Just before heading home for its August recess, the U.S. Senate passed a $26 billion mini-stimulus that it struggled with for months. And House leadership decided to call its members back from recess to act on the legislation, which has two main components: (1) $16.1 billion to extend increased Medicaid funding for states (what is referred to as FMAP or Federal Medical Assistance Percentages); and (2) another $10 billion said to be needed to prevent teacher layoffs.

The debate involved both fiscal prudence and the perceived benefit of these state subsidies, as well as the specifics of how to pay for them. Proponents say $9 billion is to be generated from a "provision that closes corporate tax breaks on income earned overseas." Proponents think this ends an incentive to "export jobs overseas." A different – and more accurate – description would be that this is nothing more than a tax increase for businesses that happen to employ workers both in the U.S. and overseas.

The debate took its own politically charged form in Indiana this week, as efforts were made to characterize Gov. Daniels as inconsistent on the FMAP funding issue. He and 42 other governors sought the funding in a joint letter from the National Governors Association, with some qualifying statements, back in February, but Gov. Daniels has consistently pointed out the detrimental effects of the federal government continuing to spend money it doesn’t have while putting this particular legislation in that category.

The federal package would provide an estimated total of $434 million to Indiana: $227 million for six months of additional FMAP funding (an extension of provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus bill) and another $207 million under the teacher funding element. A $227 million subsidy to our state finances would be helpful as the General Assembly prepares for what all agree will be a brutal budget session in 2011. And school districts no doubt would welcome the money as they grapple with their budgets. But, the situation seems to pit practicality against principle. Regardless of your philosophy or political affiliation, the question remains: Why shouldn’t Indiana citizens and businesses who pay federal taxes receive the benefit of money that the federal government insists on distributing?

We offered earlier today a look at some of the key provisions in the still-being-debated financial reform bill in Congress. Here’s a brief overview of some of the other components (full 1,300-plus-page bill here).

• Bank Capital Standards – Under an amendment adopted unanimously with little fanfare, banks with more than $250 billion in assets are forced to meet higher risk- and size-based capital standards. The Treasury and Fed oppose the measure authored by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), warning it could make it harder for U.S. officials to negotiate global capital standards with foreign regulators.
• Mortgage Risk – Require firms that securitize mortgages and other loans to hold a portion of the risk on their own balance sheets, but under an amendment added on the floor also would direct regulators to establish a category of less-risky mortgage products – primarily fixed-rate, fully amortizing loans – that would be exempt from the risk-retention rule.
• Hedge Funds – Requires hedge funds that manage more than $100 million to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as investment advisors and disclose to the agency information about their trades and portfolios.
• Corporate Governance – Gives shareholders of public corporations a non-binding vote on executive pay and the SEC the authority to grant shareholders proxy access to nominate directors.
• Insurance – Creates a new Office of National Insurance within the Treasury to monitor the industry, recommending to the systemic risk council insurers what should be treated as systemically important, as well as coordinate international insurance issues. The office would produce a study and recommendations to Congress on ways to modernize insurance regulation, but it is explicitly not a new regulator.
• Credit Rating Agencies – Establishes a new self-regulatory organization for credit rating agencies designed to eliminate a conflict in the current system in which an institution pays for its rating and, at times, shops for the best rating it can get for the lowest price. The SEC will appoint members of the new regulatory body that will then assign credit-rating agencies to provide initial credit ratings of financial packages.
• Investment Advice – Several Democrats had hoped to tighten regulations for broker-dealers who give investment advice, but they weren’t given a floor vote on their amendment despite near constant lobbying from consumer groups. As it stands, this provision makes recommendations and directs the SEC to study the differences between fiduciary standards for investment advisers and broker-dealers.
   

(Part 1 of 2)

A sweeping financial reform package passed the U.S. Senate last week. With a version already passed in the House, now compromises must be worked out by a conference committee to be led by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D- Mass.).  The indication is they would like to send a final bill to President Obama by July 4.

However, there remain significant points of contention to be negotiated between the House and Senate; perhaps most notably the Senate provisions forwarded by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) that require banks to spin off their derivative trading to affiliate entities. Over the next few weeks, advocates will continue to promote their position on the several items at play and the final product is still in question.

Below are descriptions of the major components in the Senate bill (see the 1,300-plus page bill in its entirety):

• New Regulatory Authority – Gives federal regulators new authority to seize and break up large troubled financial firms without taxpayer bailouts in cases where the firm’s collapse could destabilize the financial system. Sets up a liquidation procedure run by the FDIC. Management could be removed, with shareholders and unsecured creditors bearing losses. Other provisions would make it harder for top executives at the failed firms to claim large compensation packages, and it would give the government power to limit payments for certain creditors of failed firms. The Treasury would supply funds to cover the upfront costs of winding down the failed firm.
• Consumer Agency – Creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve, with rulemaking and some enforcement power over banks and non-banks that offer consumer financial products or services such as credit cards, mortgages and other loans. The new watchdog would have authority to examine and enforce regulations for all mortgage-related businesses, large non-bank financial companies such as big payday lenders and consumer reporting companies, and for banks and credit unions with assets of more than $10 billion.
• Derivatives – Requires the vast majority of all derivatives trading be executed on a public exchange as opposed to between banks and their customers as many contracts are currently. Most controversially, the bill would adopt language written by Sen. Lincoln that would compel any large commercial banks that have access to the Federal Reserve’s discount window to spin off their derivatives trading business. The Fed, FDIC andTreasury, as well as the banking industry, have argued against this measure.
• Financial Stability Council – Establishes a new, nine-member Financial Stability Oversight Council, comprised of existing regulators, charged with monitoring and addressing system-wide risks to the nation’s financial stability. Among its duties, the council would recommend to the Fed stricter capital, leverage and other rules for large, complex financial firms that are judged to threaten the financial system. In extreme cases, would have the power to break up financial firms.
• Oversight Changes – Eliminates the Office of Thrift Supervision, but an attempt to strip the Fed of its oversight of thousands of community banks was reversed with an amendment. Would empower the Fed to supervise the largest, most complex financial companies to ensure that the government understands the risks and complexities of firms that could pose a risk to the broader economy.
• Federal Reserve Oversight – Calls for a one-time government audit of all of the Fed’s emergency lending programs from December 2007 onward, including facilities used to help deal with the collapse of Bear Stearns & Co. and the program to stabilize asset-backed securities markets. The Government Accountability Office would also review the Fed’s corporate governance, including whether there are conflicts of interest inherent in the current design of the Federal Reserve System.

Summary of remaining key components to be posted later today.

The fifth time was the charm for supporters of gaming in Ohio. Voters had rejected the approval of casinos in Ohio four times over the last couple decades, but apparently the Buckeye State’s fiscal concerns trumped the opposition as the referendum to allow land-based gambling operations in Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo was approved with 53% of the vote in November’s election. Gaming in Ohio will certainly help that state with its revenue problems, but will just as certainly make Indiana’s fiscal picture worse by cutting into our gaming tax revenues.

Indiana currently receives about $250 million dollars a year from three riverboats that are within a short drive of Cincinnati. It is estimated that up to 38% of the riverboat patrons come from out of state. The Hollywood Casino in Lawrenceburg and Grand Victoria Casino & Resort in Rising Sun are just minutes from Cincinnati and could both be seriously impacted by a casino there. The Belterra Casino Resort & Spa in Vevay is a little further down the Ohio River, but likely would also feel the effects.

Additionally, the other casinos could draw away some of the traffic at the already greatly suffering Hoosier Park Racing & Casino in Anderson. All told, Indiana gaming tax revenues could drop by as much as $100 million. These likely future losses to Indiana follow the losses now being experienced at the Blue Chip Casino in Michigan City due to the opening of a new tribal casino last year just across the border in Michigan. In addition, Kentucky could well be the next state to siphon off revenues as the pressure mounts to allow slots at its horse tracks.

Bottom line: As more players enter the game, Indiana’s share of the winnings is sure to diminish.

Looking for ways to deal with greatly reduced tax collections, states are focusing on their unclaimed property statutes as a potential source of revenue. States are discovering that by changing their laws they can increase what escheats to the state coffers. Changes like expanding the definition of what constitutes "unclaimed property," shortening the period for owners to claim it and limiting recovery options result in more of the property going to the state (and less to the owners).

It is estimated that states collectively hold $33 billion in unclaimed property. Delaware expects to collect $380 million in 2009. So it is no wonder that struggling states are tempted to grab what they can in these disconcerting developments.

How much of the stimulus money had been injected into the economy through the first 4½ months of the year? As of mid-May, about 6% of the money — $45.6 billion – had been paid out. Much of that went to Medicaid costs, unemployment benefits and the $250 checks to Social Security recipients. Highway projects had received $11 million. The Transportation Department had committed an equivalent amount, but the money has not gone out yet.

In all, some $88 billion had been committed to various types of projects and programs. The administration points out that it is a two-year program, but many state officials and others remain anxious. The administration has committed to spending 70% of the money, or $550.9 billion, within the first two years.

Vice President Joe Biden said in an interview recently, "I think that what you’re going to see happen here is the velocity of this will increase not just arithmetically, but geometrically here. At least, we’ve got to make that happen."

The budget discussion yesterday in the House Ways and Means Committee proved just how far apart the House Democrats and Republicans are in their views of how the state’s fiscal picture should play out.

Republicans voiced concerns that the numerous (25 passed) amendments to the House Democrats’ proposal collectively spend another $100 million on top of an initial $500 million (beyond projected revenues) in the one-year spending plan – severely draining the state’s $1 billion surplus.  They also suggested that the spending levels established, particularly the way the stimulus money is used, will put the state in such dismal shape that taxpayers will be hit hard down the road.

The House Democrats, on the other hand, feel the amended bill simply reflects a different set of priorities than that of their Republican counterparts.  They say much of the state’s reserve will remain intact and that, given our economic climate, it is prudent to hold off on the fiscal year 2011 budget until next session, after revenue revisions are made at the December forecast.

The two parties remain at such odds that the chance of the session going into July was (gasp!) openly suggested.

Of course, it’s only the beginning of a game we’ve seen before with the Senate stripping what the House passes and inserting its own priorities. Thus, we seem to be inevitably headed down the all too familiar path – one that failed two months ago – to conference committee negotiations. 

Before the full House meets today on the budget at approximately 4 p.m., the Ways and Means Committee will hear two other measures, SS 1002 (on the Capital Improvement Board) and SS 1003 (involving public assistance).