Will Lawmakers Use the Increased Revenue in Ways that Reduce the Structural Deficit or Exacerbate It?   

State legislators working on the 2013-15 budget got some very good news today.  A new paper from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau estimates that tax collections in the current fiscal year (which ends on June 30) will be $215 million more than previously anticipated.  That stronger base of revenue is pushing up the amount anticipated in each of the next two years by $180 million, for a total (three-year) increase by the end of the 2013-15 biennium of $575 million. 

Although today’s news could trigger fights about the best ways to use the increased revenue, the rosier revenue picture should nonetheless make it easier for the majority party to fashion a compromise that addresses the competing priorities of various Republicans, including adding to the meager K-12 education funding increase recommended by the Governor.  

The biggest question in my mind is whether lawmakers will use the added revenue in ways that reduce the $664 million budget hole (“structural imbalance”) that the Legislative Fiscal Bureau said the Governor’s budget would create for the 2015-17 biennium. Read more

State Finishes Fiscal Year with $342 Million Balance

 The annual fiscal report released Monday by the state’s Department of Administration (DOA) contains some good news, as expected. It confirms the Department of Revenue report from early September that General Fund tax collections of $13.5 billion were $126.6 million (0.9%) above the department’s May projections for fiscal year 2011-12.

 Tax collections increased 4.7% relative to the amount in 2010-11. That’s by no means an exceptional year, but the improvement since the May projection will allow the DOA to deposit almost $109 million into the state’s rainy day fund. And the combination of higher than expected taxes and almost $27 million (GPR) less in the “gross appropriations” line of the General Fund budget yields a closing balance of $342 million GPR (after accounting for the transfer to the rainy day fund).

 A copy of the Annual Fiscal Report is available online.

 Jon Peacock

  Read more

Wisconsin got some very good fiscal news last week. In a May 10th memo to the Governor, Department of Administration (DOA) Secretary Mike Huebsch said that the Department of Revenue (DOR) now estimates that state tax revenue will be $265 million higher in the current biennium than the February estimate by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB).

Even with the increase, total revenue will be $65.5 million below the amount assumed in the 2011-13 biennial budget bill. Nevertheless, the increase in projected tax revenue and a decrease in projected spending mean that the state is now expected to finish the biennium with a balance of about $154.5 million (which is $89.5 million above the required cushion of $65 million, known as the required “statutory balance”). Those figures assume that the state proceeds with plans to lapse $51 million from agency budgets to the General Fund in the second year of the biennium. Read more

Categories: 2011-13 biennial budget, Blog, rainy day fund, taxes | Comments (2)

This week Wisconsin is a step closer to enshrining poorly-designed fiscal policy in the state’s constitution. The Legislature is considering a constitutional amendment that would require the state to make contributions to a rainy day fund, and the amendment (AJR 21) cleared the Assembly Wednesday by a vote of 57 to 37, with one Democrat joining the Republicans in voting for the measure.

A rainy day fund is a great concept, and can help cushion the effects of an economic downturn. This particular rainy day fund, however, would be set up in a way to actually worsen the fiscal effects of some very deep recessions. In all but the most severe recessions, the money in this rainy day fund would be inaccessible without a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. (And it’s extremely difficult to get two-thirds of the Legislature to agree on anything, including that water is wet.) We’d have to make contributions to the rainy day fund even when the recovery was lagging. Read more

Will Procedural Delay Shed Some Sunlight on Rainy Day Fund?

The proposed constitutional amendment (AJR 21) to establish a “fiscal responsibility” fund for Wisconsin was debated on the Assembly floor Thursday, and the measure’s proponents got most of what they hoped for. They fended off all 6 amendments that were offered by Democrats, and the measure was moved to the “third reading” stage on a party-line vote of 56-39 (with Rep. Zigelbauer, an Independent, joining the Democrats in voting “no.”).

The only disappointment for the authors of the measure (AJR 21), was that they were unable to muster a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules and advance the bill to a final Assembly vote. As a result, the fast-tracked bill has been sidetracked temporarily – until the next floorperiod begins on May 10. Although I expect the measure to be approved then, the 3-week delay creates a least a modest hope for shedding some light on the concerns we have about the very restrictive standards for using the rainy day fund. Read more

Recently Introduced Resolution Gets Floor Vote Today

Amending the Wisconsin Constitution involves a long and deliberative process. A joint resolution must be approved by both houses of the legislature in one biennial session, and then reintroduced and approved again (without any changes) in the next two-year session. It must then be ratified by Wisconsin voters in a statewide referendum. Thus, a constitutional amendment proposed now can’t receive final approval any sooner than the first statewide election in 2013.

In light of the importance of constitutional changes, the long process is intended to ensure careful consideration of a proposed amendment. With that in mind, it is very surprising and disappointing that a recently proposed constitutional change requiring contributions into a rainy day fund is being rushed through the Assembly. The proposal, Assembly Joint Resolution 21, was introduced on April 1 and is scheduled for a vote on the Assembly floor today. Although establishing a robust rainy day fund is a laudable endeavor, the proposed standards for taking money out of the fund are so strict that a majority of legislators wouldn’t have been able to tap the fund (without a two-thirds vote in each house) during either the 2009-11 biennial budget or the current 2011-13 budget process – despite the dire effects of the Great Recession on state revenue and safety net programs. Read more