Monday, November 26, 2007

More Debt for All

Here’s a bipartisan hot steaming bowl of mayonnaise for the citizens of Wisconsin.

Madison - To pay for highways, buildings and environmental programs, state government slid 87% deeper in long-term debt over the past 10 years.

That decade spans the leadership of Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and Republicans Scott McCallum and Tommy G. Thompson.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the state had $8.28 billion in general-obligation, transportation and environmental debt in mid-2006; the same debts totaled $4.41 billion in 1996.

The 87% increase was three times the U.S. inflation rate over that period.

Figures show that debt rose the most - by $1.8 billion- under Thompson between 1996 and 2001, when he resigned to become a cabinet secretary for President Bush. Debt increased by more than $1.5 billion in Doyle’s first three years.

Does it shock anyone that the politicians chose to mortgage our future rather than control themselves?

No.

For the record, this is incorrect:

Officials say there are several reasons for the soaring debt:

• Hemmed in by past no-tax-increase promises, legislators and governors have instead OK’d record borrowing to have the best of both election-year worlds - continued spending for popular programs while pushing paying for those programs off into the future.

Notice the dates.  The range ends in mid-2006.  In other words, it does not include this last budget (which increased debt even more) and certainly has nothing to do with no-tax increase pledges signed in the Spring of 2007. 

Furthermore, the refusal to increase taxes does not automatically mean that more debt is the result.  They could actually just spend the same amount instead of increasing spending.  I know.  It’s a hard concept.

(10) Comments
Posted by Owen at 0706 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

  1. Not increase spending?! Owen, you trogladite! How could you even suggest such a thing! Why, there’d be less money for the children/welfare/environment! Why, people would starve! You heartless republican, neocon Bush loving scumbag! I can’t believe you’d even make a comment like that!

    Did I cover all the leftist angst? Or did I miss something?

    Posted by Billiam on November 26, 2007 at 0924 hrs


  2. SCHOOLS! I missed the SCHOOLS! How could I have forgotten WEAC and the Transportation people! After all, Doyle already took $300 mil out of the fund, so we need more! Owen is killing children by cutting spending!

    It’s so hard to type all that with a straight face….

    Posted by Billiam on November 26, 2007 at 0926 hrs


  3. They could actually just spend the same amount instead of increasing spending.

    Owen, I believe you’ve gone wussy.  Maybe a little too much pre-Christmas cheer?

    They could spend LESS MONEY!!!

    LESS!!

    LESS!!!  LESSS!!!!  LESSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by dad29 on November 26, 2007 at 0943 hrs


  4. Indeed.  I was referring to the fact that a no tax increase pledge only requires politicians to spend the same amount.  I agree with you that it would be even better for them to spend less.

    Posted by Owen on November 26, 2007 at 0950 hrs


  5. Borrowing is just an easy way to get all the pet and special interest projects paid for while pledging to hold down taxes.

    How about a no more borrowing pledge for 2008?

    And Billiam this is, as Owen noted, a bipartisan party at our expense. Why do you feel the need to make it a partisan issue?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2007 at 1247 hrs


  6. How dare the private sector not keep up with goverment spending…this is the price you have to pay.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2007 at 1556 hrs


  7. pjr, sometimes, it’s fun to tweak your nose. I’ve done the same to repubs from time to time. Also, I never voted for Tommy. The guy was a tool.

    Posted by Billiam on November 26, 2007 at 1648 hrs


  8. Once again Owen, the version you supported would’ve made it worse.

    I’d love to see complaints of this kind towards your party’s proposals when they’re warranted.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2007 at 1958 hrs


  9. ATV,

    That’s a heaping pile of manure. 

    The Assembly budget would have authorized $1,590,449,800 in bonds.  The Senate version would have authorized $3,041,613,400 in bonding - twice as much.  The governor?  $3,165,188,600 in bonding. 

    The Assembly budget would have borrowed less than half of the other versions.  Don’t believe me?

    http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2007-09budget/071807WI Leg.pdf

    You’re thinking of the structural deficit, which would have been worse under the Assembly version of the budget.  Some of that is precisely because they didn’t want to borrow to make the deficit look better. 

    Try getting your facts straight.

    Posted by Owen on November 26, 2007 at 2024 hrs


  10. LOL.

    On bonding you’re right Owen, but your post is the very reason I hope your wife tracks the family’s finances.

    You basically just said, “Yeah, my plan puts our family in more total debt, but at least one of the many credit cards has less on it”.

    Bravo.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2007 at 2246 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.