Monday, August 06, 2007

Loophole

Nice.

In recent years, the exemption has led school districts to raise their revenue caps so they can pay for everything from police liaison officers and nurses to grass cutting and snow plowing. Since 2003, school districts have been allowed to collect more than $1.8 million under the exemption, according to records from the state Department of Public Instruction, which has to approve all requests under the law.

Todd Berry, president of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the existence of the exemption - and the willingness of school districts to use it - raises at least one question:

“Are there units of government that are dumping things onto other units of government and not providing their basic services?”

Good question.

(7) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2243 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. “Are there units of government that are dumping things onto other units of government and not providing their basic services?”

    Serious ? Where do you want to start?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 06, 2007 at 2312 hrs


  2. Something similar goes on in corporate book keeping when each operation is called upon to become a “profit center” but the shipping department only gets to bill marketing, and not the customer.

    Posted by triticale on August 06, 2007 at 2328 hrs


  3. Agreed, KR.  The number-one unit of government that does this, with all of its unfunded mandates dumping tasks onto local governments but keeping the taxes that were increased to cover those same services?  That unit of government would be: our hard-working legislature. 

    And how’s it doing on its number-one job, passing a state budget?  Now that we’re past the first 10 percent of the new budget year, I wonder if they’re even 10 percent of the way to an agreement.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 0005 hrs


  4. The exemption is wrong, but Todd Barry’s question is wrong, at least in many instances.  Tax freezes (whether required by state law or, in some instances, voluntary) have fulfilled one of their basic purposes.  They have forced some taxing bodies to examine services and prioritize them.

    For example, if a village or city decides that providing a school liaison officer is not a top priority, it should stop providing that service.  If the school decides that it is one of its top priorities, it should be able to provide and pay for it.  However, it should cover that payment under its cap.

    The same can be said for plowing the school district’s driveways, or cutting its grass.

    Get rid of the exemption, but do not blame the municipality.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 0038 hrs


  5. Yes spending caps have caused prioritization.  the fund you are talking about is necessary given the way the caps have been structured and unfunded mandates have been imposed.  An example,  a city decides that it will no longer pay for crossing guards.  the school must now figure out where to cut from its budget to pay for the cost of providing the people.  It is possible the school could not supply the crossing guards, but what would parents say. 

    It is easy to say that someone else has to tighten their belts and prioritize when it is not you that is affected.

    Budgets have been squeezed and priorities chosen and now we have a bridge down in the twin cities and story after story about how tens of thousands of the nations bridges are in neglect.  My point here, before anyone gets too upset, is that decisions never take place in a vacuum.  They have ramifications that are sometimes easily seen and sometimes that take years to be seen.  Before someone is critical of local officials go to meetings and become part of the process.  Better yet run for office.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 1653 hrs


  6. Please.  First, I have been affected.  I have kids.  I use city services.

    Mentioning bridges and crossing guards is either highly naive or demagoguery.  There is more than enough money to take care of both.  And if some people gets squuezed, perhaps it will cause them to ask their legislators to make better choices.  For example, which is more important, building bridges or building Hmong Cultural Centers?  Which is more important, crossing guards or buying more land in the middle of nowhere?

    There might be some inconvenience but, I can guaranty you, if the option remains to just keep raising taxes, that is what will happen.  Noone will prioritize, and noone will make choices.  And if I am wrong about that, how do you explain the hyper-expansion of government for the past 40 years?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 07, 2007 at 2346 hrs


  7. Again my point is that in an environment of frozen budgets or revenue caps there are limited resources and when priorities are selected some things are given up.  The crossing guard example was a real life example.  The choice ended up being the loss of a foreign language teacher.  My example of the bridges was, clearly, that the decision to spend money on places other than bridge maintenance has ramifications that are not seen immediately.  The effects of those decisions are long ranging.  So, back to the crossing guard story. What will the long term ramifications be for that school district?  Short term, the graduates have to take extra credits of language when they get to college.  Long term who knows.  Maybe a less prepared workforce to compete internationally.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 08, 2007 at 0533 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.