Governor Walker proposed a $100 million property tax cut at a hastily-called press conference today. The tax relief would be delivered through the school aid formula – by adding $40 million this year and $60 million next year. Because the school spending caps aren’t being raised, schools will have to reduce property taxes to offset the increased state aid. The Governor is calling a special session for next week to expedite legislative action on the plan.
According to a story on Channel 3000.com, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said the bill will be introduced tomorrow, and he would like the legislature to pass it by the end of next week. The Governor is pushing for fast action on the proposal so the tax cut would be in effect when property tax bills are being calculated later this year.
Walker said that the funding for the property tax cut would come from the state budget surplus. Read more
Resolution (SJR 5) Would Finally Make Legislative Rule on Fiscal Estimates Consistent with Statute
For far too long, legislators have been making decisions about new criminal penalties without paying much attention to cost. A Senate Joint Resolution (SJR 5),which would address that longstanding problem, is scheduled for a committee vote this Tuesday, March 26.
Under the legislature’s current rules, any bill “increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall carry a fiscal estimate,” but that rule (Joint Rule 41) contains an exception for bills changing criminal penalties. SJR 5, introduced by Senator Taylor, would eliminate that exemption. (The resolution is in the Senate Committee on Government Operations, Public Works and Telecommunications, and you can Senator’s press release describing it here.)
One of the very surprising and disappointing things about that fiscal estimate exemption in the legislature’s rules is that it conflicts with the statute! Read more
States that follow the economic policy agenda promoted by ALEC risk weakening state economies and harming middle class families. That’s the message of a new report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which outlines American Legislative Exchange Council’s policy recommendations and their negative effects.
ALEC is a network of conservative state legislators and lobbyists that works to influence state legislation in a variety of policy areas, including budget and tax policy. According to CBPP, ALEC’s proposals would:
cut taxes deeply for wealthy individuals, investors, and corporations; shift tax burdens substantially from well-to-do to middle- and low-income households; and impose strict constitutional or legal limits on revenues or spending that would severely limit states’ ability to provide adequate funds for education, health care, and other priorities, and impair state economic growth.
Many of the recent changes made to Wisconsin’s tax and budget system follow ALEC’s recommendations. For example, the Wisconsin state legislature has passed several new tax cuts that primarily benefit corporations and well-off individuals. Read more
Modest Tax Growth Almost Matches Modest Requests – before Other Variables Are Taken into Account
A document released by the Department of Administration (DOA) Tuesday contains a revised estimate of tax revenue in the current fiscal year, and the preliminary estimates for the 2013-15 biennium. The projected tax growth – just 1.8% this fiscal year, followed by 3.8% in 2013-14 and 3.4% the following year – is okay, but uninspiring, and less than the typical increases in the past. Thanks in part to the fact that the 1.8% expected revenue increase this year builds on a higher-than-expected 2011-12 base, DOA estimates there will be a $348 million balance at the end of the 2011-13 biennium.
The lengthy DOA document summarizes the agency requests for the coming biennium, and it compares the total amount of General Purpose Revenue (GPR) requested with the estimated revenue in 2013-15. Notwithstanding the lackluster revenue growth, DOA calculates that requests only exceed the estimated 2013-15 revenue by $171 million GPR – which is a pretty manageable difference compared to past structural deficits, and is less than half of the expected balance to be carried into the next biennium. Read more
More than half the money the state spent last year supports services at the local level, but the percentage has dropped significantly over the last decade.
In fiscal year 2012, 54 cents out of every dollar of General Purpose Revenue (GPR) spent by the Wisconsin state government went to school districts, county governments, and municipal governments to educate schoolchildren, carry out human service programs, and implement other programs at the local level. That amount is down from 60 cents out of every dollar of GPR expenditures in 2002, according to figures from the state Department of Administration. The chart below shows that the remaining GPR spending is divided between aids to individuals (such as Medical Assistance), and state operations, including the UW System.
Another way to look at state spending is by program. State spending for K-12 education (both public schools and private schools in Milwaukee and Racine through the school choice programs) continues to be the single biggest program in state GPR dollars, as shown in the chart below. Read more
Wisconsin is about in the middle of the pack in government spending, according to a new analysis by the Wisconsin Budget Project. Combined state and local spending per person in Wisconsin was 1.4 percent below the per capita national average in 2010 – the latest year for which data is available – placing it 23rd among the states.
When spending is measured relative to income, Wisconsin was 2.9 percent above average in 2010, but still ranked 23rd. For this analysis we included all state and local government spending except spending in certain categories that not all states have, such as spending for state-run liquor stores. These numbers pre-date the deep cuts in government spending included in the 2011-13 state budget. The chart below shows that Wisconsin ranks just above average in state and local government spending.
- Establish formulas for capping the rate of revenue growth for the state, each school district and technical college district, and most other local governmental units.
- Require state revenue collected in excess of the cap to either be deposited into a budget stabilization fund or returned to taxpayers in the next fiscal year.
- Require local revenue in excess of the cap to be returned to taxpayers in the next fiscal year.
- Limit spending from the state budget stabilization fund – so it can only be used: a) to provide tax relief, b) for certain emergency events, or c) in a fiscal year in which the amount of allowable revenue is greater than the amount of collected revenue.
Most state spending goes to support local services, according to new spending figures released this week by the state Department of Administration. As shown in the chart below, 57 percent of GPR (General Purpose Revenue) expenditures support local services, amounting to $7.7 billion in fiscal year 2011. (If you get this post delivered to your inbox, you may need to tinker with your email program’s setting in order to be able to view the image.)
What kind of local services does state spending support? Support for Public K-12 education makes up the biggest chunk of state spending for local services; in 2011 the state spent $5.3 billion in support of public schools. The state also spent $874 million in 2011 in unrestricted aid to municipal and county governments, and distributed another $172 million to counties to provide human services.
After local services, the next largest category of state spending supports aid to individuals. Read more
Bachmann’s Bridge Brings Bipartisan Backing and Bipartisan Barbs
After all the debate in recent weeks and months about federal spending and the deficit, you might think that you can predict how politicians and interest groups are going to line up on spending proposals. Perhaps that’s generally the case, but there are times when you would probably get it wrong – unless you take into account that the general rules don’t necessarily apply to spending for highways and bridges, especially if the proposed spending is an earmark for a legislator’s own district.
Yesterday when I stumbled across “Room for Debate” on the New York Times website, I was reminded that politics makes strange bedfellows, as well as strange inconsistencies in how politicians (and advocates) view different spending items. The debate the Times featured in a series of columns is about a proposed $700 million bridge between Wisconsin and Minnesota, which would cross the St. Read more
More than two-thirds of Wisconsin voters favor a mix of revenue increases and spending cuts to address the state’s budget deficit, according to a new poll by WisconsinReporter.com.
Perhaps the results of this poll will give the legislators food for thought as they deliberate on Governor Walker’s biennial budget proposal, due out tomorrow. According to the survey of 500 likely voters, 30% of respondents indicate the state should rely solely on spending cuts to close the state budget deficit. Another 67% favor a balanced approach that incorporates both spending cuts and tax increases. The remaining 3% prefer relying solely on tax increases or were not sure.
We believe that an all-cuts budget will degrade the public structures and services Wisconsin needs in order to be poised to take advantage of new economic opportunities that will arise as the recession ends.
Wisconsinites understand the need for shared sacrifice, our budget challenges are real. Read more