49.48% | 14.21% | -20.67% | 13.70%
Maryland | 13.70% | -19.09% | -15.46% | 55.51% | 11.52% | -13.45% | 15.78%
Massachusetts | 9.95% | -11.24% | -22.94% | 49.24% | 13.94% | -15.29% | 12.59%
Michigan | 7.84% | -30.87% | 24.03% | 24.52% | -2.09% | -1.14% | 3.77%
Minnesota | 11.60% | -23.30% | -23.31% | 75.18% | 14.47% | -15.61% | 18.26%
Mississippi | 26.75% | -27.73% | -11.44% | 45.75% | 11.74% | -19.95% | 16.52%
Missouri | 13.80% | -22.74% | -28.93% | 88.74% | 13.85% | -19.55% | 20.81%
Montana | 16.27% | -10.17% | -24.60% | 54.87% | 6.33% | -17.34% | 21.45%
Nebraska | 7.50% | -14.38% | -13.55% | 41.02% | 13.11% | -15.11% | 17.01%
Nevada | 14.93% | -26.17% | -28.07% | 86.58% | 25.22% | -18.64% | 19.02%
New Hampshire | 12.88% | -12.16% | -10.75% | 41.40% | 6.03% | -15.45% | 14.18%
New Jersey | 14.44% | -16.45% | -22.01% | 54.92% | 6.41% | -18.67% | 17.95%
New Mexico | 16.87% | -27.71% | -20.78% | 76.84% | 13.15% | -22.70% | 16.66%
New York | 6.41% | -17.88% | -36.68% | 112.49% | 5.02% | -12.62% | 18.52%
North Carolina | 12.02% | -1.09% | -40.16% | 90.59% | 9.97% | -10.64% | 6.26%
North Dakota | 9.53% | 2.82% | -11.14% | 39.92% | 27.58% | -0.42% | 13.61%
Ohio | 14.65% | -24.52% | -60.36% | 239.32% | 9.43% | -25.32% | 24.66%
Oklahoma | 12.99% | -15.97% | -6.56% | 36.64% | 10.75% | -11.87% | 13.32%
Oregon | 19.16% | -43.45% | -56.46% | 282.46% | 20.43% | -27.89% | 31.20%
Pennsylvania | 13.64% | -14.40% | -43.70% | 107.95% | 9.14% | -13.67% | 12.04%
Rhode Island | 11.49% | -20.32% | -28.07% | 77.57% | 9.53% | -14.68% | 8.69%
South Carolina | 13.26% | -14.99% | -16.98% | 51.90% | 10.19% | -17.65% | 13.42%
South Dakota | 17.79% | -40.92% | -18.66% | 93.65% | 31.25% | -27.68% | 32.35%
Tennessee | 11.81% | -12.94% | -22.86% | 50.34% | 16.60% | -11.02% | 4.93%
Texas | 9.49% | -17.15% | -2.16% | 30.60% | 10.59% | -1.91% | 4.41%
Utah | 13.99% | -4.04% | -43.04% | 84.06% | 5.31% | -8.37% | 18.21%
Vermont | 11.51% | -5.40% | -11.44% | 31.62% | 8.42% | -2.42% | -0.84%
Virginia | 17.00% | -23.46% | -27.55% | 76.97% | 9.55% | -15.05% | 17.88%
Washington | 15.21% | -22.07% | -33.48% | 81.68% | 13.80% | -19.35% | 17.70%
West Virginia | 9.53% | -14.28% | 3.51% | 23.40% | 12.29% | -13.97% | 10.07%
Wisconsin | 21.01% | -37.00% | -66.55% | 464.52% | -6.82% | -19.92% | 27.90%
Wyoming | 4.46% | 10.29% | -28.73% | 55.69% | 0.54% | -11.95% | 14.77%

The table below shows the total revenue of each state from 2006 to 2013, in thousands of dollars.

Total state revenue in thousands of dollars, 2006-2013

State | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
Alabama | $23,716,174 | $27,147,360 | $17,685,597 | $20,036,326 | $27,058,029 | $25,444,244 | $28,970,151 | $29,092,950
Alaska | $10,844,814 | $12,819,862 | $16,314,578 | $9,641,320 | $12,381,555 | $14,920,900 | $14,983,391 | $14,018,474
Arizona | $29,656,215 | $31,885,916 | $27,144,911 | $23,232,885 | $33,362,229 | $38,028,534 | $32,134,279 | $36,947,686
Arkansas | $16,481,194 | $18,175,873 | $15,110,836 | $12,479,447 | $19,876,100 | $22,785,157 | $18,442,541 | $21,541,707
California | $263,764,713 | $297,608,865 | $199,109,935 | $113,241,403 | $281,667,095 | $336,780,223 | $250,971,451 | $315,358,675
Colorado | $23,477,989 | $26,572,818 | $26,198,172 | $9,891,984 | $27,395,534 | $30,177,159 | $25,687,893 | $30,986,766
Connecticut | $23,003,844 | $25,699,412 | $21,474,407 | $17,982,442 | $26,851,795 | $29,190,534 | $27,327,938 | $31,851,296
Delaware | $6,847,171 | $7,454,860 | $6,649,109 | $5,780,559 | $7,968,952 | $9,135,156 | $7,948,610 | $8,908,038
Florida | $86,669,544 | $98,192,639 | $68,885,833 | $45,718,315 | $90,757,028 | $105,241,845 | $83,669,700 | $95,693,798
Georgia | $38,171,330 | $45,157,349 | $41,153,807 | $33,614,408 | $44,888,723 | $52,275,155 | $40,644,118 | $53,486,765
Hawaii | $9,856,552 | $11,100,927 | $9,233,435 | $6,945,777 | $11,609,211 | $12,807,096 | $10,600,634 | $12,944,952
Idaho | $7,785,621 | $9,132,519 | $7,151,673 | $5,579,623 | $8,859,444 | $10,476,454 | $8,308,086 | $9,391,142
Illinois | $62,515,779 | $71,322,681 | $56,667,679 | $38,582,919 | $73,558,697 | $80,959,419 | $68,901,523 | $84,493,376
Indiana | $32,854,548 | $32,657,045 | $29,315,999 | $27,948,706 | $35,574,061 | $38,894,839 | $35,959,819 | $38,141,709
Iowa | $16,808,578 | $19,053,312 | $15,939,935 | $13,207,715 | $21,078,589 | $23,988,697 | $21,079,797 | $23,102,534
Kansas | $13,550,648 | $15,605,130 | $13,541,510 | $11,654,910 | $16,538,168 | $18,582,208 | $16,144,318 | $18,013,265
Kentucky | $23,327,921 | $25,425,505 | $20,623,791 | $18,875,625 | $27,772,056 | $31,051,859 | $25,683,865 | $28,637,166
Louisiana | $27,769,117 | $33,938,301 | $31,138,155 | $23,951,567 | $32,176,876 | $33,974,652 | $26,894,374 | $31,238,181
Maine | $8,639,110 | $9,358,257 | $7,493,041 | $6,215,026 | $9,290,505 | $10,611,116 | $8,418,007 | $9,571,311
Maryland | $30,929,277 | $35,166,780 | $28,452,629 | $24,054,709 | $37,408,265 | $41,716,816 | $36,104,189 | $41,802,233
Massachusetts | $45,452,875 | $49,976,395 | $44,356,687 | $34,182,458 | $51,013,137 | $58,125,298 | $49,237,223 | $55,437,787
Michigan | $57,414,710 | $61,918,850 | $42,802,955 | $53,090,160 | $66,107,007 | $64,722,073 | $63,986,268 | $66,400,989
Minnesota | $34,708,256 | $38,733,292 | $29,707,313 | $22,781,153 | $39,908,374 | $45,684,189 | $38,553,800 | $45,593,764
Mississippi | $17,743,579 | $22,489,722 | $16,253,029 | $14,393,964 | $20,978,857 | $23,441,796 | $18,765,204 | $21,865,219
Missouri | $28,760,837 | $32,729,141 | $25,285,284 | $17,969,081 | $33,914,202 | $38,612,603 | $31,065,599 | $37,529,136
Montana | $6,130,467 | $7,128,138 | $6,402,859 | $4,828,033 | $7,476,954 | $7,950,510 | $6,572,074 | $7,982,053
Nebraska | $9,109,719 | $9,792,790 | $8,384,577 | $7,248,209 | $10,221,332 | $11,561,118 | $9,814,709 | $11,484,492
Nevada | $12,341,503 | $14,183,610 | $10,471,591 | $7,531,884 | $14,053,177 | $17,597,124 | $14,317,867 | $17,040,569
New Hampshire | $6,373,151 | $7,194,142 | $6,319,486 | $5,639,852 | $7,974,888 | $8,456,142 | $7,149,983 | $8,163,713
New Jersey | $57,590,975 | $65,908,594 | $55,065,611 | $42,944,305 | $66,531,221 | $70,798,018 | $57,582,037 | $67,918,016
New Mexico | $14,746,043 | $17,233,717 | $12,458,381 | $9,869,384 | $17,452,867 | $19,747,623 | $15,264,927 | $17,808,300
New York | $166,473,200 | $177,145,384 | $145,475,808 | $92,112,356 | $195,725,953 | $205,546,377 | $179,604,728 | $212,858,793
North Carolina | $45,474,328 | $50,940,593 | $50,387,762 | $30,150,407 | $57,465,106 | $63,194,017 | $56,469,252 | $60,004,493
North Dakota | $4,369,763 | $4,786,348 | $4,921,091 | $4,372,683 | $6,118,449 | $7,805,674 | $7,772,601 | $8,830,465
Ohio | $76,180,842 | $87,341,858 | $65,923,692 | $26,133,949 | $88,677,168 | $97,037,604 | $72,470,829 | $90,343,990
Oklahoma | $19,651,006 | $22,202,900 | $18,656,746 | $17,433,201 | $23,820,301 | $26,380,631 | $23,248,146 | $26,344,587
Oregon | $25,742,544 | $30,674,935 | $17,346,580 | $7,553,467 | $28,889,040 | $34,790,831 | $25,087,703 | $32,914,634
Pennsylvania | $73,134,243 | $83,112,062 | $71,142,087 | $40,050,370 | $83,282,944 | $90,892,647 | $78,467,061 | $87,910,876
Rhode Island | $7,532,871 | $8,398,170 | $6,691,508 | $4,813,404 | $8,547,053 | $9,361,245 | $7,987,246 | $8,681,540
South Carolina | $23,719,970 | $26,864,143 | $22,836,798 | $18,958,820 | $28,797,998 | $31,733,200 | $26,132,172 | $29,638,637
South Dakota | $4,182,133 | $4,926,114 | $2,910,381 | $2,367,319 | $4,584,347 | $6,017,179 | $4,351,612 | $5,759,268
Tennessee | $26,325,884 | $29,435,966 | $25,626,489 | $19,768,870 | $29,719,569 | $34,653,154 | $30,835,976 | $32,356,348
Texas | $103,964,436 | $113,832,250 | $94,310,376 | $92,274,744 | $120,506,772 | $133,266,128 | $130,720,023 | $136,486,968
Utah | $14,096,285 | $16,068,068 | $15,419,153 | $8,783,428 | $16,167,203 | $17,025,757 | $15,600,626 | $18,442,207
Vermont | $4,880,877 | $5,442,433 | $5,148,618 | $4,559,365 | $6,001,197 | $6,506,203 | $6,348,888 | $6,295,755
Virginia | $40,369,112 | $47,233,782 | $36,153,130 | $26,194,045 | $46,356,567 | $50,781,571 | $43,137,517 | $50,851,769
Washington | $40,832,013 | $47,043,353 | $36,659,905 | $24,387,004 | $44,306,798 | $50,420,289 | $40,665,949 | $47,862,480
West Virginia | $11,435,036 | $12,525,048 | $10,736,112 | $11,112,547 | $13,712,959 | $15,397,630 | $13,247,295 | $14,581,453
Wisconsin | $33,410,533 | $40,430,664 | $25,469,939 | $8,518,436 | $48,088,136 | $44,807,389 | $35,880,592 | $45,891,806
Wyoming | $5,831,362 | $6,091,326 | $6,718,235 | $4,787,884 | $7,454,081 | $7,494,341 | $6,599,126 | $7,574,100

### Expenditures[edit]

The tables below show the average changes in total state expenditures between 2006 and 2013. Positive numbers reflect an increase in expenditures, while negative numbers reflect a decrease in expenditures. In every year since 2006, expenditures increased on average. From 2006 to 2010, expenditures increased in every state, from 2.89% in Maine at the low end to 14.02% in North Dakota at the high end. The average increase across all states from 2006 to 2010 was 5.66 percent. The largest average increase in expenditures occurred in 2013 when the average increase was 12.04 percent.

The table below shows the average changes in all states by partisan control. For example, from 2006 to 2007, the average change in total state expenditures across all states governed by a Republican trifecta was 5.11 percent. The number in parenthesis next to a percentage indicates how many states were subject to that type of partisan control that year.

Average changes in state expenditures by party control, 2006-2013

Party control | 2006-2007 | 2007-2008 | 2008-2009 | 2009-2010 | 2010-2011 | 2011-2012 | 2012-2013
Republican trifectas | 5.11% (10) | 7.67% (10) | 6.03% (9) | 6.13% (9) | 1.52% (22) | -0.70% (23) | 13.55% (24)
Democratic trifectas | 6.93% (15) | 6.03% (14) | 6.96% (17) | 7.28% (16) | 2.85% (11) | 1.69% (11) | 10.88% (12)
Split governments | 6.40% (25) | 6.71% (26) | 5.58% (24) | 5.97% (25) | 1.73% (17) | 0.25% (16) | 10.43% (14)

The map below shows the average increase in expenditures as percentages from 2012 to 2013 in each state. A darker shade indicates a larger average change, while a lighter shade indicates a smaller average change.

Percentage change in expenditures from 2012 to 2013 in each state.

The table below shows the average change in total state expenditures in each state by the type of partisan control. For example, from 2006 to 2013, the average change in state expenditures in all years that Alabama was governed by a Republican trifecta was 0.61 percent, while the average change in all years that Alabama's government was split was 6.49 percent. "N/A" reflects a state in which that form of partisan control did not occur at any time from 2006 to 2013. The number in parentheses next to a percentage indicates the number of years between 2006 and 2013 that the state was subject to that type of partisan control. For example, Alabama was governed by a Republican trifecta for three years between 2006 and 2013; split governments held power for four years.

Average changes in total state expenditures by state, 2006-2013

State | Republican trifecta | Democratic trifecta | Split government
Alabama | 0.61% (3) | N/A | 6.49% (4)
Alaska | N/A | N/A | 7.37% (7)
Arizona | 4.30% (4) | N/A | 6.19% (3)
Arkansas | N/A | 5.88% (6) | 9.80% (1)
California | N/A | 7.42% (3) | 3.38% (4)
Colorado | N/A | 8.04% (5) | 2.31% (2)
Connecticut | N/A | 5.19% (3) | 7.03% (4)
Delaware | N/A | 4.51% (5) | 4.69% (2)
Florida | 2.84% (6) | N/A | 8.17% (1)
Georgia | 6.00% (7) | N/A | N/A
Hawaii | N/A | 4.80% (3) | 6.15% (4)
Idaho | 5.90% (7) | N/A | N/A
Illinois | N/A | 6.27% (7) | N/A
Indiana | 2.49% (3) | N/A | 7.29% (4)
Iowa | N/A | 6.38% (4) | 6.63% (3)
Kansas | 2.85% (3) | N/A | 7.38% (4)
Kentucky | N/A | N/A | 3.61% (7)
Louisiana | -2.40% (3) | 18.10% (1) | 5.90% (3)
Maine | 0.57% (2) | 3.56% (4) | 4.86% (1)
Maryland | N/A | 5.43% (7) | N/A
Massachusetts | N/A | 5.22% (7) | N/A
Michigan | 1.38% (3) | N/A | 4.72% (4)
Minnesota | N/A | 18.08% (1) | 3.92% (6)
Mississippi | 4.26% (2) | N/A | 4.47% (5)
Missouri | 5.08% (2) | N/A | 7.16% (5)
Montana | N/A | N/A | 6.46% (7)
Nebraska | 6.06% (7) | N/A | N/A
Nevada | N/A | N/A | 7.78% (7)
New Hampshire | N/A | 6.54% (4) | 2.09% (3)
New Jersey | N/A | 3.58% (3) | 2.37% (4)
New Mexico | N/A | 8.04% (4) | -0.28% (3)
New York | N/A | 5.77% (2) | 6.07% (5)
North Carolina | 11.90% (1) | 6.54% (4) | 1.37% (2)
North Dakota | 14.02% (7) | N/A | N/A
Ohio | 5.97% (3) | N/A | 4.18% (4)
Oklahoma | 5.28% (3) | N/A | 7.68% (4)
Oregon | N/A | 10.68% (5) | -0.20% (2)
Pennsylvania | 0.29% (3) | N/A | 7.70% (4)
Rhode Island | N/A | N/A | 3.45% (7)
South Carolina | 3.52% (7) | N/A | N/A
South Dakota | 7.94% (7) | N/A | N/A
Tennessee | 2.93% (3) | N/A | 5.49% (4)
Texas | 6.77% (7) | N/A | N/A
Utah | 6.34% (7) | N/A | N/A
Vermont | N/A | 3.11% (3) | 5.59% (4)
Virginia | 8.75% (1) | N/A | 5.08% (6)
Washington | N/A | 5.11% (6) | 5.19% (1)
West Virginia | N/A | 5.91% (7) | N/A
Wisconsin | 6.49% (3) | 8.72% (2) | 4.11% (2)
Wyoming | 10.50% (3) | N/A | 9.52% (4)

The table below shows the changes in total state expenditures in each state between 2006 to 2013.

Changes in state expenditures as percentage, 2006-2013

State | 06-07 | 07-08 | 08-09 | 09-10 | 10-11 | 11-12 | 12-13
Alabama | 9.01% | 5.96% | 6.14% | 4.83% | 1.31% | -1.33% | 1.87%
Alaska | 6.78% | 10.05% | 8.66% | 0.18% | 2.81% | 3.62% | 19.52%
Arizona | 9.41% | 7.04% | 2.14% | 4.76% | -0.42% | -3.00% | 15.87%
Arkansas | 7.17% | 4.75% | 3.23% | 11.41% | 4.74% | 4.01% | 9.80%
California | 3.17% | 6.11% | 2.95% | 1.30% | 9.83% | -4.77% | 17.21%
Colorado | 3.85% | 7.74% | 8.41% | 10.44% | 5.01% | -0.40% | 9.73%
Connecticut | 2.96% | 8.91% | 9.18% | 7.05% | 2.32% | 0.98% | 12.27%
Delaware | 3.20% | 6.18% | 2.92% | 6.33% | 1.40% | 4.78% | 7.12%
Florida | -4.10% | 5.84% | -2.44% | 8.17% | 3.42% | -6.09% | 20.40%
Georgia | 15.45% | -1.62% | 0.69% | 7.31% | 1.76% | -1.14% | 19.52%
Hawaii | 11.06% | 8.11% | 5.07% | 0.37% | 1.68% | 0.78% | 11.93%
Idaho | 9.28% | 11.17% | 7.03% | 3.07% | 2.58% | -4.95% | 13.13%
Illinois | 7.18% | 6.07% | 7.97% | 8.85% | -0.91% | -1.60% | 16.35%
Indiana | 6.77% | 6.61% | 4.29% | 11.48% | -0.60% | 1.63% | 6.44%
Iowa | 3.48% | 7.10% | 10.54% | 4.40% | 4.29% | 2.40% | 13.21%
Kansas | 10.73% | 8.28% | 5.77% | 4.75% | 0.62% | 0.36% | 7.56%
Kentucky | 5.75% | 8.10% | 4.64% | 8.36% | 0.94% | -0.07% | -2.43%
Louisiana | 18.10% | 18.68% | -1.59% | 0.63% | -0.69% | -5.10% | -1.39%
Maine | 0.99% | 3.01% | 7.39% | 2.84% | 0.83% | 0.32% | 4.86%
Maryland | 9.42% | 7.37% | 5.86% | 4.16% | 0.31% | 9.30% | 1.61%
Massachusetts | 14.88% | 3.34% | 4.75% | 7.81% | 5.30% | 2.64% | -2.20%
Michigan | 2.62% | 3.80% | 4.14% | 8.32% | -1.25% | -2.19% | 7.57%
Minnesota | 3.81% | 7.54% | 5.91% | 4.39% | 1.54% | 0.32% | 18.08%
Mississippi | 14.34% | 0.07% | 3.24% | 4.03% | 0.67% | -0.53% | 9.05%
Missouri | 3.53% | 6.64% | 6.50% | 7.58% | -0.44% | 1.49% | 20.66%
Montana | 6.90% | 10.53% | 2.13% | 12.50% | 0.75% | -0.60% | 13.01%
Nebraska | 1.63% | 7.99% | 7.68% | 3.80% | -1.06% | 1.81% | 20.57%
Nevada | 4.57% | 0.84% | 11.16% | 7.29% | 2.08% | 2.07% | 26.44%
New Hampshire | 3.98% | 6.03% | 5.37% | 10.78% | -0.88% | -2.81% | 9.97%
New Jersey | -0.66% | 5.41% | 5.98% | 9.25% | -0.88% | 1.40% | -0.30%
New Mexico | 14.10% | 6.56% | 7.92% | 3.56% | -0.73% | -4.51% | 4.39%
New York | 6.01% | 3.12% | 5.70% | 5.85% | 5.30% | -1.51% | 17.45%
North Carolina | 6.26% | 6.69% | 5.78% | 7.42% | 1.72% | 1.01% | 11.90%
North Dakota | 3.97% | 9.22% | 8.74% | 14.43% | 7.43% | 14.50% | 39.82%
Ohio | 2.07% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 6.72% | 2.38% | -2.54% | 18.06%
Oklahoma | 6.58% | 8.12% | 9.47% | 6.55% | -1.07% | 0.33% | 16.57%
Oregon | 2.67% | 8.65% | 8.91% | 10.65% | 1.30% | -1.70% | 22.53%
Pennsylvania | 7.61% | 5.01% | 8.80% | 9.36% | 4.02% | -3.80% | 0.65%
Rhode Island | 2.83% | 6.00% | -0.74% | 10.37% | 0.73% | 0.65% | 4.27%
South Carolina | 7.26% | 9.78% | 3.55% | 1.64% | 0.46% | -5.14% | 7.12%
South Dakota | 3.03% | 3.58% | 11.20% | 7.70% | 1.56% | -1.65% | 30.18%
Tennessee | 3.57% | 6.23% | 7.30% | 4.88% | 3.93% | 2.13% | 2.73%
Texas | 4.84% | 12.18% | 8.91% | 7.99% | 5.12% | -0.04% | 8.36%
Utah | 6.16% | 11.89% | 8.92% | 4.49% | 2.55% | 2.56% | 7.79%
Vermont | 8.16% | 1.24% | 7.84% | 5.10% | 1.88% | 1.80% | 5.65%
Virginia | 6.17% | 8.31% | 5.54% | 2.59% | 5.20% | 2.66% | 8.75%
Washington | 8.57% | 7.79% | 9.48% | 6.41% | -0.51% | -1.08% | 5.19%
West Virginia | 3.93% | 3.90% | 8.90% | 7.32% | 5.32% | 1.71% | 10.27%
Wisconsin | 2.92% | 5.31% | 9.18% | 8.26% | 1.97% | -4.06% | 21.56%
Wyoming | 13.08% | 12.02% | 9.77% | 3.21% | -1.45% | 1.76% | 31.19%

The table below shows the total revenue of each state from 2006 to 2013, in thousands of dollars.

Total state revenue in thousands of dollars, 2006-2013

State | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013
Alabama | $21,550,799 | $23,492,507 | $24,892,739 | $26,422,265 | $27,699,687 | $28,061,272 | $27,686,973 | $28,203,758
Alaska | $8,607,819 | $9,191,744 | $10,115,914 | $10,991,829 | $11,011,201 | $11,320,127 | $11,729,460 | $14,018,474
Arizona | $26,349,076 | $28,828,472 | $30,857,509 | $31,516,818 | $33,015,591 | $32,875,412 | $31,888,001 | $36,947,686
Arkansas | $13,948,744 | $14,948,566 | $15,658,192 | $16,164,504 | $18,008,650 | $18,861,507 | $19,618,284 | $21,541,707
California | $225,317,442 | $232,450,325 | $246,659,361 | $253,944,548 | $257,236,917 | $282,524,665 | $269,054,703 | $315,358,675
Colorado | $20,150,921 | $20,926,733 | $22,547,367 | $24,443,854 | $26,996,775 | $28,350,439 | $28,238,168 | $30,986,766
Connecticut | $20,949,488 | $21,569,378 | $23,491,372 | $25,648,727 | $27,456,676 | $28,094,106 | $28,370,101 | $31,851,296
Delaware | $6,527,061 | $6,735,984 | $7,151,941 | $7,360,953 | $7,826,826 | $7,936,467 | $8,315,681 | $8,908,038
Florida | $76,395,569 | $73,266,720 | $77,543,853 | $75,653,366 | $81,831,697 | $84,633,065 | $79,482,176 | $95,693,798
Georgia | $36,246,323 | $41,844,861 | $41,166,551 | $41,452,427 | $44,482,207 | $45,266,394 | $44,751,105 | $53,486,765
Hawaii | $8,913,697 | $9,899,495 | $10,702,719 | $11,244,913 | $11,286,331 | $11,475,771 | $11,565,554 | $12,944,952
Idaho | $6,352,876 | $6,942,624 | $7,717,823 | $8,260,478 | $8,514,075 | $8,733,485 | $8,301,262 | $9,391,142
Illinois | $55,746,069 | $59,749,749 | $63,373,639 | $68,424,788 | $74,482,545 | $73,801,032 | $72,622,240 | $84,493,376
Indiana | $26,806,351 | $28,620,731 | $30,511,583 | $31,821,826 | $35,474,194 | $35,261,522 | $35,834,759 | $38,141,709
Iowa | $14,941,961 | $15,461,766 | $16,558,941 | $18,303,986 | $19,108,896 | $19,929,621 | $20,407,524 | $23,102,534
Kansas | $12,485,122 | $13,824,469 | $14,968,812 | $15,832,222 | $16,583,949 | $16,686,643 | $16,747,356 | $18,013,265
Kentucky | $22,447,101 | $23,738,262 | $25,662,244 | $26,853,131 | $29,097,531 | $29,369,940 | $29,349,094 | $28,637,166
Louisiana | $24,220,667 | $28,603,738 | $33,946,744 | $33,406,414 | $33,615,486 | $33,382,176 | $31,679,177 | $31,238,181
Maine | $7,854,687 | $7,932,056 | $8,171,059 | $8,775,249 | $9,024,322 | $9,099,085 | $9,128,086 | $9,571,311
Maryland | $28,965,977 | $31,694,663 | $34,029,826 | $36,023,284 | $37,521,125 | $37,638,542 | $41,139,083 | $41,802,233
Massachusetts | $39,120,740 | $44,942,555 | $46,443,177 | $48,647,503 | $52,448,089 | $55,225,665 | $56,684,677 | $55,437,787
Michigan | $53,186,639 | $54,581,853 | $56,653,904 | $58,997,843 | $63,907,650 | $63,108,508 | $61,726,982 | $66,400,989
Minnesota | $30,711,527 | $31,880,478 | $34,283,510 | $36,308,889 | $37,904,398 | $38,488,350 | $38,612,582 | $45,593,764
Mississippi | $16,293,095 | $18,629,901 | $18,642,936 | $19,246,076 | $20,022,652 | $20,157,417 | $20,051,298 | $21,865,219
Missouri | $24,335,073 | $25,193,426 | $26,865,659 | $28,613,023 | $30,781,944 | $30,646,880 | $31,102,862 | $37,529,136
Montana | $5,194,561 | $5,553,079 | $6,137,669 | $6,268,607 | $7,052,380 | $7,105,366 | $7,062,896 | $7,982,053
Nebraska | $7,708,701 | $7,834,564 | $8,460,595 | $9,110,284 | $9,456,753 | $9,356,473 | $9,525,518 | $11,484,492
Nevada | $10,285,271 | $10,755,326 | $10,845,375 | $12,056,208 | $12,934,509 | $13,203,265 | $13,477,122 | $17,040,569
New Hampshire | $5,987,952 | $6,226,121 | $6,601,654 | $6,956,174 | $7,705,787 | $7,638,166 | $7,423,747 | $8,163,713
New Jersey | $55,900,403 | $55,530,201 | $58,536,128 | $62,037,950 | $67,776,049 | $67,182,402 | $68,121,744 | $67,918,016
New Mexico | $13,242,888 | $15,110,679 | $16,101,771 | $17,377,696 | $17,996,040 | $17,865,171 | $17,059,410 | $17,808,300
New York | $142,897,187 | $151,481,557 | $156,202,016 | $165,100,850 | $174,754,082 | $184,009,243 | $181,226,180 | $212,858,793
North Carolina | $40,516,133 | $43,051,173 | $45,932,844 | $48,586,378 | $52,189,891 | $53,088,745 | $53,624,402 | $60,004,493
North Dakota | $3,633,349 | $3,777,535 | $4,125,958 | $4,486,613 | $5,134,130 | $5,515,725 | $6,315,436 | $8,830,465
Ohio | $65,144,996 | $66,494,460 | $68,071,276 | $71,862,926 | $76,690,552 | $78,517,498 | $76,524,453 | $90,343,990
Oklahoma | $16,937,494 | $18,051,875 | $19,517,639 | $21,365,899 | $22,766,045 | $22,523,491 | $22,598,865 | $26,344,587
Oregon | $20,070,629 | $20,605,597 | $22,387,184 | $24,381,062 | $26,978,154 | $27,327,654 | $26,862,451 | $32,914,634
Pennsylvania | $64,917,023 | $69,856,707 | $73,354,637 | $79,812,933 | $87,285,286 | $90,791,525 | $87,339,608 | $87,910,876
Rhode Island | $6,876,699 | $7,071,397 | $7,495,870 | $7,440,637 | $8,212,308 | $8,271,963 | $8,325,783 | $8,681,540
South Carolina | $23,430,743 | $25,131,860 | $27,590,685 | $28,569,063 | $29,036,681 | $29,169,191 | $27,668,441 | $29,638,637
South Dakota | $3,465,272 | $3,570,434 | $3,698,335 | $4,112,566 | $4,429,196 | $4,498,447 | $4,424,154 | $5,759,268
Tennessee | $23,967,779 | $24,824,444 | $26,370,615 | $28,294,693 | $29,675,372 | $30,841,226 | $31,497,959 | $32,356,348
Texas | $86,660,158 | $90,852,662 | $101,920,390 | $110,998,477 | $119,871,583 | $126,005,369 | $125,952,731 | $136,486,968
Utah | $12,032,472 | $12,774,196 | $14,293,669 | $15,568,462 | $16,267,432 | $16,682,581 | $17,109,026 | $18,442,207
Vermont | $4,629,529 | $5,007,318 | $5,069,432 | $5,467,079 | $5,745,943 | $5,853,842 | $5,959,250 | $6,295,755
Virginia | $34,776,228 | $36,923,031 | $39,989,854 | $42,204,081 | $43,297,502 | $45,549,347 | $46,759,950 | $50,851,769
Washington | $33,914,746 | $36,822,763 | $39,689,815 | $43,453,465 | $46,237,740 | $45,999,749 | $45,501,471 | $47,862,480
West Virginia | $9,781,296 | $10,165,499 | $10,561,575 | $11,501,520 | $12,343,051 | $13,000,033 | $13,222,912 | $14,581,453
Wisconsin | $30,125,045 | $31,004,011 | $32,649,254 | $35,646,272 | $38,589,815 | $39,349,832 | $37,753,491 | $45,891,806
Wyoming | $4,011,496 | $4,536,373 | $5,081,586 | $5,577,990 | $5,756,937 | $5,673,561 | $5,773,573 | $7,574,100

# National races[edit]

* ON THIS TAB:
* Party platform summaries
* Presidential candidates' stances

### Party platform summaries[edit]

#### Democrats[edit]

Democrats favored increased spending on social programs and infrastructure, increased taxation on the wealthy, and fewer tax breaks for corporations. The following are excerpts from the 2016 Democratic Party Platform:[11]

“  |

At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, we believe the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats will claw back tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, eliminate tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, and crack down on inversions and other methods companies use to dodge their tax responsibilities. We will make sure that our tax code rewards businesses that make investments and provide good-paying jobs here in the United States, not businesses that walk out on America. ...

We will ensure those at the top contribute to our country’s future by establishing a multimillionaire surtax to ensure millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share. In addition, we will shut down the 'private tax system' for those at the top, immediately close egregious loopholes like those enjoyed by hedge fund managers, restore fair taxation on multimillion dollar estates, and ensure millionaires can no longer pay a lower rate than their secretaries. At a time of near-record corporate profits, slow wage growth, and rising costs, we need to offer tax relief to middle-class families—not those at the top.[12]

| ”

|
|

“  |

Democrats understand responsible fiscal stewardship is key to American democracy and to the country’s long-term economic prosperity. We believe that by making those at the top and the largest corporations pay their fair share we can pay for ambitious progressive investments that create good-paying jobs and offer security to working families without adding to the debt. This stands in contrast to Donald Trump, whose plans could add more than $30 trillion to the debt and who casually suggests defaulting on America’s debt, ending more than 200 years in which the full faith and credit of the United States has been sacrosanct.[12]

| ”

|
|

#### Republicans[edit]

Republicans advocated for lowering taxes, limiting government spending, and taking measures to pay down the national debt. The following are excerpts from the 2016 Republican Party Platform:[13]

“  |

Republicans consider the establishment of a pro-growth tax code a moral imperative. More than any other public policy, the way government raises revenue — how much, at what rates, under what circumstances, from whom, and for whom — has the greatest impact on our economy’s performance. It powerfully influences the level of economic growth and job creation, which translates into the level of opportunity for those who would otherwise be left behind. Getting our tax system right will be the most important factor in driving the entire economy back to prosperity.

Our proposal is straightforward. Wherever tax rates penalize thrift or discourage investment, they must be lowered. Wherever current provisions of the code are disincentives for economic growth, they must be changed. We will not divide the American people into winners and losers. We will eliminate as many special interest provisions and loopholes as possible and curb corporate welfare, especially where their erosion of the tax base has created pressure for higher rates. We will be mindful of the burdens on families with children and the impact on an aging population. We will seek simplicity and clarity so that every taxpayer can understand how much of their income is consumed by the federal government.[12]

| ”

|
|

“  |

Our national debt is a burden on our economy and families. The huge increase in the national debt demanded by and incurred during the current Administration has placed a significant burden on future generations. We must impose firm caps on future debt, accelerate the repayment of the trillions we now owe in order to reaffirm our principles of responsible and limited government, and remove the burdens we are placing on future generations. A strong economy is one key to debt reduction, but spending restraint is a necessary component that must be vigorously pursued.[12]

| ”

|
|

### Presidential candidates' stances[edit]

####  Hillary Clinton[edit]

See also: Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016

##### Budget policy[edit]

* During the sixth Democratic presidential primary on February 11, 2016, Hillary Clinton talked about addressing problems for low-income, white Americans: “I've come forward with, for example, a plan to revitalize coal country, the coalfield communities that have been so hard hit by the changing economy, by the reduction in the use of coal. You know, coal miners and their families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country forgotten us? Do people not care about all of our sacrifice? And I'm going to do everything I can to address distressed communities, whether they are communities of color, whether they are white communities, whether they are in any part of our country. I particularly appreciate the proposal that Congressman Jim Clyburn has—the 10-20-30 proposal[14]—to try to spend more federal dollars in communities with persistent generational poverty. And you know what? If you look at the numbers, there are actually as many, if not more white communities that are truly being left behind and left out. So, yes, I do think it would be a terrible oversight not to try to address the very real problems that white Americans -- particularly those without a lot of education whose jobs have -- you know, no longer provided them or even no longer present in their communities, because we have to focus where the real hurt is. And that's why, as president, I will look at communities that need special help and try to deliver that.”[15]

* At her campaign event “Hard Hats for Hillary” in Boston on November 29, 2015, Clinton announced her plan to invest $275 billion in infrastructure development. The proposal included $250 billion in direct investment by the federal government over the next five years. Another $25 billion would fund a national infrastructure bank, an idea which had struggled to gain traction in Congress. The bank would support $225 billion in loans intended to spur private investment, adding a total of $500 billion in new infrastructure funds into the economy, the Clinton campaign estimated. Her infrastructure proposal would be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes, including ending “preferences for companies that stash their profits in overseas banks to avoid U.S. taxes” and ending “a corporate tax loophole that allows large companies to avoid taxes by moving their headquarters overseas,” according to USA Today. At the event, Clinton said, “Investing infrastructure makes our economy more productive and competitive. To build a strong economy for our future, we must start by building strong infrastructure today.”[16] [17]

* Between 2013 and 2015, Clinton gave several paid speeches to financial institutions in the Unites States and abroad. WikiLeaks released alleged excerpts and transcripts from those speeches in October 2016.[18]
* The Clinton campaign declined to verify whether the speeches were authentic.[19]
* In 2013, Clinton allegedly said that "big elements" of the Simpson-Bowles framework to reduce the deficit "were right." She continued, "The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that."[18]
* For more information about the WikiLeaks release, click here.

* Although she voted for a one year moratorium on earmarks in 2008, Hillary Clinton sponsored more than $1.2 billion in earmarks during her tenure in the Senate.[20][21]

* In 2008, Clinton "called for Congress to pass an economic stimulus package that could cost as much as $110 billion to help low-income families keep their homes, to subsidize heating costs this winter and perhaps refund some taxes," according to the Los Angeles Daily News.[22]

##### Tax policy[edit]

* Hillary Clinton expanded her tax policy to create three new tax brackets for large estates: a 50 percent rate for estates valued above $10 million per person, a 55 percent rate for estates above $50 million per person, and a 65 percent rate for those with estates above $500 million per person. “In 2014, just 223 estates with a gross value exceeding $50 million filed taxable estate-tax returns, according to the Internal Revenue Service,” The Wall Street Journal reported.[23]

* Clinton proposed a tax plan for small businesses in a conference call with small business owners on August 22, 2016. She proposed a new standard tax deduction for small businesses and additional deductions for start-ups. “I believe when you succeed, families thrive and our nation prospers. But I also know that in lots of ways, the odds are stacked against too many of you too many times. It’s clear that big corporations get a lot of the breaks. It’s much harder for you to get a loan, to file taxes, to offer health care to your workers,” Clinton told listeners on the call.[24]

* Clinton talked tax policy at a rally in Cleveland on August 17, 2016, highlighting both her proposals and those of her opponent’s, Donald Trump. “We’re going to tax the wealthy who have made all of the income gains in the last 15 years. The superwealthy, corporations, Wall Street, they’re going to have to invest in education, in skills training, in infrastructure,” said Clinton. Commenting on Trump’s proposal to eliminate the estate tax, she said, “So if you believe that Donald Trump is as wealthy as he claims—we can’t say that for sure, but let’s assume it—he would, by eliminating the estate tax, save the Trump family $4 billion—and do absolutely nothing for 99.8% of all Americans.”[25][26]

* In an interview with Reuters on June 9, 2016, Clinton said that she planned to introduce her economic package, including Wall Street reform and tax reductions for the middle class, in her first 100 days in office.[27]

* According to a study conducted by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in 2016, “Clinton’s tax plan would raise taxes on the 1 percent by an average of $78,000 per person while keeping taxes for the rest of Americans largely the same.” In addition, her “plan would generate $1 trillion in additional revenue for the government over the first decade and an additional $2 trillion over the next 20 years. Yet three-quarters of those additional funds will come from the top 1 percent of earners. … The top 1 percent — those who earn more than $732,000 a year — would see their taxes increase by an average of $78,284 in 2017… The top 0.1 percent, or those with incomes of over $3.8 million, would see their taxes increase by an average of $519,741. The bottom 20 percent of earners, or those making $23,000 or less, would see their taxes go up by $4 a year in 2017. The middle quintile, or those making $80,000 to $142,000, would see their taxes go up by $44 a year. And the top 20 percent, who make $209,000 or more, would see an average tax hike of $4,527.”[28]

####  Donald Trump[edit]

See also: Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016

##### Budget policy[edit]

* Donald Trump accused the Federal Reserve of releasing false numbers to stimulate the economy in 2012. Trump warned against inflation and claimed "the stimulus many people would say is the worst thing that can happen."[29]

* In 2012, Trump opposed Representative Paul Ryan's budget plan, calling it "catastrophic."[30]

* In an interview on CNBC, Trump criticized negotiations in Congress to increase the debt ceiling in 2011, saying, "Eventually you have to balance the budget. This is a long way from balancing the budget. This is just a joke. This is a down payment at most."[31]

##### Tax policy[edit]

* Trump announced a revised tax plan on August 8, 2016. His first tax plan, announced on September 28, 2015, would have reduced the highest individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. The revised plan sets the top individual income tax rate at 33 percent. The new plan reduces the number of income tax brackets from seven to three: 12 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent. Trump had previously proposed income tax brackets set at 10 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent. A report by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget showed that Trump's first tax plan would have cost $9.25 trillion over a decade. According to CNN, Trump's revised tax plan aligns with House Speaker Paul Ryan's policy agenda.[32][33][34]

* Trump gave an economic policy speech in Detroit on August 8, 2016, where he unveiled several new proposals, including reducing the number of tax brackets from seven to three. He also proposed making childcare costs tax-deductible, placing a moratorium on new federal agency regulations, ending the death tax, renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, and renewing the Keystone XL pipeline project.[35][36]

* Trump announced a new tax proposal on August 8, 2016, that would allow parents to deduct the average cost of childcare expenses. “We don’t want it to be an economic disadvantage to have children,” an aide said, according to Reuters. Trump did not provide specifics on how he would calculate average childcare expenses, what expenses would be eligible, or what costs the federal government would incur under the plan. Trump said plan details are forthcoming.[37][38]

* Politico reported on May 11, 2016, that Trump’s presidential campaign reached out to CNBC host Larry Kudlow and Heritage Foundation analyst Stephen Moore to consult on how to revise Trump’s tax platform and reduce the cost. According to Kudlow, the new plan he devised would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion rather than $10 trillion, but Trump has not yet approved the revisions.[39]

* In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd which aired on May 8, 2016,Trump discussed tax policy. He said, "The thing I'm going to do is make sure the middle class gets good tax breaks. Because they have been absolutely shunned. The other thing, I'm going to fight very hard for business. For the wealthy, I think, frankly, it's going to go up. And you know what, it really should go up. … But the middle class has to be protected. The rich is probably going to end up paying more. And business might have to pay a little bit more [than his proposal due to negotiations with Democrats]. But we're giving a massive business tax cut.”[40]

* In an interview on January 24, 2016, Donald Trump said that he tries to minimize his personal taxes because he does not approve of how the government spends tax dollars. "I try to pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money, the way they give it to Iraq, the way they give it to Iran,” said Trump.[41]

* The Tax Policy Center released its analysis Trump’s tax platform on December 22, 2015. According to the nonpartisan think tank, “His proposal would cut taxes at all income levels, although the largest benefits, in dollar and percentage terms, would go to the highest-income households. The plan would reduce federal revenues by $9.5 trillion over its first decade before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects. The plan would improve incentives to work, save, and invest. However, unless it is accompanied by very large spending cuts, it could increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of gross domestic product by 2036, offsetting some or all of the incentive effects of the tax cuts.”[42]

* In a statement on November 23, 2015, Trump said it was “disgusting” that the pharmaceutical firm Pfizer would relocate its headquarters overseas as part of a merger with Allergan. "The fact that Pfizer is leaving our country with a tremendous loss of jobs is disgusting,” he said. The move is known as a tax inversion and occurs when an American-based company merges with a foreign firm and the new combined company sets up headquarters abroad for the purposes of lowering its U.S. tax bill.[43]

* Trump unveiled his tax policy on September 28, 2015. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump’s platform would remove the federal income tax for individuals earning less than $25,000 and couples earning less than $50,000, reduce the highest individual income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent, and cut corporate taxes to no higher than 15 percent.[44]

* During September 2015, the Center for Tax Justice claimed Trump's tax plan would reduce tax revenues by $9 trillion over 10 years. the Tax Foundation similarly estimated his plan would cost $10 trillion over the same time period. Trump's campaign maintained that the plan was designed to be "revenue neutral."[45]

* In an interview with Bloomberg on August 26, 2015, Trump said he would “simplify” the tax code. “I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars-a-year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous. I want to lower taxes for the middle class,” Trump said.[46]

* Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation on August 23, 2015, Trump said hedge fund managers were “getting away with murder” and should pay higher taxes. “They're paying nothing and it's ridiculous. I want to save the middle class. The hedge fund guys didn't build this country. These are guys that shift paper around and they get lucky,” Trump said.[47]

* In a June 2015 interview on MSNBC, Trump said he would nominate Carl Icahn, Henry Kravis or Jack Welch to the office of Secretary of the Treasury.[48]

* In his 2011 book, Time to Get Tough, Trump outlined a five-part tax plan that defined four income tax brackets determining whether you pay 1 percent, 5 percent, 10 percent or 15 percent of your income. The plan also called for the end of the estate tax, a lower tax on capital gains and dividends, the elimination of corporate taxes and a 20 percent import tax.[49]

* Trump called a flat tax "unfair to the poor" and "unfair to workers" in his 2000 book, The America We Deserve. Trump stated, "Only the wealthy would reap a windfall, because a flat tax would allow them to cash in interest payments and capital gains without paying personal income taxes."[50]

* In 1999, Trump proposed a one-time net worth tax of 14.25 percent on individuals and trusts worth more than $10 million. He asserted that this tax would raised enough money to wipe out the national debt, which at the time was $5.66 trillion.[51]

####  Gary Johnson[edit]

See also: Gary Johnson presidential campaign, 2016

##### Budget policy[edit]

* The Cato Institute posted the fiscal report cards of Gary Johnson and William Weld when they served as governor of New Mexico (1995-2003) and Massachusetts (1991-1997), respectively. Johnson received a “B” each year from 1996 to 2002, and Weld received an “A” in 1992 and a “B” in 1994 and 1996. According to the Cato Institute, the fiscal report “uses statistical data to grade the governors on their taxing and spending records — governors who have cut taxes and spending the most receive the highest grades, while those who have increased taxes and spending the most receive the lowest grades.”[52]

* During a Libertarian candidate forum that aired on the Fox Business Network on April 1, 2016, moderator John Stossel asked the candidates about social programs and taking care of the poor. Johnson responded, "I want to support those who are truly in need. I think the biggest issue facing this country right now the fact that government is too big, it spends too much money, it taxes too much. I would be proposing a balanced budget to Congress which would be a 20 percent reduction in federal spending, and to do that, you've got to include Medicaid, Medicare, military spending and to do that you could devolve Medicaid and Medicare to the states."[53]

* In a February 2012 op-ed for The Washington Times, Gary Johnson said the federal budget should be reduced by 43 percent. He argued that doing so would require "the will and ability to ignore and even fight the special interests that have a vested interest in more and more government spending. Our system is corrupted by special-interest campaign contributions. Crony capitalism permeates our government."[54]

* Johnson said he supported a balanced budget amendment in an August 2011 interview. He added that "the problem is that passing balanced budgets for future years is what we do and it takes away the immediate problem and kicks it down the road."[55]

##### Tax policy[edit]

* During an interview on June 6, 2016, Gary Johnson said that as president he would eliminate the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other federal agencies if Congress sent him legislation to do so. Johnson said, "If I could wave a magic wand, we would eliminate income tax, we would eliminate corporate tax, we would abolish the IRS, and we could replace all of it with one federal consumption tax. If we had zero corporate tax in this country, tens of millions of jobs would get created in this country for no other reason.”[56]

* In a February 2012 op-ed for The Washington Times, Gary Johnson advocated for the elimination of income, capital gains and payroll taxes. In their place, Johnson said he would implement a "kind of a national sales tax called the Fair-tax." He wrote, "Some think the Fair-tax is regressive, but in fact it’s progressive - taxing the wealthy more than the poor. Fair-tax issues a 'prebate' for families to spend on food, clothing, transportation, medical care or whatever they want to spend it on - it’s their money. Undocumented immigrants will pay their taxes if they want to buy anything. They need a Social Security card to receive a prebate, so the incentive is for immigrants to get themselves on the books as fast as possible."[54]

* According to the free enterprise advocacy group Club for Growth, Johnson called for reducing the top rate for New Mexico's income tax from 8.5 percent to 8 percent in the 1990s. In 2001, however, he vetoed a bill to reduce this rate from 8.2 percent to 7.7 percent "because it also lowered the dollar amount that the top rate kicked in."[57]

####  Jill Stein[edit]

See also: Jill Stein presidential campaign, 2016

##### Budget policy[edit]

* In April 2013, Jill Stein criticized President Obama's 2014 budget proposal for cutting into Medicare and Social Security. She added, "The real solution to the recession is to jump start the economy through a massive job creation program like the New Deal that sparked the recovery from the Great Depression." According to Stein, her program "would create 25 million jobs in green energy, sustainable agriculture, public transportation and infrastructure improvements as well as jobs that meet our social needs, including teachers, nurses, day care, affordable housing, drug abuse and violence prevention and rehabilitation. It would be funded by scaling back the oversized military budget to year 2000 levels, adopting a Medicare for All insurance system that would save trillions of dollars, requiring Wall Street gamblers to pay a small (0.5%) sales tax, taxing capitol gains as income, and taxing income more progressively."[58]

* On her 2012 presidential campaign website, Stein advocated for reducing "the budget deficit by restoring full employment, cutting the bloated military budget, and cutting private health insurance waste."[59]

##### Tax policy[edit]

* According to Jill Stein's 2016 campaign website, she supported making "Wall Street, big corporations, and the rich pay their fair share of taxes."[60]

* In a February 2012 Forbes interview, Jill Stein said a wealth tax for both concrete and intangible assets would be "interesting," but the Green Party had not prioritized it in its tax reform platform. Stein also said a "blanket land tax" would be a "real liability."[61]

* According to Stein's 2012 presidential campaign website, she supported rewriting "the entire tax code to be truly progressive with tax cuts for working families, the poor and middle class, and higher taxes for the richest Americans" and creating "a 90% tax on bonuses for bailed out bankers."[62]

# Ballot measures[edit]

### Budget ballot measures[edit]

Voting on state and local government budgets, spending, and finance

Policy
Budget policy
Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

City budgets
County budgets
Spending limits
School budgets
Voting on taxes

Ballot measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
| Local

City taxes
County taxes
School taxes
Property taxes
Sales taxes
Income taxes
Other taxes
Voting on Pensions

Policy
Pension policy
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot | Local

Local pensions

#### Certified budget ballot measures[edit]

Ballotpedia tracked the following certified ballot measures on state and local government budgets, spending and finance in 2016.

1. Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016)

| A "yes" vote supported this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

1. Alabama Approval of Budget Isolation Resolution Proposing a Local Law, Amendment 14 (2016)

| A "yes" vote supported this proposal to guarantee the application of budget isolation resolutions to local laws passed by the legislature prior to November 8, 2016.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to guarantee the application of budget isolation resolutions, opening the door for courts to strike down laws passed under the "present and voting" BIR procedure.

|

1. Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016)

| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of devoting $3.5 billion of the general fund and state land trust fund toward education.

|

| A "no" vote was a vote to keep the current education funding levels from the land trust fund.

|

1. New Jersey Dedication of All Gas Tax Revenue to Transportation, Public Question 2 (2016)

| A "yes" vote supported this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

|

1. Georgia Additional Penalties for Sex Crimes to Fund Services for Sexually Exploited Children, Amendment 2 (2016)

| A "yes" vote supported providing penalties for court cases involving certain sex crimes in order to allocate the generated revenue for the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.

|

| A "no" vote opposed providing penalties for court cases involving certain sex crimes in order to allocate the generated revenue for the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.

|

1. Oregon Measure 95, Public University Diversification of Investments Amendment (2016)

| A "yes" vote supported allowing public state universities to invest in equities.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment allowing public state universities to invest in equities, keeping the prohibition.

|

1. Utah Amendment B, Modify School Funds Distribution Measure (2016)

| A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of modifying certain provisions and language relating to distribution, investment, and expenditure for the State School Fund and the Uniform School Fund.

|

| A "no" vote was a vote against modifying certain provisions and language relating to distribution, investment, and expenditure for the State School Fund and the Uniform School Fund.

|

#### Proposed budget ballot measures[edit]

The following budget ballot measures did not make the ballot in 2016.

1. New Mexico Permanent Funds for Childhood Education Amendment (2016)
2. New Mexico Permanent Fund Distribution Amendment (2016)
3. New Mexico State Funds for Tribal Colleges Amendment (2016)
4. New Mexico Permanent Funds for Early Childhood Amendment (2016)
5. Arkansas Funding for Education Amendment (2016)
6. Colorado Iran-Restricted Company Divestment Initiative (2016)
7. Alaska Appropriations from Alaska Permanent Fund Amendment (2016)
8. Alaska Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund Amendment (2016)
9. Alaska Guaranteed Permanent Fund Dividend Amendment (2016)
10. Arizona Allowed Uses of Revenue from Sale of State Trust Lands Amendment (2016)

### Taxation ballot measures[edit]

#### Certified taxation ballot measures[edit]

The following ballot measures were certified for the 2016 election.

1. Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment (2016) | A "yes" vote supported this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment to prohibit lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

|

2. Alabama Approval of Budget Isolation Resolution Proposing a Local Law, Amendment 14 (2016) | A "yes" vote supported this proposal to guarantee the application of budget isolation resolutions to local laws passed by the legislature prior to November 8, 2016.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to guarantee the application of budget isolation resolutions, opening the door for courts to strike down laws passed under the "present and voting" BIR procedure.

|

3. Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 (May 2016) | A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of devoting $3.5 billion of the general fund and state land trust fund toward education.

|

| A "no" vote was a vote to keep the current education funding levels from the land trust fund.

|

4. New Jersey Dedication of All Gas Tax Revenue to Transportation, Public Question 2 (2016) | A "yes" vote supported this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to dedicate all revenue from gas taxes to transportation projects.

|

5. Georgia Additional Penalties for Sex Crimes to Fund Services for Sexually Exploited Children, Amendment 2 (2016) | A "yes" vote supported providing penalties for court cases involving certain sex crimes in order to allocate the generated revenue for the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.

|

| A "no" vote opposed providing penalties for court cases involving certain sex crimes in order to allocate the generated revenue for the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.

|

6. Oregon Measure 95, Public University Diversification of Investments Amendment (2016) | A "yes" vote supported allowing public state universities to invest in equities.

|

| A "no" vote opposed this amendment allowing public state universities to invest in equities, keeping the prohibition.

|

7. Utah Amendment B, Modify School Funds Distribution Measure (2016) | A "yes" vote was a vote in favor of modifying certain provisions and language relating to distribution, investment, and expenditure for the State School Fund and the Uniform School Fund.

|

| A "no" vote was a vote against modifying certain provisions and language relating to distribution, investment, and expenditure for the State School Fund and the Uniform School Fund.

|

#### Proposed taxation and pension ballot measures[edit]

The following tax and pension ballot measures did not make the ballot in 2016.

1. Montana Lower State Income Tax Rates Measure (2016)
2. Arkansas Tax Exemptions for Personal Property Amendment (2016)
3. Alabama Property Tax Exemptions Amendment (2016)
4. South Dakota Education Franchise Tax Amendment (2016)
5. California Bottled Water Taxes and Drought Label Initiative (2016)
6. Alabama Flat Income Tax Amendment (2016)
7. California Homeowners and Renters Tax Relief Initiative (2016)
8. Oregon Estate Tax Ban Amendment (2016)
9. California Tax Extension to Fund Education Initiative (2016)
10. Idaho Sales Tax Reduction Initiative (2016)
11. Minnesota Long-term Care Fund Amendment (2016)
12. Washington "Property Tax Fairness" Initiative (2016)
13. Washington Property Tax Growth Limit Initiative (ITL) (2016)
14. Washington Checkout Bag Tax Ban Initiative (2016)
15. Washington Ban on Increasing Sales Tax Rates Initiative (ITL) (2016)
16. Colorado Income Tax Increase Initiative (2016)
17. Missouri 50 Cent Cigarette Tax Initiative (2016)
18. Missouri Capital Gains Tax Initiative (2016)
19. Washington Ban on Increasing Sales Tax Rates Initiative (ITP) (2016)
20. Washington Taxpayer Protection Act (2016)
21. Washington "Property Tax Fairness" Initiative (ITP) (2016)
22. Washington Tax and Fee Expiration After One Year Initiative (2016)
23. Washington Property Tax Growth Limit Initiative (ITP) (2016)
24. Washington Senior Citizen Property Tax Exemption Initiative (ITP) (2016)
25. Washington Marijuana Tax Revenue for Education Initiative (2016)
26. California Invest in California's Children Initiative (2016)

## See also[edit]

* 2016 coverage on Ballotpedia

* Budget policy on Ballotpedia

* Presidential election, 2016

* United States Congress elections, 2016
* State executive official elections, 2016
* State legislative elections, 2016

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Atlas, "PreK-12 Financing Overview," archived February 18, 2016
2. ↑ The National Association of State Budget Officers, "Summary: Fall 2015 Fiscal Survey of States," archived January 22, 2016
3. ↑ The New York Times, "With $350 Billion Plan, Hillary Clinton Prods Rivals on Student Debt," August 13, 2015
4. ↑ NPR, "National Debt For Beginners," February 4, 2009
5. ↑ Investopedia, "Federal Debt," accessed May 12, 2016
6. ↑ TreasuryDirect.gov, "Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt," accessed May 12, 2016
7. ↑ The Politics and Elections Portal, "Federal deficit and debt," archived March 7, 2016
8. ↑ CNN Money, "What is a pension?" accessed March 11, 2016
9. ↑ The Pew Charitable Trusts, "The Fiscal Health of State Pension Plans: Funding Gap Continues to Grow," accessed April 27, 2015
10. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "State Government Finances," archived January 25, 2016
11. ↑ Democratic Platform Committee, "2016 Democratic Party Platform," July 8-9, 2016
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
13. ↑ Republican National Convention, "Republican Platform 2016," accessed August 5, 2016
14. ↑ The Hill, "Ryan, black lawmakers, may join forces on poverty plan," February 9, 2016
15. ↑ The Washington Post, "Transcript: The Democratic debate in Milwaukee, annotated," February 11, 2016
16. ↑ AP, "Clinton pledges hundreds of billions for infrastructure," November 30, 2015
17. ↑ USA Today, "Hillary Clinton infrastructure plan begins monthlong focus on jobs," November 29, 2015
18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 WikiLeaks, "HRC Paid Speeches," accessed October 11, 2016
19. ↑ The Chicago Tribune, "The inherent peril in trusting whatever WikiLeaks dumps on us," October 13, 2016
20. ↑ Vote Smart, “S Amdt 4347 - Earmark Moratorium - Key Vote," accessed December 17, 2014
21. ↑ Legistorm, “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (-New York) - Earmarks Requested," accessed December 17, 2014
22. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Clinton pitches hefty economic stimulus plan in Southland," accessed February 3, 2015
23. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Proposes 65% Top Rate for Estate Tax," September 22, 2016
24. ↑ HillaryClinton.com, "In Small Business Tele-Town Hall, Hillary Clinton Contrasts Her Policy Agenda with Donald Trump’s Record of Putting Himself First, Leaving Small Businesses Hanging," accessed August 22, 2016
25. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Hillary Clinton Takes Shot at Trump’s Plan to Repeal Estate Tax," August 17, 2016
26. ↑ The New York Times, "Hillary Clinton Twists the Knife in Donald Trump’s Tax Proposals," August 17, 2016
27. ↑ Reuters, "Obama is 'fired up' for Clinton as Democrats seek to unify party," June 9, 2016
28. ↑ CNBC, "Top 1% would see $78,000 tax hike under Hillary," March 3, 2016
29. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Donald Trump: Federal Reserve 'Creating Phony Numbers'," September 13, 2012
30. ↑ The Huffington Post, "Donald Trump: Paul Ryan Budget Is 'Catastrophic'," April 10, 2012
31. ↑ CNBC, "Budget Deal a 'Joke,' Obama Is 'Incompetent': Trump," August 1, 2011
32. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions," September 28, 2015
33. ↑ CNN, "Trump revises his tax plan, raises top rate," August 9, 2016
34. ↑ Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, "What Donald Trump Can Do to Improve His Tax and Spending Policies," July 19, 2016
35. ↑ Bloomberg, "Trump Aims to Reset With Revised Tax Plan, Curb on Regulations," August 8, 2016
36. ↑ CNBC, "Holding his tongue through protests, Trump goes at Clinton for tax plan," August 8, 2016
37. ↑ Reuters, "Trump to propose deduction on childcare spending: aide," August 8, 2016
38. ↑ The Washington Post, "The problem with Donald Trump’s plan for child care," August 8, 2016
39. ↑ Politico, "Trump launches tax plan rewrite," May 11, 2016
40. ↑ NBC News, "Transcript: Meet the Press," May 8, 2016
41. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Donald Trump: 'I try to pay as little tax as possible'," January 24, 2016
42. ↑ Tax Policy Center, "An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tax Plan," December 22, 2015
43. ↑ Reuters, "U.S. Republican Trump calls Pfizer deal to move tax base overseas 'disgusting,'" November 23, 2015
44. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Plan Cuts Taxes for Millions," September 28, 2015
45. ↑ CNN Politics, "Donald Trump's tax plan carries big price tag," October 1, 2015
46. ↑ Bloomberg Politics, "Donald Trump Says He Wants to Raise Taxes on Himself," August 26, 2015
47. ↑ Business Insider, "Donald Trump: 'Hedge fund guys are getting away with murder,'" August 23, 2015
48. ↑ Fortune, "Carl Icahn to Donald Trump: I'm not hired," June 19, 2015
49. ↑ Trump, Donald. (2011). Time to Get Tough. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. (pages 64-65)
50. ↑ Trump, Donald. (2000). The America We Deserve. Los Angeles, CA: Renaissance Books. (page 186)
51. ↑ CNN, "Trump proposes massive one-time tax on the rich," November 9, 1999
52. ↑ The Cato Institute, "Cato Fiscal Grades: Gary Johnson and William Weld," May 24, 2016
53. ↑ Examiner.com, "Libertarian Party presidential debate was last night, follow up next week," April 2, 2016
54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 The Washington Times, "Johnson: Let's get America moving again," February 2, 2012
55. ↑ Scott Holleran, "Interview with Gary Johnson," August 21, 2011
56. ↑ The Hill, "Libertarian Gary Johnson: I'd eliminate NSA, IRS if elected," June 6, 2016
57. ↑ Scribd, "Club for Growth: 2012 Presidential White Paper #9," July 21, 2011
58. ↑ Green Party of the United States, "Jill Stein: Obama budget throws American people under the bus, gives the rich a free ride," April 11, 2013
59. ↑ Jill Stein for President, "Issues," accessed July 6, 2015
60. ↑ Jill Stein for President, "Power to the People Plan," accessed July 12, 2016
61. ↑ Forbes, "Jill Stein Meets Henry George," October 16, 2012
62. ↑ Jill Stein for President, "Issues," accessed July 6, 2015

v • e

Ballotpedia's Election Analysis in 2016

Main|

Ballotpedia's Election Analysis Hub, 2016 • Terms and concepts: Partisan Risk

Federal Desk|

• U.S. House battlegrounds • U.S. Senate battlegrounds • Presidential battleground states • The 2016 Senate races • The post-2016 federal government scenarios • Impact of the 2016 election on the United States Supreme Court • Policy positions of the 2016 candidates

State Desk|

• Gubernatorial and legislative party control of state government • State government trifectas •State executive official elections • State legislative elections • State judicial elections •State supreme court partisanship, 2016 • State supreme court changes, 2016 •2016 ballot measures • State legislative battleground chambers, 2016

Local Desk|

• Partisanship in local elections • Money in local elections • Partisanship in United States mayoral elections • Race, law enforcement, and the ballot box • Education reform at the state and local levels • Battles over school governance • State funding battles and local responses • The fight to shape public school curriculum

Policy Desk|

• Education policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Healthcare policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Environmental policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Election policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Energy policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Budget policy disputes in the 2016 elections • Public policy in the 2016 elections

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox