(H/T – Kevin Fischer)
Just a few days after Gov. Jim Doyle estimated the structural deficit for the next biennial budget at $5 billion, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that Doyle was 8% low on that estimate, and it is now $5.4 billion that needs to be shoveled into the next budget. There’s a few new numbers in the Journal Sentinel story that should bug one’s eyes out:
– Aid for public schools is now $5.1 billion per year, and given the unrestrained increases in school spending, the state would need to pump in an additional $480 million on top of the $10.2 billion it would spend to keep the 66% state funded promise. Personally, I believe it would need to be much higher given the average 5%-6% increase in spending (and 9%-15% increase in tax levy) for the coming school year.
– Compensation for state employees totaled $2.1 billion last year. Madison, we have an overage of employees, even if Doyle refuses to acknowledge it. Say, whatever happened to the 10,000-job cut that Doyle promised back in 2002?
– Despite the collapsed economy, the state wants to spend $62.3 billion over the next 2 years, $2.8 billion more than was budgeted over the past 2 years. For those paying attention to the percentages, that’s a 4.7% increase in spending. For those paying attention to the shortfall, that increase is over half the “shortfall”. Did any of you non-union/non-government workers get a 4.7% increase in pay over the last 2 years?
– There is a $346 million hole in this budget, caused entirely by an over-estimation of tax revenues. The state will be collecting $509 million less in taxes than it did last year.
– For those considering tax increases (like Doyle and the Dems), they won’t begin to cover this hole. That hospital tax Doyle and the hospitals are keen on sticking to us would bring in only $400 million over 2 years. The oil tax Doyle wants would bring in maybe $393 million in that same time. Even a 10% increase in the individual income tax would bring in only $1.4 billion over 2 years.
I personally like the last part of Rep. Pedro Colon’s (D-Milwaukee) comments – “I think, at some point, whether it’s this Legislature or the next one, we’re going to have to start talking about how we increase revenue"‚."‚."‚."‚or the state is going to have to get used to really severe cuts.”
Break out the chainsaws.
This is extremely shoddy commentary in that you throw out numbers and don’t actually publish all of the relevant statistics.
“Compensation for state employees totaled $2.1 billion last year.” So? How can you use this single item to show that there are too many state employees? Is this an increase or a decrease? What is the average compensation per employee? This is not near enough data to make any analysis one way or the other as to the appropriate size of the state workforce. If I told you that Major League Baseball has roughly the same payroll (actually $2.7 billion) would you then imply that state workers get paid the same as professional ball players? Of course not.
“Did any of you non-union/non-government workers get a 4.7% increase in pay over the last 2 years?” Neither will state workers. State workers may have received between 1% and 1.5% increases in pay per year in the past couple of years, if they got any increase at all. Perhaps you haven’t noticed that the cost of virtually everything has risen. State agencies buy gasoline, heat, electricity, food, office supplies, uniforms, asphalt, concrete, steel, etc. Those costs are what drive the need for increases, not worker salaries.
Item #1 – You are probably aware that you are better-compensated than the average private-sector employee. If not, allow me to clue you in. The wages may be similar, but the state health care package is far superior. Trust me; I know about that as my dad is a state retiree whose health insurance is completely paid for another roughly 10 years by the taxpayers.
Item #2 – Thanks for proving my point. The money simply isn’t there to support a 4.7% increase in spending.
Now, what did you do when that increase in pay didn’t match the increase in expenses? You cut, didn’t you? Why can’t state government do the same?
I am curious how you come up with the idea that school spending is unrestrained. Have you never heard of spending caps? As far as the economy, do you really think it will help the state economy to fire workers and reduce services? What services would you cut?