Therefore, I have retained the state operations spending limit. Because the $200 million number was picked out of a hat without any real analysis of our needs and resources in the next biennium, agreeing to this provision is not an endorsement of this specific number. If our economy does not turn around, we may need to make even deeper cuts. If prosperity returns, we may be able to make fewer cuts and protect more of our vital programs. In either event, I pledge that I will take the same fiscally responsible approach to the next budget that I have to this one.
Finally, somewhere in the four months the Legislature spent debating this budget, they lost sight of their true objective. The citizens of this state gave us the responsibility to clean up the state's fiscal mess. The problem in Wisconsin is the fiscal mismanagement and over-spending by state government. That is the responsibility I took seriously when I submitted my budget.
The Republicans in the Legislature had a different approach. Instead of focusing on the problems with the state government's budget – problems they played a key role in creating over the last decade – they tore a page out of the discredited playbook of the last Governor and pointed their fingers at the leaders of our local communities and schools. They tried to distract attention from their unfair cuts and sham budgeting by resorting to political gimmicks and slogans.
The arguments against their levy limits are numerous, but at the heart is a very basic Wisconsin value: We in Wisconsin have believed for more than 150 years that local communities know best the needs of their citizens. Local citizens know better whether their schools need more or less money, whether they need to make new investments in roads or infrastructure to attract new jobs, or whether their police or firefighters have adequate staffing and equipment. What may be right for Eau Claire, may not be right for Appleton. Antigo may have different needs than Kenosha. Certainly, state politicians in Madison should not be mandating that one policy best fits the needs of over 1,900 counties and municipalities and 426 school districts. We must reject the Republican legislature's attempt to grab power from local citizens.
That value – trusting our communities to make wise decisions – has served us well in education. It has given us schools that are the envy of the nation. Our children consistently perform at the top of national tests. They are our future. In order for Wisconsin to prosper in an increasingly competitive global economy, our children must have the very best education available to them. Our teachers work very hard to deliver that education, often under extremely difficult circumstances. Making children and teachers the victims of the state's fiscal mess is irresponsible and inconsistent with Wisconsin's values.
The proposal passed by the Legislature would cut funding for our public schools by as much as $400 million over the next two years. The result would be teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, and sharp reductions in instructional programs. School districts, which have been operating under strict spending controls since 1993, would now be prohibited from even keeping pace with inflation.
The levy limits also would hamper our state's technical college system which plays a vital role in training our workforce and promoting economic development. At a time when technical college enrollments are growing by double digits, the legislative proposal would limit the ability of technical colleges to expand their programs to meet growing demands. As with schools, there are already mechanisms in place to limit spending increases and these new ones would be too restrictive.
S286
The levy limits are also anti-economic growth. Legal experts on bonding have concluded that the proposed limit is so flawed that, even if a municipality passes a bonding authorization at referendum, the bonds cannot be issued because the levy limit language only makes an exception for the annual levy, not for the life-of-the-bonds irrepealable levy required by the State Constitution. By doing this, the Legislature has crippled local governments in their efforts to support and spur economic development – killing growth, killing jobs, and killing local strategies for achieving prosperity and lowering property taxes. I'm a pro-economic growth Governor. I can't possibly agree with such a misguided, anti-growth policy.
Local governments, who deliver the services that people value most, are also not to blame for the state's fiscal mess. Yet the Legislature's proposed levy limits would pit areas experiencing rapid economic growth against those that are not. Every Wisconsin community deserves police and fire services, not just those that are blessed by economic good fortune.
Local property taxes are just that – the responsibility of local officials and property owners. They're the result of decisions by the local taxpayers and the individuals they elect regarding the level of services to be delivered. An arbitrary and capricious state mandate, one that rewards the haves and punishes the have-nots, is irresponsible and contrary to the local control so valued by Wisconsin citizens. If a community believes a tax freeze is the right thing for them, they should enact one; if, however, they believe a "freeze" would harm their schools or economic development efforts, they should be free to make that decision without interference from Madison.
While decisions regarding property tax levels are fundamentally local in nature, I do share the goal of holding down property taxes. That is why as Governor I took five important – and appropriate – actions. First, I nearly fully fund shared revenue. The budget passed by the Legislature last year created a $1.2 billion hole in shared revenue. Left unaddressed, this action set the stage for the largest property tax increase in Wisconsin's history. It is shockingly disingenuous for legislators to suggest that they are advocates for property tax relief after having created a situation that would have increased property taxes by $1.2 billion. I, however, was able to avoid that by cutting enough spending in the rest of the state budget to fill almost all of the $1.2 billion shortfall. Second, in this budget I am increasing aid to schools by $189 million to help hold down pressures to raise property taxes. Third, I fully fund the nearly $1 billion levy credit that delivers property tax relief to seniors, families and businesses. Fourth, I maintain the revenue caps on school spending to hold down property tax increases. Fifth, and most importantly, I set an example at the state level for local officials to follow. We reduced the size of government and began to live within our means.
I have vetoed this unfair and irresponsible mandate in its entirety. In its place I call on local officials to act in the best interest of Wisconsin citizens. I was able to balance the state budget without tax increases. I steadfastly fulfilled my commitment not to raise income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, and excise taxes. Wisconsin's local governments can balance their budgets while holding down taxes as well – not because they've been ordered to do so by legislators, but because it's the right thing to do. Further, if local officials fail the test of leadership, they will be held accountable by the voters in their communities, as they should.
While I have had to use my veto authority extensively to improve many aspects of this bill, I do want to commend the Legislature for finishing the budget on time. The choices that both I and the Legislature faced in bringing the state's finances back into order were very difficult. I respect their efforts in sending me a budget that, with my vetoes, allows Wisconsin to avoid tax increases, brings spending into line with revenues, meets our highest priorities and lays the foundation for a fiscally responsible future.
I have sought to bring our great state back to fiscal stability by avoiding tax increases, reducing the size of government and setting spending priorities that reflect Wisconsin's values. I have sought to preserve and protect our great education system to ensure our children continue to receive a world-class education. I have placed my faith in local governments to both protect their citizens from property tax increases and preserve the local services that each of us counts on every day. The bill I am signing and the vetoes I have made seek to solve this budget crisis once, in a fair and responsible way, so that we can move Wisconsin forward.
Respectfully submitted,
JIM DOYLE
Governor
Date: July 24, 2003
VETO MESSAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
1. Four-Year-Old Kindergarten
2. Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE)
3. School Revenue Limits
4. Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Eligibility
5. Charter Schools
6. Racine Charter School Program
7. Chapter
220 Interdistrict Transfer Aid
8. Teacher Licensure Fees
S287
9. Federal Administrative Funding
10. School Finance Commission
11. Low-Revenue Ceiling
12. Sunset of Transportation Fund Dollars for General School Aid
13. Public Library System Aid
14. Educational Technology Courses
SHARED REVENUE AND TAX RELIEF
15. Levy Limits on Counties, Municipalities and Technical College Districts
16. Municipal Shared Revenue Payments
17. Legislative Joint Committee to Study Municipal Aid
18. Agricultural Forest Land
19. Property Classifications Within State Assessment Guidelines
20. Use Value of Agricultural Land
21. County and Municipal Fees
22. Lottery and Gaming Credit Precertification
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
23. Auxiliary Enterprises Funding of Financial Aid
24. Sunset Date for Auxiliary Enterprises Funding of Student Financial Aid
25. Rock County Engineering Initiative Earmark
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
26. Transitional Subsidized Jobs
27. Governor's Work-Based Learning Board
28. Workforce Attachment and Advancement
29. Department of Workforce Development Earmarks
B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
1. Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Sunset
2. Pet Regulation
3. Ethanol Production Subsidy
4. Fertilizer Tonnage Surcharge
5. Sampling for Agrichemical Contamination
6. Consumer Protection Surcharge Revenue
7. Consumer Protection Position Reduction Report
8. Telephone Solicitation Regulation Appropriation
COMMERCE
9. Minority Business Certification Program
10. Petroleum Inspection Fund Transfer
11. Wisconsin Development Fund Grants
12. Forestry Education Grant Program
13. Great Lakes Intertribal Council Grant
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
14. General Obligation Bonding Reduction and Present Value Subsidy Limit
LAND USE
15. Comprehensive Planning Land Information Requirement
NATURAL RESOURCES
16. Agrichemical Management and Environmental Fund Revenues
17. Recycling Demonstration Grant Earmarks
18. Bonding Authority for the Stewardship 2000 Program
19. Sale of State Lands
20. Aids in Lieu of Property Taxes Formula
21. Passive Review of Obligations Under the Stewardship 2000 Program
22. Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality
23. Operations at Centennial State Parks
24. Tribal Gaming Revenue for Snowmobile Trail Aids
25. ATV Safety Enhancement Grant Program
26. Recreational Boating Aids Earmarks
27. Back Tag Requirement
28. "Into the Outdoors" Television Program
29. Plan to Implement Administrative Reductions
