Doyle Seeks To Obey
Doyle admits his failure at leadership and desire to have taxpayers from other states pay for his inability to balance a budget.
Doyle wasted no time as soon as it became clear Democrats would have an ally in the White House to move forward with an economic stimulus plan. The day after Barack Obama was elected president, Doyle flew to Wausau to talk to Obey about the looming state deficit and the need for a stimulus package.
“In that first conversation I had with him, I really laid out for him what it was looking like for what a state budget would look like,” Doyle said. “Obviously, he understands governmental budgeting, so I talked to him in some real detail about what we were looking at and what the effects would be as far as loss of jobs not only in education but in local government if we couldn’t fund shared revenue,” the state program that provides aid to local governments.
Doyle soon teamed up with five other Democratic governors - Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, Ted Strickland of Ohio, Jon Corzine of New Jersey, David Paterson of New York and Jennifer Granholm of Michigan - to push for a $1 trillion package that included funding to help states pay their educational costs.
Doyle and the other governors talked with Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett. Doyle said he also had two five-minute conversations with Obama about the stimulus package before it was signed into law.
“I just can’t imagine what we’d be doing in this country right now if Barack Obama wasn’t president,” Doyle said. “It wasn’t a matter of persuading people at the White House at all about this; it was really about working out the details of what really would work for the states.”
The ultimate package was worth $787 billion and eased state budgets by infusing them with cash for education, health care and other programs.
NEVER a discussion of actual spending cuts.
Posted by dad29 on March 28, 2009 at 0832 hrs
“Dave buddy, just tell me the combination to the safe at the bank. All our problems are solved. I’ll pull the actual heist. You just need to drive the get away car”
Seriously, how is this much different from AIG? Incompetent management the last five years asking for a bailout because they are “too big to fail”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1010 hrs
Doyle - if you haven’t figured it out yet - is an asshole.
Evidence - his record.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1049 hrs
Doyle must have shared some of his own tricks, too - like the use of gas taxes (steal real dollars from the Transportation Fund and replace with borrowing) - because Obama is now looking into removing the limits on that at the national level.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1427 hrs
OK, all you wingnut experts—what would YOU cut? Be specific—no vague nostrums!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 2139 hrs
RO,
Many of us have answered that question time and time again. I have plenty of things that I would cut. Is there anything you would cut?
Posted by Owen on March 28, 2009 at 2241 hrs
One easy cut would be the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund - the government has more than enough land in its possession already - this program to spend millions every year to have the DNR acquire more is ridiculous. Another good cut would be to stop, and then reverse, the incremental takeover of healthcare called Badger Care. Also, Doyle, during his first campaign, told the voters that 10,000 positions could be eliminated in state government - now, apparently, he thinks they’re all necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 2300 hrs
A better question to ask, Rational Observer, is what part of the budget isn’t cut by the currency depreciation the governor is proposing as his solution to budget problems?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 0003 hrs
[Sound of crickets!]
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 0752 hrs
Well, let’s see, RO. I wrote this back in May of 2007. If we had done it then, we wouldn’t have a budget mess at the moment:
Let’s Go Cow Tipping
When I originally started writing this column, I had intended to go through SB40 (the budget) and list specific spending items that should be cut in lieu of raising taxes by $1.7 billion as Governor Doyle proposes. But as I worked through the 1,757 page bill, it became obvious that the problem with state spending is more than just spending increases in various areas of state government.
There are significant problems with the entire structure of state government. It is too large, spends too much, and has too many sacred cows that politicians are unwilling to take on. As such, here are some areas in the state budget that I would change:
Shared Revenue:
I confess that I think that Shared Revenue is one of the most asinine state programs ever developed. The state taxes everyone and then doles out the proceeds to local units of government by an arbitrary formula determined by the legislature. We should completely scrap the shared revenue program. If West Bend wants to spend more on their government, there is no reason why we should tax people in Eau Claire to pay for it.
Shared revenue consumes about $4 billion of the state budget.
Two-Thirds Funding for Schools:
Years ago the Wisconsin State government made the commitment that the state would pay for two-thirds of the cost of K-12 education as a means to keep property taxes down. The result is that now Wisconsin has one of the highest state tax burdens and one of the highest property tax burdens. Two-thirds funding of K-12 has failed its purpose.
State funding for K-12 education in the current proposed budget is nearly $13 billion.
Shared Revenue and Two-Thirds funding suffer from the same fatal flaw. They separate the spending decisions from the revenue source. Many school districts and local units of government are able to get away with ridiculous spending because taxpayers from outside of their districts are footing a large chunk of the bill.
If Milwaukee Public Schools decides to jack up spending by 10%, taxpayers all over the state will pay most of the bill through two-thirds funding. But those taxpayers have no power whatsoever over the school board. If the elected school board members were forced to reconcile their spending decisions with constituents who must bear the full cost of those decisions, they would be more accountable.
Most Wisconsinites support our schools and are willing to spend what it takes to make our schools great. But let’s make the people who make those spending decisions directly accountable to the people who pay the bills. Cutting two-thirds funding and shared revenue will drastically reduce the state budget, but it will result in higher local taxes. As for me, whether I send a dollar to Madison or to West Bend matters little. I am still spending that dollar on government. But if the people who pay the taxes and the people who make the decisions on how those taxes are spent are more closely tied together, it will infuse some much needed discipline into those spending decisions.
Transportation:
Transportation spending is a vital part of the state budget. A quality transportation infrastructure is necessary for the economic vitality of the state and the DOT does a pretty good job at building that infrastructure. That being said, Wisconsin spends way too much on transportation and the decision-making process that is used to prioritize projects is preposterous. Which projects get done and how they are to be constructed seems to be too often guided by political whims than the true transportation needs of the people of Wisconsin.
Transportation 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.
Stewardship Fund:
The Stewardship Fund is another bad idea that should be completely dropped from the budget. This fund is used by the DNR to buy private land to set aside. It is not the role of government to spend the people’s money to buy away their land. Plus, this program warps local real estate values and removes the properties from the local tax base.
The spending on the Stewardship Fund is about $50 million in the budget, but that’s misleading. The fund borrows all of the money for purchases and the $50 million is used to make payments on the debt. The debt for the Stewardship Fund is nearing $1 billion and Doyle’s budget authorizes a debt as high as $1.85 billion. Furthermore, the state should set about selling much of the land it now owns back to private individuals who could make the land productive for Wisconsin.
The ideas above would cut the state budget by about a third, solve the budget deficit, and allow for huge tax cuts. As we go through the budget process, let’s cast aside our “it’s always been this way” mentality and consider tipping a few of our budget’s sacred cows.
Posted by Owen on March 29, 2009 at 0941 hrs
RO:
Looks like your question was answered….sound of crickets.
In addition:
1) Maintain the QEO
2) Eliminate junkets (i.e. flying off to Spain to “research” choo-choos)
3) Stop increasing the number of state employees
4) Learn lessons from Sheriff Joe as far as how to run a prison system
5) Privatize servicesPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 1450 hrs
So your “solution” for the high cost of K-12 public education is to roll back state aid and let local school districts put it on the property tax. The only fly in the ointment here is the state constitution, which makes K-12 public education a state responsibility. The current school aid formula was held constitutional be a 4-3 vote of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Your plan would go 7-0 the other way.
How do you respond?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 2204 hrs
Here’s the actual text of the relevant section of the Wisconsin Constitution:
Article X, §3
District schools; tuition; sectarian instruction; released time. Section 3. [As amended April 1972] The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein; but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 2208 hrs
RO,
Two-thirds funding came to being in the early 1990’s (1993, I think) in conjunction with the QEO and revenue caps. It has nothing to do with the state constitution. Yes, it’s constitutional. That is completely different from being mandated by the constitution.
But your response is typical of the problem here. You don’t really want to discuss real budget issues. You just want to have those of us who are serious about controlling the budget throw up our thoughts so that you can cluck you tongue at them. Well, go play that game somewhere else. It’s childish.
Posted by Owen on March 29, 2009 at 2219 hrs
You miss the point. Repeal all the education finance laws you complain about and let the people in each district tax to the extent they wish to provide their local schools. This results in poorly-financed schools in the City of Milwaukee and better-financed schools in Whitefish Bay. That scenario isn’t constitutional.
My point is that forcing the K-12 costs to the local school district can’t be done without changing the constitution. What’s your response? This isn’t playing semantic games, pal—it’s the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 0651 hrs
This results in poorly-financed schools in the City of Milwaukee and better-financed schools in Whitefish Bay. That scenario isn’t constitutional.
Your cite to the constitution does not support your claim. What else do you have?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 0857 hrs
RO:
What about the other unchecked spending? Crickets. Anyone with the common sense God gave them understands one does not increase spending in a recession. It appears our good gov is mentally unstable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1020 hrs
Jason, the phrase “as nearly uniform as practicable” is what dooms Owen’s plan. This is the phrase that requires the state to roughly balance the effort in the rich district with the poor district by boosting the poor district. Look up the cases and you will see I am right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1900 hrs
RO:
I repeat #11, #17. You said “where is there to cut?”. I give you examples and you choose to ignore it!!!!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 0748 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134033
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 06:50 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 07:46 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).