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.

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.

Major issues[edit]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Proposed budget ballot measures[edit]

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

Taxation ballot measures[edit]

Certified taxation ballot measures[edit]

The following ballot measures were certified for the 2016 election.

Proposed taxation and pension ballot measures[edit]

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

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

v • e Ballotpedia About Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker External Relations: Andrew Heath • Hannah Nelson Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch Policy: Jimmy McAllister • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Annelise Reinwald • Emma Soukup Content Strategy: Josh Altic Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha Contributors: Scott Rasmussen Editorial Content Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Ethan Sorell • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora