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 MILWAUKEE
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 PERSPECTIVE 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