Elections Have Consequences: Holding Down Taxes
But are Republican candidate Scott Walker and Democratic candidate Tom Barrett telling the truth about their records?
Walker’s
Property Taxes Increased 20% Since 2003
Let’s take a
look at Scott Walker’s record as Milwaukee
County executive. He’s
famously proclaimed that he’s never proposed a budget that included a property
tax increase.
Is that
true? And if so, how does he manage it?
The truth is
that Walker has
proposed budgets with property tax increases. In fact, if you check out Walker’s proposed budgets on the Milwaukee
County website, property taxes have
gone up 19.9% since Walker
proposed his first budget in 2003. Back when Walker took office, his property tax levy was
$218,708,524. But Walker’s
proposed budget for 2011 has a recommended property tax levy of $262,264,740,
or a $43 million increase in property taxes over the years.
So how did
that happen?
Well, each
year, Walker
proposes budgets with a property tax levy that matches the previous year’s
property tax levy. But Walker’s budgets are
unworkable, so the County
Board adds in more money
to fund necessary programs. Walker vetoes those
additions, and then there are enough responsible supervisors to be able to
override at least some of Walker’s
vetoes. Thus, the tax levy gets raised.
Then in Walker’s next proposed
budget, he uses the “enhanced” adopted budget from the previous year as his
base budget—not the 2003 level from which he started. The charade starts all
over again: Walker proposes an unworkable
budget, supervisors add in necessary spending, Walker vetoes those additions, supervisors
override his vetoes and higher property taxes are the result.
So property
taxes have increased $43 million since Walker
has taken office. But for political reasons, Walker forces the supervisors to do the adult
thing and craft a realistic budget with added funding.
But there’s
a catch: The situation got so bad last year that Walker’s proposed budget for 2010 included
$32 million in employee wage and benefits concessions that had never been
proposed to the unions and never discussed in any contract negotiations. In
fact, over the course of 18 months, Walker’s labor negotiator had come up with
a vastly different tentative agreement with the county’s largest unions, but
Walker’s proposed budget ignored all of that and the agreement went down in
flames. The 2010 budget situation is still unresolved, so Walker has ordered
some employees to take 26 unpaid furlough days this year—about a 10% pay cut.
Even that isn’t doing the trick, however, since the county will run about $7
million in debt this year.
In Walker’s proposed 2011
budget, the amount of the non-negotiated concessions for employees and retirees
is $19 million. Overall, his proposed budget has a $30 million hole built into
it from “phantom” savings that probably won’t materialize in the real world.
And a Greater Milwaukee Committee analysis found that Walker’s leadership has been so disastrous
that the county may consider filing for bankruptcy.
So while
you’ll hear Walker crow on the campaign trail about how he’s decreasing the
county’s tax levy by $1 million this year, remember that he’s more interested
in running for higher office than crafting a realistic budget.
Barrett’s Property Taxes Increased 24% Since 2004
So how does
Tom Barrett fare with his city of Milwaukee
budget?
The city’s
adopted budget in 2004, Barrett’s first year as mayor, had a property tax levy
of $199,012,386. His proposed 2011 budget had a property tax levy of
$246,752,411. So taxes went up $47,740,025 during Barrett’s tenure, or about
23.9%.
Remember: Walker’s property taxes
went up 20%, so the two candidates are responsible for very similar property
tax increases. It’s just that Barrett takes the “no drama” approach, while Walker views the county
budget as a political document to further his ambitions.
The other
point to note about Barrett’s 2010 budget is that he honored essentially the
same union agreement that Walker ignored when Walker crafted his fantasy-filled
budget for 2010—and for 2011, for that matter. So while taxes did increase, the
city had honored its agreement with its workers and managed to find efficiencies
elsewhere to make the budget work.
In addition,
no multimillion-dollar budget hole is looming over the city as it’s looming
over the county. The city isn’t in a budget crisis, but the county certainly
is.
State
Spending Promises
So much for
the past. What do Walker
and Barrett pledge to do in the future?
Walker has proposed about $4 billion of tax cuts,
the vast majority of which favor big corporations and wealthy residents. For
example, Walker wants to cut taxes on the top 1% of earners, which would reduce
state revenues by $287 million over the two-year budget cycle; reopen the Las
Vegas loophole, which would allow multi-state corporations to avoid paying $187
million in taxes during the biennium; cut capital gains taxes by $243 million;
and end taxes on retirement income, regardless of income level, which would
reduce the state’s coffers by a whopping $920 million over the course of two
years.
And what
programs would Walker
cut to allow the wealthy to avoid paying their fair share in taxes? Walker has already said
he’d cut the wildly popular BadgerCare, which provides health insurance to
low-wage workers who can’t afford their employers’ insurance, or whose
employers don’t offer insurance. (Who are these employers? Wal-Mart, McDonald’s
franchisees and Aurora Health Care have the most employees on BadgerCare.)
Walker has also targeted state employees’ wages and
benefits for cuts, a tactic he’s used repeatedly while at the county.
Barrett, on
the other hand, has offered up a detailed plan to “put the state budget on a
diet” by cutting $1.1 billion a year in state spending. Some of those ideas
include pooling local employees together with state employees so they can
bargain for better health insurance rates (an idea so good that Walker has
swiped it and is promoting it as his own); eliminating the offices of secretary
of state and state treasurer; technology upgrades; greater Medicaid fraud
detection; and reducing the state workforce, primarily targeting middle
managers.



Comments