D. JUSTICE
Circuit Courts
1. Register in Probate Copy Fee
CORRECTIONS
2. Pilot Program for Pharmaceutical Contracting
3. Study of Funding for Long-Term Care Inmates
4. Facilities Study
5. Unit Supervisors
6. Contract Bed Funding
7. Sale of Inmate Products
8. Juvenile Correctional Facility Cost Reduction
9. Juvenile Correctional Services Deficit
10. Youth Diversion Program in Ward 3 in the City of Racine
Justice
11. County Law Enforcement Services Grant
12. Drug Law Enforcement and Crime Laboratories Appropriations Lapse
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
13. Interagency and Intra-Agency Aids Appropriation
E. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Budget Management
1. Lapse to General Fund
2. Transfer from the Joint Committee on Finance Appropriation
3. Limit on Expenditure of General Fund Revenues
ADMINISTRATION
4. Asset Sales Reporting Dates
5. Vacant Attorney Positions
6. Sale of State-Owned Heating, Cooling and Wastewater Treatment Facilities
7. Limitations on Resale of Telecommunications Services by State Agencies
8. Video Gaming Devices and Pari-Mutuel Race Track Licensing
9. Payment of Fiscal Year 2004-05 MHEC Membership Dues
10. Required Reports on Information Technology
A385
11. Pension Obligation Lapses and Transfers
Building Commission
12. General Fund Supported Borrowing Target
EMPLOYEE TRUST FUNDS
13. Required Nonrepresented State Employee Retirement Contributions
Regulation and Licensing
14. Transfer of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Counselor Certification
VETERANS AFFAIRS
15. Operational Efficiency Consultant
F. TAX
General Fund Taxes
1. Individual Income Tax Exclusion for Social Security Benefits
2. Private School and Homeschool Tax Credit
3. Adoption Expenses Credit
4. Health Savings Accounts
5. Sales Tax on Services Provided by Temporary Help Companies
6. Individual and Corporate Income and Franchise and Insurance Premiums Tax Credit for HIRSP Assessments
7. Withholding from Nonresident Members of Pass-Through Entities – Technical Veto
8. Definition of Taxable Sales – Technical Veto
REVENUE
9. Lottery Vending Machine Placements
SHARED REVENUE AND TAX RELIEF
10. School Levy Tax Credit
11. Levy Limit for Counties and Municipalities
12. Shared Revenue Utility Aid – Distribution Formula
__________________
VETO ITEMS
A.
EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
ARTS BOARD
1.
Required Lapse to the General Fund
Section 9204
This section requires the Wisconsin Arts Board to lapse five percent of the total amount appropriated under each of the board's general purpose revenue appropriations to the general fund in fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
I am vetoing this section in its entirety to preserve state funding for the arts. State support for the arts in Wisconsin, on a per capita basis, is only one-third of the national average, ranking Wisconsin near the bottom nationally in state support for arts programs. Given the continuing importance of cultural programs to Wisconsin's economic development and quality of life, the insignificant savings that would result from this lapse is not worth putting the arts in Wisconsin at an even greater risk.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
2.
Wisconsin Higher Education Grants; University of Wisconsin System Students
Section 166d
This section caps the sum sufficient appropriation for the Wisconsin Higher Education Grants for University of Wisconsin System students at $37,057,200 in fiscal year 2005-06 and $39,280,600 in fiscal year 2006-07.
I am partially vetoing this section to increase the cap to $45,057,200 in fiscal year 2005-06. I object to the Legislature's failure to keep the doors of higher education open to all Wisconsin students, regardless of their family income. The Legislature would have provided $76.3 million over the 2005-07 biennium for Wisconsin Higher Education Grants, an $11.1 million reduction from my original budget proposal. If signed into law, this reduction would make it increasingly difficult for low-income students to pay for a University of Wisconsin education. Furthermore, the Legislature rejected my proposal to increase the statutory maximum for grant awards from $2,500 to $3,000, making it impossible for the board to hold the neediest students harmless from University of Wisconsin tuition increases for the full 2005-07 biennium. As a result of the Legislature's refusal to increase the maximum grant award, the board must now send letters rescinding 2005-06 financial aid awards above $2,500 to those University of Wisconsin students with the greatest financial need.
This veto, while not able to restore my proposal to increase the maximum grant amount, more closely reflects my original proposal to protect lower income students from University of Wisconsin tuition increases over the next two academic years.
My original budget called for $87.4 million to be appropriated for Wisconsin Higher Education Grants for University of Wisconsin System students over the biennium. While the Legislature decreased the amount to $76 million, my veto will increase the amount for grants to $84.3 million, $8 million above the amount provided by the Legislature. Maintaining adequate financial aid is a critical component to keep higher education accessible and affordable and is also central to Wisconsin's long-term economic development goal of increasing the number of citizens with a college education. My veto will help to expand postsecondary opportunities for all qualified students and reverse the Legislature's decision to make the University of Wisconsin less affordable for students from low- and moderate-income backgrounds.
3.
School District Revenue Limits
Sections 1915, 1915d, 1915e, 1915f, 1915g, 1915h, 1919 and 1919d
These sections reduce the allowable increase in school district revenue per pupil under the school district revenue limits to $120 for the 2005-06 school year and to $100 for the 2006-07 school year and every year thereafter. Under current law, the allowable increase in school district revenue per pupil under the revenue limits would be $248 in 2005-06 and an estimated $252 in 2006-07.
As I did in the 2003-05 biennial budget, I am vetoing these sections because they significantly reduce the resources available to invest in our children and make it extremely difficult for our locally elected school boards to provide all pupils with a quality education. Since 1993, the state has subjected school districts to the most stringent revenue controls imposed on any unit of local government in order to slow the growth of property taxes. While I believe that it is fiscally prudent to keep current law revenue limits in place, the provisions passed by the Legislature would reduce school spending to levels below inflation and would force districts to make deep cuts in the classroom.
Defenders of reducing revenue limit authority like to point out that school aids and tax credits will still increase by $458 million over the biennium, even after the $480 million cut to my original, fiscally responsible school aid and school levy tax credit proposal. They believe that, with an increase of this magnitude, schools should have little to complain about.
What proponents fail to explain is that general school aid, while critical for property tax relief, has little to do with what school districts can actually spend. Revenue limits do, and these provisions would forever cap per pupil revenue increases at $100 per year, regardless of how much school aid the Governor and Legislature provide. A $100 increase is only slightly over half of the $190 limit that existed in 1993, when limits were first implemented. Based on inflation estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, school districts would be forced to reduce their spending per pupil by over ten percent in the next decade alone, or almost $1,000 per pupil as measured in current dollar terms, if this provision is not vetoed.
As recent events in northeastern Wisconsin demonstrate, school districts already struggle under existing revenue limits to provide our children the quality education they deserve, and to keep pace with increasing staff and materials costs. These challenges have occurred during the same period that has seen Wisconsin's average teacher salaries decline from 14th nationally in 1990 and nearly $1,300 above the national average to 27th in 2003 and more than $4,000 below the U.S. average. In addition, it is noteworthy that, while the Legislature reduced the per pupil revenue limit increase for public schools to $120 in 2005-06 and to $100 in 2006-07 and thereafter, it authorized increases of $196 in 2005-06 and $123 in 2006-07 for pupils attending the Milwaukee choice and charter schools. The Legislature's priorities are clear, and they do not include our public schools.
Restoring current law revenue limits will not result in excessive spending. Revenue increases for the average school district will still be less than three percent annually. However, denying school boards access to these modest increases will seriously impair their ability to ensure that every child in Wisconsin receives a high-quality education. These cuts will also jeopardize the state's ability to maintain a highly-skilled work force and will diminish Wisconsin's reputation as a desirable place to live and raise a family.
Current law revenue limits will not increase property taxes for the average homeowner because I am also using my partial veto authority to restore more than $400 million in school aids and credits that the Legislature cut from my budget (see Public Instruction, Item #4 and Tax Section, Shared Revenue and Tax Relief, Item #10). Restoring these funds to an amount similar to what I originally proposed makes it possible for school districts to maintain reasonable expenditure levels without property tax increases and will return state support for schools to over 66 percent of costs.
4.
Increasing Funding for School Aids and Property Tax Relief
Sections 9155 (2), 9155 (3), 9155 (4) (title), 9155 (4) (a) and 9155 (4) (b)
These nonstatutory provisions authorize the Department of Administration secretary to lapse and transfer certain monies to the general fund.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to authorize the Department of Administration secretary to transfer $330 million from the general fund to the general equalization aids appropriation in the Department of Public Instruction. This veto, combined with my veto to provide additional funds to the school levy tax credit (see Tax Section, Shared Revenue and Tax Relief, Item #10), will largely restore the responsible property tax relief initiative that the Legislature unwisely deleted from my original 2005-07 biennial budget proposal. As noted in my veto message restoring current law revenue limits for school districts (see Public Instruction, Item #3), it is critical that Wisconsin's public schools have the resources needed to ensure that all our children will continue to be able to receive a quality education regardless of their circumstances.
I object strongly to what the Legislature has done to schools in this budget. The Legislature's budget would reduce future annual school revenue increases to about half the amount authorized for the 1993-94 school year, when limits were first implemented. Some school district administrators believe that, at these levels, their allowable increases may not even cover anticipated growth in fuel and maintenance costs, even if teacher compensation were frozen. At a time when Wisconsin's and the nation's economy is under siege from global competition, it is foolhardy to think that providing a quality education is a luxury we can no longer afford. Our children must have more opportunities to learn, not fewer. A strong public education system is what made Wisconsin a great place to live, and it is what will make Wisconsin a great place to live and do business in the 21st century.
A387
Unfortunately, the Legislature gave Wisconsin taxpayers the unacceptable choice of either cutting schools or emptying their pocketbooks. My original budget proposal provided the only reasonable option, which was to protect both taxpayers and schools. With this veto, I will restore that balance. It is no secret that Wisconsin property taxes are too high and that we must continue to find ways to reduce this burden. By cutting spending in other parts of the budget and reallocating the savings to real property tax relief, my veto provides $330 million to help us reach that goal.
As a result, unlike the Legislature's reckless proposal, we will not achieve this goal by sacrificing high-quality public schools. These funds will be used to offset the property tax impact of restoring school district revenue limit authority to the level needed to maintain quality schools. To ensure that the entire $330 million is used for property tax relief, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to transfer $155 million in fiscal year 2005-06 and $175 million in fiscal year 2006-07 to the Department of Public Instruction's general equalization aids appropriation, where it will be paid out directly to school districts. In combination with my veto that partially restores my proposed increase to the school levy credit, we can restore current law revenue limit authority to public schools, preserve educational quality and freeze property taxes for the average Wisconsin homeowner.
5.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Eligibility
