Democrats sudden concern for Wisconsin’s fiscal health would be refreshing were it only sincere.
Democrats killed the surplus bill in the May special session and then denounced Governor Evers and Republican efforts to strike a compromise on what to do with the state’s fiscal surplus.
Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein (D-Middleton) labeled the bill a “completely reckless proposal.” State Senator and gubernatorial hopeful Kelda Roys (D-Madison) claimed the bill was “fiscally irresponsible.” So did liberal pundits and left-leaning media outlets.
Their reaction calls into question exactly what Wisconsin’s leading Democrats mean by “reckless” and “fiscally irresponsible.”
The surplus bill included one-time and recurring items. Based the assessment of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFBs) and averaging one-time items over the LFB’s three-year projection period, the surplus bill would have increased school aid by $544 million a year and cut taxes by $550 million a year. For perspective, the bill entailed roughly a six percent increase in state spending on K-12 education and the tax cuts were just 2 percent of state revenues.
The dollar amounts in the surplus bill were small potatoes compared to the multibillion spending promises of Democratic hopefuls in the governor’s race. If the modest adjustments to state spending and taxation in the surplus bill are considered “reckless,” then aren’t promises for massive new state programs with no mention of the source of funding the height of recklessness and fiscal irresponsibility? You betcha they are.
Compare the modest size of the surplus bill to some of the mega spending programs in the manifesto of the leading Democratic gubernatorial candidates.
Sara Rodriguez, Francesca Hong, Mandela Barnes and Kelda Roys all back some form of universal, state-run health insurance program. None of these candidates have provided details on the cost or financing. Health care is expensive. Government is notoriously bad at controlling health care costs. The cost of such a program in Wisconsin is likely to run into several billions of dollars. Vermont, which tried such a program, quickly abandoned it when it became financially unsustainable.
Likewise, each of the leading Democrats promise to implement taxpayer-funded, universal childcare. None of the Democrats in the Governor’s race have provided any details on the cost or funding of their programs. There are 850,000 children in Wisconsin aged 12 and under. Any parent can tell you that childcare is extremely expensive. Such programs are also subject to fraud and abuse as the events in Minnesota demonstrate.
The list of campaign promises offered by the leading Democrats is long indeed: free school meals, more funding for K-12 education and the UW, guaranteed paid leave. And each is promising some form of tax cut, a 44 percent cut in the case of Francesca Hong.
Wisconsin Democrats would like voters to believe that they can conjure the funding for their campaign promises out of thin air. They can’t. To make promises in campaign mode that are fiscally implausible is both reckless and abusive of the trust of the public.
The surplus bill was the subject of extensive debate and analysis. That’s appropriate whenever public dollars are at stake.
The public needs to know exactly what they are voting for. Election results are often interpreted as providing the winning party as a mandate for the implementation of their policy agenda.
The promises of political candidates should also be subject to critical review. That’s especially true for big ticket items that could jeopardize the fiscal health of the state. So far, that hasn’t happened. Let’s hope it does soon.
