bib1113.pdf (application/pdf Object)
I am not really clear if the Department of Administration that prepared this budget is supposed to be non-partisan, but the language that starts the summary out sounds like something from a Fox News host. "These last two years have shown us that we cannot tax and spend our way to economic vitality." Agree or not, that does not sound non-partisan. The problem is that the function of this department is
"The purposes of this chapter are to conserve the state’s resources by
coordinating management services and providing effective aid to
agencies of the state government; to present clearly defined alternatives
and objectives of state programs and policies so that the
state’s agencies, the governor and the legislature may plan cooperatively
and finance the services which the state will provide for its
citizens;..." Chapter 16 ss 1(16.001) WSC
It will very difficult to advise the governor and/or the legislature if the information is presented in accordance with the ruling parties perspective. No one group or person is 100% correct. Advisers should be able and willing to dissent as is best for the state. This does not appear to start out with any dissension. Based on the way that the "Budget Repair Bill" has been handed, Governor Walker is not a man willing to suffer dissent.
The next point to address is the question: What is a 'structural deficit?'
"Structural balance, structural deficit – The difference between ongoing revenues and on-going expenditures during a fiscal year. If on-going expenditures exceed on-going revenues, the state is in a structural deficit. The state can have a structural deficit but still have a constitutionally-balanced budget because of an adequate beginning fund balance to absorb the difference, or because of the use of fund transfers or other temporary revenues." http://www.marylandpolicy.org/html/research/BudgetGlossary.htm
I am not sure that helps. It would appear that what the Governor is saying is that our on-going expenditures are only slightly higher than our on-going revenues. Or at least they claim that it is closer than it has been in a vary long time. I am not sure that that really explains anything.
"One-quarter of the budget goes for state operations, primarily the Department of Corrections and the University of Wisconsin." 2011-2013 Budget, p. 2
During his speech the Governor mentioned eliminating the "early release program." If the Department of Corrections costs this much money and Gov. Walker wants to save money, why would you want to eliminate this program? According to an article from the Wisconsin State Journal, as of March 1, 2011, 391 non-violent inmates had earned their way out of prison. Of those, 2 had been rearrested. That is a 0.0051% recidivism rate. Not bad for something that could save the taxpayers millions, if not billions of dollars. How much could we save if this program were followed through upon? How many people would be given a second chance to fix their lives?
"Rather than compromise services to our citizens, public sector workers need to contribute more toward their benefits. We must bring the share of benefits paid by employees in line with the private sector." 2011-2013 Budget, p. 3. Fortunately for Governor Walker, the unionized public sector employees, that this budget calls "second-to-none" have already made these concessions, so he can check this step off his list.
(Aside: If a local union does not want to go along with the changes necessary to assist with expenses of running the schools in their district, LAY THEM OFF! You don't need a Howitzer to kill a mosquito. Lay off the teachers or local union members that won't help the local governments get the money in line. Simple! See: no protests, no sit ins, no runaways Senators and nightly press conference/infomercials about this piece of legislation.)
More observations to follow in the coming days.
No comments:
Post a Comment