Every year, Wisconsin taxpayers are asked to pay a little more.
A little more in property taxes.
A little more in utility bills.
A little more in tuition.
A little more in fees, assessments, and government spending.
Meanwhile, families are expected to make difficult financial decisions every day. They balance household budgets, postpone purchases, compare prices, and find ways to live within their means. Government should be expected to do the same. That is why I believe it is time for Wisconsin to codify protections for taxpayers in the State Constitution.
The concept is not new. In 1992, Colorado voters approved what they called a “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.” The amendment limited the growth of government revenue and spending while requiring voter approval before many tax increases can take effect. Spending growth is generally tied to population growth and inflation rather than allowing government to expand indefinitely.
One feature of Colorado’s system is particularly noteworthy. When government revenues exceed the constitutional limits, excess collections are generally returned to taxpayers unless voters approve a different use for the funds. Imagine that concept in Wisconsin.
Over the past several years, Wisconsin has repeatedly generated multi-billion-dollar budget surpluses. Yet despite record revenues, taxpayers continue hearing calls for higher spending, larger budgets, new government programs, utility rate increases, and tuition hikes. At some point, we should ask a basic question: If government already has more money than expected, why is the answer always to collect and spend more?
Government should not exist to maximize revenue. The purpose of government is to provide essential services efficiently and effectively while respecting the taxpayers who fund those services. Constitutional protections for taxpayers would help restore that balance.
At its core, such a proposal would establish a simple expectation: government spending should grow at a rate that reflects taxpayers’ ability to support it. If inflation is two percent and population growth is one percent, government spending should not automatically increase by six, seven, or eight percent year after year without a compelling justification and public accountability. Likewise, when revenues exceed reasonable spending needs, taxpayers should have greater assurance that excess collections are returned to the people who earned them rather than automatically absorbed into larger government budgets. This is not a radical concept.
Other states have adopted various forms of taxpayer protections, spending limitations, revenue caps, expenditure limits, or voter approval requirements for tax increases. While the details vary, the underlying principle remains the same: Government exists to serve taxpayers, not the other way around.
Throughout my time in the Legislature, I have consistently advocated for returning surplus revenues to taxpayers, protecting ratepayers from unnecessary utility costs, improving accountability in government programs, and ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. Those issues may appear unrelated at first glance. They are not.
When I opposed utility proposals that shifted costs onto existing ratepayers, I was defending the principle that people should not be forced to subsidize expenses they did not create. When I questioned repeated tuition increases despite historic state support for the Universities of Wisconsin, I was asking whether taxpayers and students were receiving sufficient value for their investment. When I pushed for stronger oversight of government programs, I was asking whether taxpayers were getting the results they were promised.
A Taxpayer Bill of Rights is the natural extension of those same principles. It would encourage government to prioritize spending rather than simply increase spending. It would create stronger incentives for efficiency and provide greater predictability for taxpayers, businesses, and local governments.
Too often, Madison approaches budget discussions as though every dollar in a surplus belongs to government by default. I staunchly disagree. When government collects substantially more than it needs, the first question should not be how to spend it. The first question should be whether taxpayers deserve it back.
In the coming legislative session, I intend to continue exploring ways to strengthen taxpayer protections in Wisconsin, including the possibility of a Wisconsin Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
The details deserve thoughtful discussion. The principle is straightforward. Government should live within its means just like the families who fund it. Wisconsin taxpayers have earned nothing less.
