Monday, July 29, 2002
January 2002 Special Session
The Chief Clerk makes the following entries under the above date:
__________________
Executive Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
July 26, 2002
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bill, originating in the Assembly, has been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
SS JR2 AB 1 (partial veto) 109July 26, 2002
Respectfully submitted,
Scott McCallum
Governor
__________________
Governor's Veto Message
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
July 26, 2002
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I have approved
January 2002 Special Session Assembly Bill 1 as
2001 Wisconsin Act 109 and deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State.
The budget adjustment bill I am signing today closes a contentious chapter in Wisconsin's legislative history. Clearly, this bill is not perfect. It does, however, solve our most immediate fiscal problem by closing a $1.1 billion deficit and balancing our state budget for the 2001-03 biennium.
The special session was a demanding exercise that required many difficult choices – decisions that were not unique to Wisconsin.
When the special session convened January 22, 2002, the Legislature gathered to address a revenue shortfall aggravated by a downturn in the state and national economies and compounded by a terrorist attack. At the same time, forty-four other states reported revenue shortfalls totaling $50 billion caused by a drop in sales, capital gains, and corporate and personal income taxes.
In the months following the beginning of the special session, many legislatures across the country have depleted rainy day funds created in the boom years of the 1990s. Many legislatures raised taxes. In Wisconsin, the Legislature used the tobacco settlement dollars as a substitute for a rainy day fund rather than raise taxes or make deeper cuts in essential services.
There is general relief that the special session is over. However, I share the widespread view that the final product took much too long to complete and includes imperfect compromises that are the result of unnecessary partisan maneuvering. While these compromises are an unfortunate by-product of coming to grips with our short-term fiscal problems, several major provisions in the bill set the stage for meaningful long-term reform of a system that is undeniably flawed.
Some have called for a veto of the entire bill, but I believe such an act would be irresponsible and place the state on the precipice of a fiscal disaster unmatched in our history. Regardless of its shortcomings, the bill reflects the core priorities I established for the special session six months ago; a veto would put every priority in great peril. That is a risk not worth taking.
Priorities
Above all else, the budget adjustment bill does not raise taxes. Taxes already are too high, and in this time of economic crisis we will not increase taxes to feed spending habits. Government must learn to live within its means.
This budget bill protects K-12 education. I have three children, and I want to ensure that my children get the best education in the country. This budget continues the state's commitment to elementary and secondary education.
Growing up in Fond du Lac, my dad was a factory worker and later a letter carrier. My mom worked as a store clerk and a bank teller. My parents taught me the importance of being compassionate to our neighbors who might not be as fortunate as us, and that is why this budget protects the neediest of the needy.
A895
This budget fully funds our new Senior Care program to help seniors with access to and costs of prescription drugs. It fully funds Medical Assistance, BadgerCare, Family Care, community aids and many other programs that directly serve our neediest citizens.
This bill contains a number of reform initiatives, including:
• The most fundamental change in the state and local government partnership in nearly three decades.
• The most significant campaign finance reform in the last thirty years.
• Far-reaching changes in the sentencing of criminals.
• Strong measures that will allow us to break from the status quo and improve the state's budget process, including the required elimination of the structural deficit and periodic, comprehensive reviews of agency program expenditures.
State and Local Government Partnership – I am grateful the Legislature adopted my proposal to create a mandate relief process for local government under the direction of the Department of Revenue. Local communities can seek a waiver from certain state mandates that do not compromise the health and safety of Wisconsin citizens. The Department of Revenue will serve as a clearinghouse by directing waiver requests to the appropriate state agencies.
The Legislature also adopted my recommendation for a task force on local government that will identify opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation that will result in savings to taxpayers. The commission is required to report to the Governor and Legislature by February 1, 2003, so that its findings can be debated and implemented in the 2003-05 biennial budget.
Given the time-sensitive nature of this effort, I used my executive privileges to form this task force and name Milwaukee Metropolitan Area Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Tim Sheehy to chair the task force. The task force has already begun its work, and I look forward to strong recommendations from this panel of local government officials.
Another important state and local reform is a new financial incentive for sharing services among governments. At my suggestion, the Legislature took the first step toward redirecting the shared revenue program away from simply supporting local government expenditures and toward the improved and cost-effective delivery of services.
Following a proposal contained in the Kettl Commission report, $45 million will be set aside beginning in 2004 to reward local communities that save taxpayer dollars through sharing services. Through this program, communities will be able to receive a seventy-five cent reward for every dollar of savings from sharing services.
The Legislature also modified two key components of shared revenue: the Expenditure Restraint Program and the Utility Payment Program. Both programs reward certain critical activities and should be retained. The Expenditure Restraint Program provides an incentive to limit growth in spending and thereby save taxpayer dollars. The Utility Payment Program plays an integral role in meeting the state's energy needs and economic growth goals by assisting communities that choose to host power plants.
I have used my veto pen to restore both programs to their existing structure, at no fiscal impact to the shared revenue program.
Truth-In-Sentencing – This bill makes several important sentencing modifications that will avoid millions of dollars in additional incarceration costs. It creates a Sentencing Commission and adopts comprehensive sentencing reform by expanding the number of felony classifications and sentences to more accurately reflect the crime committed.
The bill also creates a mechanism to reward prisoner rehabilitation and allows consideration of cost-effective alternatives to prison after seventy-five to eighty-five percent of incarceration time has been served.
This last reform will be available to offenders who demonstrate to the sentencing court that they have been successful at rehabilitation. If the sentencing court agrees to consider an offender's petition for sentence modification, the district attorney has an opportunity to object, resulting in denial of the petition. Objection by the victim if the offense is for second or third degree sexual assault, second degree sexual assault of a child or solicitation of a child for prostitution will also result in denial of the petition.
Campaign Finance Reform – Wisconsin was a national leader in campaign finance reform twenty-five years ago, and this legislation allows us to continue our trail-blazing efforts. I believe this bill reforms our system of financing campaigns in several important ways.
First, it counters campaign spending by special interests. Independent expenditures and issue ads are treated equally, and the interests that engage in both activities are required to report the amount that they spend to influence our elections. In addition, Dane County fund-raisers and reelection fund-raising during budget deliberations are prohibited, and legislative campaign committees are banned. In this way, we have created a "no fund-raising zone" where public policy can be debated inside the State Capitol on its merits.
Second, this law strengthens the role of state political parties by giving the parties the responsibility and resources to counter last-minute attack ads. I believe political parties play an essential role in making our democratic system operate well. This bill moves us towards a statewide voter list to help parties reach out to voters at a grass-roots level. These reforms will help political parties more fully engage citizens in the political process and encourage them to express their views and to vote.
Third, this proposal creates new disclosure requirements and compels speedier compliance with existing ones, which will promote the free and swift flow of information to the public regarding the activities of groups and individuals in the political process.
Finally, we did not dip into the taxpayer's wallet to fund this system. No dollar will go into the campaign finance system that was not elected to go there by the voter. We have pressing fiscal needs in our state, and it is unwise to compel taxpayers to contribute to the campaign finance system.
A896
These provisions go a long way to resolving many of the most pressing problems with campaign finance, resulting in an election finance system that encourages greater individual participation and provides more accurate and timely information to the public.
These provisions, however, are not without flaws. I recognize that certain elements of this campaign finance reform package raise constitutional concerns. I fully expect that the courts will resolve these legitimate questions. But if this bill is going to stand or fall in the courts, it should at least be given its day in court. If it stands, Wisconsin once again will lead the nation with our bold new interpretation of political speech. If it fails, it is essential that we clearly understand the legal parameters of allowable restrictions on political speech before we make any further attempt in that direction.
This legislation is the culmination of much debate among a vast array of legislators, citizens and groups. It does not represent any singular point of view, but it does represent progress in this contentious area of public policy debate. Taken as a whole, the bill improves the current system of financing for legislative, gubernatorial and other statewide campaigns.
But campaign finance reform is an ongoing process that requires continuing dialogue, and I am hopeful that, in the future, the Legislature and I can work together to remedy any defects of the current financing structure. There will be other opportunities to revisit this issue as I continue to push for more government reform.
Improving the State Budget Process – Closing this budget deficit exposed the institutional problems that have arisen regarding the state budget process. Time and again, the State Budget Office and Legislative Fiscal Bureau have identified the state's structural deficit as a major issue that must be addressed. Of the many versions of this bill produced since February, my bill made the greatest progress in reducing that deficit. The Legislature's final bill makes the least progress.
That having been said, the State Assembly was responsible for a number of improvements to the budget process that deserve notice. Most importantly, the Legislature calls for eliminating the state's structural deficit by fiscal year 2005-06. This is a strong step that I have further improved through a veto to make it effective with the 2003-05 biennial budget.
The bill also includes a requirement that agency base budgets be thoroughly reviewed once every three biennia. This effort, in conjunction with ongoing performance-based budgeting, will be a major step forward in ensuring that all programs are prioritized and every taxpayer dollar, not just the incremental increases, are used in the most effective manner possible.
In implementing this provision for the upcoming 2003-05 biennial budget, I am directing the secretary of the Department of Administration to include the Governor's Office and Legislature in the first round of agencies to be reviewed. It is only appropriate that the budgets for elected officials be the first to receive this scrutiny.
