Spin Fail
As Wisconsin’s Democrats take up the budget in the Assembly this week, they are going to attempt to sell the line that they “cut” spending. It’s a farce. They make that claim because they did cut 3.2% out of the General Purpose Fund. The problem with that is that the General Purpose Fund only represents about 44% of the budget. It’s as if they think that they somehow aren’t responsible for the other 56% of the budget.
The truth is that the proposed budget increases spending by 6.3%. That’s a 6.3% spending increase in the face of a recession and a nearly $7 billion deficit. While it is true that some of the spending increases are due to federal stimulus money, they are also raising taxes by nearly $2 billion - on top of the $1.3 billion tax increase they passed in February.
They can spin all they want, but there’s no getting around the fact that Wisconsin’s Democrats are planning to spend more and tax more.
It is interesting that they continue to pretend to be fiscally responsible. It shows that in their heart of hearts, they know that rampant liberalism still isn’t popular come election time. Unfortunately, they will have to carry this millstone of a budget into the voting booth.
What? You mean never-ending budget increases aren’t a constitutional right? The very cornerstone of western democracy?
Posted by Calvin on June 08, 2009 at 2125 hrs
I would have to agree with this. If that GOP budget you favored a while back - the one you admitted made the structural deficit worse - was an F (and it was), this budget should get you thrown out of class.
The problem is we voters have no fiscally responsible alternative to the clique that created this monstrosity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2009 at 2132 hrs
It isn’t spin fail just because you are unwilling to acknowledge reality. The Gov and legislature control revenue generated in this state. The fact that the state acts as a conduit for federal dollars doesn’t mean you get to hang expending those revenues on the Dems in control as some sort of tax increase.
In case you didn’t notice, on top of the increased spending tied to stimulus funds (most of which states had to spend and couldn’t use to balamce their budgets), the other portion that makes up those expenditure increases comes from the entitlement program expansions signed into law by Dubya or approved as federal waivers under his administration. Not a single Obama decision in that mix.
At the end of the day one thing is true, and it isn’t spin. Over the last 25 years the only time the size of state government in WI has been reduced, and the only time the amount of income and sales tax dollars spent by the state has decreased, has been when the Dems have been in charge. It is your dear old Republicans who keep spending like drunken sailors.
But hey, you all keep voting for GOP’ers that run on tax cuts and smaller government, cause I know it isn’t about results for you, it is just about which team wins elections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2009 at 2159 hrs
I won’t humiliate you by fisking your entire comment, Lefty, but let’s just deconstruct your first paragraph for giggles.
It isn’t spin fail just because you are unwilling to acknowledge reality.
OK, off to a good start.
The Gov and legislature control revenue generated in this state.
Very true, and they have decided to increase that revenue by increasing taxes and fees - as I said. We seem to be on the same page so far.
The fact that the state acts as a conduit for federal dollars doesn’t mean you get to hang expending those revenues on the Dems in control as some sort of tax increase.
And… we fall off the rails. First, the state lawmakers do decide where those federal stimulus dollars are going. They could refuse to take them or use some of them to shore up the budget instead of increasing spending (as Doyle is advocating this week for school payments for this year’s budget), but they chose to increase spending instead.
Second, you are confusing spending and taxing. I am not saying that their spending increase is a tax increase. They increased spending. They increased taxes. Simple as that.
The Democrats can try to pretend that they are not increasing taxes to support increasing spending, but numbers don’t lie.
Posted by Owen on June 08, 2009 at 2210 hrs
I’m not confusing spending and taxing, I’m stating the difference because you are all too happy to imply spending equals taxing.
And no Owen, the fed stim dollars and FMAP dollars can’t just be moved around to fill whatever holes may exist in the budget. There are rules attached to how that money is spent.
Sorry Owen, the Dems have shrunk state governement and reduced state tax revenue. No GOP’er from the last 25 years can make the same claim.
That’s reality
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2009 at 2221 hrs
Explain this:
Gov. Jim Doyle’s administration warned in a letter to legislative leaders last week that the state would end the fiscal year with the deficit unless $261 million in federal stimulus money was used to make the June 15 aid payment to schools.
http://www.wkbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=10494630&nav=KoJEKt8q
How is Doyle planning to use the stimulus money to plug the budget if it can’t be moved around?
Posted by Owen on June 08, 2009 at 2230 hrs
Typical stupidity from the left. When the budget increases by 7% and the Dems in charge propose tax increase after tax increase and fee increase after fee increase you have the audacity to tout the Dems as being fiscally resposible? The reason the Repubs are out of power is that they’ve been spending money like drunken Democrats, so true conservitives don’t have much to choose from. That is until the Dems set out to show the Repubs what irresponsibility is really all about.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2009 at 2233 hrs
No Tom,
You fall off the rails there too. Republicans are responsible for past growth of Government. They have not been fiscally responsible for more than 20 years in many states and certainly not at the federal level.Of course, lefty’s spin that Democrats have shrunk Government is utterly ridiculous. There may have been short time spans where a Dem could make that claim, just as nation-wide there are Repub Governors that could claim it. But to look at the overall growth rate of Government (Including the Wisconsin State Government) over the past 25 years under each state or federal administration, no executive is even close to being able to claim a reduction in Government size for the length of their administration. In direct conflict with Lefty’s statement, any lesser claim is just spin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Tuerqas-
How are you defining the size of government? One way to define it is by the number of people employed by the the government. By that definition the state government under Doyle has decreased every budget he has overseen. He cut 2,700 positions over the past 6 years. This budget leaves 3,600 positions vacant. And the actions he and the legislature have taken since the additional $1.6 billion state deficit was announced would lay off another 1,100 state employees. I would say having 7,400 fewer state employees than when you took office is a significant step towards reducing the size of government.
Owen -
In response to…
How is Doyle planning to use the stimulus money to plug the budget if it can’t be moved around?
Some of the money has a discreationary aspect to it, most does not. You even have the director of the fiscal bureau being quoted today as saying most of the spending increase in the budget is due to the expenditure of stimulus dollars, and that in the current version of the budget that GPR spending is cut by 3.2%. Are you claiming the fiscal bureau has been compromised to spout Dem spin now?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 1550 hrs
The main ways I would define Government size is by dollars spent and control exerted.
To specifically address employee numbers, are you saying there were no new positions created over that same period?
I understood there was a 3.2% decrease in the increases, not the overall budget. The overall budget is not 3.2% less than the last budget. If you are saying it is, I would appreciate it if you cite the source.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 1605 hrs
Tuerqas,
You obviously never took Government math, where if you increase your budget by 10%, then settle for only a 6% increase, that is a 4% cut. I’ve tried that at budget time, unfortunately it only seems to work in government.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 1725 hrs
I understood there was a 3.2% decrease in the increases, not the overall budget. The overall budget is not 3.2% less than the last budget. If you are saying it is, I would appreciate it if you cite the source.
The budget is made up of different funds, and the issue at hand is whether it is fair to simply talk about the 7% overal spending increase without the context of what that actually means.
For example, if you believe that the current level of state tax dollars that support UW System is unsustainable, but you don’t want to damage the quality of UW System, you might reduce tax dollars going to the UW by say 5%, but increase revenue generated by tuition by 9%. At the end of the day this would result in a spending increase, but it is also a reduction in tax dollars spent on the program. How do you talk about that decision to the public?
The state essentially acts as a weigh station for the majority of the federal stimulus dollars. The fed has tied rules to how this money is spent. While some can be used to balance the budget, and others, in their use to fill holes in federal entitlement programs, can reduce the burden of certain programs on state tax revenue, a great deal of it must simply be spent by the state within certain parameters. So on the books it goes down as a spending increase, but it does not correspond to an increase in state tax dollars raised or state tax dollars spent.
What the Dems are talking about is that expenditures of General Purpose Revenue, funds generated primarily through sales and income taxes, there is an net decrease in expenditures of 3.2% That comes from real cuts, that you will see in the next year, in terms of public services that will no longer be available because the state didn’t have the money to fund them, or the money to send to local governments for them to continue to fund them.
Not all government expenditures are the same, or come from the same pots of money. And the Dems in the legislature are saying of the money the state controls in terms of both raising and spending, not the federal stimulus money they had to spend on roads projects and the like, or the fed stim money that went to fill gaps in MA and other entitlement programs, under budgets and federal waivers passed by the Bush Admin nonetheless, (but I will try not to get off track) that the state was required to expend and pass through by federal law, the legislature cut spending.
For those that want to be honest, it is a significant fact. The Dems will have a hard time explaining it to anyone, because it is so easy to claim that they increased spending by 7% and not acknowledge what that means. But for people who have watched state budgets over the years, and for programs that rely upon General Purpose Revenue expenditures, it is a huge departure from practices that have dominated state politics for, well as long as anyone can remember.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 2046 hrs
How are you defining the size of government? One way to define it is by the number of people employed by the the government. By that definition the state government under Doyle has decreased every budget he has overseen. He cut 2,700 positions over the past 6 years. This budget leaves 3,600 positions vacant. And the actions he and the legislature have taken since the additional $1.6 billion state deficit was announced would lay off another 1,100 state employees. I would say having 7,400 fewer state employees than when you took office is a significant step towards reducing the size of government.
Can you source the numbers? From what I found with a quick search at Worknet.Wisconsin.Gov… the annual average employee count for State Government grew every year since 1990.
Wisconsin 1990 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 63126
Wisconsin 1991 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 64338
Wisconsin 1992 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 66043
Wisconsin 1993 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 67222
Wisconsin 1994 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68160
Wisconsin 1995 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68120
Wisconsin 1996 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68218
Wisconsin 1997 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68847
Wisconsin 1998 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 69908
Wisconsin 1999 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 71402
Wisconsin 2000 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 72420
Wisconsin 2001 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 74690
Wisconsin 2002 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75089
Wisconsin 2003 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75162
Wisconsin 2004 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75073
Wisconsin 2005 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75334
Wisconsin 2006 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75706
Wisconsin 2007 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75955
Wisconsin 2008 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 76466Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 2211 hrs
Damn formatting… looked “ok” in the preview…. let me try again
Wisconsin 1990 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 63126
Wisconsin 1991 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 64338
Wisconsin 1992 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 66043
Wisconsin 1993 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 67222
Wisconsin 1994 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68160
Wisconsin 1995 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68120
Wisconsin 1996 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68218
Wisconsin 1997 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 68847
Wisconsin 1998 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 69908
Wisconsin 1999 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 71402
Wisconsin 2000 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 72420
Wisconsin 2001 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 74690
Wisconsin 2002 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75089
Wisconsin 2003 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75162
Wisconsin 2004 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75073
Wisconsin 2005 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75334
Wisconsin 2006 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75706
Wisconsin 2007 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 75955
Wisconsin 2008 Annual 000000 Total All Ind State Government 76466Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 2213 hrs
No matter how many pretzels you spin yourself into, if you spend $60 billion last biennium and $66 billion this biennium, you have increased spending in the teeth of a recession, when everryone in the real world is attempting to get by spending less. Raising evey imaginable, and some impossible to imagine, tax and fee is just plain irresponsible. To say nothing of the Dems loading up the budget bill with all sorts of policy changes that will cost all of us more money just to reward their cash cows. Disgraceful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2009 at 2216 hrs
Lefty,
that is all well and good and I see your point, it is just wrong. To date from what I can find, about 336 million in federal stimulus money has been allocated in the Wisconsin budget, yet we have a 6.2 billion dollar increase over the last state budget. A 3.2% decrease would be a hair over 58 billion…add 336 million and according to the arguments you are using, you would have me believe that the budget being passed should total about 58.3 billion. The other 8 billion are from Bush policies? Pardon, but I have not heard even a one liner from any Dem in office talking about these high priced Bush policies and how they are defenseless against them.It seems hard to believe you don’t know figures like that and you keep harping on the Bush administration like it is still currently at fault, so it is more and more clear you are just spinning(your wheels?). You also shut up quickly about the employee size of State Government shrinking immediately after the correct questions were asked, another sign of spin. I am quite sure there are Bush policies still affecting state and national budgets, just as there are Clinton policies still in effect.
The voiced decision by the Dem majority to use a Keynesian economic model is so far and away the reason for the budget increases that it defies reason to defend it in any other way than: ‘I hope it works.’
I would even had held some hope that it might, had we not seen the entire Dem wish list thrown in to every budget at every level in both spending and policy. It seems to have nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the Dems catching up to the Reps in pet project passage.
If you think it is disgraceful how the Republicans spent money like drunken sailors when they were in power, there is no alternative to feeling the same way about Democrats 3 fold right now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2009 at 0738 hrs
Jason -
I’m not sure what wonkette is including in their numbers. For all I know, they may be including items such as UW Hospitals and Clinics, which while it is reported as a state agency due to its existence as a state authority, it doesn’t rely on state dollars at all. For example, last budget UW Hospitals increased positions by 90, which are technically state positions, but aren’t a contributor to the state’s overall balance sheet. But that 76,000 number is higher than the 68,000 or so I’ve seen.
As for where I’m getting my numbers, go to the state’s legislative fiscal bureau website and under publications you can look at what has been passed in budgets dating back to 2001-03 (http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/index.htm). Looking at the general fund FTE positions you will see that since 2001-03 and the 2007-09 budget there has been a reduction of about 2,200 state employee positions. I was using the 2,700 number based on positions cut from media reports I’ve read in the past. But as Tuerqas correctly predicted, there have been some positions added over that time to reduce the cut.
As for the 3,600 and 1,100 number for this proposed budget, a quick google search with those numbers and the words “Doyle budget cut” will bring you plenty of media hits. It isn’t fact yet, as the budget hasn’t been passed, but it has been talked about repreatedly.
Tuerqas -
I don’t know for certain where the $336 number you saw came from, but I’m guessing that is in reference to the actual dollars that were spent in the budget adjustment bill passed a few months ago. That seem to reflect the number I remember from then, which was about $300 million in road projects. The rest hasn’t been allocated as the budget isn’t done yet. I don’t have any idea how every stimulus dollar is being spent, but I keep reading the same general quote from the director of the legislature’s non-partisan budget shop…
Lang said that other funds to play a larger role in the budget process, but cautioned that much of that spending in the 2009-2011 budget derives from federal stimulus funds.
http://blogs.wispolitics.com/budget/2009/06/assembly-gop-holds-budget-caucus.html
Lang told the caucus that JFC cut Gov. Doyle’s proposed all funds spending by more than half, and that GPR spending was decreased by about 3.2 percent. He noted that the all funds spending increase was due in large part to an infusion of federal stimulus funds.
http://blogs.wispolitics.com/budget/2009/06/senate-dems-hear-from-lfb-on-budget.html
If you’re a junkie that reads the wispolitics budget blog like me, you’ve seen the Dems getting Fiscal Bureau Director Bob Lang to make that statement over and over again. Why? Because he, and his agency, are the unquestioned authority on the budget in this state. It is where all the legislators go to get the numbers they reference in their stump speaches and where any of the decent media go to verify the numbers spewed at pressers and in releases.
Finally, I’m not trying to make a blame Bush argument. But I am reminding people that we are still operating under laws he and his administration enacted. One of the main drivers of the increase in state spending in this budget is MA payments. Now, if you oppose the expansion of BadgerCare, you can obviously lay your complaints at Doyle’s feet as it is a product of his administration and his budgets. But you also have to acknowledge he needed Republican votes for all of those expansions as the Republicans controlled at least one house for all of those budgets. In addition, he couldn’t have gotten any of those expansions without the approval of federal waivers by the Bush administration.
Those decisions were made, they are law. When those eligibility requirements go into effect for just that one entitlement program, and you have hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs at the exact same time, creating a whole new population of people that are entitled to those benefits under federal law, well, spending in the state is going to increase no matter who is in charge.
I get frustrated at this whole…, “How can spending go up, its a recession. We all have to do more with less, why can’t the state?”
Well the answer is because it is a recession. People are turning to state and federal benefits that they are entitled to under state and federal law because now is when they need them. That is what is driving up the cost of state government, not a bunch of discreationary spending ideas. I guess they could pass a bunch of changes to income eligibilities and benefit payment amounts and eliminate the very safety net that was created for such circumstances, but I can’t believe their is an elected official in this state that would take that vote.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2009 at 0905 hrs
If the stimulus package were the answer to the spending increases, that means we will receive roughly 8 billion from the federal Government and there should be very little in the way of wrong allocations, because the spending for that money does have conditions.
What is all the hubbub then? It sounds like you are saying that it is spin to say that we will spend 6.2 billion more dollars because we are getting that money from federal. (Even if that is true, it will be cold comfort since the only way the feds will get that money is from the people that still have jobs.)I read your attachments:
Lang told the caucus that JFC cut Gov. Doyle’s proposed all funds spending by more than half, and that GPR spending was decreased by about 3.2 percent. He noted that the all funds spending increase was due in large part to an infusion of federal stimulus funds.
First sentence, they cut Doyle’s proposal by more than half for a 3.2% decrease. It is a decrease in his proposed increase. If you can find figures showing that we will be receiving about 6-8 billion in federal stimulus money over the next 2 years, I will be more inclined to believe you. That is the only way your interpretation makes sense.
In case you don’t have a feeling of my general position, I am anti-republican as well. Since Reagan, they have not been the party of fiscal responsibility. The Dems have by no means taken that place though. There is certainly a fiscally conservative vacuum. To blame Bush for just about anything 2009 is political hackery and spin. I have just about no respect for him, but that about covers my feeling on 98% of Government. They are not there for redistribution, they are not there to be my moral teacher. Socialism is a different form of Government, and I think we should vote on whether to change.
You might say we just did, but for change that sweeping, call it what it is. Dems are lying to the face of their supporters, just as badly as Republicans were lying to their conservative followers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2009 at 1026 hrs
Tuerqas -
I’m not saying that there is 6 to 8 billion in fed stim money. I think there is about 3.5 between the budget and the budget repair bill passed earlier.
There is between 2.5 and 3 billion in revenue in the Dem budget and the budget repair bill combined that comes from changes in tax law (everything from adding tax collectors, to a new top tax bracket, to changes in how taxes are applied on certain types of personal and corporate income, fall under that umbrella).
Then there are flat out cuts, and some borrowing, that make up the rest to close the $6.5 billion or so hole in the state budget.
The point is that for the largest portion of money that the legislature and the governor are responsible for both raising and spending there is a 3.2% decrease in spending. For the budget as a whole there is an increase that I think I said earlier was 7%, but may be closer to 6%. The way you get that increase, while you have these other cuts, is primarily from money coming in from the fed through stimulus money.
It is an important distinction. What Lang’s quote says is that the legislature cut the increases in the Governor’s budget in half, and they did this primarily by reducing GPR spending compared to the previous year by 3.2%. He then says that of the overall increase of all funds spending, that it comes primarily from stimulus money. That is primarily money that has to be spent a certain way or you don’t receive it.
I have to disagree with you about your blaming Bush comment. First, I am not “blaming” Bush for anything. I personally think the waiver approvals his administration made towards the end of his presidency, and the last appropriation bills he signed that directed more aid to certain programs were good things. I’m pointing out that when you make law, that law has to be carried out. And seeing as states are currently forced to carry out policies set out by the Bush administration people should acknowledge that.
Obama signed a stimulus package at this point. He’s proposed a federal budget and outlined a road map for federal appropriations bills for the next decade, but congress hasn’t sent the ones for this year to his desk yet. We are operating under federal law as last acted upon by congress and the president in 2008. That isn’t spin, it is fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 10, 2009 at 1412 hrs
Total Entries: 20001
Total Comments: 134057
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 03:10 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 02:38 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 111
Total anonymous users: 2
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:54 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).