“The Democrats are killing us with taxes. The Republicans shouldn’t be helping them.”

Mark Belling used his column this week to call out Assembly Republicans for refusing to draw a hard line on taxes. 

If Wisconsin Republicans cannot offer an alternative vision to Doyle’s tax and spend orgy, they will have forfeited the right to claim to be the party of conservatives. Republican Assembly members (at least in southeastern Wisconsin) who acquiesce to this tax explosion will find themselves targeted for defeat in primary elections next year. It’s even conceivable that one of them could face a recall this summer. Enough is enough. The Democrats are killing us with taxes. The Republicans shouldn’t be helping them.

He also reminded everyone of what exactly happens when the budget doesn’t get passed by the end of the fiscal year (which is only one month away).

The state fiscal year ends June 30. What if the two parties don’t agree on a budget by then? The current budget simply remains in place. That gives the Republicans a lot of leverage. The state won’t shut down. Welfare checks and state payroll checks will still be issued. No employees will be laid off. The driver’s license bureaus and state parks remain open. It won’t be like the notorious federal shutdown of a decade ago.

All Assembly Republicans have to do is draw a line in the sand and say they will not raise taxes more than a small amount. It’s a stand that will earn them the support of a lot of Wisconsinites and will allow them to actually lay out a different vision for the state than the one being served up by Doyle. The only reason not to do it is if they don’t believe in it.

If that’s the case - if the Sue Jeskewitzes and Mark Gottliebs of the world (to name two Republicans from our area who think like Democrats) find themselves agreeing more with big spenders like Doyle, the unions and the road builders - it is proof that they are phonies who offer lip service to constituents in overwhelmingly Republican districts.

2007 is the chance for the real Republican Party in Wisconsin to stand up. We’ll know in a few weeks just who that party really is.

As a reminder, I have asked Assembly Republicans to pledge that they will not vote for a budget that includes any tax increases or any fee increases that aren’t directly related to the cost of delivering the service.  Here are the 10 Republicans and 1 Democrat in the Assembly who are willing to take this pledge.  Please, PLEASE, let these good folks know that you support them.  Just click through the links to get their contact information.

Rep. Vukmir
Rep. LeMahieu
Rep. Lothian
Rep. Pridemore
Rep. Lasee
Rep. Zipperer
Rep. Nass
Rep. Kramer
Rep. Nygren
Rep. Gunderson
Rep. Ziegelbauer

Here are the folks who have refused to take this pledge.  They should be commended for taking the time to respond.  Yes, they are wrong, but at least they showed enough respect for the readers of this blog to let us know their mind. 

Rep. Ott
Rep. Strachota
Rep. Vos
Rep. Gottlieb
Rep. Jeskewitz

The rest of the Assembly GOP caucus has chosen to give us the cold shoulder… or the middle finger… I still haven’t decided. 

1. Owen,

   You are giving the impression to your readers that anyone who doesn’t “sign” your pledge is soft on taxes.  That simply isn’t true.  I have stated very clearly that I will not vote for a budget that increases taxes or has fee increases that aren’t directly related to the service rendered.  I ran on that position during the election and will stand behind my voting record in the Assembly.  My word means more than any pledge or statement that someone else writes.  Furthermore, my goal is to actually see us lower taxes by cutting out inefficient and wasteful spending.  My first responsibility is to my constituents.  They know where I stand on the issue of taxes as well as other issues.  I will not let them down.

   Jim Ott

   Posted by on May 30, 2007 at 1752 hrs




2. Frankly, Mr. Ott, your colleagues (and you by association) don’t have a very good track record.  Your constituents may know where you say you stand, but they have no idea how you’ll vote.  And by giving yourself an out, you are showing that raising taxes is not off the table. 

   You may very well vote no to a budget that increases taxes or has fee increases that aren’t directly related to the service rendered.  But your lack of commitment shows that you could very well vote yes.  That’s the bummer about not yet having a voting record.  People don’t trust you until you prove yourself.

   I hope you do vote no to this ridiculous budget, and if you do, I’ll be the first one to cheer.  But until then, I’ll focus my energy on supporting the eleven legislators (even a Democrat!) who are willing to put their names and reputations on the line for the taxpayers.

   Posted by on May 30, 2007 at 1809 hrs




3. Jim,

   You are in my district, and the answer above is not to my liking.  You note that you won’t vote for a tax or fee increase “that aren’t directly related to the service rendered.”

   I read that to mean that if we get more services, you’ll support the new taxes.  I don’t want new services.  I don’t want higher tax or fee increases to pay for existing services.  I want the current revenue plus inflation to pay for things.  And if that isn’t enough money, then let’s start cutting things out.

   For example, we’ve got a massive State/Local government pension/sick leave/insurance benefit that isn’t going to be sustainable long-term unless we start taking actions now.

   Example 2: We are building the worlds greatest highway system in northern wisconsin for Illinois people to get to their lake homes.  Iraq should be so lucky to have this infrastructure. 

   I’d ask you to sign the pledge.  Otherwise you do leave yourself open to recall and/or a challenger in the next election.  This is a core issue to a major group of people in the district.

   Posted by on May 30, 2007 at 2029 hrs




4. Steve,

   In reference to the phrase “that aren’t directly related to the service rendered,” that is almost identical to my pledge.  I wrote it that way not to open the door for more services, but to allow them to raise a fee that directly paid for a cost.  For example, it’s going to take a few bucks to pay for implementing the Real ID Act.  That would be paid for with the DL fee.  I would think it’s acceptable to raise the DL fee enough to pay for that. 

   However, I agree with you that I do not want that to be construed as supporting increasing a fee for new or expanded services or increasing those fees that are actually raided to pay for unrelated programs. 

   At this point, I take Jim at his word.  I have no reason to doubt him other than my befuddlement over his refusal to agree to a pledge with which he apparently agrees.  But in the end, the votes will tell.

   Posted by Owen on May 30, 2007 at 2042 hrs




5. Keep up the good work Owen.  There is no question your work on this is keeping people honest and driving the debate.  Let the McGee stuff runs its course another day or two and blogosphere will focus back on this issue.

   Posted by on May 30, 2007 at 2324 hrs




6. Owen, I spoke to Jim on Memorial Day and I am convinced that he will live by the pledge (even if, for some reason, he will not agree to it).  He has some good spending cut ideas, and he seemed open to the idea of allowing the budget to roll over. I hope he proves us right.

   Posted by on May 31, 2007 at 0047 hrs




7. Steve, Your second example is flawed.  Those Illionoiances pay taxes on those vacation homes, the local businesses depend on out-of-state dollars and Wisconsin builders and contractors benefit from the sales of those homes. 

   The forest agriculture and paper industries all rely on those roads to bring materials in and transport finished goods out.  Building and maintaining a modern infrastructure is just a way to keep Wisconsin businesses competitive.  There is a reason that my business is located one mile off of a highway ramp.

   It works the same way with education.  Every businessman wants a well educated, well trained employee at their door.  The sucessful ones know that there are costs to be paid to develop that workforce.  It’s not for the kids.  It’s for poor schlubs like me that have to sift and winnow to find a handful of qualified workers.

   Posted by on May 31, 2007 at 1545 hrs




8. Owen, is Mark Belling now on your “naughty” list since he says that it would be all right to raise my taxes a little bit?  You torched your own Representative as well as a few others for not being “pure” on this issue (despite the fact that she and a few others on your blacklist have shown no indication that they will vote for big tax or spending increases).  In the next breath, you reprint Belling’s column where he says that raising taxes a small amount is fine.

   If it is all right to raise my taxes a “little bit”, if it is directly related to the service rendered (your standard), then what makes raising them a little bit more wrong?  Why should they be raised at all?  Should you put yourself on the “naughty” list for your willingness to accept a tax increase? And are you the arbiter of right and wrong on this issue?

   Pressuring Republican elected officials to hold the line on taxes (and thereby reminding them that we only really have one arrow left in our quiver going into 2008) is wonderful, but blacklisting people who will not jump through your hoops serves very little purpose.  I am curious what the end game is here.  Purge the non-hoop jumping “RINO"s (and lose the majority in the mean time) and then try to regain the majority from a position of weakness?

   When we do get rid of all the people you find unacceptable for not jumping through your hoops, who do you think is sitting on the bench that is capable of leading the Republicans back to the majority?

   Posted by on June 01, 2007 at 0740 hrs




9. I will be interested in hearing Owen’s response, but I see a lot of errors in Double Standard’s logic:

   1.  If I understand the no-new budget scenario, taxes would have to be raised a little bit.  That is all Behling is suggesting. He is not suggesting a partial capitulation.  The increase that would come with no new budget would be better than what the Governor is proposing, and it is the best scenario the Republicans can hope to achieve.

   2.  Owen did not torch Jeskewitz.

   3.  I have not seen any post in which Owen suggested purging the people he listed for not making his pledge, although I certainly would not support anyone who capitulates to the Governor.

   4.  Owen has not established a “hoop” through which anyone would need to jump.  That implies some difficult or time-consuming task.  Making this pledge takes no time, and hopefully living under it should be a fairly basic Republican concept.  It takes work to make government live within a budget, but that is why we elect people.

   5.  We only have one arrow left in our quiver???  On which planet (or at least which state) is this person living?

   6.  We will lose the majority if, once again, Republicans do not demonstrate that they are different than Democrats.

   7.  “Sitting on the bench”?  Does the writer really think our starting line-up is that strong?  While I do not believe that Owen suggested purging everyone who fails to make the pledge, does the writer really believe that these are the only Republicans who can win these seats?  I happen to like a few of the people who have not made the pledge and elieve they are strong candidates (assuming they do not fail us).  Nevertheless, I am fairly certain that Germantown, Mequon and Grafton are not going to elect Democrats.

   8.  To the extent a tax is rationally tied to a rendered service, raising that tax is far different than simply raising taxes to increase the size of the general fund by raising fees and taxes.

   9.  Taxing taxes “a little bit more” is how we became this tax hell.

   Owen, keep up the good work.

   Posted by on June 01, 2007 at 2310 hrs




10. Actually I wasn’t going to respond to Double Standard but since John is interested, I guess I will. 

    DS,

    John covered many of the relevant points, but I’ll add this:

    I created this pledge as a way to allow hard-line fiscal conservatives in the Assembly to declare their intentions in a place where everyone knows they will be held accountable.  And then to let those fiscal conservatives know that there is a body of people out here who support them.  I have not attacked anyone for not signing it and I don’t plan to do so.  I do plan to respond to Republicans based on their actual votes. 

    You see, the fiscally conservative base generally does a poor job of supporting those politicians who stand up for our principles.  Generally, we expect fiscal discipline.  When politicians are not fiscally disciplined, we attack them.  When politicians are fiscally disciplined, we mumble to ourselves, “good” and go about our business.  I am attempting to let the fiscal conservatives know that I, for one, plan to support them through thick or thin.  If they are willing to take the heat that a fiscal conservative takes during budget time, I am willing to stand by their side.  And I am willing to help them come election time.  I will not forget their steadfastness and I will encourage others to do the same. 

    There will come a time to flame the big spenders in the GOP caucus, but this pledge is meant to provide a bit of support for the folks who are looking out for the taxpayers.

    Posted by Owen on June 02, 2007 at 0734 hrs