Question A: The DeWine Administration's decision in 2020 to cut spending rather than use "Rainy Day" budget stabilization funds during the pandemic will lead to more economic growth for Ohio in the long run.
Question A: The DeWine Administration's decision in 2020 to cut spending rather than use "Rainy Day" budget stabilization funds during the pandemic will lead to more economic growth for Ohio in the long run.
| Economist | Institution | Opinion | Confidence | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Andreas | Bluffton University | Disagree | 5 | I doubt it will make any measurable difference because it is such a small amount, but ceteris paribus the best time to increase deficit spending is during an economic crisis like during the pandemic and the best time to cut (and build up rainy-day funds) is during an economic boom. |
| Bizuayehu Bedane | Marietta College | Uncertain | 8 | |
| Kevin Egan | University of Toledo | Disagree | 7 | Particularly reducing state k-12 funding during the pandemic is problematic. |
| Kenneth Fah | Ohio Dominican University | Agree | 8 | The ability to raise funds in the future through bond financing for growth opportunities is enhanced by stable budget strategies. |
| Bob Gitter | Ohio Wesleyan University | Disagree | 7 | It is probably true that keeping the rainy day fund intact improved the State's bond rating but if we put the money into pubic schools I believe that would have had a larger long run positive impact on growth |
| Nancy Haskell | University of Dayton | Disagree | 5 | |
| Paul Holmes | Ashland University | No Opinion | 7 | |
| Faria Huq | Lake Erie College | Disagree | 5 | |
| Michael Jones | University of Cincinnati | Agree | 3 | Many of the cuts were to K-12 and higher education. However, federal stimulus funds may have replaced many of these cuts; and so I'm not sure that Ohio's total education expenditures actually decreased that much as a result of COVID. |
| Fadhel Kaboub | Denison University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | We can't grow the economy by neglecting strategic investments in health, education, housing, broadband, and green infrastructure. A rainy day fund only makes sense once we've fully funded our strategic needs. |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Charles Kroncke | Mount Saint Joseph University | Strongly Agree | 9 | |
| Trevon Logan | Ohio State University | Uncertain | 7 | |
| Michael Myler | University of Mount Union | Disagree | 8 | Cutting spending is a contractionary fiscal policy. A contractionary fiscal policy is unlikely to lead to economic growth. Why have a "rainy day" fund if you are reluctant to use it on a rainy day? |
| Joe Nowakowski | Muskingum University | Disagree | 7 | |
| Curtis Reynolds | Kent State University | Disagree | 7 | Odd question. It is nice to have a rainy day budget for future emergencies, but hard to believe that there will be anything in the near future like what we experienced during this pandemic. So we saved money for what, exactly? The pandemic is likely to have long term consequences for firms, workers, children, schools, etc. |
| Lewis Sage | Baldwin Wallace University | Strongly Disagree | 8 | It depends on what the spending would have bought: only investment spending matters to long-run growth, whether in the public sector or private. |
| Albert Sumell | Youngstown State University | Strongly Disagree | 10 | It was raining pretty hard in 2020. If that didn't warrant using some rainy day funds I don't know what would. |
| EJ Ume | Miami University | Strongly Disagree | 9 | |
| Andy Welki | John Carroll University | Agree | 9 | It forced deliberations about efficiencies rather than a path of least resistance approach to possible solutions. |
| Kathryn Wilson | Kent State University | Disagree | 3 | There is a tradeoff. On the positive, there are more reserves for the state for the future and the higher bond rating; these will both bode well for long-term growth. However, on the negative, if the state had tapped into the rainy day fund there may have been fewer businesses closed and workers laid off allowing for a smoother economic transition out of the pandemic. I don't think there is enough information at this point to definitively say whether the positive is greater than the negative, but I tend to think we would be in a stronger economic position if we had fewer business closings and worker disruptions (particularly workers who have now left the labor market permanently). |
| Rachel Wilson | Wittenberg University | Disagree | 7 |