Madison, WI - Legislative Republicans are pushing for passage of constitutional spending
and tax limits on state and local governments in Wisconsin. They’ve been
struggling to pass these limits since they were first introduced in 1999.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Local government officials, school districts
and the UW System are united in their opposition to the popular “Taxpayer
Protection Amendment” (TPA), and the intensity of their opposition is
unmistakable. Thus, the final disposition of this issue is very uncertain, at
best. But with many of the original plans being too lengthy, too complex, and
too controversial, we believe it’s time for an alternative. It’s time for Plan
B.
Public Supports Limits
The concept of limiting government spending has broad and bipartisan support
with the public. In a recent Wisconsin Homeowners Alliance poll conducted by
Wood Communications Group of Madison, 64 percent of those surveyed said they
would personally vote for a “constitutional amendment that limited state and
local taxing and spending increases to the rate of inflation, but allowed some
flexibility to accommodate growth resulting from development.”
Surprisingly, support for a constitutional amendment to cap government
spending comes from self described political conservatives and liberals alike.
The strong support stems from several factors including the weak overall
economic outlook and, to a certain extent, the lack of public trust in
government’s ability to deliver services in a cost-effective manner.
While the concept of limiting government taxing and spending is clearly
popular with homeowners, one important reason several recent versions of the TPA
have not generated support in the Legislature is that people are very uneasy
about inserting extremely detailed and specific language regulating government
spending in the state constitution. They simply do not believe a nine-page,
2,500-word fiscal document that could produce unforeseen consequences should be
inserted into the constitution – which is what the original legislative drafts
proposed. Moreover, there’s no guarantee the public would adopt an amendment
that takes 10 minutes to read.
It’s Time for a Simpler Alternative
Alternative ideas floating around the Capitol in recent weeks propose
adopting very general, but direct, language in the state constitution and then
pass more specific implementing language in the statutes. This is the way many
other states have implemented tax and/or spending limits.
Under this approach, the constitutional limits would apply only to spending
at the state level and mandate that state spending or revenues go up no faster
than the taxpayer’s ability to pay, as measured by personal income growth. Once
the overall limits are set and tied to ability to pay, the Legislature would
then enact statutory laws to prescribe exactly how spending at the state and/or
local level would be limited.
Supporters of this approach say details should be left to statutes and not
placed in the actual constitution. They argue that this approach will be easier
for voters to understand and easier for the Legislature to amend if necessary in
response to unforeseen future changes in our economy.
Opponents argue that this approach leaves too much uncertainty in the limits
with no guarantees that meaningful limits will ever be enacted. These
Republicans say if Jim Doyle is re-elected in November, this approach will
surely fail because the Democratic governor will never agree with the Republican
Legislature’s spending limits.
Political Considerations
If this approach is adopted by both the Senate and Assembly, the Legislature
may finally be able to break the impasse over TPA and present voters with a
viable and understandable plan to bring government spending in Wisconsin more in
line with the taxpayers’ ability to pay. What are the political considerations
to this approach?
- With Democrats united against any long-term spending controls, Republicans
must pass a plan without their help. The alternative approach could generate
more support from nervous Republicans who are reluctant to vote for the more
detailed and restrictive constitutional plan.
- If Republicans enter the 2006 elections with a long-term plan to control
taxes and spending at the state and/or local level, the GOP will have an
alternative to the Democrats’ “Hope” plan, which would allow homeowners to
exempt the first $60,000 of their home value from school property taxes. In
2004, Democrats offered no property tax plan to counter the GOP “freeze”
proposal, thereby losing two seats.
- Governor Doyle is opposed to the TPA and Congressman Mark Green, his GOP
opponent, supports it. The alternative approach sets up a clear difference for
voters in the November 2006 gubernatorial election. If voters re-elect Doyle,
they can be assured there will be no support from him for the follow up
statutory limits on spending. If they elect Green, they will see controls of
taxes and spending in Wisconsin.
The WRA has long supported the concept of rational and reasonable
constitutional limits on government spending and/or revenues. However, we oppose
versions that limit revenues local governments can realize from new growth and
real estate development. If this kind of an approach passes, it will act as a
disincentive for growth. We believe growth should be encouraged, not
discouraged. We believe it’s time for Plan B.
Published: 5/16/2006
