Some Budget Numbers

Here are some handy Wisconsin budget numbers for your perusal.  Note, when I say “total tax increase,” I mean total increase in taxes collected.  It is expected that Wisconsin state government will get about a billion dollars more in tax revenue per year due to normal economic growth. 

Governor’s Budget:

Total Spending: $58,236,506,300
Total Tax Increase: $1,748,020,800
Amount over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: $4,563,146,100
% Increase over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: 8.5%

Joint Finance’s Budget:

Total Spending: $58,113,871,400
Total Tax Increase: $1,667,007,600
Amount over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: $4,440,511,200
% Increase over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: 8.3%

Senate’s Budget:

Total Spending: $66,106,668,800
Total Tax Increase: $9,509,690,200
Amount over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: $12,443,308,600
% Increase over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: 23.2%

Assembly’s Budget:

Total Spending: $56,336,765,800
Total Tax Increase: $240,808,800
Amount over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: $2,663,405,600
% Increase over 2006/2007 Base Year Doubled: 5%

It is worth noting that the Assembly budget still increases state spending by over 5% compared to the last budget.  It’s not like it is starving government.  Just remember that the next time you read some panicky statement from a bureaucrat or editorial writer complaining about the Republicans “slashing” spending.  Really… can state government not live with a 5% increase? 

1. Huebsch delivered.

   Posted by on July 11, 2007 at 1937 hrs




2. These budgets are simply obscene - does anyone know of anybody getting these type of increases in there incomes? Very few do.

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 0730 hrs




3. And here I thought that MN’s two-year budget was ridiculous ($34.5 billion.)

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 0941 hrs




4. 1.  the 5% is over two years...not one

   2.  Minnesota’s all fund budget is $55+ billion, not 34.5

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 1011 hrs




5. "Really, can state government not live with a 5% increase?”

   But Owen, its not “state government” that the assembly cut...its aid to schools and local govt (and the UW...but thats a separate argument). Ultimately property tax payers will shoulder the burden.

   Also, the $130 million budget annually for the statutory reserve is considering spending since its an appropration. So, when you spend less by carrying NO balance, is that somehow more conservative?

   Also, most of the spending cut is federal revenue. The assembly spends almost dollar for dollar the same state tax money as the Gov and Senate. That might be fine with you, but remember that should you ever think to complain that Wisconsin’s congressional delegation isn’t doing enough to bring home federal cash.

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 1528 hrs




6. Fact Check,

   You should actually have facts…

   But Owen, its not “state government” that the assembly cut...its aid to schools and local govt

   That IS a portion of state government spending.  But so what?  Can’t schools and local government live on a 5% increase?  The citizens who foot the bill tend to live on less than a 5% increase.

   Also, the $130 million budget annually for the statutory reserve is considering spending since its an appropriation. So, when you spend less by carrying NO balance, is that somehow more conservative?

   I think “rainy day” funds are generally a bad idea.  It’s just another pot of gold for politicians to raid when they find it convenient. 

   Also, most of the spending cut is federal revenue. The assembly spends almost dollar for dollar the same state tax money as the Gov and Senate.

   That just flat out isn’t true.  The Gov version of the budget spends $14,754,981,500 in federal funds.  The Assembly version spends $14,279,584,400 in federal funds.  That’s a difference of $475,397,100 - hardly “most of the spending cut.”

   Posted by Owen on July 12, 2007 at 1547 hrs




7. Here is how your post should read:

   Governor’s Budget:

   -Absurd levels of spending due to a lack of ability or interest in setting priorities because apparently everything is a priority regardless of the cost. Too many unproven programs.

   -As usual, passes the buck by continuing to under fund mandates placed on local governments.

   -Moronically raises youth aids payments to Counties while raising fees charged to Counties for placements they cannot control to two state juvenile facilities when one could be closed down to save money.

   -Moronically doubles the real-estate transfer fee and redistributes the funds to the Counties after taking a huge cut for administration, instead of just letting counties keep the money and make their own decisions.

   -Borrows an absurd amount of money to buy more land for some unknown reason.

   -Plays politics by proposing a tax on oil that has no chance of standing up in court.

   Grade: F-

   Senate’s Budget:

   See Governor’s budget, and adds a health insurance proposal that isn’t serious and everyone knows isn’t going anywhere.

   Grade: F-

   Assembly’s Budget:

   Proclaims to show “leadership” by simply making cuts across the board with no apparent rhyme or reason, as if departments were put on a dartboard and spending decisions were made over a drunken game of 501.

   Proclaims to be “fiscally responsible” by getting rid of the rainy day fund, reducing it to zero, and creating a larger structural deficit than even the Governor and the Senate manage to do. Again, you have to actually purposefully try to be worse than they were.

   Astoundingly, prohibits DHFS from discussing abortion yet cuts funds for adoption resources, foster care rate increases and infant mortality projects in Racine where infant mortality is near the top in the Country. Pro-life all the way!

   Finds $100K to fund wild turkey habitat but cuts $150K from child support enforcement, which generates $3 in federal revenue for every $1 spent. Oh yeah and it’s used to go after deadbeat dads. Child support…wild turkeys. Child support…wild turkeys.

   Which does the party of family values prioritize? LOL. What a joke.

   Grade: So bad I changed the Governor’s and Senate’s to Ds (we’re on a curve here) and expelled the Assembly for putting the entire school on the No-Child failure list all by itself.

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 1845 hrs




8. Dohnal and Owen and others, I have a question: if you had a builder build you a house and it looked great on the outside (the superficial), would you buy it without caring that the wood was rotten, the electricity was bad, the second floor was incomplete, and the toilet flushed to the kitchen? Because that’s your attitude with the assembly budget.

   You have no idea what I mean, do you.

   Posted by on July 12, 2007 at 1846 hrs




9. ATV,

   I know what you mean, but it’s an idiotic comment.  It rests on the assumption that no spending as much as the Dems want means that the core is rotten.  It’s a false assumption.

   Posted by Owen on July 12, 2007 at 1937 hrs




10. Really Owen? Rainy Day funds are a “bad idea?” Unbelievable. You, my friend, are not a conservative. But go ahead, check with the bond companies that rate us and see how they view that kind of budgeting. While you are at it, ask them how they like increasing the structural deficit by $200 million over the Senate and Gov.

    And now $475 million (lost federal revenue) is peanuts. It was a huge deal when the Gov restored that back to public schools last time, but now its nothing.

    The Assembly spends MORE state tax dollarss, period. And they leave nothing in the bank. That is just not fiscally sound.

    Posted by on July 13, 2007 at 0944 hrs




11. Also, local govt did not get a 5% increase...Shared Revenue was cut (12.5% to Milwaukee!!) and that program is still at 1995 levels. Its been flat or cut for more than a decade.

    School aids were at inflation in the Senate, Gov and JFC verstions...now they are $85 million below inflation. Not a 5% increase.

    Really, the Assembly didn’t “cut” anything expect the Tech Schools and the UW. Mostly, they passed the buck to other instutions so that they could protect hospitol, tobacoo and oil profits. The end result is that YOU the property taxpayer will pay more.

    Posted by on July 13, 2007 at 0947 hrs




12. Um, Owen? I’m not even sure how you came to the conclusion that that was my assumption. I’m guessing that you saw me attack the Republican budget. You’re emotionally attached to the Republican party and so you engaged a common defense mechanism that says there are only two choices: you’re with me or you’re with “them”, so you simply dismissed my criticism as support of “them”.

    Let me make this clear so you understand it: both budgets are utter failures of competence and ingenuity. Both budgets are put together by political leadership beholden to partisan hacks. Neither budget makes fiscal sense but pleases the emotional needs of their followers because they’re built on platitudes like “health care for all!” and “not raising taxes!”.

    Since nobody here, especially you, have gotten my point yet, let me try to make it as simple as I can.

    Let’s use the example of a family budget. The couple makes $55K, and they can reasonably expect a 3% raise next year. Mom and Dad sit down to come up with the 2008 family budget and determine the following:

    -The cable TV bill is going up 5% next year.
    -The WE Energies bill is going up 10% next year.
    -Dad would like to up his 401(k) contribution to 10% next year.
    -Insurance premiums are going up $50 a month next year.
    -Daughter Sally is spending $100 a month shopping.
    -Gas prices are going up.
    -The family would like to take a cruise in January ‘09 and would need to save up $10K.
    -Son Scottie wants to go on a rafting trip that will cost $1,000.

    If Mom and Dad were the Senate Democrats or the Governor, they’d just assume Dad is going to get a $40K raise, dole out the excess to everyone and everything and be done with it.

    If Mom and Dad were the Assembly, they would have simply said:

    We’re going to keep the cable TV but the price won’t go up.
    WE Energies is only going up 4%
    Dad is only going to contribute 8% to his 401(k)
    Insurance premiums are only going to go up $25
    Daughter Sally can only spend $75 a month at the Mall.
    Gas prices might go up, but we’re not going to budget for them.
    We’ll only save $8K for the cruise.
    Scottie can go on his rafting trip.

    Is that a good budget? No, it isn’t. Is this family going to be in good financial shape in the second half of 2008? No, they aren’t.

    Instead of choosing priorities like the health insurance premiums, the 401(k) contribution, and gas, they just shorted everything. They’ll allow Sally to spend $75 at the mall when they could have told her to give it up while putting that money into savings or the 401(k). They could have given up cable TV to save up for the cruise.

    Their budget may look good on the outside by adding up to the amount of income they reasonably expect to earn, but it’s rotten on the inside because they haven’t chosen to fund the important stuff while getting rid of the extraneous stuff.

    Do you understand that? Do you understand that when you keep both the crap and the important stuff and under fund them all instead of funding the important stuff, you get failure across the board?

    Since you often make comparisons between a family budget and a government budget, do you think it’s stupid for a family to save for a rainy day? The other poster was correct about bonding agencies: if the state goes the Assembly’s (and your) way, we’ll pay more tax dollars to borrow for the capital improvements the state needs to make.

    If you think the Assembly’s budget is good, I sincerely hope your wife is in charge of the family finances.

    Posted by on July 14, 2007 at 1001 hrs