The Wisconsin Cheese Showdown

[jimrtex]

Why is it even necessary to run to another state or wherever? Is there some bizarre law in the U.S that means that legislators can be forced to attend? I remember being confused over the Texas thing for the same reason.

For example the US Constitution Article I, Section 5 says:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and <b>may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.</b>

The Texas Constitution is almost word for word identical.

Senate Police Seize Packwood for Quorum Call

[jimrtex]

The Dems all went to Santa Fe in that little drama. At least they had good taste in towns. And in the end, the Dems were f'ed, so it all had a happy ending.

The senators went to Santa Fe.  The representatives went to Ardmore, Oklahoma.  Ultimately it just meant that the Republicans went for the maximum gerrymander.

[jimrtex]

The Texas Dems still had one yellow dog from a Republican district who fouled it up for them... I wonder if the Wisconsin caucus has anyone similar or if it's a liberal rump that survived last year's slaughter.

Ken Armbrister, who is now Rick Perry's legislative liason stayed in Austin.  The Democrats were always trying to carve up his district anyhow.

But it was John Whitmire who returned after he started reading what the judges were actually saying, and realized they were going to be staying in Santa Fe a really long time.

[jimrtex]

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

(snip)_

Here is the document. Enjoy reading.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Wisconsin requires that a general account balance of $65 million.  So the projected net balance was $56 billion.

But you apparently did not read Page 3, which noted the $153 million shortfall in Medicaid and $22 million in corrections budget just to get through June.

You would also have known about those if you had read the fiscal note for the pending legislation.

And you also ignore the $60 million that Wisconsin owes Minnesota, and the $200 million that Wisconsin illegally transferred from the Patients Compensation Fund in 2007-9.  Read Page 2

[jimrtex]

Did you know the teachers that are striking, calling in sick, whatever, make no contribution to their health or pension plans, zero?  Did you know that what is being proposed is that they pay for 12.5% of their health insurance premiums, and contribute something like 5% of their salary or something to their pension plan?  That is their pay cut. Oh the horror, the horror. Anyone in private industry getting that deal would have an orgasm.

It's about the fact that Wisconsin doesn't even need to be making these cuts, if it wasn't for the GOP's tax breaks.

The cuts are to pay for the Medicaid and corrections shortfall just to get through June.

The tax cuts are on 2011 taxable income and don't come due until 2012.  The major break is to apply the same deduction for Health Savings Accounts that the federal government provides.

[jimrtex]

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

(snip)_

Here is the document. Enjoy reading.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Wisconsin requires that a general account balance of $65 million.  So the projected net balance was $56 billion.

But you apparently did not read Page 3, which noted the $153 million shortfall in Medicaid and $22 million in corrections budget just to get through June.

You would also have known about those if you had read the fiscal note for the pending legislation.

And you also ignore the $60 million that Wisconsin owes Minnesota, and the $200 million that Wisconsin illegally transferred from the Patients Compensation Fund in 2007-9.  Read Page 2

So, the budget situation was so grim that Walker's first action was to cut taxes.
Makes sense.

What were the bill numbers of the legislation that cut taxes?  They should have a fiscal note.

[jimrtex]

In its Jan. 31 memo to legislators on the condition of the state’s budget, the Fiscal Bureau determined that the state will end the year with a balance of $121.4 million.

(snip)_

Here is the document. Enjoy reading.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf

Wisconsin requires that a general account balance of $65 million.  So the projected net balance was $56 billion.

But you apparently did not read Page 3, which noted the $153 million shortfall in Medicaid and $22 million in corrections budget just to get through June.

You would also have known about those if you had read the fiscal note for the pending legislation.

And you also ignore the $60 million that Wisconsin owes Minnesota, and the $200 million that Wisconsin illegally transferred from the Patients Compensation Fund in 2007-9.  Read Page 2

That still doesn't get anywhere near the $3.6 billion that Walker is claiming. It's true that the state probably has a shortfall that large based on projected agency requests for future years, but that report is pretty misleading.

How is the report misleading?  It mainly is concentrated on 2010-1.  It does make revenue projections for 2011-2013.

The pending legislation does include the Medicaid and Corrections funding for the fiscal biennium that ends in June, though I think it is a bit less than the note

[jimrtex]

Edit: fixed quoting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Governor Walker claims that there is $3.6 billion multi-year deficit, and an at least $2 billion deficit has been backed up by multiple sources, yet the report neither mentions this figure nor explains how the 2010/2011 figures could be so different from the projections to 2013.

Instead, they spend a great deal of time trying to predict national macroeconomic variables which don't necessarily have bearing on Wisconsin, nor are they the ones in the best position to make such predictions.

The introduction says: "In the odd-numbered years, our report includes estimated revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year and tax collection projections for each year of the next biennium. This report presents the conclusions of our analysis."

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau does not have any power to appropriate funds.  Their purpose is to produce information on which the legislature can make decisions.  They can make projections on future revenues.  They can provide information on the current budget, and highlight unfunded liabilities of the state, and whether the current appropriations will meet the actual needs of the state.

How is this in any way misleading?  Who is being mislead?

BTW, the fiscal note on benefit cuts for government employees show a much larger savings for local governments than for the state government.

[jimrtex]

How much impact does the policies Walker put through when he first took office on the deficit?

I only found three bills that had an effect on revenue (they are all mentioned in the report from the Fiscal Bureau.

One would extend the federal deduction for Health Savings Accounts to the Wisconsin income tax.  Two would provide tax incentives for new hires and businesses that relocate to Wisconsin.  The bill on relocating appears to be very tightly drawn - that no business have been done in the state in the previous 10 years.  And the benefit must be directed at small business because it shows up as a revenue loss from the individual income tax rather than the corporate income tax.  These will apply to tax year 2011, and show up in fiscal year 2012 when taxes are paid.

IIRC. I think the fiscal note was around $100 million for the biennium.

[jimrtex]

The introduction says: "In the odd-numbered years, our report includes estimated revenues and expenditures for the current fiscal year and tax collection projections for each year of the next biennium. This report presents the conclusions of our analysis."

The Legislative Fiscal Bureau does not have any power to appropriate funds.  Their purpose is to produce information on which the legislature can make decisions.  They can make projections on future revenues.  They can provide information on the current budget, and highlight unfunded liabilities of the state, and whether the current appropriations will meet the actual needs of the state.

How is this in any way misleading?  Who is being mislead?

BTW, the fiscal note on benefit cuts for government employees show a much larger savings for local governments than for the state government.

jimrtex,

Have you been reading this thread? Or following this debate? MASSIVELY disparate numbers are being thrown around, this report is being cited with no context, and it is being used to make claims that are in no way addressed to the report.

I already explained why it's misleading. Nothing in your first reply to me indicated an engagement with my explanation of why it's misleading, nor did anything in your second reply. You continue to make irrelevant statement that do not address my issues. I see no point in repeating myself for a third time. But if you look around the internet on the claims and counter claims and the links to this PDF, you should see. This PDF has become complete political fodder without any context whatsoever.

Let's put it in the context of this thread:

Landslide Lyndon cited the report as showing that there was no deficit at the start of this year, in fact a surplus of $121 million (while this seems like a lot, it is about 1% of annual revenue).

I explained that the report also showed:

(1) That Wisconsin is required to maintain a minimum account balance of $65 million, so the net balance was $56 billion.

(2) The report showed substantial current needs in Medicaid and Corrections that no money has been appropriated for in the current fiscal biennium.

(3) That Wisconsin has a couple of debts that have not been addressed (a) Of about $60 million to Minnesota, which presumably can be turned over to collection agencies.  What happens if a tow truck pulls up at 3 AM and drives off with Lambeau Field?  (b) $200 million that was transferred to the general fund, which has been found to have been illegal, and in which a court hearing will be held in March with regard to putting back the purloined funds.

How is that not responsive to Landslide Lyndon's claims?

You apparently inferred that I was responding to some other discussion (eg "if you look around the internet on the claims and counter claims and the links to this PDF:).  I am not responsible for all claims and counterclaims that may be made on the internet.

You were inferring words that I did not write.

When I first read about the situation in Wisconsin, I went to the Wisconsin legislature web site, and read the budgets for past few years.  I also read this report.  I also went to the current bills for the special session and read several, in particular the three bills mentioned in the report, and read their fiscal notes.  I also found the controversial bill and saw that it included the appropriations for Medicaid and Corrections that were identified in the report.

For something to be misleading, there has to be a misleader and the misled.

Is the Legislative Fiscal Board misleading the legislators in that report?  If so, how so?

Was Jimrtex misleading Landslide Lyndon or Beet?  If so, how so?

[jimrtex]

The actual truth calculated by an outside economist, not the bs tossed by the liberals.


http://www.lafollette.wisc.edu/publications/workingpapers/reschovsky2010-016.pdf


Projected deficit:


Two-year total $2.877 billion


In July, the state Supreme Court ruled that the state must return $200 million to the
state’s Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund that it had transferred to the
General Fund in October 2007. The courts have not yet determined a schedule for the
transfer.  If part or all of the required transfer is scheduled during the next biennium, the
state’s structural fiscal deficit could be as large as $3.1 billion.

That report was from BEFORE Walker's new programs.

What are Walker's new programs?  Have these been put into legislation, in which case you could cite the bill numbers, and we could go check the fiscal notes.  Or did Walker make some decrees?

Get rid of the programs that Walker pushed for when he took office that exploded the deficit even more.

Which new programs?  Be specific.

[jimrtex]

What programs?

Economic Development Plan
Health Savings Accounts
Corporate Tax Incentives.

AB 3 provides tax credit for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin.  $280,000 over biennium.  Passed House 82-12; Passed Senate 24-9.

AB7 provides a tax credit for small businesses (less than $500,000 gross receipts, so we're talking fewer than 10 employees).  In addition, almost all of the impact is on individual income so it must be mainly Subchapter S corporations and partnerships.  Cost $81 million over biennium.  Passed by House 60-37; Passed by Senate 25-8.

SB 2 adds deduction for Health Savings Account to match federal deduction.  Cost $48 million over biennium.  Passed by Senate 21-12; Passed by House 66-28.

SB 6 creates Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation.  Cost indeterminate.  May produce reduction in expenditures based on termination of Department of Commerce programs.  Passed by Senate 29-12; Passed by House 59-33.

So that is $129 million over the biennium, or about 1/2 of 1% of state revenue.  Moreover, they are statically scored, they most likely will result in increased private economic activity in Wisconsin.

The Economic Development Corporation may well reduce expenditures in the Department of Commerce.

The "corporate tax incentives" will be almost entirely reflected on individual income taxes.  So if they are going to corporations it is to Subchapter S corporations.  The small businesses will either hire more people, or the owner will spend more of his profits on consumption, or will otherwise invest it.

The HSA deduction simply makes Wisconsin income taxes consistent with federal income taxes.  Any money "saved" will probably actually be spent on health services provided in Wisconsin.

[jimrtex]

jimrtex,

Are you the author of this report? In case you haven't noticed, I never accused you of misleading anyone. I never said you were responsible for jack. I never even addressed you until you responded to me with a question. I answered. You never acknowledged receiving the answer, repeated it, and are now defending yourself against a charge that I never made of you.

I am not the author of the report.  The Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau is the author.  Is their report misleading?  I don't think so.  The introduction clearly states its scope.

The use that some people have cited it to suggest that Wisconsin had a surplus when Walker became governor, is misleading and not accurate.

Landslide Lyndon cited the report in such a manner.  I explained to him (and others who may have been reading) what the report actually did show:  (1) That Wisconsin had $160 million in current needs in the fiscal biennium, for which expenditures have not been budgeted - for Medicaid and Corrections.  In addition there is around $200 million in debt owed by Wisconsin to replenish a fund that was illegally transferred to the general fund during a previous administration, and $60 million that is owed to Minnesota.  The $200 million is subject to a court hearing in March, where Wisconsin could be ordered to repay some or all of it in the current fiscal biennium.

One reader of that exchange between Landslide Lyndon and myself, who identified himself as "Beet" quoted Lyndon and me, and added a statement that concluded that the report was misleading.

I apologize if it was some other "Beet" who wrote that, or if what "Beet" wrote was non-responsive to what I wrote.  But if it was you, then that was the first time you responded to me.

I followed up to your claim that the report was misleading, with my question.  Your response to my question was the 2nd time you responded to me.  Not the first.

The report is not misleading.

[jimrtex]

How does $150 million in spending add 1.5 billion to the deficit, Smash?

Remember Walker isn't trying to achieve solvency for a year or two, but for the long term. Hence for the purposes of what he is trying to do, the 125 million fictional surplus isn't as relevant as the 2.5 to 3.2 billion deficit the state is facing over next few years.

If anything Walker's spending will actually help the situation long term (which is why similar tax incentives were passed in the jobs bills).

Poor wording on my part.  The budget deficit is going to be higher than thought a few months ago, much of that difference is due to Walker.  Its also not just spending increases, but more tax cuts for wealthy corporations.

The small business tax credit is for businesses with gross receipts under $500,000.  Almost all the benefit will be seen on individual taxes, which suggests that it is not "wealthy corporations" getting the tax break, but small self-proprietorships and partnerships.  If gross receipts are under $500,000, they likely have fewer than 10 employees.

The Health Savings Account is a deduction on individual income taxes to match the deduction on the federal income tax.

[jimrtex]

Then they should do the gerrymander fast. Because if Dems manage the recall thing before that, their agreement might be needed for whatever gerrymander gets adopted.

What is the time line for the recall thing?  The Pubbies are doing the same thing of course. When might the interim election be?

It is about 2 months from the time the recall petition is filed (but that requires 25% of the gubernatorial vote in the district, so it is not easy).  In Wisconsin, they simply hold a new election,  including primaries if more than 2 candidates file within a party.  So it is not like California where it is a combination of referendum and new election without the incumbent.  The incumbent does not have to file, but rather has to actively decline.  Otherwise, it could force the Democrats to come back into the state.

So it is conceivable that the recall elections could be strung out over time as petitions are filed.  In any case you are going to be up against the new fiscal biennium, and Wisconsin doesn't allow deficit spending.  You have three choices: raise taxes, and get vetoed; cut benefits; cut jobs.