% DECREE WHAT OUR STUDENTS ARE
% REALLY ASKING FOR.
% >> ERIC WILCOTS, THANK YOU FOR
% JOINING US.%>> THANK YOU.%
>> REPUBLICANS THIS WEEK
% RELEASED THE DETAILS OF THEIR
% PLAN TO INCREASE SHARED REVENUE,
% WHICH WOULD INCREASE FUNDING FOR
% LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY AT LEAST
% 10%.%IT WOULD ALSO ASK MILWAU
KEE
% VOTERS WHETHER TO INCREASE THE
% LOCAL SALES TAX BY 2% IN ORDER
% TO PAY OFF DEBTS TO THE COUNTY'S
% PENSION SYSTEM.
% HOWEVER, THE PLAN ALSO HAS
% NON-MONETARY STRINGS ATTACHED,
% LIKE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF POLICE
% OFFICERS RETURN TO SCHOOLS IN
% THE MILWAUKEE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
% PROHIBITING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
% FROM PUTTING AN ADVISORY
% REFERENDUM QUESTION ON A BALLOT.
% GOVERNOR TONY EVERS SAID HE
% WOULD VETO THE PLAN AS IT IS NOW
% IN ITS ENTIRETY.
% FOR MORE ON THE SHARED REVENUE
% PLAN, WE TURN TO ROB HENKEN,
% PRESIDENT OF THE RESEARCH GROUP,
% WISCONSIN POLICY FORM.
% ROB, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH%
US.
% >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
% >> SO JUST WHEN LOCAL
% GOVERNMENTS COULD TASTE THE
% RELIEF IN THEIR SHARED REVENUE
% AND IN THEIR BUDGETS, A POSSIBLE
% IMPASSE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
% THREAT OF A VETO.
% HOW FAR APART ARE REPUBLICANS
% AND THE GOVERNOR NOW ON THIS
% PLAN?
% >> SO I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE ANY
% INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, BUT I WILL SAY
% THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS
% SAUSAGE MAKING, SAUSAGE MAKING
% IS NOT PRETTY.
% I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE
% REASONABLY EXPECTED THAT THIS
% WAS GOING TO GO COMPLETELY
% SMOOTHLY.%I THINK FROM THE P
ERSPECTIVE OF
% LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE IMPORTANT
% THING IS THAT THERE IS SOLID
% AGREEMENT AMONG LEADERS OF BOTH
% PARTIES THAT NOT ONLY BOOSTING
% THE AMOUNT OF SHARED REVENUE,
% BUT TYING IT PERMANENTLY TO A
% PERCENTAGE, IN THIS CASE,
% ONE-FIFTH OF THE DA STATE SALESX
% IS SOMETHING THAT THEY AGREE ON,
% AND THAT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT
% FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BOTH
% IN THE IMMEDIATE FUNDING
% INCREASE IT WILL PROVIDE OVER
% THE NEXT TWO-YEAR BUDGET, BUT
% ALSO IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT
% THERE IS SOME REVENUE SOURCE.
% >> HOW USUAL IS IT TO HAVE
% RESTRICTIONS AS TO HOW THE MONEY
% WILL BE SPENT OR NOT ALLOWING
% LOCAL REFERENCE.
% >> IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
% OBVIOUSLY, STATE GOVERNMENT HAS
% A GREAT DEAL OF AUTHORITY IN
% TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS IT CAN
% PLACE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE
% PARAMETERS IT CAN SET FOR LOCAL
% GOVERNMENTS IN THE CASE OF DPTS
% IN PARTICULAR, COUNTIES ARE
% REALLY ARMS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.
% HOWEVER, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT THE
% OTHER WAY, TOO, AND THAT'S THE
% CHAIR REVENUE IS DIFFERENT.
% THIS WAS A COMMITMENT MADE BY
% STATE LEADERS MORE THAN A
% HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN THE STATE
% WAS THE FIRST IN THE NATION TO
% ADOPT AN INCOME TAX AND THERE
% WAS THIS PRINCIPLE THAT HAS THE
% STATE COLLECTED BOTH SALES AND
% INCOME TAXES AND THE ABILITY OF
% GOVERNORS TO DO LIKEWISE WAS
% EITHER ELIMINATED OR
% SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED, THAT
% THERE WOULD BE SOME COMMITMENT
% TO SHARING THOSE REVENUES SO
% PUTTING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON
% IT, ARGUABLY DOES MAKE THIS A
% DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
% >> HOW HAMSTRUNG IS THE CITY OF
% MILWAUKEE LIKE POTENTIALLY
% FACING BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT NEW
% MONEY OR THE ABILITY TO RAISE
% IT?
% >> I WOULDN'T D GO SO FAR AS TO
% SAY BANKRUPTCY, BUT I WOULD
% CERTAINLY SAY DRACONIAN SERVICE
% CUTS WOULD BE TO BE ADOPTED IN
% ORDER TO FILL A BUDGET HOLE AS
% DEEP AS THE ONE THAT THE CITY OF
% MILWAUKEE WOULD FACE WHEN THESE
% FEDERAL PANDEMIC RELIEF DOLLARS
% ARE EXHAUSTED AFTER 2024.
% IT'S ROUGHLY 120 TO $150 MILLION
% BUDGET HOLE IN A GENERAL PURPOSE
% BUDGET OF $650 MILLION AND GIVEN
% THE FACT THAT POLICE AND FIRE
% ARE MORE THAN HALF OF THE CITY
% OF MILWAUKEE'S BUDGET, NOT ONLY
% IS THERE NO WAY TO AVOID
% POSITION CUTS IN GENERAL, BUT
% THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID VERY
% DEEP PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION AND
% SERVICE CUTS AND, REALLY, I
% THINK THAT'S THE FACTOR THAT'S
% BRINGING EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE
% HERE.
% >> ARE THE POLITICS OF
% RESENTIMENT AS THE BOOK TITLE
% DESCRIBED STILL AT PLAYED FOR
% REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS FROM
% RURAL DISTRICTS WHEREBY OUTSIDE
% VOTERS BELIEVE THAT MILWAUKEE
% GETS TOO MUCH MONEY?
% >> YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT CAN GO
% BOTH WAYS.
% THERE'S NO QUESTION, WHEN YOU
% LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SHARED
% REVENUE THAT THE CITY OF
% MILWAUKEE RECEIVES, ABOUT $230
% BILLION PER YEAR, THAT'S A LOT
% OF MONEY.
% THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE SET
% UP A STRUCTURE IN THIS STATE
% WHERE OUR GAME PLAN IS TO BE
% VERY RESTRICTIVE ON LOCAL
% GOVERNMENTS IN TERMS OF THE
% VARIETY OF TAXES THAT THEY CAN
% LEVY ON THEIR OWN IN RETURN FOR
% COMMITTING TO GIVE THEM
% APPROPRIATE STATE AIDS AND
% PROPERTY AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THEM
% TO PROVIDE CRITICAL LOCAL
% SERVICES, AND SO WHILE VOTERS
% OUTSIDE OF MILWAUKEE CAN LOOK AT
% THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND SAY BOY
% THAT'S A LOT AND WHY SHOULD WE
% ADD TO THAT, YOU CAN ALSO LOOK
% AT IT AS THAT THIS APPROPRIATION
% HAS NOT GROWN FOR 25 YEARS IN
% NOMINAL TERMS AND I THINK THE
% ENTIRE STATE WOULD SUFFER IF THE
% CITY OF MILWAUKEE IS UNABLE TO
% PROVIDE THE TYPES OF CORE
% SERVICES ON WHICH NOT ONLY ITS
% RESIDENTS BUT ALSO THE MILLIONS
% OF PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE
% CITY AND THE COUNTY WHO VISIT
% MILWAUKEE ATTRACTIONS AND SO
% FORTH EVERY YEAR.
% >> WITH ONLY ABOUT A HALF A
% MINUTE LEFT, HOW DIVERGENT DO
% YOU EXPECT THE TWO BUDGETS TO BE
% WHEN IT COMES TO BIG TICKET
% ITEMS LIKE K THROUGH 12 FUNDING?
% >> YOU KNOW, K THROUGH 12
% FUNDING IS A HUGE ISSUE IN TERMS
% OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.
% I DO THINK, I'M DETECTING THAT
% THERE'S SOME FUNDAMENTAL
% AGREEMENT THAT MORE MONEY NEEDS
% TO BE AVAILABLE, PARTICULARLY
% FOR SPECIAL ED.
% THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY'LL
% MEET IN THE MIDDLE OR, AS YOU
% SAY, IT WILL REMAIN DIVERGEENT
% AND THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE
% ISSUES THAT POTENTIALLY DRAGS
% DOWN EVERYTHING AND DELAYS THE
% ADOPTION OF A BUDGET.
% >> ALL RIGHT.
% WELL, ROB HENKEN, THANK YOU SO