Friday, May 05, 2006

TABOR--In Real

With all due respect to those few, proud Conservatives who have been talking up TABOR for the last eight years, now somewhat disappointed with the results of their labors in our fabled Legislature, let's look at this proposal again.

1) TABOR should control spending, not revenues. Spending drives revenues, not the vice-versa. We know that our wunderkind Leggies (and Governors) CAN spend whatever they take in; it's important to stop them from spending.

2) TABOR should be based on a percentage of COLA in Wisconsin; we can look at .75. Reason? The vast majority of State spending is spending on personnel. We can protect them (to some extent) and still NOT increase State revenues.

3) TABOR should only control State expenditures. This is based on a very significant principle--that of subsidiarity. Locals and schools have elections, too; it's up to the localities to determine what is "right" in tax/expense for their own community.

The opportunity will arise again next year, after the Doyle Auto-Destruct program works its way through the ballot boxes.

Rep. Lassee should begin planning now with Sen. Kanavas and candidate Green for a final push to victory early in 2007.


James Wigderson said...

The problem with the third point is that both the decisions and the money are handled at both levels. Yes, the local governments have some control over revenue, but they also receive a large part from the state. Local governments are also told by the state what to do, as well. To separate one from the other at this point without capping expenditures by both is going to result in a huge explosion of taxing and spending by the government unit not under the controls.

Dad29 said...

If I recall correctly, all the units of gummint have elections on a regular basis.

Since the proposal above merely restricts the growth of spending (it does not CUT spending) the dependent locals will be prepared.

I think that the argument you presented is a red herring, promoted by the locals and the State boyzzz to further the "End Of The World" fairytales.

pelican said...

It seems to me that with elections being held all the time that local units can always get permission from their voters b4 they spend. If you can't pass a bill to allow voters to decide if they want to control funding, then how do you expect to get them to pass anything that is going to restrict their spending?

Dad29 said...

Pelican, the point is made by you. Locals can get permission, or get voted out of office.

But in any case, local spending is a LOCAL problem. State spending is a STATE problem.

And by the way, the "gridlock" between State and local spending/aids/credits/yadayadayada was created by our Leggies and Governors going back about 50 years.

It can be un-created, too.

These geniuses put us into that position--they'll have to take us out of it.

(Thanks, Tom Thompson and Chuck Chvala (D-Waupun)