S283
Reduces prison costs by expanding the capacity for alternatives to revocation in state prisons and by opening the probation and parole hold facility in Sturtevant. Alternatives to revocation programs will enhance efforts to reform offenders and offer a cost-effective alternative to prison placement.
Reduces prison costs by creating an earned release program for certain graduates of the intensive Drug Abuse Correctional Center, by providing staff and funding to create a felony drug offender alternative to prison program in Milwaukee County for female offenders, and by providing staff and funding to convert the Black River Correctional Center into a boot camp under the Challenge Incarceration Program.
Protects the vital operations of the state crime laboratory by removing, through veto, the Legislature's proposed lapse of funds needed to employ forensic scientists at the lab.
Makes additional investments in youth diversion programs, truancy abatement, and youth mentoring programs through the Office of Justice Assistance.
Continues to fund Wisconsin's restorative justice efforts including restorative justice coordinators in the Milwaukee and Outagamie county district attorney offices, and promotes drug-free communities by continuing funding for an anti-drug prosecutor in both the Milwaukee and Dane county district attorney offices.
State Government Operations
Reduces the size of state government by eliminating almost 2,300 positions.
Modifies vesting procedures for post-retirement sick leave conversion to health insurance, thereby enabling active employees to leave the work force earlier and help state agencies manage position reductions.
Streamlines statewide information technology management by eliminating the Department of Electronic Government.
Introduces the principle that all state employees will pay for a share of their health insurance costs and should pay more to join more costly, less effective, health care plans.
Creates a pharmacy purchasing pool that will enable every state resident to save money when purchasing prescription drugs.
Fully funds National Guard Educational Tuition Reimbursement program.
Recognizes the sacrifices made by Wisconsin's veterans by increasing, rather than decreasing as proposed by the Legislature, reimbursement levels for the Veterans Educational Tuition Grant Program.
Provides health care aid grant increases of $300,000 annually for veterans' dentures, eye care and hearing aids.
Increases Veterans Service Organization grants by $120,000 biennially.
Authorizes staffing for a new 120-bed skilled nursing facility at the Southeast Wisconsin Veterans Home.
There are also several budget provisions I did not or could not veto that warrant discussion.
1. Qualified Economic Offer – The budget I introduced in February included a repeal of the qualified economic offer provisions under the collective bargaining law for teachers. This provision was removed from the budget by the Legislature as a "nonfiscal policy item." The Legislature's refusal to address this issue is regrettable. The removal of this provision is a further example of this Legislature's lack of support for the dedicated individuals who teach our children. I remain steadfast in my commitment to end the unfair treatment of teachers
and will continue to seek a repeal of this unnecessary law.
2. Specific Position Reductions – Through several legislative motions, not directly included as part of the budget bill, the Legislature (through Joint Committee on Finance actions) has attempted to dictate specific positions for deletion in this bill. It is my intent to give discretion to executive branch agencies to determine which positions will be deleted. This means that the Department of Health and Family Services will have the flexibility to substitute other positions in place of the assistant area administrator positions deleted in a Joint Committee on Finance motion. Similarly, the Department of Corrections will have the same latitude to substitute other positions in place of the correctional unit supervisors and assistant unit supervisor positions deleted by another Joint Committee on Finance motion. Retaining these positions will improve the departments' ability to effectively manage program costs and corrections populations.
S284
3. Reductions to Tribal Gaming Programs –
Senate Bill 44 reduces or eliminates funding for several important programs funded from tribal gaming revenues. Examples of these reductions include grants to alternative schools for Native Americans, investments in the aquaculture industry, county-tribal law enforcement grants, upgrades to wastewater treatment facilities and support for businesses located in areas near casinos. While I cannot use my veto authority to restore funding to these programs, I believe these reductions are unnecessary and counterproductive. The tribes have provided considerable revenues to the state. Investing a portion of these revenues in education, law enforcement, business development and clean water benefits all of Wisconsin.
4. Energy Conservation Efforts under the Public Benefits Program – The Legislature unwisely transferred an additional $20 million from the public benefits energy conservation program into shared revenue payments in fiscal year 2003-04 beyond what I had proposed in my budget. As Wisconsin enters a period with significant construction of new power plants, we need to make significant and sustained investments to encourage the use of renewable energy and energy conservation. For every dollar spent on conservation, over $3.50 is realized in energy savings. This is a great return, and a good investment for Wisconsin.
Despite facing a $3.2 billion deficit, the budget that I proposed to the Legislature in February recommended spending more than $94 million on energy conservation in the 2003-05 biennium. That amount would be even higher were it not for the fiscal crisis I inherited. The reductions in my initial budget were scheduled for the second year of the biennium in order to adequately prepare for fewer resources while maintaining an effective energy conservation program. Unfortunately, the Legislature took funds in the first year of the budget which will have an immediate and dramatic effect on our valuable energy conservation program. We cannot have a responsible energy policy without a sustained investment in conservation. Because of the Legislature's short-sighted action, a considerable reassessment our energy conservation efforts will be necessary.
5. Hunting and Fishing Fees – Senate Bill 44, as passed by the Legislature, did not include the modest hunting and fishing license fee increases that I included in my proposed budget. As a result of their refusal to include these modest fee increases, conservation programs in our state will suffer and citizens and visitors who enjoy our natural resources will take notice. It has been seven years since license fees were last raised and all major conservation groups in the state supported the modest fee package that was included in my budget proposal. Unfortunately, the Legislature played politics with our natural resources and refused to listen to the users and conservation leaders who recognized the need for continued investment in our critical conservation programs. While I am unable to use my veto authority to restore the modest fee increases included in my budget proposal, I believe that we must provide additional resources for our fish and wildlife programs. Our citizens demand robust conservation programs; our recreation industry cannot succeed without them.
6. Department of Public Instruction Budget Reductions – In their assault against public education, the Legislature also unfairly targeted the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) for cuts well beyond those recommended in my original budget. While no part of state government can expect to be exempt from the reductions needed to balance this budget, the Legislature's cuts needlessly target DPI. This is especially true in light of the importance of the department's mission and its treatment by the Legislature in recent years. At a time when the department must implement far-reaching new federal requirements, and often without the promised money from Washington to do the work, these are unwise cuts. Unfortunately, I cannot restore the Legislature's cuts through my veto power.
7. Technical Correction of Existing Bonding Authorization for Grant to HR Academy – The 2001-03 biennial budget included the enumeration of $1.5 million in general obligation bonds to help support the construction of a youth and family center at the HR Academy in Milwaukee. This public-private partnership is seeking to improve educational opportunities for underprivileged students and their families. Senate Bill 44 includes a technical correction to the bonding authorization so that it complies with the State Constitution. Unfortunately, this technical correction was included in a much larger amendment that was introduced and passed by the Senate in the middle of the night without bipartisan debate or review.
If not for the fact that this provision is technical in nature and modifies an item already in law, I would have vetoed this change. I cannot condone the way this amendment was brought to the floor and adopted. It is backroom deals like this that led to the fiscal mess we are trying to solve in this budget. I look forward to the Legislature promoting more open and bipartisan debate on budget and policy matters in the future.
8. State Operations Spending Limit – The Legislature's budget includes a requirement that the 2005-07 biennial budget spend $100 million less annually than this budget will on state operations. This provision was included in a last minute amendment to the budget in order to give the appearance that the Legislature had addressed the state's structural deficit. Instead of making difficult decisions themselves, they deferred those decisions to the next biennium and to the Governor to propose.
Limits such as this one serve little useful purpose. My budget made deep and difficult cuts in state operations – it cut $250 million of state support from the University of Wisconsin System, it eliminated 200 middle management positions at the Department of Corrections and over 100 positions at the Department of Administration. On average, I cut state agencies by 10 percent. I made these cuts because I was committed to balancing this budget without tax increases.
S285
The Legislature simply took credit for most of my cuts to state operations. In some cases, they actually reversed a few of those cuts, spending more GPR in the process. They chose to avoid making tough decisions by taking ill-conceived swipes at state operations – including a mandate that the lowest paid, but most sorely needed, workers in state government – health care workers and other part-time employees – pay 50 percent of the cost of health insurance.
While I believe that this limit is simply another example of the Legislature shirking its responsibilities, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau has relied on this provision to calculate that the Legislature's budget will have a structural deficit of $923 million going into the 2005-07 biennium. That figure has been used extensively in describing the impact of this budget on the next.
I have carefully reviewed the budget sent to my desk. I have sought to ensure that Wisconsin has the resources it needs to avoid future deficits. I have used my veto power to address the Legislature's excesses and set some money aside in these uncertain economic times. My vetoes reduce the Legislature's structural deficit by over $258 million – a reduction of almost 30 percent. My actions ensure that the future commitments in this budget are well below the amount that can be expected in reasonable revenue growth in the next biennium.
If I were to veto the Legislature's $200 million future reduction in state operations, the Legislature's gimmick would erase the effect of my difficult cuts. I will not have those efforts undercut by this artificial limit and the calculation that has been based on it.
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
