Should We Have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Or Not?
That is the question Frank Lasee asked in his newsletter yesterday.
In his most recent column, JJ Blonien does just this. It’s not the first time – JJ endorsed Senate Joint Resolution 76 (the Gard-Panzer bill) last year.
SJR 76 was a false product. Window dressing. SJR 76 would have allowed the state to exempt huge blocks of spending from the limits, while leaving the Legislature to spend that money without asking. It would have allowed the state to eliminate shared revenues and school aids, and allow local governments to raise property taxes to make up the difference. It didn’t require referendums for bonding.
These points and others made SJR 76 meaningless. Bad law. It did not protect the taxpayer.
Now JJ is endorsing a TABOR with the same flaws. His proposals sound simple, straightforward, and commonsense, but it ignores the simple fact that government will exploit any loophole. And like SJR 76, his proposal leaves loopholes. It doesn’t protect the taxpayer.
For example, under JJ’s proposal, the state will rob Peter to pay Paul: shift spending onto local governments, and reduce or eliminate shared revenue. Because there are no limits on tax rates, locals will raise taxes to make up for the shared revenue they lost.
Or our governments will raise the tax rates simply to generate excess revenue, then ask for permission to spend it, since they already have it.
The taxpayer will not be protected.
The majority of voters want a TABOR that works. Our Wisconsin legislators don't want to turn spending power over to them, but they are willing to pass more feel-good do-nothing piece of legislation so as to look good for the constituency.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Should We Have a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, Or Not?
- There is no Universality in Universal