N.E.W. Libertarian

Don't Tell Me It's Raining . . .

2007-02-15T08:35:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Our state Medicaid system is quickly becoming a running theme for Lasee’s Notes for a variety of reasons. This taxpayer-funded health care system in Wisconsin is on the verge of collapse and requires an enormous amount of state tax money to keep it running.

The Governor chose to make free (or largely free), government-funded health care the centerpiece of his State of the State address last week. The Governor wants to add tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) to the Medicaid rolls in our state and is able to look you straight in the eye and tell you it will not cost any additional money. Please, Governor, stop telling me it’s raining when you are . . . well, you know the rest.

The taxpayer-funded health care system for the poor, which is buckling under its own weight, has not increased provider reimbursement rates in 12 years. Would you continue working for 12 years without a raise? Medical providers can and do shift these losses.

No raise for over a decade means health care providers in our state are losing more and more money on Medicaid patients, which results in more and more costs getting shifted to medical insurance. Unless the Governor has a magic wand, health care providers will not see an increase in reimbursement rates anytime soon. They will see additional patients when the Medicaid rolls are expanded, patients (if the Governor has his way) that use health care provider services and those of us with private insurance pay more and more.

What would you do if you were running a store with a certain product on the shelf that was very expensive and you never made any money on it, year after year? What if you consistently lost money stocking that product in your store? What would you do? After a while, you might stop stocking that product.

That is exactly what the health care providers are starting to do, refusing to accept Medicaid. In the last couple of weeks, I have personally heard several reports of health care providers in Wisconsin who are going to stop accepting Medicaid. Providers in other states are doing the same thing. On the dental side of health care, lack of services is an epidemic as the number of dentists in this state who accept Medicaid grows very small.

Federal law mandates that to accept Medicare patients, a provider must accept Medicaid patients. Medicare patients are not as big of a burden as the under-reimbursed Medicaid patients. What happens to our Medicaid program when the medical side starts following the dental side and there are few providers left? What happens to our elderly when they cannot get into the doctor because their doctor of choice no longer accepts Medicare patients due to the lack of funding for Medicaid?

Now, imagine if you were on Medicaid and could not find a doctor or dentist in your area that would accept you. Where would you go? You would go to the one place that cannot turn you away - the emergency room. What if even more of our Medicaid patients were using the emergency room as their primary care physician? The expenses of this under-funded system would continue to climb.

Medicare patients (mainly our elderly) will be affected, too. Right now, nearly all medical providers accept both Medicaid and Medicare. So, Medicare users have their choice of nearly any provider in the state for their health care needs. When those providers decide to stop accepting Medicaid patients, they can no longer accept Medicare patients. Our seniors will be stuck with whatever is left when it comes to providers, instead of choosing who they want. All this happens because the state will not fairly pay its bills when it comes to taxpayer-funded health care.

Our Governor wants to add more people to this system and sign them up faster and easier.

Those of us with private insurance take it in the shorts. As we have discussed before, when providers lose money on Medicaid patients, we all pay the price in increased premiums to cover the losses providers take on Medicaid patients (the hidden health care tax). When Medicaid and Medicare patients start going to the emergency room for basic medical services, hold on to your wallet.

I applaud the Governor for trying to get more people on insurance. I share this goal. However, free, government-paid Medicaid and BadgerCare is not the answer to the health care problems in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin taxpayer-funded health care system bus is on empty and the Governor’s solution is not to fill the tank, but to pick up more passengers, shove them into the 4.6 billion dollar Medicaid bus in addition to the people already riding, and then keep driving forward at full speed. With his foot on the accelerator, he tells people watching the bus go by that it is completely safe and won’t cost taxpayers a cent more.

I realize I am starting to sound like a broken record. Under-funding Medicaid is wrong and irresponsible. Not increasing the reimbursement rates for 12 years is wrong. Adding people to the program when it is not funded properly is even more wrong. The state needs to do the right thing and not go down the easy road of making empty, broken promises to people who really need our help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

2007-01-23T22:50:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

The state of the state is . . .

Good question, don’t you think? In Wisconsin, there are two significant events coming up, one of them will give us the Governor’s answer that question. Next Tuesday, the Governor will make his State of the State address to the Legislature. The Governor traditionally lays out his view of how the state is doing and what he wants to do to make the state better.

In mid-February, the Governor makes a second address to the Legislature (why this requires a second address is a topic for another Notes some day) to introduce his version of the budget. Both of these speeches will tell us how the Governor thinks Wisconsin is doing in 2007. The budget will lay out the Governor’s spending and taxing priorities.

What will the Governor say on Tuesday? No one knows yet, but I think we can make some educated guesses about the content of his speech.

One of the topics he is certain to talk about is health care. The Governor’s version of things is that taxpayer-funded, state health care coverage needs to be extended to more people in Wisconsin because health care is hard to afford. The Governor believes he can extend this publicly funded coverage to tens of thousands of residents without raising taxes. That would be a pretty good trick. Alternatively, maybe raising the cigarette tax by a buck a pack is not a tax increase in the Governor’s eyes.

You may also hear him support a version of the Wisconsin Health Plan, which is a Canadian-style, government-run, socialized health plan that would impose a job-killing tax on every employer in the state whether they intend to use the program or not.

What you will not hear the Governor say is that Wisconsin health care costs are among the highest in the nation and that he has done nothing to wean us off the traditional health care delivery methods to bring the cost down. Instead, his party will not support allowing health savings account (HSA) contributions to be state tax exempt (they are already exempt from federal taxes). HSAs allow consumers to make choices about how to spend their health care dollars and empower the individual and family. The Democrats prefer having the government (or an appointed committee) make health care choices for you. You will not hear the Governor say that.

Another thing you will hear the Governor say is that Wisconsin has a strong economic outlook. A recent report from a national think tank (CFED, a Washington, D.C., public policy group formerly known as the Corporation for Enterprise Development) put Wisconsin on its economic honor roll, as if that was the beginning and the end of the discussion on Wisconsin’s economy.

What you will not hear the Governor say is that the honor roll designation came with a disclaimer. Wisconsin ranked in the bottom 10 for a number of items related to employment, including the number of new companies, two measures of job creation, and businesses created because of research and development efforts at universities. Also, the Governor will not say that our regulatory scheme has been pushing businesses out of the state for years and the only thing he did to change that in his four years in office was to sign onto a Republican regulatory reform bill.

In addition, the Governor will not mention doing anything positive about Wisconsin’s standing as a high tax state. The non-partisan Tax Foundation released its 2007 State Business Tax Climate Index in October, ranking Wisconsin as the 13th worst business tax climate in the nation (down one spot from 2006). The Index ranks states on five major business taxes- the individual income tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, property tax, and unemployment insurance taxes. Wisconsin not only levies higher taxes than average, but riddles its tax code with complicated exemptions and bracketing. Our tax code makes Wisconsin less competitive than nearly three-quarters of all states. Wisconsin still has the 7th highest overall tax burden as a percentage of personal income in the nation.

One of these two speeches will feature a section about how the Governor balanced the state’s books and has submitted another balanced budget this year. That will be achieved while accommodating the $1.6 billion in additional spending on top of new tax monies the agencies asked for this year.

What you will not hear the Governor say is that the budget does not really balance if you use honest budgeting principles. He will not explain how he plans to eliminate the $2.15 billion budget deficit. He will also not explain how he plans to add $1.6 billion to the budget without raising your taxes. This will become more clear as we digest the Governor’s budget between its introduction in February and the Legislature’s finished product in June or July (keep your fingers crossed).

It will certainly be interesting to see what the Governor says and does not say over the course of the next couple weeks. I call on the Governor to show fiscal restraint and leadership when it comes to the budget and leading this state. We should not spend more than we take in and the Governor should lead the way.

You cannot buy a vacation home in the north woods if you are having trouble making your mortgage. Hopefully, the Governor will come to his senses and realize that continued deficit spending will make our state weaker, not stronger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Medicaid Cost-Shifting

2007-01-17T22:57:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Last week, I met with the Manitowoc County Board of Health concerning Medicaid access for dental services, a major problem (I know that sounds exciting). Access to providers, as well as Medicaid reimbursement, are important issues because, annually, the state spends $1.65 billion, the federal government spends $2.58 billion in Wisconsin, and those tax dollars pay for 652,000 Medicaid and BadgerCare recipients in Wisconsin.

Medicaid and BadgerCare reimbursement is the amount of money the state pays a hospital, doctor or dentist for the medical services provided. The state of Wisconsin is only reimbursing providers for about 38% of their medical charges. To make up for that, the providers charge everyone else more. This is the hidden health care tax.

If a business is losing money on a particular product, they drop that product, or they make up for it by charging more for another product. If a doctor (hospital or dentist) is losing money on a patient, they do the same thing, charge everyone else more.

This means higher costs for those 63% of us with private insurance in Wisconsin. That means higher premiums for those who are paying for their own health insurance and for the employers who pay for their employees’ health insurance. Wisconsin health insurance premiums are well above the national average. A good part of that is caused by under-reimbursement of Medicaid, BadgerCare and Medicare. Higher premiums mean that fewer people can afford their own insurance and fewer employers will continue to offer it. It also increases the cost of having employees in Wisconsin if the company pays for all or part of health insurance.

This means that we are all paying a hidden Medicaid tax; our taxes are even higher than we thought. Our tax-funded, government-provided health care is not fully funded and this is a major problem.

On top of the existing hidden Medicaid tax, the Governor wants to add more users to BadgerCare and Medicaid rolls without increasing the funding. He says we can add tens of thousands of people and somehow become more efficient so it will not cost more. I am not making this up. He said that in his inaugural address and the media seems to be taking his word for it.

That increase means the reimbursement rate is likely to drop, which will drive the hidden Medicaid tax up even more, increasing the cost for the majority of citizens and businesses. Is this responsible fiscal leadership?

Because of the shortage of dentists willing to see Medicaid patients, the patients are going to the emergency room for toothaches and other dental needs. This expensive emergency room visit is charged to Medicaid, costing the taxpayer a lot more than it should. This is caused because our state will not compensate providers more fairly for the work they do.
When I wrote about this subject five years ago, I ended by talking about our structural deficit and the need to reduce state spending and start paying these providers more reasonably. Well, five years later, our honest budget deficit has grown to $2.15 billion dollars (Wisconsin is one of only three states running a deficit) and things have gotten worse with reimbursement (we have not increased our rate for years). For the foreseeable future, we need to do everything we can to reduce new state spending. At the very least, we must stop adding more programs and more people to the under-funded Medicaid system.

In other states, not only are dentists refusing to take patients on Medicaid, doctors are starting to do the same thing. I do not want to see this happen in Wisconsin. Raising Medicaid reimbursement rates will help keep more providers willing to see Medicaid patients. This increases access to health care for low-income families.
Health care is a major issue in this state and this country. We believe that access to good health care is one of the most important things we can have. The more expensive it gets, the harder it is for all of us to afford it.

Maybe that is what those who want a government takeover of the health care delivery system want. I believe we must be careful. The grass is not always greener on the big government/socialist side of the fence. Someone still has to pay for fertilizer, weed, feed and cutting. That is just a fact of life. If the government pays, the taxpayer pays.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

In for a Nickle, out for a Dime

2007-01-12T06:55:00.000-06:00

Politicians and school referendum proponents have more in common than you might think, both make promises they can't keep and for which they likely won't be held accountable. While a politician can vow to cut your taxes, a school referendum proponent can infer not to raise your taxes ... too much.

Trusting proponent's referendum numbers is risky at best, but whether spending $75 million, $65 million or even $60 million these are big debts to ride the numbers on. And when $9 million or so is a backlog of picayune projects like roofs and heat ... well, no biggee, right, we can afford it?

Where are the 2,000 kids coming from? Why does the district drop 120 or so alternative H.S. students from the rolls? "Cause they can". For whatever reason, proponents do not include the full count for alternative students, and distrust for their numbers grows.

Some say built it and they will come. We need an upscale school to attract people. But look at the backdrop: real estate sales, home values and home starts down, which is just peachy for home loan originators like me. Ha, ha. Many indicators show continued slowdown, while not dramatic, do we need a new school now? Are we trying to hit bottom so we have no where to go but up?

The actual increase for 2005/2006 was 42 students. The first semester 2006 showed a drop in enrollment; I wonder how the second semester count goes. Let's not see a free Pizza lunch on count day, let truancy work it's magic.

Well it's better than the original $75 million proposal, which had been set to crush the state record for plumpest turkey, er, referendum. The school board reconsidered, and reduced the figure to a mere $65 million or so. I still feel like we're getting the short end of the wishbone.

In taxpayers terms we will be paying an additional 10-cent per thousand right away and forgoing a 37-cent per thousand reduction from retiring debt. And in 2010 or so we should expect another 18-cent per thousand bonus from the School district for a grand total of around 65-cent per thousand, if their numbers hold up.

Now, let's toast our magnanimous Gov. Diamond Jim Doyle for the extra $850 mil he gave schools in his last budget to implement his version of a tax freeze. Think how much more we'd have to ask for if he didn't rob the transportation fund for us. Now everyone's crying about gas tax increases, well slap my mouth shut.

Here's the topper; Referendum Proponents filled the courage of their convictions, want a strong vote of confidence from the community, so they proposed a February referendum - these February Referenda votes need to be outlawed due to the historic low turnouts.

One last question. Why no Open Community Forum with all sides invited? Former East High Principal, Terry Fondow, is holding two Forums in January that the District and the Board will not attend. Is is because the numbers just don't square up?

Pusillanimous. That is the only way to describe the approach to and the flight from one of the largest school expenditures in the history of Wisconsin.

Looks like in for a Nickle, but it's really a Krugerrand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Parins, President of The Brown County Taxpayers Association

Your Deficit-Cutting Governor Shows His True Colors - Red, Red and More Red

2007-01-11T03:46:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Last week I explained that Wisconsin has a budget deficit of $2.15 billion using honest accounting standards. To get out from under this deficit, state government has to go on a diet. Instead of cutting out trans fats and calories, this diet requires $430 million less in each of the next five biennial budgets (ten years) to get back to a positive balance in the budget using honest accounting standards.

Considering the critical need to get the state’s financial house in order, what do the Governor’s state agencies do when they submit their budget requests? Do they take a hard look at their budget and see where they can trim to contribute to the overall fiscal health of the state? Do they come up with a comprehensive plan to cut this deficit? No.

Unfortunately, state agencies submitted proposals that read like the state has a two billion dollar budget surplus instead of a deficit. The combined agency wish list adds $1.6 billion in new state spending on top of anticipated new tax dollars when we are already two billion dollars in the red.

The agency heads tell us that the $1.6 billion in new spending is a wish list and not what they expect to get. The fundamental problem with that approach (asking for more than you expect to get) is that the agencies obviously expect to increase their spending in this budget. None of them are talking about how to cut spending or eliminate our budget deficit. This is not surprising, since the agencies are in the business of spending tax dollars, not conserving them.

According to the Governor’s inaugural speech. He intends to expand BadgerCare’s free, government-provided health insurance (Medicaid) to every child in the state. He claims he can add a huge number of new users to the state’s Medicaid rolls without increasing costs. You and I know that huge expansions to state programs cost money. Lots of money. It is hard to cut a deficit when you are adding spending.

Another of the Governor’s priorities is greatly increasing funding for education. This is not a surprise since 80 percent of the cost of education is union employees. WEAC, the state teacher’s union, is one of the Governor’s biggest campaign supporters.

The Governor is also proposing, and I support, a tax deduction on health insurance premiums. This means a $50 million savings for premium-paying taxpayers, and $50 million less coming into the state.

Requiring honest budgeting in state government, would be a good start to get Wisconsin back on track. It does not cut spending, but it makes it a lot harder for legislators and the Governor to sign bills that increase spending when the taxpayers know we are already in the red.

In Fiscal Year 2005, Wisconsin was one of only three states carrying a GAAP deficit and our deficit was the largest of any state by a wide margin. This is one of the reasons we have one of the worst bond ratings in the nation (which means it costs Wisconsin more to borrow money than it costs other states). Wisconsin should be working to regain our tarnished reputation for clean and honest government. Requiring honest budgeting and admitting that we have a deficit problem would be the first step toward solving the problem and rehabilitating our reputation.

The bottom line? The state is broke and this Governor is not helping it get better. Taxes are high and getting higher; what is this Governor doing to help the situation? He proposes increases in funding and new programs.

Running up deficit after deficit is not going to help citizens, taxpayers or businesses in Wisconsin. Hopefully, the deficit-cutting Governor (self-proclaimed) will re-appear before the budget address and not wait for the next re-election campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Smoke and Mirror-Style Accounting in Madison

2007-01-03T10:10:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Happy New Year to you and your family.

If you lived in the state of Wisconsin during the 2006 election cycle, chances are you saw an ad with Governor Doyle telling you how he eliminated Wisconsin’s $3.2 million dollar budget deficit. Touting his fiscally conservative credentials helped get the Governor re-elected.

What if it turned out that the Governor was using accounting tricks to eliminate the deficit? Would the voters still be so eager to put him back in office for another four years? He isn’t the first governor to add to our budget deficit while claiming there is no budget deficit.

It turns out that the Governor is using the state’s way of balancing the books to make his deficit-cutting claim. If he used the same accounting principles businesses are required to use, Wisconsin would have a $2.15 billion general fund deficit.

Newly released financial statements show the state of Wisconsin closed its 2005-06 fiscal year with a $2.15 billion general fund deficit, according to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX). This is $8 million more than in 2004-05 and $231 million more than in 2003-04. That $2.15 billion deficit was 12.6% of the $17 billion in general fund spending officially reported for fiscal year 2005-06.

The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was released in December. Unlike state budgets enacted by the Governor and Legislature, the CAFR follows generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) prescribed by the nation’s Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

GAAP is required of all publicly-traded companies. All certified accountants must use GAAP. The federal government requires it for its internal auditing and most states and local government entities are moving towards GAAP. What about Wisconsin? Why does the budget not reflect the actual state of our financial health according to the principles that any CPA would use if they were doing our books?

If a private company cooked their books the way that the State of Wisconsin does, someone would be in jail.

A more responsible approach is using GAAP for all state accounting. This is one of my legislative priorities and I will be introducing a bill to require GAAP standards for state government over the next five budget cycles. We should eat this 2.15 billion dollar elephant one biennial budget at a time ($430 million in each budget cycle). It would be great if this was included in the budget being proposed by the Governor next month. But with the state agencies asking for increases in spending and the Governor is proposing new taxpayer-funded health care programs (when we are not funding the existing programs as well as we should), it seems unlikely that the Governor will be leading the charge for more responsible budgeting. After all, who is demanding a change?

Why do the Governor and the Legislature cook the state’s books to spend more and do more than they are willing to tax all of us for? Because your state government can and it has made some well-liked.

Until we get a clearer picture of Wisconsin’s financial health, taxpayers will never know whether to believe their elected officials when they throw around claims to have balanced budgets and eliminated deficits. When there is only one set of books, taxpayers will be able to elect leaders who cannot hide their own overspending with creative accounting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

The QEO: A “Roadblock to Reform” or the Last Line of Defense for Taxpayers?

2006-12-21T08:26:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Five weeks before the November election, if Governor Doyle had issued a press release saying that he intended to raise taxes and he wasn’t exactly sure how high they might go, do you think the result of the election might have been different?

Five weeks after the election, he has shared the plan that he and his partners in the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC, the state’s teachers union) have in mind for taxpayers. The Governor’s proposal is the top item on WEAC’s Christmas wish list: the repeal of the QEO.

According to Governor Doyle, the Qualified Economic Offer, or QEO as it is commonly known, is “broken and it needs to go.” Governor Doyle’s spokesman told a reporter last week that the QEO has “really become a roadblock to reform."

The QEO is the roadblock preventing education reform in Wisconsin? The Governor says our public education system in Wisconsin needs reform. Apparently, the Governor feels that teachers need to be paid more. No mention of paying teachers based on performance, just pay teachers more. That qualifies as “reform” in the Doyle administration.

The QEO was invented in 1992 (along with revenue caps) to keep property taxes down. It worked. In the five years before the QEO took effect, school taxes increased by about 8.5% per year. In 1994, the first year the caps took effect, taxes grew by 5.1%. In some years following that, the growth in school taxes has been less.

Wisconsin cannot afford to climb the list of the highest-taxed states in the nation anymore than we already have. We have to bring our tax burden down because it will help our economy grow. The QEO is part of an important protection for taxpayers.

How does the QEO work? Each year, a school district must offer its teachers a minimum raise of 2.9% in salary and 5.4% in benefits to avoid arbitration with the local teachers union. How many of you reading this today receive a guaranteed minimum increase in your salary and benefits every year you are employed?

WEAC and the Governor would not be willing to give up this guaranteed, minimum increase if they did not expect things to get better for WEAC members after the QEO is gone. Despite what you might hear during the Badger and Packer games, WEAC is in the business of getting more for its members.

Greater education spending increases are on the horizon if the QEO goes away. This means higher property taxes for all.

We spend nearly $11,000 per child annually to educate children in this state. If we had no revenue controls, or the QEO that makes the revenue controls work, we would be spending more and our taxes would be even higher.

The QEO must stay in place. It is a critical piece of legislation that protects taxpayers in this state. The balance we have struck in this state is working. If we spend more, we have to tax more. Wisconsin is spending enough.

If school districts want to increase spending, they should have to make their case to the people footing the bills, the taxpayers. That is how it works now and 70 percent of the people in our state want to keep it this way. We should not allow the Governor to break the back of school revenue caps through a back-door method. Revenue caps that can be overridden by a referendum provide a good balance and should be left in place.

I will oppose attempts to repeal the QEO because it is an important protection for taxpayers. The QEO makes school revenue controls work and that is good for taxpayers.

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

Brown County turns Mo' Town

2006-12-17T20:13:00.000-06:00

Ding Dong! The Queen is dead. Which old Queen? The wicked Queen! Ding Dong! The Wicked Queen is dead.

Carol Kelso a "wicked queen?" That's how one Brown County super phrased it. Hardly how I think of the "Taxpayer's tax slayer," but beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. That super needs glasses, a chill pill and a one way ticket out of town.

Kelso's dead. That's wat I said. Curtis Mayfield's Motown sound is what I hear coming. The theme from "Shaft". Motown - that's what Brown County will be without Executive Kelso, with all the public worker unions chanting "Mo', mo', mo'!" And who get's the shaft?" The taxpayers. It may be a long time before we see responsible budgets and lower taxes in Brown County again.

The Queen is dead. Long live the Queen! Kelso's successor seem's bound to be a king. We must watch to whom the hideous spending monkeys swarm. Whoever Diamond Jim endorses, that's our nemesis. That is who we vote against.

But who do we vote FOR? I see no friends of the Taxpayer on the horizon. Alumni of the Kelso School of Government are demurring. Only County Executive Walker from Milwaulkee stands above the dust and shambles. I guess I can't blame them, it's a hard knocks school and they are sporting fresh lumps and bruises.

That leaves us with the infidels from Riverboat Jim's school of the Wheel and Deal, who learned budget ledgermain from a Harvard graduate and stands ready to tax and fee us to death and mummify us with debt bond-age and inter-fund transfercation. Not a pair of ruby reds can be found.

The recent election demonstrates what happens when the voters get so fed up they will take change at any price. There was no one to vote FOR, only only folks to vote against. The stagnent Republican tide finally swept out, but what swept in with the tide of negativity, all the candidate's whose moving and hopeful campaign platforms were the same -- "I'me not a republican. I have never been a Republican. I promise never to become Republican."

Like party was the problem.

Let us pray we don't get what we asked for when, in our rage we tossed out the lot of them. Arrivederci, Mrs. Kelso, we hardly knew thee. "Seems we jsut started and before you know it, comes the time to say 'so long'"

I'm tugging my left ear, dear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Parins, President - Brown County Taxpayers Association

Free College Tuition: a Solution in Search of a Problem

2006-12-16T23:44:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Free college tuition – sounds great doesn’t it? Not many college students would pass on an opportunity like that. If it’s free – no one pays right?

In order to get free tuition the student will have to commit to staying ten years in a state with long winters, high taxes, burdensome regulation, a low-scale social scene, and a lack of good paying jobs. Which students will jump at the opportunity?

Free tuition is part of a plan that the Wisconsin commission on improving higher education will likely endorse this week. The proposal calls for free college tuition for any student (that means both in-state and out-of-state kids) who commits to staying here for ten years after they get their diploma. Several of the commission members have labeled this concept as the “big bang” idea because they believe it will revolutionize the Dairy State. In their opinion, creating a “captive” workforce will draw new business and industry to Wisconsin and help lower our tax burden.

So instead of working to make our state more business and taxpayer friendly by lowering taxes, requiring our governments to spend less, or improving our heavy handed regulatory environment (all proven ways to attract and keep jobs) – we are now going to hold kids hostage and create a give away program of massive scale.

The problem they say they want to solve is that too many college grads are fleeing the state and we need to keep more of them here. The commission’s theory simply isn’t true. They want to give away something for free to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. This is so typical of a bureaucratic mindset.

Wisconsin doesn’t have a serious “brain drain” problem. According to the Federal Reserve Bank in Minnesota, four out of five Wisconsin natives stayed in state after finishing college. Our overall graduate retention rate is the same or better than other Midwestern states. We are keeping our kids here.

THE REAL PROBLEM IS: WE ARE NOT ATTRACTING COLLEGE GRADS FROM OTHER STATES. Holding the kids in that we already have here won’t solve anything.

What we need to do is work to make our state more attractive to out of state grads that are looking to relocate. That includes making it easier for technology sector companies to locate and remain here because they often pay higher wages.

Another problem with this free tuition program is what do we do if the jobs don’t come? How will picking up the tuition improve this? What do we do when one of these students moves out of state for a job or the weather or a significant other? How will we get them to pay back the money? We can’t get businesses to pay back their state grants. Why would thousands of students be any different?

If the program fails and businesses don’t come, are we going to let the kids (who have gotten their college education on the taxpayer’s dime) off the hook? We already heavily subsidize the university system to the tune of over $1 billion per year ($6,250 per student). If we paid the tuition too just imagine how much our bill would be. Regardless of how successful this program is, we will all pay more.

This free tuition giveaway is simply another government imposed solution in search of a problem. Of course, solving the problem mostly involves government forcefully taking MORE of OUR money to pay for more government programs. That’s indicative of the government problem we face in Wisconsin.

The question is: will we ever learn? My bet is that with a University System that wants to solve problems that don’t exist, with solutions that cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, we will not get smart fast enough.

An interesting fact – Colorado is second in the country in the percentage of their population with college degrees. That is pretty impressive for a state that was supposedly ruined by their limits on government spending and taxes (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). Why do college grads want to live in Colorado? The state isn’t bribing them to stay with free tuition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

The Season of Giving

2006-12-06T15:07:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

As the holiday season approaches, now is the time that many of us open our purse strings to complete holiday shopping lists and also donate to our favorite charities. From bell ringers manning donation pots, to “Giving Trees” full of wish lists from those less fortunate popping up in our banks, community centers, and churches – the signs of giving, caring, and sharing are all around us.

Despite all of this generosity, a newly released study from the National Center on Wealth and Philanthropy ranked Wisconsin as the 10th lowest state in the nation for charitable giving. The study found that the average Wisconsin household donates $1,325 to charity each year. That’s more than $500 below the national average ($1,753).

According to the group’s research, based on residents’ giving adjusted for several cost factors, Wisconsinites are the 40th most generous citizens in the nation when it comes to donating to charitable groups.

Are we really that stingy here in the cheese state? I don’t think so. I believe we are mostly generous people who give what we can (time, talent, effort, goods, money, and other support), when we can. And most of us are willing to help those in need or support a worthy cause.

Then why is Wisconsin considered a low charity state?

Could it be that taxpayers believe government is giving enough of our money away already? Our government spends a lot of our money (nearly $7 billion per year) to maintain one of the most generous social welfare programs in the country. Many taxpayers may consider this to be a part of their charitable giving. They see it as government taking money out of their pockets and giving it to someone who, in government’s opinion, needs it more.

Or is it that people have become more cautious with which groups they give their money to?
Are people giving less because they aren’t sure how some of these charities may be using their donation? Concern over how much money reaches those in need has led many people to be more careful about whom they direct their charitable checks to, if anyone at all.

Many liberals would probably say the problem is that we just don’t care as much as we used to. Or that many of us have become more selfish today than in years past and we are keeping more of our money to spend on ourselves.

Their solution would most likely involve forcing you to give more of your money to the government (similar to Sen. Erpenbach’s tax shifting proposal from last week). Then they could decide which charities and social causes are worthy of support. Of course they would have to skim a little off the top for administrative costs. As a result we would all pay more.

The problem, in my opinion, is that due to decades of high taxes and government spending, many wealthy people (who are likely to give larger sums of money to charity) have left the state.

As our government has grown so have our taxes. People who have the ability to earn money understand this. They are relocating to more tax friendly states. That means they are taking their wealth, intelligence, taxes they paid, businesses, and philanthropy (charitable donations etc.) with them.

According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Wisconsin lost $4.6 billion in net worth and $450 million in net income between 1995 and 2000 (that’s only five years) due to wealthy people moving out. That was during the good times. If we had kept half of those people in the state we would likely be in the middle of the pack for charitable giving.

If we want people to give more of their money to charity, we should consider allowing them to keep more of it. That means lowering taxes by controlling government spending and borrowing. Give the taxpayers a break for a change.

If we were allowed to keep more of our money in the first place, would we make the choice to give more to charity? I think so. Unfortunately with democrats in control of 2/3 of state government, that is a question we won’t likely answer anytime soon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Tax Shifts Provide Little Hope for Taxpayers

2006-11-29T13:32:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Here we go again.

Just a few short years ago, the Governor’s special committee on school finance floated the idea of expanding the sales tax to help fund schools. At that time 60% of the people in the state opposed the idea because they realized that this isn’t really about property tax relief. It’s just another way to get more money from all of us.

Less than two weeks after the Democrats took over control of the State Senate, Sen. John Erpenbach (Democrat from Madison) is expected to unveil a proposal this week that will increase sales taxes by nearly $4 billion ($4,000,000,000). Erpenbach’s plan will revoke most current sales tax exemptions on goods and services except those that are, in his words, “necessities of life.” He wants to use that money to pay for schools and take schools off property taxes.

According to Erpenbach, those necessities that will NOT be taxed are food, prescription drugs, health care services, and agricultural products.

Everything else from haircuts to dog grooming could be taxed under Erpenbach’s proposal. That includes gas and heating fuels, attorney fees, computer services, dance lessons, and even admission to high school sporting events. All of these things could be taxed if Erpenbach has his way. As a result, we would all pay more for the goods and services we purchase. In return we might pay a little less in property taxes.

Erpenbach’s plan is NOT tax relief. At best it is a tax shift. At worst (the most likely scenario) it is a TAX INCREASE.

To put this in perspective let’s say you or someone you know gets a divorce. Under our current system, the legal fees you pay your attorneys are not taxed. Neither is the fee you will likely pay an accountant to figure out your finances, the moving company you pay to move your stuff, or the realtor’s fee you pay to sell your house. Under Erpenbach’s plan you will pay 5% (5.5% in most counties) more for all of these services. In situations like this that extra five percent could cost thousands of extra dollars. In addition to being “nickeled and dimed” everyday with every purchase, with every service.

When our government forces us to pay taxes for a service or a product that we currently don’t pay taxes on, it is a tax increase. Will we really lower another tax by the same amount?

That’s the problem we need to fix. Unfortunately, without a constitutional constraint (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights) there is no way for the taxpayers of this state to trust their elected officials to fix our spending and taxing epidemic.

My answer is NOT sending more and more and more of our money to the government.
We need to prevent our government from freely reaching into our pockets and taking more without asking. And we also need to let our economy grow free of government intrusion, excessive taxation, and over regulation. Then and only then will we, the taxpayers, have any control over how much of OUR money government spends.

The question is where does Governor Doyle stand on all of this? He did NOT support the Democrats H.O.P.E plan last session that would have increased sales taxes to lower property taxes. Now that he has been elected for another term will he take the same stand?

Another question that we need to ask about this proposal is: what will the effect be on local control? Under our current system if a school wants more money they have to ask their taxpayers first before they offer another French class, build a new school or add more personnel. The point is that the taxpayers have the final say.

Under Erpenbach’s proposal will the Department of Public Instruction or another government agency be given that power? So every time a school needs more of our money will they have to call Madison and beg? Our current referendum system is working (as I’ve outlined in past columns). Do you really want to give our local control of schools and school budgets to a state agency? Under Senator Erpenbach’s proposal will we end up with one large school district for the whole state controlled by Madison?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Wisconsin's Deer Hunt -- an Experience in Responsible Gun Ownership

2006-11-18T03:25:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Nearly 700,000 men, women, and children (12 and older) will don their blaze orange and take to Wisconsin’s outdoors with gun in hand for the annual deer hunt.

That means there will be nearly six times as many guns in our woods, forests, and fields this weekend as there are in the hands of our troops in Iraq (roughly 700,000 hunters compared to 140,000 troops).

The greatest part is that even with hundreds of thousands of guns in the woods, Wisconsin’s outdoors will still be a safe place to be (unless you are a deer). In fact, last year there were only 14 hunting related accidents (3 fatalities) during the entire 9 day gun deer season. That’s a little more than 2 accidents per 100,000 hunters and less than 0.2 fatalities per 100,000.

Why is Wisconsin a safe place to hunt?

There aren’t many hunting fatalities and accidents in Wisconsin because hunters accept the responsibility that comes with carrying a weapon into the woods. For the most part, these people are conscientious, safe, and well-trained in the proper use of a firearm. And for generations they have passed this tradition and the responsibility that comes along with it onto their children and their children’s children.

We also have one of the largest volunteer run hunter’s safety and training courses in the nation. In fact, we require any person born after 1973 to take the class before they can purchase a license. This especially helps those kids that don’t have a family member to introduce them to the outdoors get involved and to be safe.

Our safe hunt annoys gun-control groups that want to limit our Second Amendment rights. Every year when Wisconsin hunters take to the woods and have very few gun related accidents, it takes away from their push to outlaw guns.

As sportsmen and women we cannot rest on our laurels. We need to continue to find new ways to get our youth involved in the outdoors to protect our hunting heritage and the economic impact it has in our state.

Hunting is big business in Wisconsin. Our sporting heritage fuels a large part of the economy. Wisconsin deer hunters spend on average about $1,500 each season on gear, gas, eating, licenses, lodging and other costs associated with the annual hunt.
That’s more than a $1 billion dollar boost for our economy every hunting season.

If you are one of the 700,000 members of the “Blaze Orange Army” heading to the woods on Saturday morning cherish the memories that each new season brings and remember to take a young person hunting with you next time. They are the future and we need to keep them involved for the sake of our hunting heritage and the economic boost it brings with it.

Most importantly – be safe, happy hunting, and good luck!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Budget Looney Toons.

2006-11-14T22:06:00.000-06:00

What's up, Doc? CEO Bug's wags at Alderman Fudd and Supervisor Porky, brandishing his carrot like Gracho Marx's cigar. The he drops into Edward G. Robinson. "Now see here, you earmarks. We tossed you guys out, see. We gave you the big n-O. What part of N-O don't you get, see?"

Fudd, chuckling bashfully, whispers, "Welw, you see, Mistew Bugs, we awways thwow the Executive's budgets back with ouwr changes. We can't wubbew stamp 'em or the votews would think we wewen't doing ouwr job's."

It seems like forever since we have seen reasonable spending in a [Brown] County budget. Actually, it's been only a couple of years, but I'm speaking historically. Exec. Kelso seems to understand better than her predecessors that folks have been pinched in the pocketbook for so long, a 2.2% levy hike sounds like Heaven.

Don't get me wrong. A 2.2% levy hike is perhaps the absolute best anyone can do, given political realities. But isn't anyone else dreaming of a white Christmas, so to speak, when a freeze is really a freeze? When the levy is actually frozen, not the rate of levy grawth? When hell freezes over?

Seems like mostly good things are in order, perhaps with a request for candor's sake, that politicians stop touting levy RATE decreases, which means precisely nothing. Levy rate drops have been a curtain for may county/city Wiz to hide behind.

While it is clear that the County Exec. and the [Green Bay] Mayor are not hiding behind that curtain, they have done the REAL THING, slowed the underlying levy growth. It seems to have taken a state mandate to do it. This is a chance for our top civil servants to go Madison one better and beat the statutory "freeze." They have got to turn back Fudd and Porky, who have not held the line on spending, and apply traditional political chicanery of using ever-rising property values to heroically blather about holding down the lavy rate.

The politics of budgets is a cartoon of polemic distortion, Foghorn Leghorn struttin' 'round the barnyard, "AH say, ah say, son, who's takin' care of our beloved civil servants while the taxpayers are having their dues suspended? Ah say, what'll happen to all o' the and the salt of the earth folks they serve? The sky is fallin', son! I tell ya, run for the hills!"

Well over 40% of the entire budget goes to Human Services. The salt of the earth will be cared for, as well as the salt of the road. Most of that is state mandated. We couldn't cut them even if we wanted.

If you're sick of the Budget Looney Toons because they're just not funny, call your city councilman or county supervisor and them if they signed the no new taxes pledge of if they vant to raise your taxes now. The 2007 Budgets are holding the line on spending, below growth plus inflation. See http://www.co.brown.wi.us/ for entire script.

Fellow taxpayers, the fur has yet to fly on unfunded pensions and benfits. If we don't have civil servants willing to barter with the proverbial incumbents, Fudd and Porky, the sky will fall indeed. We don't want to make national news, like Florence School District a while back, being the first city to be forced into bankruptcy, or worse, state control. We're so far under that thumb already, we've got the imprint on our wallets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Parins, President Brown County Taxpayers Association

High Taxes Weren't Always a Problem

2006-11-08T21:20:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Today, many of us agree that high taxes are a problem in Wisconsin. Our taxes are chasing many of our best and brightest out. It also is making it difficult to get the best and brightest from elsewhere to come here, making it difficult for businesses to create jobs and to stay here. (A recent study from the Tax Foundation that ranked Wisconsin the 12th worst state for business taxes).

Many state employers are competing with businesses in other states and nations that have lower taxes and more favorable regulations which enable them to produce their goods and services at a lower price. According to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, we have already lost nearly $5 billion in net worth from businesses and high net worth individuals moving out of state.

Wisconsin has NOT always been a high taxing state. In fact, in 1961 (45 years ago) Wisconsin’s taxes ranked 18th highest in the nation. And for many decades prior, our taxing rates were in the middle of the pack.

Following record increases in the sales and income tax in order to provide property tax relief -- the Badger state’s low taxing trend ended abruptly in 1964 when we became the highest taxed state in the nation. Wisconsin has ranked among the top ten taxing states nearly every year since. In fact, we have been among the top five most taxed states 25 out of the last 40 years.

Why have our taxes continued to climb? Our high tax rates can be directly attributed to decades of overspending, over taxing, and over borrowing by state and local governments.

The problem is that unlike most states which choose to spend more on one government program and less on another (more on higher education and less on prisons or more on Medicare and less on roads) in Wisconsin we spend more on nearly everything government related. If a state does it, then Wisconsin does it, and it is likely we spend more on it than most other states.

Instead of prioritizing our spending, we spend more on nearly every government service offered. And we offer more government services than most other states.

For instance, we are one of the top three states for rails and trails. I like them. But, do we have to lead the nation?

What causes this?

Government officials cause this. Many of them support the big government approach and that is why they serve in government. They love to do evermore with their government. And the more government we have, the more services offered, the more useful and necessary many of them feel.

That is why many people in government oppose the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. They know that if they had to ASK the voters permission before they increased spending beyond a reasonable level, built the next great public project or start the next program, the answer might be no. That is a word they do NOT want to hear. Then to top it off they can’t just go ahead and do it anyway.

What can we do?

There is hope. A recent poll from CNN found that a majority of Americans believe that our government is doing too much.

When asked about the role of government, 54% of respondents said that our government is “doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses.”

That is the problem we face in Wisconsin. Our government is doing more than we can afford. Elected officials haven’t been able to change this. Perhaps it is time that our constitution does.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Who Pays for Healthcare Expansion?

2006-11-01T10:31:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Several county boards and municipal councils from La Crosse to Green Bay voted to place another advisory referendum question on Tuesday’s ballot. In addition to the numerous state political races, constitutional referendums, school referendums, and possibly a war referendum or two, voters in these areas will get to make another choice.

The question these local officials want to ask their voters is: “Should the Wisconsin Legislature pass a bill that will assure access to quality and affordable health care coverage for all Wisconsin individuals and families?”

On its face this question is a no-brainer. Who wouldn’t? Many of us would want our worries to disappear and our government to take care of our families. We must realize that no service our government provides is free.

When services are provided to people who do not have them now, the costs increase.Everything has a cost. And somebody has to pay for it. (I suppose that the government could just borrow for it, we have become quite good at that).

Expanding services to anyone who doesn’t have it requires taxpayers to foot the bill. Foot the bill for an enormous government program, with its own layer of bureaucracy, and another entitlement.

That includes those of us who are fortunate enough to have employer provided healthcare insurance, even if it is on a cost share basis. That includes those who pay for their own health insurance. Someone would be forced to pay more.

After getting wind of this in the paper, I sent letters to many of the local officials who voted to put the healthcare question on the ballot. I let them know that I think it’s a great to ask voters their opinion on issues, I suggested that they also ask the following questions:

• Should the Wisconsin Legislature pass a bill that will assure access to quality and affordable health care coverage for all Wisconsin individuals and families? Even if it requires tax increases?

• If the Legislature fails to implement this plan in the upcoming session should the municipality or county offer its own program? Even if it means increasing taxes for local residents?

As the old saying goes, “what’s good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.” In other words, should the municipality or county step up to the plate and offer this benefit to their residents, even it means they will have to increase their local taxes to do so?

• Should all Wisconsin individuals and families be provided a free, high-quality lunch and dinner, delivered to either their place of work or to their home?

There are no free-lunches. And people know that increases in services are not free and someone has to pay (or borrow). Most likely once the government took over kitchen duty we wouldn’t get meals of our choice. We would get what ever is served.
For some they would be too hot and for others too cold.

Under a government run system, the timely access to quality healthcare that most of us currently enjoy could be in jeopardy. All we have to do is look to our neighbor to the North (Canada not the U.P.) to see how universal healthcare is faring.

According to the Fraser Institute an independent non-partisan think tank based in Canada, the average patient waits 17.7 weeks (over four months) for hospital treatment. Imagine having to wait over four months to get the care that you need.

In fact, in a recent ruling in reference to the country’s socialized healthcare program, the Supreme Court of Canada said, “waiting lists for healthcare services have resulted in deaths, have increased the length of time that patients have to be in pain and have impaired patents’ ability to enjoy a real quality of life.”

To make quality healthcare more affordable we need to make it more competitive. More like car, homeowners or life insurance. Increasing competition, information and allowing individuals to control their own healthcare destiny will improve our system and lower costs for most. We have proven tools like health savings accounts. We are allowing businesses and individuals to pool their resources and combine their buying power in order to purchase quality healthcare at a more manageable cost.

We must be very careful of what we ask for because we just might get it.

I wonder why none of these local governments are asking if they and the state should have an allowable government spending growth level that would require government officials to ask voters first before they spend more or raise taxes. Sometimes I think these same people who are asking about universal health care avoid other issues that they find less in common with their beliefs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Mark Green Needs Our Support

2006-10-27T19:01:00.000-06:00

Walker Weekly

March 24, 2006 was the day that I announced that I was bowing out of the
race for Governor and supporting Mark Green. Without a doubt, this was the
toughest decision I've ever made in my entire professional career. More
than 10,000 of you stood up and supported our efforts and I was afraid to
let you down.

The decision to support Mark wasn't made because of concerns over the
primary election; it was made because of my concerns over the general
election. At the time, Jim Doyle was far ahead of both Mark and me in
raising the funds needed to win the election. Keeping two Republicans in
the race was a sure way to see Doyle re-elected.

Thankfully, it was easy for me to support Mark Green. Mark and I were both
sworn into office in 1993, and he was one of the hardest working lawmakers I
served with in the Assembly. Since 1998, he has been a great Congressman.
Most importantly, I traveled the state for more than a year as a candidate
and I heard him speak at nearly every stop. What I like most about Mark is
that he has the same positive message in every part of the state. He
doesn't pander to one area at the expense of another part of the state. He
wants to make ALL of us better in Wisconsin.

Over the years, I've grown to have many friends who are Democrats. While I
do not often agree with them on policy, I respect them for having a core set
of beliefs and acting on those principles. Sadly, Jim Doyle does not seem to
have a core set of beliefs. His only true passion seems to be re-election.
That is why this race is so important.

When I got out of the race, some people said that I did it for the party.
They are wrong. I did it for the state. Tonette and I want to raise our
two sons in a state that has a leader we can be proud of again. That leader
is Mark Green.

To everyone who supported me, I am asking you to not let my difficult
decision be made in vain. Help me help Mark Green get elected on November
7th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Walker, Milwaulkee Countee Executive & former candidate for Governor

Finding the Right Balance?

2006-10-25T22:24:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Newspapers, television stations, internet news sites, and many other media outlets and citizen groups throughout the state have been sending out questionnaires to help them decide which candidates to endorse in the upcoming elections. The questions range from healthcare reform to the environment. And of course taxes.

One of the most common questions asked is: Which taxes would you seek to increase or decrease in an effort to balance the budget? What they are really asking is who should be taxed more or are we taxing the right people enough.

My answer has been the same every time.

This question overlooks the problem all Wisconsinites face. The real problem is that we spend too much so we tax too much. We need to reduce the overall tax take from all of our citizens.

If we truly want to make Wisconsin a better place to live, work, and retire then we need bold action.

Ratcheting one tax up just to get more revenue or to lower the burden on someone else isn’t the answer. Accounting gimmicks or budget transfers (made famous by Governor Doyle) will not solve the problem either. It won’t happen by sitting around in a legislative committee talking about which projects deserve more funding.

We do NOT need more revenue we need to prevent our government from spending more. Then and only then will taxes stop being an economic drag on our state.

How do we do this?

The only way to tame the rapid growth in government spending, taxing, and borrowing and give us, the taxpayers, more control is to put another constitutional check into our system of checks and balances.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights has been my number one priority for many years because I believe that we need a constitutional amendment that will give us the right of referendum on government spending, taxing, and borrowing. We need to have our elected officials explain why they recommend additional spending, have a conversation about why it is needed and whether we the bill payers can and want to afford it. We have done this successfully and popularly with schools spending in this state since 1993.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will allow for a reasonable spending growth rate for both state and local governments of inflation plus population growth. If governments want to grow their spending faster, they will have to consult their voters first.

Under our current system, governments spend first and ask questions later. The voters, the stakeholders, the bill payers, are often intentionally left out of the budgeting process. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will require our government officials to explain, discuss, and convince us that more spending is needed. More importantly, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights will continue Wisconsin’s progressive tradition of giving power over our government back to the citizens and stakeholders.

Why should you care?

Wisconsin is at a crossroads. The present tax and spending situation in our state cannot stand. We cannot afford to continue the pattern of the wealthy leaving and the poorer middle class moving in. People are voting with there feet, they are moving to where it is best for them, their families and businesses.

We cannot afford to ignore the changing world around us. As I’ve said in the past, we are in serious danger of becoming a state where the demand for government services exceeds the citizens’ ability to pay. According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, in the last five years we have lost $4.6 billion in net worth and $450 million in net income, due to higher income people moving out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Sparking an International Debate on

2006-10-19T14:16:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Last week, in the wake of several school shootings including one in rural Wisconsin, I proposed legislation to give Wisconsin teachers and other school staff, who complete a background check and a rigorous gun safety course, the option to defend themselves and our children with weapons.

To clarify, this is how I described my proposal to my 10 year old daughter when she asked me over the weekend why so many people with cameras wanted to talk to me. I told her that somewhere in her school there will be a locked box (safe?) with a gun in it. And that if a bad person with a gun came into her school that wanted to hurt her or her classmates a school official who is trained to use it, would go to the box (safe?) and use the gun to protect them from harm. She looked at me, smiled and said, “That makes sense to me daddy,” and went back to playing.

Many disagree with me on this proposal. I challenge all those who disagree to offer their proposals. It is important that we are talking about improving the safety of our children in our schools. The discussion this idea created is an important step in making our schools even safer havens for learning.

The fact remains, armed criminals who commit these crimes in schools are NOT stopping at the school doors and dropping their weapons in accordance with the state and federal gun-free schools laws. In most cases, they are coming into our schools, unopposed, unchecked, and intent on destruction.

If they were confronted by a teacher, administrator, principal, or other authority figure who was trained to use a weapon, they may lay their weapons down. If not, they would face resistance and the would be victims could defend themselves and our children. Like it or not, school officials are our children’s last line of defense in a school attack. It makes sense to give them the ability to protect themselves and our children until the police arrive.

You probably haven’t seen it on the evening news -- several school shootings have been stopped by armed citizens.

In Mississippi, a vice-principal was forced by federal law to keep his gun in his car some 1000 feet from the school. After a student rushed into the school and started shooting, he ran out got his gun from the trunk and was able to stop the attacker. If he was allowed to have the weapon in the school in the first place, he may have been able to prevent the attack or stop it sooner. And the two children who lost their lives that day may still be alive.

Many people have asked me why I would dare to tackle such a controversial issue, especially in an election year. My answer to them has been that the safety of our children is far too important. We cannot have round table discussions and dream that criminals will follow the laws. Some of the greatest ideas in our nation’s history have risen out of controversy.

For those who disagree with me, I welcome your ideas and suggestions on how to make our schools safer. As well as those who support this concept on how to make it better. As we move forward with this debate on school safety, I know that in the end we will have made our schools a better and safer place for our children to learn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Wisconsin Public Television's "Separate, but Equal" Policy is a Farce

2006-10-11T17:02:00.000-06:00

I want to thank you all for your emails and phone calls to Wisconsin Public Television protesting my exclusion from the debate

"You stood up and defended Wisconsin’s traditions of openness and democracy. Because of you, Wisconsin Public Television (WPT) will be much more careful about how it schedules its candidate coverage in the future.

"Wisconsin Public Television tried to 'spin' the debate in several different ways. They started out by claiming 'we are not producing a formal debate among any of the candidates for U.S. Senate this year'. Later, facing a barrage of protests, they became more aggressive, 'Thank you for writing regarding the inclusion of Rae Vogeler on "Here and Now." I noticed, however, that you left out another candidate, Ben Glatzel.'

"WPT’s response to emails stated 'By providing all four candidates with more time and comparable opportunities to discuss their views and positions, even if that means splitting them between shows on consecutive weeks, we believe we are better serving the viewers, and voters, of Wisconsin.' Their spin on the debate left a number of you a bit puzzled over what was and wasn't happening at WPT.

"We now know that Herb Kohl and Robert Lorge appeared together at the same time on 'Here and Now'. They sat around a table, were asked questions by a moderator, each laid out their responses in turn, and then argued with one another over what each other’s positions were. In short, while it may not have been 'formal', (in the sense that both candidates were sitting as opposed to standing), it was a debate.

"Wisconsin Public Television argues that it has a 'separate, but equal' policy. That policy didn't cut it in education, it didn't cut it in race relations, and it doesn't cut it here. Excluding me allowed Kohl to waltz through an easy debate with someone he agrees with on a lot of key issues. He didn’t get confronted on his support for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and a host of other issues that harm working Wisconsinites.

"In the debate last night, Kohl stated he does not support setting a date for troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying it would be a 'disaster'. Yet most Wisconsinites support troop withdrawal. He defended his support for the No Child Left Behind Act, despite objections from Wisconsin educators that the testing interfered with teaching. Throughout the debate, Lorge and Kohl agreed on most of the issues, with few exceptions. Lorge even suggested that Kohl might as well switch parties and become a Republican. I concur: as much as Kohl agrees with the Bush agenda, it would be an honest move for him to make.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Volger, Green Party Candidate for U.S. Senate

Is Arming Teachers the Solution to School Shootings?

2006-10-05T11:59:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Last week, fifteen year old Eric Hainstock walked into Weston high school in Cazenovia and fatally shot his principal. In a true act of heroism, despite being shot three times John Klang wrestled the gun away from the troubled teen. This cold blooded murder carried out by a teenager shocked residents of this quiet, rural farming town located 40 miles northwest of Madison. The story has made international headlines and left many wondering why this young man made the choice to commit such a horrific crime.

This was the third school shooting in the nation in the last two weeks. Last Wednesday, a drifter in Colorado took six high school girls hostage, molested them and then killed one of the young women then himself as police closed in on his location. Yesterday, a truck driver took twelve students hostage in a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. He barred the doors and killed five young girls. Six others are in critical condition.

Another school shooting spree was prevented in Green Bay last month after a student turned in his friends who had told him of their plot to open fire at school. Last week a 16 year old from Madison got into the home economics room and stole a knife which he used to threaten another student on school grounds.

The school shooting in Wisconsin is particularly concerning. Not because the others were less tragic, but because it happened so close to home. After the initial shock and sorrow of this tragedy wears off, there will be many questions to be answered. Naturally most people will want to know why this troubled teen did what he did.

We must look beyond the why. Only Eric Hainstock truly knows why he walked into his high school with murder on his mind that day. We know that he had a horrible family life and that he may have been picked on by his fellow classmates. Were those the things that pushed him over the edge? We may never know.

Unfortunately we can not legislate proper parenting or prevent kids from poking fun at one another. The fact is that many kids suffer through the same treatment and worse and don’t take a gun to school and commit murder.
The question then becomes: what can we do to prevent school violence in the future?

To enhance security at the schools in Cazenovia at least one armed police officer will stand guard when students return to class later this week. Sounds like a reasonable plan. Unfortunately there have been several school shootings in recent years and NOT one has been stopped by the police. While the police provide many valuable protective services, stopping a school shooting in progress is not one of them.

Many on the left will most likely use this tragedy to push for a total ban on guns. In their naïve view, if there were no guns there would be no crime and we would all live in a peaceful, safer society and sing kum-bye-yah together. Several countries have tried
this tactic. It has failed every time.

Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. To curb violent crime rates, they banned all handguns in 1997. What happened after they disarmed the general public? Homicide rates jumped by 50% and armed muggings increased by 53%. All handguns gone, and gun violence up. Go figure.

In 1996, Australia instituted a “buy back” program which took 660,000 guns off the streets. If the liberal gun control theory is right, crime rates should have fallen Down Under. They didn’t. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the murder rate increased by nearly 10%, assaults rose by 17%, and armed robbery went up by 73%. But how can that be? I thought fewer guns meant less violent crime.

The truth of course is that taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms won’t make us safer. Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Like it or not, that includes troubled teens like Eric Hainstock and many others who have opened fire in our schools. These people are intent on destruction and no law or policy would have prevented these tragedies.

So what then?

To make our schools safe for our students to learn all options should be on the table. That includes encouraging teachers and other school officials to carry firearms. While it may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.

Following repeated attacks of Israeli schools by Palestinian terrorists, teachers and parent volunteers in the West Bank began carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves and their students from harm. In the twenty five years since, no child has been harmed by gunfire in an Israeli school. Thailand recently enacted a similar program to allow teachers to carry guns for protection. The results have been the same – less violence and a safer learning environment for their children.

We, as adults, have a duty to protect our children. If we truly want to make our schools safe havens for learning wouldn’t it make sense to give our teachers the tools and training they need to protect our kids from harm?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Wisconsin School Referendums - An Experience in Democracy

2006-10-04T11:56:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Thirty-five school districts in Wisconsin have referendums on the ballot this fall. Voters in these districts will decide whether or not to allow their local schools to borrow more money for future building projects or to allow them to exceed the state’s revenue controls.

Twelve school districts already voted on their referendums earlier this month in the primary elections. Six passed and six failed. That is democracy. Those that passed requested nearly $23 million in new funding or a little less than $4 million per community. Those that failed requested over $36 million or $6 million per community.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the total amount of additional spending and borrowing being requested through the fall referendums is nearly $473 million ($472,671,877). That is an average of nearly $13 million per community. The largest single request is in Janesville where voters there will be asked for over $70 million in additional funds. Click here to access a full list of the school referendums and the amount of additional money they are requesting.

Since revenue controls and the referendum requirement went into effect in 1995, school districts must ask their voters to spend more. This has led to voters having more say over how much their local school district can take from them. The effects: growth in property taxes has slowed.

Despite the doomsday claims from some in the education community there have been positive improvements in the classroom as well. There are more teachers and non-teachers per student than ever before. They are among the best compensated in the country. Our kids are achieving some of the highest test scores in the nation. And they enjoy access to computers and other modern teaching aids. We have many new school buildings and a large selection of non-core classes and extra-curricular activities.

Without revenue controls, and without referendums, school districts would do what they did before – take more of your money without asking.

Because of the referendum requirement, school districts are more accountable to their communities and their voters. They have to talk more, explain more, discuss more, and attempt to convince us more. Property tax growth slowed after revenue caps went into place, because the people who pay the bills have more say. It’s that simple.

State taxpayers already spend nearly $10,000 per student. Public schools collect and spend 40% of all state and local tax revenues in Wisconsin. Do you think school boards would be spending more or less in all areas of public education if they didn’t have to ask?

What would our property taxes be? We’ve already got one of the highest property tax rates in the nation, even though the state subsidizes local schools with billions of dollars each and every year. State aid for schools hasn’t decreased in any budget during my twelve years in the legislature.

Think of the effect it would have on your family’s pocketbook if we had the same requirement on all levels of government. I wish we’d had it 30 years ago. Imagine how much less our governments would be taking from us today and how much lower our tax burden would be, if they’d had to ask the stakeholders – the taxpayers, the voters, the bill payers, the owners – for permission to spend over a certain amount.

Imagine how much stronger our economy would be. How much more money would be available for private investment, for payrolls, for prescriptions, for healthcare and all other costs of daily life.

As is the case within our democracy, some of these communities will vote their referendums down. Some will approve theirs. Some will win, some will lose. Maybe you will agree with their decisions, maybe not. The important thing is that we have the vote. They have to explain the reasons for additional spending. School districts have to ask us. Wouldn’t it be great if all of our governments did?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Back to School in Wisconsin

2006-09-25T11:30:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

As hundreds-of-thousands of kids pack up their backpacks, grab their bikes, or catch a bus to school, they are heading back to some of the finest schools in the nation. We must continue to improve our system and ensure that our children receive the education they need to become valuable members of our society.

Let’s take a look at the positive things we have in our Wisconsin schools.
There are more teachers per student and more non-teachers than ever before. They are among the best compensated in the nation. Our children enjoy many new school buildings and a large selection of non-core classes and extra-curricular activities as well as busing for convenience.

Recently Wisconsin students finished second in the national ranking on ACT college tests. Nearly 70% of our high school students took the test. This is the second year in a row our kids have outperformed students in all but one of the 25 states that use the ACT exam. Minnesota held the top spot for the third consecutive year.

Wisconsin 4th and 8th grade students routinely score above the national average on math and reading tests. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Wisconsin 4th graders scored 4 points higher than the national average in both reading and math last year. Wisconsin 8th graders scored 7 points higher than the national average in math and 6 points higher in reading.

Compared to other states our kids are getting a good education.

Still we can and must do better. We must look to other nations that are educating their children better while holding the line on costs for their taxpayers.

John Stossel co-anchor of ABC News’ “20/20” recently did a show entitled “Stupid in America” which compared American schools to those in other industrialized nations. Specifically he tested Belgian students against American students in a series of identical knowledge exams. The Belgian kids scored better than our kids in every area tested.

Stossel also found that while Americans test well above average in comparison to other kids on international tests at age 10, by age 15 when we are tested against 40 other nations our kids finish well below average. He concluded that the “longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do.”

Why are our kids consistently falling behind those of other nations?

One reason is competition. Unlike our school system which tells parents where there kids can go to school and what they will study and when, in Belgium and other industrialized nations, their public schools are run as a free market. People are encouraged to shop around for the best school that meets the needs of their child and spend their voucher wisely.

Belgian public and private schools compete for the government tax money that is attached to each child. If a school underperforms and does not attract students it doesn’t do so well. This voucher system ensures that Belgian kids are receiving the best education available for the money they have.

That’s a great idea. We do have a Charter School Program in Wisconsin that allows parents to send their kids to other schools than their assigned public school, as well as the Milwaukee voucher program. However, it is only operating in a handful of communities. We should look to expand this proven program throughout the state and voucherize our entire system. Schools would have to compete for the opportunity to educate our children, rather than assigning them to a school that may not meet their needs.

We also need to reform the way we compensate our teachers for the important work they do. Under our current system, we pay our teachers according to the number of years they have worked or the number of degrees they have attained. There is no incentive or bump in pay for a teacher who improves student performance, who works extra hard, spends extra time, or innovates. We need to look at a merit pay system that will give the biggest raises to the teachers who get the best results. This will motivate our teachers to improve their methods and it will help us weed out the complacent ones or at least pay them less than the best.

Wisconsin enjoys good schools compared to the rest of the nation. Still we can and must do better. The education of our children is far too important for us to allow other nations to pull ahead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Come to Wisconsin - We are Bad for Business

2006-09-12T15:21:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

That motto would probably not attract many businesses. Unfortunately that seems to be the message we are sending to business owners and professionals who may be looking to relocate or expand here.

Forbes Magazine, an international business publication, released its first “Best States for Business” study. Not surprisingly, Wisconsin ranked near the bottom of the list. We were 39th overall among the 50 states.

The top five states to do business in were Virginia, Texas, North Carolina, Utah, and Colorado (quite a recovery for a state that was reduced to ruins after the Taxpayer Bill of Rights).

Forbes ranked states according to six categories: regulatory environment, business costs, economic climate, growth prospects, labor, and quality of life.

Wisconsin underperformed badly in nearly every category. We ranked 42nd for regulatory environment, 39th for economic climate, 38th for growth prospects, 30th for labor, and 27th for business costs. Our quality of life was ranked 6th in the nation. Had this category been removed we would have been even lower on the list.

Unfortunately not many business owners and professionals are looking to move to a state with a high quality of life and a government that over taxes, over spends, and over regulates.

Why should you care?

Despite political attempts from both Republicans and Democrats to improve our business environment, we are underperforming in the categories that matter to businesses. Talented people who create jobs and pay a lot of taxes are leaving or NOT coming here because of it. They realize that they will keep more of the money they make elsewhere. And that means we are all paying more in taxes and fees to make up the difference.

What can we do to fix the problems that make Wisconsin bad for business?

Democrats believe that the solution to our problem is not that we are taxing people too much. It is that we are not taxing the RIGHT people enough. The liberal answer to lower our tax burden and boost the economy seems to be – tax business owners and executives MORE. In their minds, these people are not paying enough in comparison to the rest of us and that is not fair.

If that is true, then the top five states in the Forbes study must be taxing their businesses more than we are. That is not the case. According to data from the Federation of Tax Administrators, all five states have a much lower corporate income tax rate than we do. In fact, two out of the top ten states have no corporate income tax.

In Wisconsin, we automatically tax 7.9% of all business profits regardless of how much the business makes. That’s on top of the 35% the federal government takes. To put this in perspective, if you own a small business in Wisconsin and you make $10,000 in profits, you will automatically pay nearly $4,200 in state and federal taxes. Talk about unfair.

Raising taxes on businesses is NOT the answer.

Eliminating the corporate income tax is. We also need to reduce the regulatory burden that often prevents businesses from expanding and creating more jobs.
Wisconsin can do better.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Is Second Good Enough?

2006-09-01T12:44:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

The ACT College test results and rankings were released last week. Wisconsin high school students had the second highest in the nation. This is the second year in a row our kids have outperformed students in all but one of the 25 states that use the ACT exam. That’s great news. Compared to other states (but not other nations) our kids are getting a good education.

Minnesota students achieved the top ranking for the third year in a row. Granted their average student score was slightly higher than ours (22.2 for Wisconsin kids compared to 22.3 for Minnesota kids).

Minnesota is educating their children better and they are spending less to do it. They are paying their teachers more and have less of them. Why isn’t Wisconsin doing what they are doing? They are consistently getting better results at less cost.

According to the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union, in 2004 Wisconsin taxpayers spent $9,881 (nearly ten grand) per child in our K-12 schools. Minnesota spent $9,239 per student. That’s more than $600 less per child.

If we did what Minnesota’s educational system does and put their best practices to work in our schools, Wisconsin taxpayers could potentially save more than $565 million ($565,000,000) per year ($642 X 881,480 students) -- while improving our kids' education and better preparing them for their future.

Quality education is important and is the responsibility of the government. It brings future success and greater earnings over a lifetime. This is good for individuals and good for our state and country. Minnesota is reaping benefits. People in Minnesota, on average, earn about 15 percent more than Wisconsinites.

Why is this important to you?

Because we are paying for it and well educated kids grow up to be more productive and creative adults. They make more and pay more in taxes (and can afford them more easily). It helps our economy greatly. Wisconsin has a problem attracting college educated people from other states. Without a Wisconsin connection the smart and educated are choosing to live in other states. Nearly every state allows them to keep more of the money they earn. To spend, save, and invest.

Why aren’t our educational leaders looking to Minnesota for ways to improve the education of our children and save taxpayers money in the process? Great question. Could it have anything to do with WEAC (the teacher’s union)?

Let’s follow Minnesota’s lead and use their education strategies and immediately put these practices into our classrooms. The savings we realize should be returned directly to property taxpayers. It works in Minnesota, why can’t it work here? Second is not good enough and it’s time we did something about it.

State Superintendent of Schools, Elizabeth Burmaster, please lead us to better results at a better cost. We don’t need more money, we need leadership.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

'Business as Usual' is NOT Getting it Done in Wisconsin

2006-08-16T14:07:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Imagine being given a large sum of money to invest in a business venture – with no strings attached and no accountability if your business didn’t succeed. Sounds great doesn’t it? Now what if it was your money on the line? Would you be willing to make that investment? That wouldn’t be wise. Unfortunately that seems to be the criteria state agencies use to determine which businesses get our money in the form of economic development grants and loans.

The non-partisan Legislative Audit Bureau released a report on the state’s economic development programs. According to the Audit Bureau, the state currently offers 152 programs (one hundred and fifty two!!) through eight state agencies for economic development purposes.

From 2001-2005, these programs awarded $180 million in grants and loans, $56 million in tax credits, $240 million in bonding authorizations, and $64 million in loan guarantees. That’s over $500,000,000 in five years or roughly $7 million for each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties.

What did we get for our half-billion dollar investment? Good question. The Audit Bureau couldn’t say for sure because the majority of our development programs are not tracked properly. In other words, we don’t know where the money is going in many cases.

The audit did uncover several ridiculous uses of state development dollars including:

• $29 million in tax credits to insurance companies which created 316 jobs. That means taxpayers spent nearly $92,000 per job. Great investment considering the jobs most likely paid much less. Why are we subsidizing insurance companies anyway?

• At least two companies laid off employees within three years of receiving state grants to create jobs.

• Duplication of program goals is the norm. We have 34 programs devoted to helping businesses purchase land or buildings and 26 programs for business planning. (I wonder which ones of these are truly effective.)

• 21% of state assistance was given to projects in eight counties with no indicators of economic need.

• 17 of the 152 programs are inactive, yet still receive some state support.

Why is this important to you?

It’s our taxpayer money at work - at high costs and low value with little accountability.

Part of the reason taxes are so high is we tax all of us more to do silly things like this. All in the name of economic development, so politicians can say that they did ‘something.’

Whatever happened to competition? What happened to supporting good businesses instead of propping up businesses with millions of dollars in grants and loans that may not make it anywhere else? I contend that we often prop up companies that are on their way out instead of giving good companies what they need to succeed (more sensible regulation and lower taxes).

We pay a lot of money for short term gain in the name of ‘economic development and job creation’ which leads to long term pain caused by a changing economy.

We need to be better stewards of the taxpayer’s money. Rather than taxing all of us and good businesses more only to dole it out to businesses that may not be economically viable in the future, wouldn’t it make more sense to allow profitable companies to keep more of their money to pay their employees, pay down their debt, or create more jobs?

Too often our politicians in Madison want to look good and appear as if something is getting done. Instead of being good stewards and making sure our money is spent wisely, we accept ‘business as usual’ and move on to the next press appearance.

We can and must do better.

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

Barking up the wrong horse

2006-08-14T09:48:00.000-06:00

-or Beating a dead tree.

I mixed a couple metaphors there to get your attention, as I fear I may quickly lose it.

Fist, stand in front of the mirror and ask the question, who really pays the corporate income tax? Then, I an going to urge you to badger your legislators to abolish the $600 million/year corporate income tax. That is a single tool that could cut the size of government and grow the economy in one simply complicated step-leap.

What am I talking double-talking about? For starters, the corporate tax code composes about 25% of our state tax law, a candid Dept. of Revenue bigwig once said. It costs upwards of $20 million a year for state workers to administer that compiles code, process forms and enforce a Gordian knot of rules. If we could slash through the knot and get off businesses' backs, it would take more than a few inches off the size of government's Big and Tall trousers and let the economy grow like corn in an ethanol state.

And it could stop a budding IT fiasco. The DNR and Dept. of Workforce Development have been working for years on combining tax collection systems for various withholding and employment taxes (see the UW payroll program of late). At the risk of wasting money already spent on this nearly decade-old project, axing the corporate tax might simplify things to the point where they could actually implement a joint IT project.

Canning the corporate tax code would also save in staff expenses at legislative bureaus. It would end administration of numerous lucrative tax breaks, funding for which could be used to offset the lost revenue. Other lost revenue could be offset by ending property tax breaks that those "greedy" business interests have acquired over the past year. That's a statement intended for those who never built a business. And it would end the DOR's crippling pursuit of tax shelters for corporate investment income. The dreaded, two-headed beast, "combined reporting," could be laid to rest with other bogeymen.

Next there is our Dept. of Commerce, which gleefully distributes $40 million a year, in the name Governor Du Jour, through its Technology Zone Program, just one of many grant programs, which require dozens of application evaluators abd processors, the deciders among whom are loyal to the supporters of Gov. Du Jour.

Government redistributing wealth in its infinate political wisdom and interest? I don't think this is what Adams and Jefferson had in mind.

And I haven't even touched on the 8.5 million little piggies in Wis DOT's Transportation Economic Assistance program, in addition to their other sundry grants. Sometimes government cooks best by staying out of the kitchen. You want a surefire recipe for creating jobs? We don't need a $750 million Institutes for Discovery in Madison. Just demolish the corporate tax and ring the dinner bell.

At the very least, abolishing the corporate income tax is something worth a study by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. And it may be a more pratical step than a TABOR or a TPA for reducing government spending and waste.

Can somebody toss me a sturdy stick? I want another whack at that dead tree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Richard Parins, President of The Brown County Taxpayers Association.

A Borrowing Epidemic

2006-08-10T11:33:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

How would you like to have a magical credit card that allowed you to buy just about anything you wanted? Oh, and you never had to worry about paying the bill. Sounds like a fantasy doesn’t it? It is. There is no such thing. We live in a real world, with real costs, and real debts. When we borrow money, we have to pay it back, simple as that.

Unfortunately, many state and local government officials seem to believe they can rack up large sums of debt and not worry about paying the bills.

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, one of the state’s most respected non-partisan fiscal research groups, released a study (access it here) last week which should make politicians wake up and come back to the real world.

The study found that total debt for state and local governments in Wisconsin had increased by 38% from 2000-2004. That’s over 8% per year. Our state debt now stands at nearly $9 billion ($9,000,000,000). This borrowing epidemic, which is a large contributor to our high tax burden, grew nearly four times as fast as inflation (10.4%).

To put this borrowing into perspective, consider the fact that our personal income grew by 16% during this same time period. In fact, in 2000 to 2002 our total state debt increased by roughly 14% per year, nearly surpassing our income growth for the entire period. As our incomes increased gradually, government debt blew up.

This enormous debt has more serious consequences.

After reviewing our financial situation, three national bond rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch) consistently ranked only two to four states lower than us (California, South Dakota, Louisiana, and Idaho). We’re 46th of 50. That puts our bond rating among the worst in the nation and dead last in the Midwest.

Why should you be concerned?

A state’s bond rating is similar to a person’s credit score. Both measure risk. That is, how likely you are to pay back the money you borrow. If you have a poor credit score and get a loan, it will be at a higher interest rate than a person with a better credit score. The higher the interest rate climbs on our government loans, the more we all pay. That’s a serious problem.

The other problem is that we have to make payments on our existing debt. Because tax collections have remained nearly the same and our debt has increased substantially, we are in a situation where we have to borrow more to cover these obligations. As the debt service climbs it will crowd out other options for paying the bills. That is of course unless we want to raise taxes even higher.

All of this increased borrowing and spending is leading us down the road to becoming a ‘Wississippi’ state – a state with only middle class and poor, where demand for services outstrips the ability of the citizens to pay for those services. In other words, our high tax burden and increased government debt are chasing out higher-income people. We are moving closer to the point where we no longer have the tax base or borrowing power to support the services we’ve enacted.

Someone has to pay for it all. With wealthy people leaving the state in high numbers, that responsibility shifts even more to the middle class. No budgeting gimmicks or accounting tricks will get around that fact.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Those Darn Exceptions

2006-08-07T09:52:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

“…I announced a plan to freeze property taxes the responsible way. Not only does my plan set strict limits on taxes, but it makes an historic funding commitment to schools and local governments that will take the burden off property taxpayers.” This is how Governor Doyle described his plan to provide tax relief to property owners in February 2005. Sounds good doesn’t it?

The Governor claimed that his ‘responsible’ freeze would maintain our schools, roads, police and fire departments, and all of the other generous services our governments provide without raising property tax bills. Unfortunately for taxpayers, that bubble burst last week.

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, a non-partisan fiscal watchdog group, released a study that found property tax rates among all Wisconsin municipalities increased on average of 4.1% last year despite the Governor’s freeze. That increase was nearly the same as the past 3 years. In fact, 77% of Wisconsin municipalities with populations over 2,000 exceeded the limits. More than a third of these communities raised taxes more in 2006 than in 2005 when there was no freeze.

Wait a minute. I thought Governor Doyle took the burden off property taxpayers by capping the increases in our tax bills to 2%. So how did this happen?

Unlike the Republican tax freeze that required all local taxing jurisdictions – counties, municipalities, school districts, and technical schools - to freeze tax collections at 2004 levels for the next three years, the Governor’s version was full of exceptions that allowed governments to spend more.

Most notably the Doyle plan allowed municipalities, counties, and tech colleges to increase spending by more than twice the rate of inflation. The Governor placed no limits on school district spending. Given these facts, it is not surprising that tax bills went up.

Ryan Parsons, a researcher for the Taxpayers Alliance, summed up the problem when he said, “Although the municipal levy restrictions weren’t that tough, we were surprised that the increase was over 4%. It just shows the cumulative effect of all the exceptions piling up.”

Those darn exceptions – they keep sticking it to the taxpayers.

These are the same exceptions that have infected our federal government and seem to be spreading to our state and local governments as well. These exceptions of course are the little loopholes that seem to work there way into many well-intentioned public policies that lead to more spending.

These loopholes have contributed to a federal debt that stands at $8.4 trillion (that’s twelve zeroes) and a state debt of nearly $9 billion. And growing in both cases.

Politicians understand that they can sell responsible, tough reforms to the voters and also include loopholes that fly under the radar and keep the spending interests happy.

What can we, the taxpayers and voters, do?

We must keep the pressure on by staying informed and reading the small print. So the next time a politician tries to pull the wool over our eyes, we can surprise them and call them on it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Businesses Deserve Liberty Too

2006-07-31T16:36:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

After celebrating our liberty and independence last week, it’s unfortunate that many state businesses and their employees may be enjoying their freedoms elsewhere next year. Our high tax burden is not only forcing out our best and brightest individuals, it is also making it more difficult for businesses to stay here and less likely that new business will come.

Our economy suffered three major setbacks last month. RedPrairie Corp., one of the state’s leading software developers, announced the company may relocate to another state and take 200 jobs with them. LoPresti Aviation, an airplane manufacturing company, announced that “there was a snowball’s chance in a Wisconsin summer” that it would open a plant and create 300 jobs in Manitowoc. Honda motors decided to build a $550 million assembly plant with 2,000 jobs in Indiana instead of Wisconsin. That’s 2,300 high paying jobs lost in one month.

It gets worse. Competitive Wisconsin released a report (access it here) on the condition of Wisconsin’s economy. According to their data, 75 manufacturing companies in Illinois announced expansions last year, 180 in Michigan, 36 in Minnesota, and 64 in Iowa. Wisconsin had six – yes 6!

With our state tax burden among the highest in the nation (not to mention our poor regulatory and legal environment) it’s no wonder many businesses are choosing to flee or not look here for expansion. RedPrairie’s CEO, John Jazwiec, said it best when he characterized our high tax burden as the “5,000 pound elephant in the room.”

In today’s global marketplace, where jobs and money are more mobile, businesses will move to places where they can maximize their profits. Wisconsin is not that place.

What can we do to change our ‘tax hell’ title to attract and keep businesses?

Abolishing corporate income taxes entirely would be a good start. We automatically tax 7.9% of all business profits regardless of how much they make. That is on top of the 35% the federal government takes from the average business. Talk about injustice.

Now you may be asking how can we afford to eliminate corporate income taxes? A better question is how can we afford not to?

Whether it’s directly (corporate income tax, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) or indirectly (through their employees) all businesses pay taxes. These taxes are ultimately passed on to consumers, employees, and stockholders in the form of higher prices, lower wages, and decreased stock values. So the more taxes a business pays, the more we all pay.

Ireland understands this. After years of stagnant economic growth, the Irish cut their corporate income tax and revamped their tax system to make it more business friendly. The world business community responded. In fact, nearly a quarter of American business investment in Europe is now in Ireland. Ireland is now the second richest country in the European Union. Their gross domestic product (the market value of all goods and services produced) is higher than European powerhouses Germany, France, and Great Britain.

This recovery was not simply the luck of the Irish. It was about increasing liberty for businesses by allowing them to keep more of their money. Rather than punishing them for their success.

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

Working Harder to Get Less

2006-07-26T10:52:00.000-06:00

Lasees Notes

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, a respected, non-partisan source of information on Wisconsins government spending and taxes, released a study on how much of our income state and local governments spend. The analysis was based on the latest US Census
spending statistics. The conclusions were not good and not surprising.

In 2004, Wisconsins state and local government spending took nearly 22% ($6,670 per
person) of our incomes. More than $20 for every $100 earned. So if you are making $3,000 per month, state and local government spending will take $660 off the top. Ouch!

Elementary and secondary schools accounted for the bulk of government spending at 5.2% of income (14th in the nation). So much for the argument that many schools can't survive without more of our money. Higher education (the UW System) took 2.5% of our income (13th highest in the US). Our generous public welfare system claimed 4.1% of our incomes (16th in the nation).

The study found that Wisconsin spent more than the national average on every major government service area.

Over the past decade state and local spending has grown considerably as a portion of
our income. In 1994, it was 21.2%. In 2002 it jumped to 21.4%. And in 2004 it grew again to 21.9%.

Our income growth has lagged the nation for years. In 2004 our personal income grew 5%. In 2005 it was a paltry 2.6%. This year isnt any better. In the first quarter of 2006, personal income grew by 1.1% (40th in the nation for the period).

Consider the fact that our unemployment rate is fairly low (less than 5% in May) and that we have high numbers of working adults (nearly 3,000,000). Clearly we work hard here in Wisconsin.

The more money we earn, the more our government takes. Our incomes are virtually stagnant, yet a majority of our governments are growing their spending faster.

Wisconsinites are working harder to keep less of the money we earn.

As government grows, so do our taxes. People who have the ability to earn money understand this. They are relocating to more tax friendly states. They are taking their wealth, philanthropy, intelligence, taxes they paid, and businesses with them.

Then we are replacing the higher income people with lower-to-middle income people. In many cases, these people are coming here to reap the benefits of our generous
government (the government that you and I have paid nearly $7,000 per person,
per year to maintain).

There is a better way. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will tie government growth to our ability to pay. Thus, preventing our government from spending more than we can afford, unless they ask through referendum first. In the long run, it will mean more money in our pockets because our economy will be better and government spending will be done more wisely.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasees Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Keep Benefits on the Table in State Labor Discussions

2006-07-19T13:43:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Last Wednesday was the last official session day in the State Assembly. We honored three fallen soldiers and a former Milwaukee mayor. We finished business for the year by approving four state employee contracts. I voted against two of them and here’s why.

For several years, many government employee unions have pushed for pay parity (read as, they want more money). In their minds, public employees are underpaid in comparison to their private sector counterparts and therefore deserve a raise.

Unfortunately, the Legislature played along. Many state employee contracts (including the two I voted against last week) now include salary increases higher than those being offered in the private sector. That is on top of the generous benefits state employees enjoy.

Wisconsin is not unique. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, by the end of the 1990’s average state and local employees were collecting nearly 50% more in total compensation (salary and benefits) than the average private sector employee. Local governments were paying 128% more than private businesses to fund health care benefits and 162% more on retirement accounts.

In the past, government employees accepted the fact that working for the government meant working for a lower wage. They knew a generous benefits package made up the difference. Today, many government employees want to be paid as well or better than those in private business regardless of their benefit plan.

Let’s examine the typical benefits package a new state employee will receive.

According to WISCJOBS (the state’s online employment listing) a new government employee can expect to receive the following benefits:

• Paid Vacation: 2-3 weeks for the first 5 years of service;
• Retirement: The state automatically pays 5% of a vested employee’s salary into the account and matches another 5-10% for non-vested portion;
• Personal Holidays: 3-4 days to be used at the employee’s leisure (on top of the 9 legal holidays with pay);
• Sick Time: the employee accumulates 10 hours of sick time every month (unused sick time is carried over every year and upon retirement is converted to pay health insurance premiums);
• Health Insurance: the employee can choose from a variety of top-of-the-line health care providers for themselves and their family’s medical needs. The average monthly premium for a family plan is $55 (not bad considering the real cost to taxpayers is over $1200 a month, per employee);
• A host of other valuable benefits including life insurance, access to tax-free health savings accounts, income continuation insurance, catastrophic insurance, dental insurance, long-term care insurance, commuter benefits program, deferred compensation, and workers comp.

Many of you reading this in the private sector are probably questioning your choice of careers at this point.

Wisconsin should look at our entire pay and benefits package. It should all be taken into account. We should pay competitively with the private sector, benefits should be included when we decide what we compensate government workers.

Let me say that I truly believe that the majority of government workers are hardworking and dedicated employees. They produce and deliver the valuable government services many of us have come to expect. However, I think that it is imperative for all government employees (myself included) to realize how lucky we have it.

Our benefits and wages are among the best in the nation. We pay very little for the healthcare and other valuable taxpayer funded benefits we enjoy. The least we can do is admit it.

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

Fall Horror Show or a Remarkable Comeback?

2006-07-05T15:38:00.000-06:00

By Rolf Lindgren

The clock is ticking. By July 11, we’ll know who the Wisconsin candidates are
for Governor. Many are grimacing at the prospect of a fall dual between Democrat
Jim Doyle and Republican Mark Green.

The Republicans nominated Mark Green, the former Assembly Republican Caucus
Director. Of all the people who live in Wisconsin, and in the wake of the Caucus
Scandal, the Republicans chose the former leader of an organization deemed
criminal to lead them.

Green is an ardent supporter of Bush’s failed war in Iraq; a war only 22% of
Wisconsinites agree with, according to a recent Strategic Vision poll. Green
supports Bush’s program to eavesdrop without warrants on innocent Americans; a
program called “illegal” by Senator Russ Feingold. If Green were elected, he’d
be little more than a puppet of the borrow-and-spend Republicans in Washington,
DC.

The Democrats aren’t much better. Jim Doyle’s reputation for selling government
to the highest bidder is becoming legendary. The Adelman Travel scandal is the
tip of the iceberg in the minds of many. The Kewaunee Nuclear Power plant
scandal is looming.

And lest we forget, Doyle was our Attorney General for twelve years. During that
time, he was unable to uncover the Caucus Scandal. Hmmm?

With choices like these, you won’t have to go to the movies to see a horror
show. The horror show will be beamed right into your own home, courtesy of
negative Doyle and Green campaign ads. Doyle and Green are hoping you’ll
overlook their annoying two-way partisan bickering, and vote for the “lesser of
two evils”.

But there’s hope on the horizon. Libertarian Ed Thompson could still collect
2000 signatures by July 11 to get on the ballot. If so, Ed has a remarkable
chance to be elected Governor of Wisconsin.

Remarkable, because a new documentary movie about the life of Ed Thompson has
been released on DVD. The movie, called ‘A Remarkable Man’, documents Ed’s
famous legal victory over the nickel poker police, as well as his 2002 run for
Governor. The movie is receiving rave reviews from conservative, libertarian,
and liberal bloggers alike. Even Bill Christofferson, Doyle’s 2002 Campaign
Manager, stated on his blog June 12, that the ”Movie explains Ed Thompson
mystique”. The release of ‘A Remarkable Man’ could lead to a blockbuster
three-way battle for Governor between Ed Thompson, Mark Green and Jim Doyle, if
it inspires an Ed Thompson comeback. Instead hypocrisy, real issues facing
Wisconsin could be debated.

First among the issues is campaign finance and election reform, which the public
has been clamoring for since the Caucus Scandal broke in 2001. With Democrats
and Republicans occupying power, nothing has been done. Doyle and Green have
zero credibility when it comes campaign reform. That’s why Wisconsin needs Ed
Thompson to carry the campaign reform banner in the fall elections.

Because Ed holds reasonable and moderate Libertarian views, he reaches out to
both the left and right. Liberals like his stand against the anti-gay marriage
amendment and prison building, and his support of re-legalized medical
marijuana.

Conservatives like his calls for lower taxes, the right of conceal carry,
vouchers for private schools, and the free market in general.

After the 2002 election, polls showed that Ed Thompson had an approval rating of
39% among Wisconsin voters. In a three-way race, you can win with 34% of the
vote. Jesse Ventura won Minnesota with 38% of the vote. If Ed Thompson can win
the Libertarian primary against Roy Leyendecker in September, Ed can win in
November 2006.

Corruption in government has continued unabated since 2002. If Ed Thompson
doesn’t enter the race for Governor, expect corruption to continue unabated
until 2010, at least.

Rolf Lindgren is the Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Wisconsin.

Tuition Reciprocity is a Poor Deal for Wisconsin

2006-06-28T10:12:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

We have an agreement with Minnesota that allows our kids to attend college across the border and pay less for tuition and vice versa for their kids. It’s called tuition reciprocity. The thought is Minnesota colleges offer courses and specialize in majors that we don’t. And mixing in some “Mud Ducks” with the “Cheese Heads” offers a more interesting and diverse college experience. Sounds like a good idea, right? Well it is wrong for Wisconsin. And here’s why.

The Federal Reserve Bank in Minnesota reported on retention and out-migration (brain drain) of college grads in their region – including Wisconsin and Minnesota. According to their research, UW System graduates were as likely to stay in Wisconsin as Minnesota grads were to stay in Minnesota after college. Even there.

However, retention fluctuates greatly when you consider where grads come from. Four of five Wisconsin natives stayed in state after graduation. But, nearly 90% of Minnesota’s reciprocity kids left Wisconsin after graduation. I am guessing that Wisconsin reciprocity kids are more likely to stay in Minnesota after graduating or go to another state. Wisconsin is getting the short end of the stick.

To make matters worse, on average nearly 3,000 more Minnesota kids come here than we send there every year.

In a full university system, and the university system tells us they are full, 3000 Minnesota kids are taking slots from Wisconsin kids or out of state tuition payers (who pay higher tuition). This makes it more difficult for 3000 Wisconsin kids to get into the UW System and it forces them to look elsewhere. Often out of state and away from home.

Not only are Wisconsin taxpayers spending a lot of money to help educate Minnesota kids (who are more likely to leave), Wisconsin kids are getting bumped out, having to choose other options or are waiting longer to go to the UW.

Minnesota used to have more majors. Now they don’t. UW Madison currently offers nearly 200 majors and certificates from African Languages to Zoology (Click here to access the full list). This doesn’t include courses offered at one of the 26 campuses. Clearly there is no longer a lack of choice in the UW System.

Currently more than 9,000 Wisconsin kids go to Minnesota and 12,000 of theirs come here. The short term solution to fix this is to have a parity system. So Wisconsin takes as many as we send. Then we need to focus on the long term best for Wisconsin, our students and our taxpayers.

Our UW system is costly and ranks highly among public and private universities. Why would we want to put kids from another state ahead of our own? Kids raised in Wisconsin whose parents pay taxes here should have priority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Where's Your Acre?

2006-06-26T12:59:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

School is out. The weather is warm. Summer is finally here and that means its time for many families to pull out the tent, find the cooler, grab the bug spray, pack the bags, and hit the road for the annual vacation.

We are lucky. We don’t have to travel far from our homes to find an abundance of outdoor activities to enjoy. With nearly a hundred state parks, forests, recreation areas, and trails, Wisconsin is the perfect summer vacation destination. Of course, these opportunities don’t come cheap. Taxpayer dollars are spent on improving, maintaining, and expanding our public lands.

The Stewardship fund, the state’s land purchasing program, spends $60 million in borrowed money on land acquisition every year. That’s over $800 million in land purchases for the 20 year program. More than 225,000 acres have been purchased already. That’s a lot of land and a whole lot of debt.

The federal government owns nearly 2 million acres in Wisconsin, for national parks, forests, and trust lands. The DNR owns more than a million acres (that they know of), and the state’s 72 counties own nearly 2.4 million acres for the same purposes.

In the 18 counties which make up the northern part of the state one acre out of every three is government owned. In fact, publicly owned forests, parks, trust lands, fisheries, recreational areas, and preserves add up to nearly 6 million acres – 16% of the state’s total acreage.

Add in the land under public buildings, schools, court houses, universities, etc (but not underneath roads), and the figure jumps to 22%. So more than one out of every five acres is government owned in Wisconsin. That’s more than one acre for every man, woman, and child.

Wouldn’t you like to be able to pick your acre? Think what a prime piece of lake front state forest land in Minocqua would be worth.

I’m not saying we should sell off our public lands. I use our public parks system and the trails frequently. They are a valuable resource that makes our state unique.

The question is how much is enough? How much land should the governments in Wisconsin own? Thirty percent, fifty percent, eighty percent, one hundred percent? Where do we draw the line? I think we should draw a line, instead of the current policy of more and more and more.

Remember as the government buys more land, there is less private land on the tax rolls. Meaning we pay more in our property taxes to make up the difference.

Instead of buying more and more land, we should decide how much is enough and then go about upgrading the land we own. Sell that which has less public value and replace it with land that has higher public value. In Wisconsin we must change the way we view our government. It cannot just be more and more, which is the current way that it is.

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

Wanted: Professionals to Work in a Tax Hell

2006-06-24T00:40:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

A poll of state business executives, many of whom employ more than 500, found a large increase in the number of companies that cannot find qualified workers to fill open jobs. Nearly 60% said they are having trouble hiring professionals, up from 40% last year. Nearly 30% ranked this labor shortage as their top business problem.

The report also found that in order to stay competitive many businesses are expanding their operations outside of Wisconsin. Nearly 70% of the businesses plan to expand in another state or country this year. This growth represents millions of dollars in lost opportunities for our economy. Not to mention thousands of jobs.

Why are these businesses choosing to invest more out of state? It is not only because of the lack of professionals and skilled workers.

With our tax burden hovering near the top 5 nationally for many years, it is no secret that if you have money or the ability to earn money you can keep more of it elsewhere. So if Wisconsin companies want to lure professionals away from lower taxing states or keep them here often they have to pay them more to make up the difference (10-15% more in many cases). This is the tax premium. And this is only half of the story.

The rest of the story is that as many wealthy, higher income professionals leave, it is likely that they are being replaced by middle to lower income people. Leading to Wisconsin becoming a state where the demand for government services outpaces the citizens’ ability to pay.

Personal income grows faster in states which have lowered their tax burden over time. They have more economic activity and more opportunity for the citizens of those states. In states with high tax burdens – like Wisconsin – the government sector grows as fast as or faster than the private sector. Thus businesses and people look to move themselves or their operations to states where they can keep more of the money they earn.

Another major issue facing Wisconsin is the regulation that businesses and people have to live with here.

Wisconsin can do better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jeopardizing our Outdoor Heritage

2006-06-08T11:53:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Are increased license fees causing casual hunters and fishermen to leave Wisconsin’s woods and waterways? Should you care if you don’t hunt or fish? Yes and Yes. And here’s why.
Hunting and fishing is big business in Wisconsin. Our sporting heritage fuels a large part of the economy. Each year hundreds of thousands of people make a personal investment in our outdoor traditions by purchasing a hunting or fishing license – to the tune of $70 million in the last two years. Then think of all the gear, gas, and eating that happens because of these sports.
It is understandable that hunters and anglers expect the DNR to spend their license fees supporting hunting and fishing.
An audit was done of the Fish and Wildlife Accounts to track sporting dollars. The Legislative Audit Bureau found that over 90% of the license fees were used for programs related to hunting and fishing in 2004-2005. The DNR is spending the money appropriately in most cases. Except for the $7.5 million that went to administrative costs, but that’s another issue.
There is reason for concern.
The audit raised a red flag to the fact that interest among younger generations has sharply decreased as have license sales. And the DNR has overspent on fishing and hunting programs for several years. The account is nearly empty.
Money doesn’t magically appear. The DNR takes money from other areas and spends it on policing, maintaining, and improving forests, lakes, and other wild resources.
The Governor and the legislature have also siphoned off millions of dollars from the DNR accounts and used it to backfill spending in other areas. In this budget alone, the Governor took nearly $32 million from the Forestry account to spend on other government programs.
These accounting gimmicks create the illusion of a balanced budget. In reality what we have done is create structural deficits. Structural deficits are caused by using a one time source of money for ongoing programs. Or using moneys collected for one government service to do another.
The DNR used these deficits (created by the Governor and legislature’s pilfering) to push for higher license fees. Then we played along.
This fee increase contributes to license sales declining.
Our robbing Peter to pay Paul mentality has fed the Wisconsin government spending machine and is threatening our outdoor heritage. We must be careful of how high fees are raised and do we really use that fee money for the promised service. We need to stop raiding other funds and raising or continuing those fees to pay for non-related services.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

The Half-Million Dollar Surprise

2006-06-01T13:34:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

What if I told you that you and your family owe more than half-a-million dollars (I bet you don’t recall borrowing that money either)? Worried about the payments? You should be.

According to a recent analysis in the USA Today, federal, state and local governments have added $10 trillion in the past two years in more borrowing - 13% above inflation. Our government’s debt now stands at nearly $60,000,000,000,000 (sixty-trillion).

That’s more than $500,000 and growing for every American household. For each family it’s growing about $25,000 per year. That’s more than some people make in a year!

Should you be concerned? What should we do?

Our governments will continue to increase taxes and borrowing to cover the interest on the debt. Unless we do something different.

Who is going to make good on this debt?

Do you think our governments should be able to continue to spend more money than they take in year in and year out? (Click here to register your vote – here for Yes, there for No).

For the last several decades, Congress – under the control of both Republicans and Democrats – has increased spending, taxing and borrowing. When they don’t have enough to cover their spending, they borrow more, and more, and more.

This Washington mentality has infected many state governments and is becoming a disease increasingly popular among local governments as well. In Wisconsin, our state debt is nearly $9 billion. That’s about $6500 for a family of four and that’s just part of the government debt.

Match this with the fact that many family incomes are stagnant. With increased costs of energy, health care, taxes, and other living costs eroding modest pay raises, it is clear we have a long term issue.

Every year government gets more expensive. The price we all pay goes up.

Our government is piling up debt and continues to grow at levels we cannot sustain long term. We must get a handle on this.

Taxpayers need protection from a government that takes ever more. We must require all governments to live on a responsible budget and ask all of us before they dig deeper in our pockets. We need another check on our government. Because our government is setup on the principle of checks and balances.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (click here for an explanation) will put a growth ceiling on taxes, spending, and borrowing for all governments. As I have written it, it recognizes the relationship that exists between the state and local governments for the delivery of valuable government services. The delivery of government services is a federal, state, and local partnership that has to be recognized.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights provides taxpayers with more input into how and what our government does for us and how much it costs us.

What do you think about this issue? Click on this link and send me an email with your thoughts.

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

Will Political Pandering at the Pump Have Any Effect on Gas Prices?

2006-05-16T15:06:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

With the average price of gas in Wisconsin creeping closer to $3.00 a gallon and summer coming, politicians are scrambling to appear to do something to help lower the pinch at the pump for motorists. Unfortunately most of the proposals being offered are long on rhetoric and short on real solutions.

Governor Doyle was one of the first politicians out of the gate. At the end of April, he teamed up with 15 other governors and sent a letter to President Bush demanding that he cap oil company profits and repeal government subsidies to the oil industry.

Last week Governor Doyle took his plan to the people. He joined forces with Michigan’s governor in creating an online petition where people can add their name to a list calling for Congress and the President to once again cap oil company profits and rollback incentives for oil producers.

News flash for Governor Doyle - the idea of capping oil company profits is not new. Frustrated by the constant fluctuation in gas prices, in 2005 the Democrat controlled Hawaiian Legislature passed a wholesale cap on gas to reduce prices at the pump.

The theory behind the plan – which received national recognition for sticking it to the oil companies – was to force Hawaii’s two refineries to set their wholesale prices comparable to mainland rates.

Supporters of the cap – mostly democrat – were convinced that capping the wholesale profits on island gas would reduce the sting at the pump for Hawaii’s drivers.

Opponents of the law – led by the Republican Governor – said gas prices would rise because oil suppliers would opt to take their product to other markets where they could maximize their profit – this caused shortages in the island’s gas supply and prices to rise.

Two weeks ago, following massive outrage from island residents after the price for regular topped $3.38, Governor Linda Lingle signed a suspension of the gas profit cap only seven months after it was enacted.

The cap didn’t lower gas prices. It actually led to an increase in the price at the pump for regular Hawaiians. It made gas less plentiful and more expensive. It was just a great idea. An analysis by the Hawaiian Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism estimated that motorists paid nearly $55 million more for their gas under the price cap than they would have had to without it.

Democratic Senator Will Espero – a leading advocate of the gas cap – summed up the lack of thinking on the left’s part before imposing the cap when he said, “this issue is a complicated and complex matter that doesn’t have an easy, simple solution.” No kidding. He was wrong here as well. The real solution: long term increased efficient use of our oil resource, increased use of cost effective alternatives, increased development of supply and increased domestic refinery capacity.

There is little wonder as to why gas prices continue to rise. Basic economics of supply and demand tells us that oil and gas capacity is a limited resource and as the global demand for it has increased so has the price. And there is no legislation or political stunt that will alter this fact. Read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, it is a short easy read and it will increase your understanding of our semi capitalist system.

Liberals – like Governor Doyle and the Hawaiian Legislature – just don’t understand that there is very little our state government can do to influence supply of a global commodity like oil. (Hey, why aren’t we drilling for oil under the Great Lakes? - That’s right, its illegal.) Market forces around the world influence the price of oil and there is very little that any government can do to change that for the better. There are a lot of things governments can and do to drive up the price by requiring special blends and mandates for business practices. Markets do work, just watch gas prices.

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

Another crisis! Is the sky falling this time?

2006-04-20T14:12:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

It’s a crisis! It’s a crisis! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

That’s what the state’s Department of Transportation is calling it. Our $2.4 billion transportation budget isn’t big enough to pay for the highways, roads, and other myriad things it’s supposed to pay for.

Among other things, DOT chief Frank Busalacchi warned about a $4.7 million deficit by the middle of next year. Out of a $2.4 billion budget – less than two tenths of one percent.

A crisis.

If that’s the case, then the state could solve all our transportation problems simply by not raiding the transportation fund. The state balanced this budget by siphoning $427 million out of transportation – just leave that there, and the transportation budget would have a surplus in the hundreds of millions.

I wonder – would Mr. Busalacchi have noticed the “surplus” if we’d left that money alone?

Or perhaps there’s a way for us to spend less. Consider these other numbers:

According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, we have 21 miles of roads per 1000 residents in our state – 17th most in the nation.

Eighty-two percent of our roads are paved – 6th highest in the nation, and more than double the rate of paved roads per capita in Michigan and Illinois. We have more roads per person, and far more paved roads per person compared to our sister states. Is this any surprise?

And in 2002 (the latest data available), we spent $557 per capita on our state and local highways – 35% more than the national average, and 14th highest per-capita road spending in the country.

State spending on highways has doubled between 1990 and 2005, including a 16% increase this year. Overall DOT spending is up 11% in the current two-year budget. And starting July 1, debt service will take up almost 11% of all transportation taxes, up from seven and a half percent four years ago.

Not enough, says the DOT. Crisis!

As usual, the problem isn’t that we aren’t spending enough money. Our problem is that our eyes are bigger than our stomachs.

We used to say that all the time in my family. It means you took more food than you could eat. You wanted to eat more, but didn’t have room for it.

Wisconsin does this. We want to eat more, to have more, to spend more than we can afford.

We’re below average in personal income in Wisconsin, and above average in spending, which means a larger burden on each individual. And yet it’s not enough. We have unmet needs. The DOT isn’t alone in this – every state department and agency will tell you the same thing – they don’t have enough money, even when we spend above the national average in nearly every program that has any merit.

How do states that spend below the national average make do, I wonder? And by the way, Colorado spends more per capita on their roads than we do, even though they have TABOR (TPA).

The problem in Wisconsin isn’t that we don’t tax enough. It is that, no matter how much we spend, our government keeps coming back for more.

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

Twelve Percent

2006-04-13T09:02:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Once upon a time, there was no such thing as the income tax (no, this isn’t a fairy tale).

Congress enacted the first income tax for several years during and after the Civil War – it was repealed in 1872, and not revisited for a couple of decades. When the idea came up again, opponents tried to at least cap the income tax at a top rate of 10%.

The income tax was enacted without the 10% cap, partly because nobody believed the voters would ever actually let a federal income tax grow to more than a couple of percentage points.

Fast forward to today: we’re paying over 12% of our income in state and local taxes – and that doesn’t include the federal income tax. Or any other federal taxes. Or any fees, assessments, charges, etc. That’s just the state and local taxes.

According to a report by the non-partisan Competitive Wisconsin, Inc., taxes in Wisconsin grew to 12.1% of personal income in 2004, up from 11.9% the year before. That’s one dollar out of every eight earned.

There’s a lot to say about this. For example, personal income in Wisconsin grew 5% in 2004. Taxes grew even faster. Faster than personal income, meaning faster than our ability to pay.

Interesting side note: Wisconsin’s personal income growth ranked 38th nationally. Colorado’s personal income grew 6.5% or 12th nationally. They’re really hurting over there (just listen to the naysayers).

All this makes one wonder: what happened to all the promises, from all those candidates, to bring Wisconsin’s tax burden down?

And don’t forget, this is a measure only of state and local taxes. It doesn’t include federal taxes, or fees, or assessments, or public benefits, or licenses, etc., etc., etc.

The state government alone has increased fees by nearly $500 million in the last two budgets. Local governments are coming up with more fees and assessments – stormwater runoff fees – the Rain Tax – is increasingly popular. How much of our incomes are going to the government once all those are added in?

The report contains other negatives about Wisconsin: fewer than one in four Wisconsin residents has a college degree, and venture capital is invested here at about one-tenth the national rate.

There are also some positives: new private businesses were created at a faster rate than the national average, and exports were higher, as well.

How much higher would these have been, how much more venture capital could we attract, how many more high-income residents would we have, if our tax burden wasn’t outpacing our ability to pay? If Wisconsin were known not as a Tax Hell, but as a great place to do business?

Our elected officials aren’t doing it, so it’s time for a constitutional amendment to protect us taxpayers and our economy from an ever increasing tax burden.

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

Teddy Roosevelt's Ideas on Immigration

2006-04-11T11:01:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

Found this in my inbox the other day:

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Also, Charlie Sykes pointed out this report by J. Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy: DOUBLE STANDARDS
How does Mexico handle immigration? J. Michael Waller has the details here in "Mexico's Glass House:

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.
The author, J. Michael Waller, concludes:

"...we should not allow the hypocrisy of others' treatment of undocumented aliens in their countries to induce us to refrain from taking effective steps to prevent further illegal immigration: by building a fence along our southern border; by enforcing immigration laws in the workplace and elsewhere; and by discouraging more such violations - with potentially grave national security implications - by dealing effectively with those who have already broken those laws by coming here without permission."

Rational Decisions

2006-03-31T11:08:00.000-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

People respond to real pressures in real ways. Put another way: people often make rational decisions, based on facts.

The fact in Wisconsin: if you have money and/or the ability to earn money, from a tax standpoint you’re better off somewhere else. You’ll get to keep more of your own money if you live in another state.

According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Wisconsin lost $4.6 billion in net worth and $450 million in net income between 1995 and 2000 due to people moving out of the state. And that was during the good times.

That’s only part of the story: our population saw a net increase due to migration – but the people moving in were far more likely to be middle- or lower-income, while those moving out were more likely to be higher-income.

According to the WTA:

"These figures are not trivial," said WISTAX President Todd A. Berry, "for lost assets can cease to be held in and loaned by Wisconsin banks. They can result in the sale of stock in Wisconsin firms to nonresident investors, less in-state investment capital available for new ventures here, and reduced support for Badger State charities."
What’s going on? We are providing incentives.
We’re providing two types of incentives: first, we provide government programs that are more generous than those in other states. This is an incentive for low-income families to move here. They get more from their government.

Two, because of our high taxes and difficult to deal with state regulations, we create an incentive for higher-income families and business owners to move out.

This has two effects: demand for government services grows, while the tax base which pays for those services shrinks. This puts more pressure on the middle class, which is squeezed more and more over time.

Sooner or later we are going to hit a tipping point, where high taxes and government regulation chase out enough income, wealth, and talent that we no longer have the tax base to support the services we’ve enacted and made more generous over the years, and which people have come to expect.

Wisconsin is in danger of becoming a Wississippi – a state with only middle class and poor, where demand for services outstrips the ability of the citizens to pay for those services.

Someone has to pay for it all. In Wisconsin, our policies chase out the people who can pay, while attracting the people who can’t.

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

Thoughts on the TPA

2006-03-16T02:22:00.001-06:00

Lasee’s Notes

When Senator Grothman introduced the Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA), I supported it. I want to be clear that I still do support it, and will continue to support it as long as it protects the taxpayers.

As with any first try, we can make improvements. Time and study of the TPA as it’s currently written have brought out a few details – things that need to be fixed before it comes to a vote.

First, the Rob Peter to Pay Paul scheme:

As it’s currently written, the TPA lets the state rob local government revenue streams to spend on other state priorities. It then leaves local governments to backfill with property tax increases – increases they can enact without asking their voters. And all the while, the state can brag about living within a limit, when in fact spending is growing twice that fast.

Here’s how it works. About half of the state’s General Fund (almost $13 billion) is used to pay for K-12 school aids, shared revenue and other aid to local governments.

The TPA allows state revenues to grow at population plus inflation – let’s call it 4% a year. That 4% is applied to the entire budget, but this doesn’t mean every expenditure grows at 4%. The state can still set priorities – spend less on one area, in order to spend more somewhere else.

If the state doesn’t increase the half of its budget that goes to local aids (about half the general fund), the other half will grow at about 8% (twice the growth limit).

So: the state can reduce local aids in order to give more money to schools and spend more money elsewhere, and can still claim to have lived within the TPA. Local governments will have the tough decision – raise taxes, or settle for very little increase, and the property-rich districts get bigger increases than property-poor districts forever.

This is one thing that must be fixed before the TPA comes to a vote. There are others, which I’ll cover in greater detail in the future.

The next couple of Wednesdays, I’m arranging open meetings about the TPA in which we can discuss these and other issues, and hopefully remove the loopholes, because Wisconsin’s taxpayers deserve a strong Taxpayer Protection Amendment.

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

The Minutiae of Government

2006-02-25T18:19:00.000-06:00

We’re coming up on the end of this legislaive session. You can tell, just by looking at our agenda.

The Legislature sets its two-year schedule in January of each odd-numbered year. We’re in session this week, and next week, and the week after that. Then we’ll be back for a few more weeks in April and May (for a limited calendar) and…that’s it, unless we’re called into session the last couple days in December.

End-of-session agendas fill up with the minutiae of government. There will be a few highlights – the Taxpayer Protection Amendment, we hope, will land on an agenda between now and May. Medical malpractice caps, preventing illegal aliens from obtaining drivers’ licenses.

Other than that, well, take a look down the agenda we’re considering today:

Removing a requirement that schools report student absences to the state (because that information is already collected elsewhere), and adding a requirement that schools report the number of hours of instruction;

Specifying when a school bus must activate its warning lights to load and unload passengers;

Details of nonprobate transfers of real property;

Technical changes in the way school districts have to mail copies of reorganization orders.

The minutiae of government.
Granted, there are a few more interesting (some would say more important) items on our agenda today: resolutions honoring Coretta Scott King, and two Wisconsin servicemen. A bill to allow school districts to fire employees with felony convictions – that could be controversial.

And it’s not that minutiae doesn’t make it onto the agenda earlier in the session – it does. Never so much as near the end of session, though. Over the next several weeks, we’ll have a flurry of activity – the Legislature will scramble to put seemingly minor bills on the agenda, whether or not those bills have any chance of being signed into law.

This is what the Legislature does – we deal with the rules of the game. More to the point: we change the rules of the game.

For example:

Twenty-two players are on the field during a football game. The game lasts one hour on the clock – more like three in real life. Seven offensive players have to line up on the line of scrimmage before a play – no more, no less. A touchdown is worth six points, a field goal three, and an extra point one.

We don’t question those rules – those are simply the rules. Every now and then, the NFL will consider a major rule change, like allowing the coach to challenge a ruling on the field.

Much more often, they tinker with things. They’ve tinkered with the challenge rules ever since it was enacted. They tinker with pass interference. They make minor changes to the rules.

That’s what the Legislature does – sometimes we make a big change, or try to. Much of the time, we tinker with the minutiae.

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

Heating Homes

2006-02-15T14:35:00.000-06:00

The Governor needed an issue – something that would catch the public’s imagination, and end the tough couple months he’s been having.

He picked one – home heating assistance. Keeping people warm in the winter is a noble cause, and Governor Doyle is a little late to the party.

Wisconsin already has a program to help lower income people pay for home heating, if they need it. It’s partly federal funded, partly state funded through the Public Benefits Fee – an extra charge (a fee, not a tax) you’ll find on your electricity bill every month.

This year, we’ll spend about $70 million on home heating assistance. Last year, we spent $54 million (a nearly 30% increase), meaning each eligible family is already receiving more assistance.

And we’ve already tried to increase it further: a bill authored by Rep. Honadel and Sen. Cowles (both Republicans) will increase the program to $80 million – a nearly 50% increase over last year – if it is ever signed into law.

Many states don’t spend anything other than federal money on home heating assistance. In Wisconsin, we can never do enough.

That bill passed the Assembly in December (oddly, over the no votes of most Democrats), and now awaits action in the Senate. Perhaps Governor Doyle could urge action on that, instead of re-inventing the wheel.

Governor Doyle’s plan is to spend $6 million (instead of $10 million) from the PECFA fund – the fund used to clean up petroleum-contaminated land – instead of already-existing heating assistance funds.

Plus, he wants to increase the eligibility levels. Currently, only those at or below 150% of the federal poverty level – about $30,000 for a family of four – are eligible. He would raise this to 206%. Families earning up to $41,200 will be eligible.

Six million dollars isn’t enough to cover all those new applicants, meaning that his plan will take heating assistance away from the poor, and give it to the middle class. All part of his “affordability agenda.” We’ll take more from you, so you’ll feel better about paying taxes and taking what the ` Wisconsin government gives you.

And he wants all this right now. This week. Governor Doyle demanded that the Legislature hold a special session this week to authorize that money.

He could have demanded it last week, when we were already meeting. He could demand it next week, when we’re scheduled to meet again.

As a matter of fact, he could have demanded it six months ago, after Hurricane Katrina woke us all to the reality of rising gas and fuel prices. That was in August – we’ve known ever since then (if not before) that heating our homes was going to cost more this winter. Higher energy costs aren’t a new phenomenon – except, it seems, in the Governor’s office.

In both of his budgets, Governor Doyle has robbed the Public Benefits Fund to support other spending. In the 2005-07 budget, he took (and, to be fair, the Republican legislature approved) over $35 million out of the $130 million fund, and transferred it to the General Fund.

If we needed more money for home heating assistance, we could simply have used the Public Benefits Fund, instead of sending it to the General Fund, and now looking for another source to rob to make up for our lack of foresight.

In the end, this is simply another attempt at grandstanding – just another meaningless attempt to look good.

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

Nanny Government

2006-02-08T12:15:00.000-06:00

Lassee's Notes

“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.” - C.S. Lewis

Have you bought your booster seat yet?
If you have kids under 8 years old, you’ll want to. Because the state just passed a new law (over my objections) – now every child under 8 years old has to be in a booster seat while riding in a car.

Governor Doyle may not have used the line “if it only saves a single child…” but the phrase has been on everyone’s lips, nonetheless.

Really, it’s not saving lives that got the bill passed, it’s federal transportation money. Because we passed the bill, we get another $2.5 million which we wouldn’t have gotten, otherwise.

That’s worth it, right? A little less personal responsibility, a little further reach for Big Brother government’s fingers, for $2.5 million?

Wonder what else we’d do for $2.5 million?

Wisconsin law doesn’t require motorcyclists to wear helmets. Perhaps that’s next – the feds will dangle more transportation money in front of us, if only we pass that requirement.

Of course, wearing a helmet won’t help a motorcyclist who hits a car broadside at 40 mph. Maybe it would be better if motorcycles weren’t allowed on our roads at all. Put everybody in a car, where they can wear seatbelts and be protected by air bags. Hey, if it only saves one life.

Better put helmets on them, too, just to be safe.

It seems innocent enough – just an attempt to keep kids a little safer, and to bring in a little more federal money at the same time.

And, yes, it means the Nanny Government taking just a little more control over our lives. Why not? It’s what’s best for us. We all know it.

Given that motive, is it ridiculous to place video cameras into every home? Imagine the child abuse we could prevent, just to name one outcome. Imagine how much better we could make the lives of the children and the women who would, otherwise, be abused.

Not abusing your children? No worries, then. We’ll only use the footage to prosecute a crime. We won’t even look at it, unless a crime’s been alleged.

Just like Social Security numbers were not going to become national I.D. numbers.

Of course, that’s taking things much too far. Government never takes things too far: government only moves a little bit at a time. An inch here, an inch there…

As long as we’re acting with good intentions, with the good of the people in mind.

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

Here a Loophole, There a Loophole...

2006-01-31T16:47:00.000-06:00

...everywhere a loophole.

We wanted to pass a property tax freeze, badly. And that’s what we did: we passed a property tax freeze, badly. Perhaps it’s Governor Doyle’s fault – the freeze that finally became law was his, after all the changes he made. But things wouldn’t have been much different, had the Republican freeze passed instead.

The problem with a property tax freeze is that it freezes property taxes (with some loopholes), and not other sources of revenue. As a colleague of mine put it, this is like squeezing a balloon. You make one part of the balloon smaller, and another part gets bigger.

If it gets too big, it pops.

All over the state, governments are creating new fees and increasing existing ones, often shifting existing costs to the new fee revenue. Why? Because fees aren’t affected by the freeze. Taxpayers are paying for things like snow removal, trash pickup, leaf pickup, water hydrant maintenance, and recycling (and the list grows), which once were funded through the property tax.

Have property taxes gone down, because that funding has moved to a fee? Nope.

And new fees are popping up. One favorite, the “stormwater runoff” fee, popularly known as the Rain Tax. Communities are putting new fees for fire hydrants on your water bills.

The state isn’t innocent of this, either. Governor Doyle was elected in part on his promise not to raise taxes, so he squeezed the balloon and found other ways: shift, borrow, and fee. In two budgets, the state (Governor Doyle and the Legislature) increased fees by nearly $500 million.

People are frustrated. Taxpayers have had enough. Just read through this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story – the frustration seeps through. Can’t ignore it.

This is why the drive for a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) continues to grow. The promises are wearing thin faster than taxpayers’ wallets. People want a change.

Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) is expected to release his new version of TABOR anytime now. He’s actually calling it the Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA). Okay by me. As long as it works, call it whatever you want.

As long as it works – that’s the key. It has to actually restrain the growth of government. Keep it within the taxpayers’ ability to pay. Give the voters the right to decide how much they’re willing to pay for their government.

Back to the Property Tax Freeze: it had loopholes, which local governments have used to continue spending more. If there are loopholes in the TPA, there’s no doubt government will use them.

Leadership in both houses of the Legislature have promised a vote. Tax and spending limits – the TPA – were front and center at this week’s announcements about the Assembly agenda. We have an opportunity now.

There are lessons to be learned from the property tax freeze, from other states, and from Wisconsin’s experience with K-12 revenue limits and referendum requirements. Hopefully we will be wise enough to use them in our TABOR, or TPA, or TASC (as it is known in Arizona).

I will let you know how close to a winner for the taxpayers we have.

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

The Road to Serfdom

2006-01-25T10:13:00.001-06:00

A colleague of mine once said “we’re all heading toward Socialism – Democrats take big steps, Republicans are taking little ones.” The demand for more and more public services, and the demand for more and more government intervention in our daily affairs, is pushing us further and further into a centrally planned – socialist – state.

Many of us understand intuitively that socialism doesn’t work. Half a century ago, an Austrian-born economist wrote a book that explains why.

Friedrich A. Hayek, while living in England during World War II, realized that the increased government control during wartime would eventually pose a threat to the basic freedoms of the Western world.

In response to that potential threat, Hayek wrote “The Road to Serfdom.” Although paper was in short supply in 1944, the book went through 6 printings in 16 months, and was translated into several different languages.

Fifty-five years later, Heritage Foundation President Edward Fuelner wrote “it is no exaggeration to say that ‘The Road to Serfdom’ simultaneously prevented the emergence of full-blown socialism…and planted seeds of freedom in the Soviet Union.”

The book’s point is simple: a society based on individual decision making works, because the very nature of that society creates efficiency and protects freedom. A controlled economy does neither of those things.

In our society, individuals make decisions. Individuals making decisions (in seeming chaos) is what makes up the market. The market drives our economy. It’s messy, but it works.

In a centrally planned society, a central planner takes over the decision-making power which, in a capitalist society, belongs to individuals. This central planner decides how many people make what kind of shoes, how many buildings of certain types are needed, etc.

Hayek wrote: “When all the means of production are vested in a single hand, whether it be nominally that of ‘society’ as a whole of that of a dictator, whoever exercises this control has complete power over us.” It doesn’t matter what the individual wants: what matters is what the central planner thinks we need.

Why won’t central planning work? Because it’s not possible for one person or a group of people to be aware of local conditions in Green Bay, Los Angeles, and Miami all at the same time, much less those in Europe and Asia.

In a capitalist society, the kinds and numbers of shoes that are made is determined by the people who buy the shoes. That creates efficiency – individual shoemakers get the message faster that they’re making a product nobody wants. Central planning will never get it right.

Capitalism also protects freedom, by removing the controls a centrally planned society places around individual choice. “It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves,” Hayek wrote.

The capitalist system is messy, imperfect, and does need constraints to protect individuals. It requires the rule of law to make it work.

The rule of law, while not always perfect, is at least impartial. The rule of man (central planning) is subjective and subject to corruption, therefore inherently unfair.

Like the decision-making process, the rule of law is also something better done locally. Just like economic decision-making, a central planner can’t know the conditions everywhere. That’s why the Founding Fathers reserved power for the states.

States which have more sensible (not necessarily weaker) regulation, including lower tax rates, have better economies. Their citizens have higher rates of pay, which broadens their individual decision-making ability. Like an economy that places all the authority in its bureaucracy, a state with high taxes and lots of regulation will suffer for it, as more economic activity moves to those states which don’t.

Click here for some select quotes from the book.
Click here for a pdf version of “The Road to Serfdom.”

I urge you to read it. It’s a quick and easy read, and you’ll be amazed at how valid it still is today.

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

Unaffordable Agenda

2006-01-25T10:13:00.000-06:00

Governor Doyle is changing his stripes. Now he wants “affordability.”

That’s what he said in his State of the State Address last week: his “affordability agenda” will help the ever-squeezed middle class afford life in Wisconsin.

The state’s going to make sure you’ve got health care, that your kids go to college, that your home is heated and that you’ve always got a good-paying job.

And we’re going to pay for all that by…squeezing the middle class, I suppose. Or more accurately, their kids.

Someone is going to have to pay for it, after all.

Remember when then-Attorney General Doyle was a candidate for Governor? He was adamant that Wisconsin’s budget process had to be cleaned up. No more accounting gimmicks. No more kicking spending down to future budgets. No more relying on excessive borrowing to pay for today’s spending. No raising taxes. He specifically ruled out raising the fees for drivers’ licenses. He was furious that the state had raided the tobacco settlement to pay for current spending, because that money was supposed to be used for something else.

He wanted an honest government we could all afford.

Then he got elected, and in the grand tradition of politicians who say one thing and do another, he broke all those promises.

He has made frequent use of accounting gimmicks, which has left us with a $2.1 billion deficit. He shifted money from revenue-funded accounts (transportation, conservation, recycling) to pay for current spending, and increased borrowing to make up the difference. His administration has worked overtime to find new ways to tax our citizens. He raised fees.

All the things he said he wouldn’t do, he’s done.

This reduces our hope of reversing a troubling trend: the trend of people with money, assets, and/or earning potential leaving the state.

You may have seen this story a few weeks ago. The non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance did a study, which shows how Wisconsin lost $4.7 billion in net worth during the years 1995-2000.

Why? High taxes, fewer economic opportunities, less incentive to invest in our state. Retired people are picking up and moving, and they’re taking their property and their money with them. College grads are leaving, because there are more and better job opportunities elsewhere. Investors are looking to states which offer higher and faster growth.

Granted, Governor Doyle wasn’t governor during those years, so that’s not his fault. But he was elected in large part because he promised an agenda to reverse that trend.

Instead, he gives us an “affordability agenda” which promises more taxes and fees to pay for it, more bureaucracy to administer it, and more regulations to enforce it.

Great idea.

The reason Governor Doyle’s “affordability agenda” isn’t affordable is: it expands the power and scope of government. Far from being affordable, this is certain to be unaffordable in the long run.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

How about an Accountability Agenda for Governor Jim Doyle?

2006-01-19T05:17:00.000-06:00

Budget Deficit: How can Doyle say that “our budget is balanced” when the official recap of the state’s finances for 2004/2005 shows that Wisconsin ended the past fiscal year with a $2.12 billion general fund deficit according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Taxes: How can Doyle claim that he “solved the worst fiscal crisis in history…without raising taxes” when the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau reports that taxes and fees went up $368 million in his last budget?

Property Taxes: How can Doyle claim credit for a tax freeze when his vetoes left major holes in the freeze and when he claimed last summer that the average tax bill would go down $5 and yet it went up this year?

School Choice: How can he claim that “I’ve asked the Legislature to increase the cap in the Milwaukee school choice program…protecting families already enrolled…while providing basic accountability” when he vetoed the legislation (three times) to lift the caps and vetoed legislation to increase accountability?

Health Care: Why did it take Doyle three years to recognize that health care is a huge issue and why did he not explain why is the only Governor in the country to veto the removal of the state tax on Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)?

Higher Education: Why did Doyle talk about affordable higher education and not explain why tuition in the UW system went up more than 50% during his term?

Ethics: Why did Doyle claim that he demands “the highest standards of integrity” and not mention anything about the second ranking official in his Department of Transportation hosting a fundraiser for his campaign with executives who do business with state government? Why did he fail to commit to prohibitions on those seeking to do business with the state giving to his campaign while contracts are bid?

It appears as though the Governor is hoping that voters will not hold him accountable for the questions left unanswered in his speech or for explaining how he plans to play for all of the new government spending announced in his speech. Therefore, we need an Accountability Agenda to hold Governor Jim Doyle accountable for his actions (or inaction).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Walker, Candidate for Governor

The Spending Gap, the Promise Gap

2006-01-10T15:59:00.000-06:00

What if your paycheck this month was only half the size you expected?

You’d ask your boss about it, of course. He promises that you’ll get the rest next month. But next month comes, and you are paid that month’s salary, but not the other half owed to you.

Your boss says don’t worry, I’ll take care of it next month. But he doesn’t – in fact, your paycheck is still smaller than it’s supposed to be. This happens again, any time your employers’ cash gets a little tight.

How long would you put up with that?

What would your bank say if you tried that with your mortgage? Maybe, for one month, they’d let you put off part of a payment. But you’d better make up for it the next month.

We don’t to expect the private sector to accept it, but it’s routine for our state government. For example, local governments and schools get the money the state promises them just after the New Year begins. Yet we make them pretend they get it before the New Year.

According to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, our state government spent $2.12 billion more than we actually had last year. That’s a $2.12 billion deficit over that 12-month period.

But wait – Wisconsin’s Constitution requires a balanced budget! True, and the budget was balanced. In fact, according to the way the state handles its books, the budget was $4.1 million in the black.

In the private sector, accountants use “generally accepted accounting principles,” or GAAP. Generally, the rule is: don’t spend what you don’t have, either in hand or on credit.

A CPA who ignores GAAP rules could lose his/her license, be fired, even go to prison. It’s very serious.

The state uses what are called “budgetary/statutory” (B.S.) standards, which means the budget is balanced as long as the statutes – thus the Legislature and the Governor – say it’s balanced (I wish my bills were paid just because I say they are).

So: Wisconsin was $2.1 billion in the red, or $4.1 million in the black, depending on how you look at it.

GAAP deficits aren’t unusual for the state. Throughout the 1990s, we had GAAP deficits ranging from $743 million to $1.5 billion.

Then the recession hit, and our deficit exploded to over $2.3 billion. Then-AG Jim Doyle made it a campaign issue – no more accounting tricks!

And yet, that’s exactly what he gave us. More accounting tricks, more borrowing against the future to spend now, more spending what we don’t have, and a GAAP deficit that is poised to get even bigger over the next two years. Budgeting by Ponzi scheme.

The promises to stop this practice come every couple of years, but it never does stop.

The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

According to that definition, we’re all insane. We keep sending people to Madison on promises of responsible budgeting, but those promises are never kept.

Time to try something new.

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

Kicking the Spending Can

2006-01-07T10:43:00.000-06:00

Governor Jim Doyle has very flexible shoulders.

He must, considering how much he’s been patting himself on the back lately.

The source of his pride: property taxes, which have grown at a historically-slow rate this year, thanks (according to him) to his property tax “freeze.”

He says property taxes are up by only 0.8% statewide. The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance says it’s more like 2%, which is still about half the average annual increase of the last 10 years.

A lower-than-average statewide increase, but that doesn’t mean everyone got a nice surprise in their property tax bills this year. There are wide disparities of increases and decreases in individual tax bills. Some are much smaller, others much bigger, still others unchanged.

This is to be expected – local conditions mean a lot to our property tax bills. But even if your bill is lower than last year, don’t be too pleased. It’s not going to last.

We have to keep several things in mind. First, our state government paid for the “freeze” by playing games with taxpayer money. The recently-passed state budget shifts $427 million from the Transportation Fund, and makes up the hole with greater borrowing.

Then, Governor Doyle uses that money to spend $330 million more on schools – this “buys down” property taxes. The dirty little secrets: it all comes from the same place: the taxpayers. And it will cost the taxpayers even more in the long run.

Second, many local governments are enacting new “fees,” like the Rain Tax, to generate more revenues. In many cases, these new fees are offsetting and surpassing any decreases in property taxes.

Third: even the success of holding statewide property taxes to a 2% increase won’t last.

As the Wisconsin State Journal’s Scott Milfred writes:

“…smaller property tax increases during or soon after an election year inevitably lead to larger property tax increases.”

For example, after school revenue caps were put into place in 1993, property tax growth slowed for four years, and even fell for one of those years. But then:

“After that, property taxes grew faster again. The levy increase was more than 4.5 percent during six out of the next seven years, and as high as nearly 10 percent in 2001.”

That’s what will happen in this case, too. The “freeze” is only law for two years. After that, property taxes will begin to rise again, possibly even faster than they would have without the “freeze,” as local governments try to “make up for” the frozen years.

Bottom line: this is the same old, same old. Higher taxes (in the form of higher “fees”), accounting tricks, and kicking the problem – government spending that grows faster than our ability to pay – down the road for another budget to solve.

All the things Governor Doyle and the Legislature promised to stop two years ago. And people are surprised when I vote against the budget every two years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Raising Your Taxes, Automatically

2005-12-05T09:19:00.000-06:00

We love our roads in Wisconsin.

So much, that we’ve got more of them than most other states. And we pave more of them. And we spend much, much more on them.

We have 21 miles of roads per 1000 residents in our state – 17th most in the nation. Eighty-two percent of our roads are paved – 6th highest in the nation, and more than double the ratio of paved roads per capita in Michigan and Illinois.

And we pay for it. In 2002 (the latest data available), we spent $557 per capita on our state and local highways – 35% more than the national average, and 14th highest per-capita road spending in the country.

That’s just the state and local spending. In all, including federal money and bonding, we spent over $2.2 billion on roads last year – not including the $370 million Governor Doyle raided from the Transportation Fund to support other spending.

The excessive bonding concerns me: last year, the debt service on all the money we’ve borrowed for roads was over $137 million. That figure is growing an average of 10% per year. It’s reached over 12% of the transportation budget, and counting. Very shortly, the payments on our debt will be larger than what we borrow every year.

So we’re spending a lot on roads. We’re borrowing to spend even more on roads. One might begin to think that maybe, just maybe, we could slow down our spending on roads.

One would be wrong – at least, according to the spending interests who can’t imagine spending less on anything.

Most of you already know that Wisconsin’s gas tax rises automatically by the rate of inflation every April. Every April Fool’s Day, to be exact.

Last year, it was 29.1 cents a gallon. This year, it’s 29.9 cents (plus the thre-cent PECFA fee, for a total of 32.9 cents per gallon). Automatically, with no debate, no vote. No legislator ever has to put his or her name on the line to support raising your taxes. That’s the law in Wisconsin.

It’s possible that, finally, this could change. We could see an end to the automatic gas tax increases this year, if the Legislature and Governor listen to the taxpayers, rather than the spending interests.

I wrote about the history of the gas tax in Wisconsin in March (click here to read it), just before the last automatic increase. The automatic increase started under Governor Lee Sherman Dreyfus – a Republican who was elected on a fiscally conservative platform, but who later supported tax increases instead of lower spending.

Over the years, there have been attempts to end the automatic increases. I’ve authored a few of them, myself, and I’ve supported the others. They’ve never come anywhere close to passing, even with Republicans in power in both houses.

Now, Senate Republicans are planning to vote on a bill to end the automatic increases. The bill should be up for a vote next week. Thank you, Senator Tom Reynolds, for your dogged determination.

If the Senate holds the vote, and if it passes, it will be hailed as a conservative victory. We should be asking why it took so long.

It will also create tremendous pressure for the Assembly to follow suit. The next question will be: do we cut back spending to live within our means, increase debt (as we’ve been doing), or, as the spending interests would like, find an even greater revenue source to fund more and more for transportation.

Now that repealing the automatic gas tax has momentum in the Legislature, the move will be on to find other creative ways to get more money from the hard pressed taxpayers of Wisconsin. Perhaps Wisconsinites could afford to spend only 25% above the national average on roads, for a savings of $236 million that the taxpayers will get to keep.

That’s what I’ll be fighting for. I hope others in the leg will follow suit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Gay Marriage Debate Exposes Bigger Problem with Government in General

2005-11-30T08:00:00.000-06:00

Government, as currently set up in the United States, can not reward one group without punishing others. This is as much an undeniable truth as the fact that the Earth is round. Yet, no one wants to acknowledge this.

Supporters and opponents of gay marriage jammed a public hearing before the Senate and Assembly judiciary committees Tuesday morning to sound off. So many people flocked to the State Capitol that legislative pages had to herd them into two overflow rooms.

At stake is a constitutional amendment in Wisconsin banning same-sex marriage and civil unions.

Currently Wisconsin has no official state definition of marriage but state supreme court ruling and Attorney General opinion held that only heterosexual marriages are legal. In 2003 a statute to establish a state definition of marriage was approved by the Legislature but vetoed by Jim Doyle. This led the constitutional amendment being advanced.

Supporters say that the traditional monogamous husband-wife family is the bedrock of society. That it is in the best interest of children to be raised by their biological parents as a loving couple. That failure to protect the sanctity of marriage will lead to the erosion of other cultural norms and morals until the nation becomes a giant Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is impossible to disagree with the their intents. What one has to disagree with is the vehicle used to advance their cause. You can not legislate values and morality.

If they want to save the sanctity and dignity of marriage they need to also do something about wedding of actors, athletes, rock stars, and models. It's only a matter of time till we see Dennis Rodman and J Lo seeking a divorce.

Government can't legislate an end to married men having a mistress, government can't prevent single women from getting pregnant, government can't end gay men from shaking-up unless they want to crack down on all the college dorms and marine barracks where young men share common sleeping quarters.

Government can not force people into monogamous male-female couples. This isn't the goal of the pro-traditional marriage supporters (for lack of a better term). What they want to do is slow, stop or reverse advancement's made by gay rights advocates.

What gay right group's say they want is the same rights as a couple that heterosexual couples have when they marry. This is the

Faulk Right to Run

2005-11-11T10:02:00.000-06:00

Dane County Executive Kathy Faulk joined the race for Wisconsin Attorney General and you should support her decision. The fact that Democrats are criticizing her proves she belongs in the race. The fact that Republicans are criticizing her proves she has a real chance of winning.

Democrats are criticizing her decision to run against Democrat incumbent Peg Lautenschlager. They claim that since campaign laws are made to protect incumbents that a challenger has little chance of winning. This means all the challenger does is weaken the incumbent by increasing the amount of mud thrown at them and the amount of money they have to spend to buy votes.

Republicans also are quick to destroy anyone who would challenge a partisan incumbent. Democrats claim to represent the blue class worker but they never let anyone point out that it is their own policies which force factories to move outside our borders. Republicans claim to be for lower taxes and less government but Mark Green will endorse a tax and spend liberal like John Guard or a hopelessly incompetent Scott McCollum as long as they are Republicans who can help him in obsessive goal of greater and greater power.

Republicans are criticizing Kathy Faulk as being too liberal and outside the mainstream. Problem is she isn't running to be make law but to enforce it. Why is Republican Paul Bucher concerned more concerned about political leanings than qualifications and abilities? Could it be that Paul is the one who's political views should be examined? This whole mess makes the case for making Attorney General a nonpartisan position with an open primary.

We should stand by those who are willing to say that just because someone is of my party doesn't mean that they are entitled to return to the job they are currently not doing. I wish Faulk could be made out to be a martyr, but she does have a County Exec job to fall back on if she were to lose. One also has to wonder how much of her campaign is her own desire to be on a larger stage than just that of Dane County?

Faulk's candidacy should be accepted as a win for Democrats who want to restore honor to the office and sweep the remains of state scandals out of their party. Anyone who chooses to run for public office should be embraced as a win for the electoral process. People should be encouraged to become involved in our political process. Democrats and Republicans should be shunned as long as they engage in discouraging people from running for office.

TABOR in Colorado Works

2005-11-05T18:37:00.000-06:00

In Colorado, the people have spoken. Thanks to the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). Without TABOR, the people never would have been asked.

On Tuesday, the state of Colorado held two statewide referendums. One of them failed: Referendum D, which asked for permission to borrow and spend up to $2.1 billion immediately.

The other referendum passed. Referendum C asked for permission to spend an estimated $3.7 billion in projected tax surpluses over the next five years. Tax collections above the revenue limit. A limit Colorado citizens enjoy because of TABOR.

Those are surpluses they expect to have, because TABOR’s spending growth limits are still in place, still working just as they’re supposed to. Had the voters said no, the state government would have sent those surpluses back to the taxpayers. TABOR works, contrary to what the left is saying.

That Referendum C passed means TABOR works. Because of TABOR, politicians have to ask their citizens – the people, whom our government is supposed to serve – for more money through referendums from time to time.

The lefty spin goes even further: some liberal outlets are claiming that TABOR has been “suspended” or even repealed.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Voters in Colorado didn’t repeal or suspend TABOR. They didn’t change it. They did not change or amend their Constitution. They didn’t raise any tax rates (in fact, Referendum C lowers income tax rates a little – those clever politicians!).

They simply said “no” to borrowing, and “yes” to letting the state keep and spend the extra tax money they collect.

TABOR limits the growth of government spending to the rates of inflation plus population. Any tax revenue the government receives in excess of this limit is surplus – they have to send it back to the taxpayers, unless they get permission to keep and spend it, instead.

Before TABOR, Colorado’s government would simply have kept and spent that money without asking their voters – the people they’re supposed to serve – for permission. They also would have likely raised taxes and borrowed more, because the politicians didn’t have to ask. That’s the system we have in Wisconsin right now.

In Colorado, thanks to TABOR, the people have the final say. The government there is limited – they can grow so fast, but not faster unless they get express permission from their voters to do so.

The people in Colorado have more say and control over their government than we in Wisconsin do. I want our citizens to have these same rights. The right to be asked before our government reaches deeper into our pockets.

Don’t you?

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

Wisconsin inches closer to tax revolt

2005-11-03T11:38:00.000-06:00

Wisconsin State legislators talke like the budget for 2005-07 and property tax freeze show that they are taking action to correct the tax hell that is Wixconsin. The problem is that the property tax freeze highlights the vert actions state legislators should be enacting.

The Legislature has thrust a 2 percent cap on local government tax collections over the previous year, in the $52.9 billion budget Gov. Jim Doyle signed into law. According to polititicians a 2 percent increase is a “freeze” on spending. The outcome of this cap is predictable: people will lash out at City Hall. That will happen because City Hall has to limit it's growth and not being able to increase spending at a double digit rates is a cut according to politicians. Government can not cut employee costs becouse these public servants are of such education and income that they will be unable to find a way to meet all their expenses if they did not have pay and benefit packages well above the states median income. Since our village councils can't anger the burocrats - bThey actually vote!! - cuts will have to come in services.

When this happens don’t lash out at City Hall. These local problems were created by state government through the 2005-07 budget. I know it. I'm telling you so you know it.

This budget is a politican’s perfect plan: look like you’re tough on taxes but make somebody else take the pain.

It’s like a multiple choice test where this is the question:

Which tax cut hurts state government the least and makes legislators look best?
A. Property Tax
B. Income Tax
C. Gas Tax
D. Sales Tax

Answer: A.

Why A?
A property tax bill concerns four main categories: school taxes, city taxes, county taxes and technical college district taxes. State government controls income taxes, gas taxes, state sales taxes and other fees and charges.

A cap on the property tax bill affects local governments. That cap doesn’t change any of the taxes controlled by the state. It’s the state making local government to do the dirty work of cutting taxes. See the trick? It’s all legal.
But our legislators forgot something. People like caps on their income taxes. People like caps on the gas tax, too. People would really love to see the tax's they pay the state cut.

It's time for a real tax revolt in Wisconsin. We need to demand that the state government enact caps like they propose for villages.

And there’s plenty of fat to cut. A state that can break voter trust and spend five years of gas tax increases (about $150 million) on non-highway things during 2005-07 can take some cuts. A state that can increase state debt by giving legislators a 4 percent salary raise effective in 2007 can take some cuts.

Tax reform won't happen in Wisconsin when more voters become informed. Many voters already are informed, these are bureaucrats voting to keep their benifits, big business owners getting huge contracts and corporate welefare handouts.

We need more people to get informed. More people who need to know that Doyle, Guard, Democrat, Republican, none are looking out for them. More people need the information. They also need to demand that they enact true cuts, not political cuts but actual cuts in the pork. They need to then vote out those who refuse to quit the current drunken spending spree this state is on. They nee to find people to replace them who are not part of the system. Reject anyone who gives the standard vote for me becouse I'm a loyal Republican/Democrat. Vote for the independent becouse short of moving this is the only alternative to to the liberal tax and spend Republicrat alliemce.

A Real Taxpayer Bill of Rights

2005-10-20T21:54:00.000-06:00

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.