Paying My Taxes Tonight

Despite the good weather, I spent the day today working on my taxes (I have a terrible cold, so I just wasn't up to doing anything fun). If I wasn't sick before, I am certainly sick now.

I recognize an obligation to pay taxes. I believe it is part of the price of living in a free country.

However, when I think about the vast number of people who pay little or nothing in income taxes, I become angered. I am even more angered when I think about those portions of my taxes that (a) are wasted, (b) go to support people who are unwilling to contribute or who do not need support, (c) go to pay for things for which the government has no business involving itself, or (d) pay for services that should be paid for by state and local governments. Finally, I become angered when I realize that I am ineligible for many deductions and credits precisely because I pay a lot of taxes.

Personally, however, I am even more frustrated by the amount of time I need to invest to prepare the returns necessary for the privilege of paying taxes. Sure, I could pay someone else to do them, but that adds salt to the wounds suffered in paying the taxes in the first place. I hate to pay people for things that I am perfectly capable of doing myself.

What an Idea: Spending Cuts to Fix the Budget Shortfall

Every politician has suggested she or he has "common sense" somewhere ins ome campaign brochure. How come we almost never hear this (from The Sheboygan Press):

Editorial: Spending cuts best way to fix state budget

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance isn't too optimistic that Wisconsin lawmakers and Gov. Doyle will come up with long-term solutions to the $650 million budget deficit the state is facing.

Todd Berry, head of the non-partisan watchdog group, said as much in a news release this week after analyzing the proposal made by Gov. Doyle and the subsequent measures passed by the state Senate and Assembly.

The taxpayers' alliance found that all three want, to varying degrees, to spend surplus, borrow, use accounting "tricks" and transfer monies from other sources to balance the general fund budget.

Berry concluded, "Whatever the ultimate solution, the state is likely to face a 'structural deficit' of $700 million ... or more in early 2009."

Worse yet, no one has adequately addressed these structural budget problems since they began in 1997.

Unless the state and national economy turn around quickly and substantially, Wisconsin is going to see the amount of tax dollars flowing into state coffers continue to lag. Without a significant cut in state spending, the deficit between what comes in and what goes out will only increase.

But only the budget repair measure passed by the Republican-controlled Assembly calls for a significant cut in spending — $361 million. The governor's spending cuts, according to the taxpayers' alliance, are $87.4 million and the Democratic-controlled Senate's proposed cuts are $40 million.

Much of the fix-up work comes from fund transfers — transportation gets hit for $243 million by Gov. Doyle — and borrowing. There is also the slick trick of spending $125 million school aid in one fiscal year, but not putting the money into the account until the next. This classic smoke-and-mirrors method of budgeting is included in measures passed by both the Senate and Assembly.

One item not in the Assembly plan is higher taxes. Assembly speaker Mike Huebsch criticized Gov. Doyle and Senate Democrats for proposing a tax on hospitals and increased corporate taxes.

We're not in favor of increasing taxes, either.

But we're equally opposed to merely shifting the current budget problem into the future through IOUs and shell games — which everyone seems to be willing to do.

Until the governor and the Legislature make the hard choice to cut spending when tax revenues decline, the state's budget problem will only continue.

Wasserman's True Colors

Back in July, I noted that Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Milwaukee) was one of only two Democrats who had signed a tax pledge. I also noted that he voted against the Assembly version of the budget. I asked if any journalist was going to ask him where he stood on the budget.

Wasserman's position is important, considering that he has announced that he plans to run against Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills).

Now, finally, a journalist has stepped forward. As reported by MJS reporter Patrick Marley, MJS called each state elected official who signed a tax pledge and asked if he or she could support a budget that included a tax increase. Here is what Wasserman said:

Yes. Wasserman, a doctor, said higher cigarette taxes drive people to quit smoking, thus saving lives. "I might have signed a pledge, but I also took a Hippocratic Oath," he said.

When Wasserman took the pledge, he was already a doctor. He knew about his Oath. He also was not a totally green legislator, so he knew that Wisconsin taxes cigarettes. He made a promise to voters. Perhaps he should not have made that promise, but he did. And he is going to break that promise. He has an obligation to the voters to whom he made that promise and, if he cannot live up to it, then he should resign. There has been no intervening extraordinary event that relieves him of that promise.

The pledge Wasserman signed is quite specific. It reads as follows:

I, Sheldon Wasserman, pledge to the taxpayers of the 22nd Assembly district of the State of Wisconsin and to all the people of this state, that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.

I try to be civil on this blog. But if Wasserman votes for the cigarette tax, or any other effort to raise taxes, he is a liar. Plain and simple.

Forget for a minute about whether you think a higher cigarette tax is a good idea. This is about integrity, and what is more important in an elected official than that? Regardless of your political views, can you really vote for a proven liar?

H/T to Charlie Sykes and Owen at bootsandsabers.com

Biggest Tax Increase in History is Not Enough: Democrats Propose Another One

Reps. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) and Chuck Benedict (D-Madison) and Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison) offered a bill to increase the tax on fermented beverages from $2 to $10 per barrel (for those of you mathematically challenged, that's a 500% increase). OK, you can ruin the economy, drive up the price of gas, destroy health care, make it more expensive to sell a home, tack on business charges and make Wisconsin a laughingstock, but LEAVE MY BEER ALONE!

High Taxes Come from Expensive Choices: A School District Example

I admit that I am one of the rare conservatives who believe athletics are an integral part of a well-rounded high school education. Perhaps it is only because I played high school football and was on the track team. But I believe that athletics help teach teamwork, camaraderie and discipline.

Nevertheless, I believe there are ways to provide athletics for less money.

In today's MJS Sports section, there is a full page chart of all of the metro-area high schools by conference. The chart indicates where the schools play football.

Most schools play at the stadium at their school. We have become accustomed to that. It is part of our own "Friday Night (or Saturday) Lights."

Shorewood, a community of only about 13,250 people, is undertaking a new $4.9 million athletic facility. There are only about 730 kids at Shorewood High School.

This is happening while some people in Shorewood are unhappy about the funding for their schools. Like many others, the school searches for ways around the state's budget cap.

Granted, a large part of the Shorewood stadium money has come from private sources. But much of it is taxpayer funded. $465,000 is coming from the Village of Shorewood, $350,000 is coming from the School District out of money that was assessed as part of a 2002 referendum for a new science building and $250,000 is coming from the Village's Community Development Authority from a tax-incremental financing district. That's over $1 million from taxpayers. And the proponents still have not figured out where to get the full $4.9 million (even though they are breaking ground next month).

I also concede that, if Shorewood had not decided to build this stadium, the School District would not necessarily have this money to solve its funding concerns.

Nevertheless, in an era when governments at all levels are facing difficult budget choices, is a $4.9 million stadium really a top priority?

Why not join forces with neighboring communities to have a multi-community stadium (Shorewood currently rents space to Messmer, but there is nothing to keep more than two teams from using a stadium).

This holds true for every school district. The eight schools in the North Share conference have eight stadiums - eight stadiums to pay for, maintain and replace. What prevents Homestead and Cedarburg, or Cedarburg and Grafton, from sharing a stadium (other than creativity and foresight)?

For decades, Marquette and Wauwatosa East have shared Hart Park in Wauwatosa for their games. It worked when they belonged to different conferences, and it works now that they belong to the same conference. Similarly, the 17 schools (13 football teams) in the City Conference share four stadiums.

Governments spend lots of money. If they would only look for ways to do it smarter, and spend less, we can have many of the things we want and still hold the line on taxes.

The Milwaukee Tax Revolt is NOT Over

After General Lord Cornwallis chased Washington's Army out of New York, across New Jersey, and then across the Delaware River into Pennsylvania, Thomas Paine wrote:

These are the times that try men's souls.

Paine was with the Continental Army on retreat.

Likewise, as a result of the loss yesterday in Milwaukee's 8th Supervisory District, Charlie Sykes wrote:

The Milwaukee Tax Revolt is over.

I understand Charlie's feelings. Like Paine, he has been in the trenches fighting the fight, and it looks bleak. However, like the Continental Army, our cause is right. Now is not the time to give up; rather, it is the time to fight even harder. Losing Cudahy and South Milwaukee is a loss (just as losing New York and New Jersey must have been devastating); however, it is not a sign of losing the whole war.

There is another moment from the American Revolution that should provide inspiration. On September 23, 1779, John Paul Jones lead one of the bloodiest engagements in naval history. Jones struggled with the 44-gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis, and although his own vessel was burning and sinking, Jones would not accept the British demand for surrender, replying, “I have not yet begun to fight.” More than three hours later, Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.

Charlie, our ship may be burning and sinking, but we have not yet begun to fight.

How Does Your Community Tax Rate Compare?

To see how your community ranks, click here. This is interesting information, but it does not tell you a lot of things necessary to truly evaluate your community. For example, it fails to provide average home values (in order to determine the average family tax bill) and the value of non-residential properties. Most significantly, it fails to divide taxes among taxing authorities (for example, is it the village's or school district's fault? the technical college? the county?).

Republicans Creating New Taxing Authorities???

Maybe I am missing something (if I am, someone, please explain), but I just don't get it. Senators Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), Bob Wirch (D-Pleasant Prairie) and Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) have proposed Senate Bill 248, which authorizes the creation of local park boards. The bill is cosponsored by Representatives Jim Ott (R-Mequon), Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee), Sue Jeskewitz (R-Menomonee Falls), Al Ott (R-Forest Junction) and John Townsend (R-Fon du Lac).

This bill authorizes one or more municipalities (cities, villages, or towns), one or more counties, or any combination of political subdivisions (municipalities or counties) to create a local park district (district). A district is a local unit of government that is a body corporate and politic and that is separate and distinct from, and independent of, the state and the sponsoring political subdivisions which created it and that are within its jurisdiction.

I don't expect much from many of the sponsors. However, considering the upcoming election, I would have expected more from Darling. Moreover, I was starting to think that Jim Ott was turning out to be a pretty good choice. This is very disappointing.

Am I missing something?

New Berlin School Budget: It is Not a "No Increase Budget," But...

Congratulations to the New Berlin School Board, which put forth a budget with less than 1% tax levy increase. Of course, the amount of the levy increase does not necessarily indicate frugality. For example, the MJS article fails to indicate how much spending increased, what assumptions the district used for revenue from the state, or whether the district employed gimmicks or depleted reserves. The article also does not tell us whether enrollment is declining or increasing or the amount of equalized value growth experienced by New Berlin. From a budgetary standpoint, all of these items are important. Still, less than 1%!

NOW is the Time

Every year, in late October and early November, taxpayers bemoan the tax increases their elected officials pass. Those who are totally oblivious wait to complain until they get their bills in December.

Waiting until the budget is almost done, or until after the bills are printed is worthless.

The second most effective time to send a message is when voting. Why second? In many communities, most candidates talk about keeping taxes low. Often, it is difficult to to tell the people who are dedicated to low taxes from the liars and the weak-willed. Often, it sounds as if the candidates are opposed to tax increases when, in reality, they only intend to be "frugal" (and frugal is often in the eye of the beholder).

Now is the most effective time to send a message. Why? In the next month, most governing bodies start setting budget goals for their staff. If the primary (or maybe only) goal is to hold the line on (or cut) taxes, that is what you will get. However, if elected officials start being wed to certain "important" programs, it is hard to get them off that course. Once those programs are incorporated in draft budgets, it is hard to get them out.

Contrary to some of our beliefs, the majority of elected officials want to please their constituents. For some, getting reelected is the most important goal, and they know they need to please in order to win. For many others, doing what the voters want is truly the most important thing.

You might ask: then, why do they keep raising taxes? Because most public officials only hear from a few people about their tax bills, particularly right before budget, but all public officials hear from voters about the things that just must be done.

If local elected officials feel that there is a groundswell of opposition to tax increases, there is a chance taxes will not be raised, or that tax increases will be minimized.

Recognize that, regardless of whether elected officials hear from people who want lower taxes, they will hear from people who want more spending. The spending increasers will win if the politicos do not hear that people want taxes frozen. They need to hear it now.

Have you contacted your elected officials?

Stiffing the Working Class in Wisconsin

There was a time when Democrats thought government should increase income and property taxes and not increase regressive taxes paid by working class families (e.g., gas and tobacco taxes). My, times have changed.

Administration Secretary Michael Morgan - Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle's top aide - ...said Republicans were starving the state of needed revenue by rejecting the taxes on cigarettes and oil companies.

"It seems to me the Assembly Republicans have decided to side with big oil companies and big tobacco companies over working families," Morgan said.

Smokers tend to be middle class working people, and middle class working people drive just as much as the so-called "rich." Democrats really do not care that the brunt of their tax increases will be shouldered by the group that has been their core constituency, do they? I wonder how long that middle class will tolerate it?

Housing Trust Funds: What is MJS Thinking?

In an editorial on Monday, The Milwaukee Journal gives us this sage advice:

Build more affordable housing in the areas around Milwaukee, and do it through a trust fund that would be used to build low-cost homes, rehabilitate apartment buildings and improve other housing opportunities for people of modest means. It's a good idea that government officials in Waukesha, Washington, Racine and Ozaukee counties should follow up on. ...

But governments in the counties around Milwaukee also need to step up and start supporting housing that workers of modest means can afford. Starting a trust fund - as Milwaukee was persuaded to do last year - can be a good start. Organizers of the recent meeting at Unitarian Universalist Church West said trust funds provide new opportunities for families and stimulate the economy by spurring investment in infrastructure and creating jobs in the building trades.

How to finance the trust fund can get tricky and should be left up to each local government. Milwaukee, for example, has issued $2.5 million in bonds.

Huh? We need a double-speak dictionary to discern what MJS is suggesting:

"Housing trust funds" means subsidized low income housing.

"Spurring investment in infrastructure" means local government (or local taxpayers) will need to pay for more roads and public facilities, not to mention police services, social services, and so forth.

"Creating jobs in the building trades" means that contractors, many of whom will not work or reside in the communities paying for this bad idea, will make some money off of local taxpayers.

"Bonds" means local government has gone further into debt.

"How to finance the trust fund ... should be left up to each local government" means even MJS cannot figure out how strapped local taxpayers can pay for this, but it suggests that they do it anyhow.

Liberals have lots of hair-brained ideas, but this registers extremely high on the looney-meter.

Why would Mequon, or Menomonee Falls, or Cedarburg consider this? What is in it for the taxpayers of those communities? $2.5 million (the amount allocated by Milwaukee) equals about 18% of Cedarburg's total expenditures to for an entire year. For what? It would provide housing for perhaps 50 workers (or a little more than the number of people employed by the typical McDonald's). If the communities are lucky, rent for these units might cover the interest on the bonds. If this is such a good idea, why aren't employers in those communities pulling together to provide this housing.

Funny that they ran this editorial on the same page they question business subsidies. Apparently, business welfare should be accountable but not social welfare.

(By the way Jay, MJS isn't liberal?)

Taxes: A Local Analogy

Read the following story from the Sheboygan Press:

Sheboygan's population is falling faster than all but one of Wisconsin's 60 largest cities. ...

Sheboygan's population fell 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2006, falling 200 to 500 people each of the last six years, the census' annual population estimate shows. As of July 2006, Sheboygan had 48,598 residents, down from 50,895 in 2000 but still holding the same rank as the state's 13th-largest city.

"Obviously it's a concern," said Mayor Juan Perez. "When a community starts losing people, one has to wonder what's happening." ...

Perez said Sheboygan's higher property taxes are likely to blame for the exodus.

"The surrounding cities do have lower taxes for their properties, and they're able to do that better than we are because their government is not as big as us and they don't provide the services we do," Perez said. ...

As Sheboygan's population has consistently declined since 2000, the Town of Sheboygan's population shot up 31 percent to 7,572 residents, and Sheboygan Falls increased 12.7 percent to a population of 7,663.

"Our tax rate is lower than what it is in the city — we take pride in that," said Sheboygan Town Chairman Dan Hein, pointing out that the town government employs nine people year-round compared to nearly 500 for the city.

"We haven't raised taxes in the township in over seven years. … There will be continued growth in the Town of Sheboygan," Hein said. ....

"Until taxes go down and it's worth people's while to build in the city as opposed to building in the outlying areas, I think that's pretty much going to be the trend of the future," [Sheboygan Alderman] Ryan said. "We need to get the taxes down in this city. There's two ways to go about it — cut services or increase the tax base."

Would anyone argue with Mayor Perez, Chairman Hein or Alderman Ryan?

Then why do people take such offense when the following story is told (pretend for a second that Wisconsin actually had a Governor who cared about jobs and business)?

[Wisconsin's good paying jobs and businesses are disappearing] faster than [almost every other state]. ...

"Obviously it's a concern," said [the Governor] "When a [state] starts losing [good jobs and businesses], one has to wonder what's happening." ...

[The Governor] said [Wisconsin]'s higher [] taxes are likely to blame for the exodus.

"The surrounding [states] do have lower taxes [], and they're able to do that better than we are because their government is not as big as us and they don't provide the services we do," [the Governor] said. ...

As [the number of good jobs and business growth in Wisconsin] has consistently declined since 2000, the [the number of good jobs and businesseses in other states] shot up. ...

"Our tax rate is lower than what it is in [Wisconsin] — we take pride in that," said [another state's governor], pointing out that the [other state] employs [fewer] people ... compared to [Wisconsin].

"We haven't raised taxes in [our state] in over [] years. … There will be continued growth in [our state]," [the other governor] said. ....

"Until taxes go down and it's worth people's while to build in [Wisconsin] as opposed to building in the [other states], I think that's pretty much going to be the trend of the future," [the Governor] said. "We need to get the taxes down in [Wisconsin]. There's two ways to go about it — cut services or increase the tax base."

MATC Raises Levy by 5%: Where are Proposals to Elect Board?

From MJS:

The Milwaukee Area Technical College board on Tuesday approved its $314 million budget for next fiscal year, increasing the tax levy by 5%, even though the school has still not reached a settlement with five unions whose contract expired in June 2006.

The board passed the budget on a 6-2 vote, with supporters calling the tax increase a necessary evil in the face of decreased state aid, while opponents said the tax levy was simply unacceptable.

Board members Mark Maierle and Bill Hughes voted against the spending plan.

One of the guys who voted against the budget is part of labor union's management, and the other is a school school superintendent. Amazing that those are the two board members who oppposed the budget.

Actually, maybe it is not amazing, considering the board's make-up. Consider that these are the people who you elected to tax you for your technical college:

Bobbie R. Webber (Chairperson) - Captain, Milwaukee Fire Department
Jeannette Bell (Vice Chairperson) - Mayor, City of West Allis
Lenard Wells (Secretary) - Director, Milwaukee South, Concordia University Wisconsin
William H. Hughes (Treasurer) - Superintendent of Schools, Greendale School District
Lauren Baker - Program Coordinator, Trade and Technical Education, Milwaukee Public Schools
Pedro Colón - Wisconsin State Representative (D-Milwaukee)
Peter G. Earle - Law Offices of Peter Earle
Mark S. Maierle - Business Manager, International Union of Operating Engineers(IUOE) Local 317
Ann Wilson - Manager, Hillside Family Resource Center

You say that you did not vote for them? People always say that when they don't like what their elected representatives do.

No, wait, you say. There was no election!

What?!? It can't be! There is an unelected group that has the right to tax us? Don't they set about 10% of our property tax bills (about 8% in the City of Milwaukee, about 12% in the Town of Cedarburg, etc.)?

Isn't that taxation without representation?

Absolutely.

During last year's election, a whole lot of Republicans said they would support legislation requiring election of this and similar taxing boards. Sen Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) introduced that kind of legislation in the last session. This session:

Nada.

I guess it only mattered in an election year.

Click here for The Crocodile Cage's prior post on this issue.

Can the Assembly Republican Majority Really Stave Off Doyle's Tax Increases?

Many of us have suggested that Wisconsin might be better off if no budget is adopted this year. Contrary to some suggestions in the press, there would be no government shut down. It would not be a bad thing. (Of course, it would be even better if Assembly Republicans could convince the Senate to pass and Governor to sign a no-tax and no-fee increase budget, but that is dreaming.)

Can we realistically expect the Republicans in the Assembly to hold together to make a truly principled stand? Republicans have a slim majority (52-47). Speaker Mike Huebsch has given some mixed signals.

There is no way of knowing. That's why they take the votes. However, we can tell a few things from past performance.

Let's start with the those who have pledged not to raise taxes. As I have noted before, Owen at bootsandsabers.com tried to convince Assembly Republicans to pledge not to vote for a budget that raises taxes. Despite his valiant efforts, only 10 Republicans and one Democrat made his pledge. We have, however, at least two other, very similar, pledges to which we can refer (Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform). Although it would not be unusual for politicians to break a pledge, we certainly can encourage those who have made a pledge to stick to it. We also must hold them accountable for their pledges. The following are the members of the Assembly who have pledged not to raise taxes:

REPUBLICANS WHO PLEDGED NOT TO RAISE TAXES (26)
BIES, Garey (R-1)
FRISKE, Donald (R-35)
GUNDERSON, Scott (R-83)
GUNDRUM, Mark (R-84)
HAHN, Eugene (R-47)
HINES, J.A. (R-42)
HONADEL, Mark (R-21)
KLEEFISCH, Joel (R-38)
KRAMER, Bill (R-97)
LASEE, Frank (R-2)
LeMAHIEU, Daniel (R-59)
LOTHIAN, Thomas (R-32)
MUSSER, Terry (R-92)
NASS, Stephen (R-31)
NEWCOMER, Scott (R-33)
NYGREN, John (R-89)
OTT, Jim (R-23)
PETERSEN, Kevin (R-40)
PRIDEMORE, Don (R-99)
ROTH, JR., Roger (R-56)
SUDER, Scott (R-69)
VOS, Robin (R-63)
VUKMIR, Leah (R-14)
WIECKERT, Steve (R-57)
WOOD, Jeffrey (R-67)
ZIPPERER, Rich (R-98)

DEMOCRATS WHO PLEDGED NOT TO RAISE TAXES (2)
WASSERMAN, Sheldon (D-22)
ZIEGELBAUER, Bob (D-25)

We can also look at how veteran members of the Assembly voted last year on the two primary votes on constitutional protections for taxpayers (AJR 77, ASA 3 and AJR, ASA 5). In addition to most of the Republicans named above, 13 Republicans voted voted in favor of both measures, and seven voted for only the weak proposal. In either instance, it would by hypocritical to vote to amend the constitution to limit the ability to tax, and then turn around and vote to raise taxes.

REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF BOTH THE STRONG AND WEAK TAXPAYER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS (13)

FITZGERALD, Jeff (R-39)
GOTTLIEB, Mark (R-60)
HUEBSCH, Michael (R-94)
JESKEWITZ, Suzanne (R-24)
KAUFERT, Dean (R-55)
KERKMAN, Samantha (R-66)
KESTELL, Steve (R-27)
MEYER, Dan (R-34)
MONTGOMERY, Phil (R-4)
RHOADES, Kitty (R-30)
STONE, Jeff (R-82)
STRACHOTA, Pat (R-58)
WILLIAMS, Mary (R-87)

REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE WEAK TAXPAYER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS (7)

ALBERS, Sheryl (R-50)
DAVIS, Brett (R-80)
MOULTON, Terry (R-68)
MURSAU, Jeffrey (R-36)
OWENS, Carol (R-53)
TOWNSEND, John (R-52)
VAN ROY, Karl (R-90)

There are two new members who have no pledge and no track record on which we can rely. Hopefully, we can rely on them. Tauchen's campaign website is still accessible, and he certainly said the right things, and Murtha was strongly supported by WMC.

ROOKIES WHO HAVE NOT MADE A PLEDGE (2)

MURTHA, John (R-29)
TAUCHEN, Gary (R-6)

Finally, if history is any guide, there are four Assembly Republicans on whom we might not be able to rely. They have not made any of the three pledges (at least in the past two years), and they voted against both constitutional proposals. Hopefully, this history is not a guide.

REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE NOT MADE A PLEDGE AND WHO VOTED AGAINST BOTH TAXPAYER CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS (4)

BALLWEG, Joan (R-41
NERISON, Lee (R-96)
OTT, Alvin (R-3)
PETROWSKI, Jerry (R-86)

So, what does all of this mean?

Certainly, it means conservatives in the Assembly have their work cut out for them. In order to hold off the tax increases, all 28 pledge-makers (including the two Democrats) would have to honor their pledges, all 20 of the other Republicans who voted for constitutional protections would have to prove they meant it and the two rookies would have to prove they are fiscally conservative. That would make the 50 necessary votes.

That's a tall order. For example, can we really rely on Sheldon Wasserman to vote against Doyle and honor his pledge? Not likely (although considering he wants to defeat Alberta Darling, maybe - but not likely - he will move to the middle and take away this issue). Do we really believe that some Republicans will not "compromise" their no-new-taxes stand in order to accomplish some things they want?

For each defector, one of the four liberal Republicans will need to be brought into the fold or a Democrat will need to buck his or her Governor.

To have a chance, we all will need to remind our representatives (early and often) of what we expect. Even then, it will be a very steep uphill battle.

League of Women Voters: A Nonpartisan Political Organization, or Something Else?

A fine article from Connie Threinen and the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin:

Supporters are making great claims for Assembly Bill 190, which would reduce the state's individual income tax rates by 1 percent.

They believe a reduction would stimulate business and give consumers more purchasing power. They say the state would accrue more revenue.

What they do not mention is the state's resulting loss of $102.9 million the first year and $74.9 million each succeeding year.

The League of Women Voters spoke against AB 190 at a public hearing on May 28. League members have never been willing to gamble the state's finances on that long-touted theory that tax reductions will automatically bring increased revenues. If that were so, an improved economy would have been noted following the reduction in income tax rates that occurred in 2000. ...

We will oppose any tax changes that significantly reduce state revenues.

First, the 2000 tax cuts did spur the economy. She is just wrong. We are going through an unprecedented period of strong economy.

Second, why is it acceptable for the League of Women Voters to call itself "a nonpartisan political organization"? It adds that phrase wherever its name appears, somehow imagining that if it says it often enough, it will be true (or people will believe it is). It has worked, giving them credibility to host candidate debates and forums and making it a supposed expert on good government. It calls itself a "trusted source of unbiased information."

The League itself might not belong to a party, but read its position papers. On almost every issue, the League supports one party's position. It consistently opposes legislation proposed by the other party.

It states in its "nonpartisanship" policy statement that "[o]fficers and directors in especially sensitive positions, or who are widely known in the state as League leaders, shall exert special care in their own activity to guard the League's nonpartisanship." Yet, for example, google "Connie Threinen." She might not be an officer or director, but she is listed as part of the "League Leadership," and she speaks on behalf of the League. Nonpartisan?

You might not like Belling, or Sykes, or conservative bloggers, but at least they don't pretend to be nonpartisan.

I do not object to the League taking the positions it takes. All of us have the right to advocate for what we believe. Just be straight with people.

Definition Of "Fees" (Thanks Owen)

Owen at bootsandsabers.com gives this definition of "fees":

A fee is a sum charged to cover the cost of providing a specific service. For example, the drivers’ license fee is supposed to be the amount of money it takes to provide you with a drivers license. Or the fee that you pay at a park is supposed to be for the specific maintenance of that park.

That's about the best job of explaining the difference I have seen. A fee needs a direct link to the cost so that, if the user does not use the particular service, the government does not need to incur that cost. If there is no new construction in a municipality, there is no need for building permits. If a kid does not go to school, you do not not need to buy books for her (you do not collect the book fee, and you do not need to buy the books). Fees, assessed appropriately, pick-up all of the cost of the item, including all of the marginal overhead associated with the item, and no more.

The key is the correlation between the cost and the service. I respectfully suggest that the test is not what you do with the fee after you collect it. All fees go to reduce the drain the service causes on the general fund; however, fees (properly understood) ensure the user pays so the rest of us do not need to subsidize a particular need. The reason the gas tax is not a fee is because there is only scant correlation between use of gas and miles driven. You can show a correlation, but it is not direct, so it is a tax.

There are some gray areas, but it is far clearer than most politicians will accept.

Owen also tries to define a tax. I have a simpler definition:

Government collections that are not fees (or civil or criminal forfeitures) are taxes.

What Happens When We Cut Taxes in Wisconsin?

From an article published today by Sen Ted Kanavas (R- Brookfield):

For example, last year we cut taxes and something positive happened in Wisconsin. You may not have noticed, because I am not talking about a property tax or an income tax cut. We cut the “angel” investment tax and, according to a report by the Wisconsin Technology Council, this cut resulted in a 54 percent increase in early-stage investment in Wisconsin businesses. Compare that 54 percent increase to the 11 percent national average and you can see that a simple tax cut can have a dramatic impact on Wisconsin's economy.

Should come as no surprise. It happens every time. Why do so few elected officials understand?

Et tu, Mequon? Tax Raisers Everywhere

A builder I know pointed out to me that the City of Mequon will probably raise one of its taxes by 50% this week. Anyone buying a new home will be paying at least $300 more. I have not seen this reported anywhere, but I have verified that the item is on their agenda.

For the past four years, Mequon has voluntarily imposed a tax levy freeze similar to the one Republicans in the legislature passed (and Doyle vetoed) four years ago. Mequon has one of the lowest tax rates for cities and villages in the five county area. It is one of the lowest spenders on a per capita basis. While it has a Democrat Mayor, it supposedly has a Council of Republicans. Yet, even Mequon appears to be caving to the tax addicts.

How does it justify this tax increase? I have heard two reasons. First, it has not raised this tax in many years. Second, people want more parks.

Their reasons sound a lot like those given for Jim Doyle's $1.75 billion in tax increases. And this is a community in which Mark Green handily defeated Doyle (and Jim Ott overwhelmingly defeated a well-funded and locally well-known Democrat opponent).

Hopefully, the people of Mequon will let their elected officials know that they do not approve, although I will bet not. Most voters are not buying new homes. Another case of people saying nothing, hoping the crocodile will eat them last.

Questioning Owen: To Boldly Go Where Conservative Bloggers Dare Not Tread

I admittedly am an Owen Robinson fan. But, regardless of the contribution one makes, from time to time it is good to be questioned.

Owen recently wrote an article in which he questioned four sacred cows of the state budget: shared revenue, two-thirds funding for schools, transportation and the stewardship fund. He concluded that his proposals would "would cut the state budget by about a third, solve the budget deficit, and allow for huge tax cuts."

In a vacuum, Owen's proposals sound great. In practice, we need to take care.

Before addressing my concerns, I will set one of the four aside. Getting rid of the stewardship fund is a no-brainer. Even ignoring the "it's the way we've always done it" crowd, the fund has an odd combination of advocates - eco-liberals, hunters and country club Republicans. Therefore, I question whether it can happen, but it should.

The other three are a whole lot more complex. Assuming we could gather enough votes to get them done, we would need answers to the following questions before embarking on these ambitious proposals:

Shared revenue

Can we really cut $4 billion in spending on the local level? If so, where? If not, how do local governments replace that money? Are we willing to allow real estate taxes to rise to replace the funds?

I know that does not sound very conservative, but being conservative does not equate to wiping out local services. In many communities, police, fire, ambulance, local roads and state mandates make-up most of local spending. Getting rid of all parks, community parades, picnics, community centers and so forth, even if acceptable, would not cover the gap.

I believe local governments can cut. I believe shared revenue was a bad idea in the first place, and entails significant administrative costs. But before we just wipe-out the current system, we better have a plan and understand the consequences. We need to provide local government tools to allow meaningful cuts (collective bargaining reform, elimination of state mandates, etc.).

Two-thirds funding for local schools

Many of the same issues apply, and it is even more complicated.

To make this work, we would first need to amend the state constitution and get rid of the current Supreme Court. The rule in Wisconsin is that all districts need to be able to provide comparable schools (it does not happen, but theoretically that is the rule).

Again, we would need collective bargaining reform and elimination of state spending mandates, as well as local control. We would need sound policies, or guidance for local policy makers, on how to decrease non-classroom spending.

We also would need a plan to deal with districts that just do not have the resources. West Bend, Mequon and Whitefish Bay would be fine, but as a state there should be some concern for poorer school districts.

Instead of getting rid of state spending on local schools, how about replacing the system with state-funded universal school choice? This would actually further Owen's goal of joining spending decisions and the revenue source while at the same time improving education and reducing property taxes. It might also reduce overall educational costs. If you are going to be bold, you might as well be truly bold (and effective).

Transportation

Owen states that "[t]ransportation spending accounts for about $5.3 billion of the budget. By eliminating wasteful projects and prioritizing by real needs, Wisconsin could easily cut that by $1 billion without suffering any significant negative consequences."

I don't disagree with the general premise. However, where does the $1 billion figure come from? Is this wishful thinking or is it based on a study or other report?

There are big ticket items the state can and should do. But, before we advocate for sweeping changes, we better be sure that the cure is better than the disease.