A Real Taxpayer Bill of Rights

From State Assemblyman Frank Lasee

Should we have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or not?

Most people are saying yes, we should. The Wisconsin Public Research Institute’s latest poll shows a large majority – 62% - of Wisconsin voters want a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).{wpri.org/reports/volume18/poll053.pdf} Voters in Waukesha just elected a pro-TABOR executive over his anti-TABOR opponent by a 2-1 margin.

Which brings us to the next question: do we want a real TABOR? One that does what we say it will? Or do we want a pretend TABOR, that looks good but doesn’t deliver?

We’ll all say we want a real one, but some of us – some of us who should know better – are ready to endorse a false TABOR.

In his most recent column, {www.widigest.com/html/jj101505.htm}JJ Blonien does just this. It’s not the first time – JJ endorsed Senate Joint Resolution 76 (the Gard-Panzer bill) last year.

SJR 76 was a false product. Window dressing. SJR 76 would have allowed the state to exempt huge blocks of spending from the limits, while leaving the Legislature to spend that money without asking. It would have allowed the state to eliminate shared revenues and school aids, and allow local governments to raise property taxes to make up the difference. It didn’t require referendums for bonding.

These points and others made SJR 76 meaningless. Bad law. It did not protect the taxpayer.

Now JJ is endorsing a TABOR with the same flaws. His proposals sound simple, straightforward, and commonsense, but it ignores the simple fact that government will exploit any loophole. And like SJR 76, his proposal leaves loopholes. It doesn’t protect the taxpayer.

For example, under JJ’s proposal, the state will rob Peter to pay Paul: shift spending onto local governments, and reduce or eliminate shared revenue. Because there are no limits on tax rates, locals will raise taxes to make up for the shared revenue they lost.

Or our governments will raise the tax rates simply to generate excess revenue, then ask for permission to spend it, since they already have it.

The taxpayer will not be protected.

Any TABOR that doesn’t limit bonding will mean more bonding, more borrowing, consuming larger portions of the budget.

We know this is true: many municipalities and counties authorized large amounts of bonding this year – far more than they needed – because they wanted to get around the property tax freeze.

Without limits on bonding, the taxpayer will not be protected.

JJ’s proposal doesn’t cover all governments with tax and fee authority. The stormwater districts, lake districts, stadium districts, mosquito control districts. There will be nothing to stop our government from creating more of them, shifting services and spending onto them, and letting them raise taxes and fees to pay for it.

The taxpayers will not be protected.

A Taxpayer Bill of Rights has to cover all governments with tax and fee authority. It has to cover all avenues of spending or revenues, including tax rates and bonding. JJ’s proposal doesn’t do these things. Therefore, it doesn’t protect the taxpayer.

I’m concerned this is the sort of TABOR we’re going to get: a weak, loophole-ridden TABOR, just as I’ve described. If we do, I’ll have to oppose it. And I’ll be criticized for it. They’ll say I’m only against it because it’s not my version of TABOR.

That won’t be true. There are things I’m willing to compromise on, and have compromised on ever since we started this six years ago. But I’m unwilling to accept something that doesn’t truly protect the taxpayer, or that doesn’t let the taxpayer vote on the burden government puts on our backs.

If it doesn’t do what we say it’s going to do, I won’t endorse it. It’s wrong to sell something to the voters that won’t do what we say.

I’m hopeful that JJ – and all other TABOR supporters – feel the same way.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.