Sen Wirch on WI Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Wirch speaks during debate on the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget. He argues that the cuts to education are counterproductive to economic development and job creation in Wisconsin.

Thank you Mr. President.

About 2 years ago, under the Doyle administration we had a great corporation come into Pleasant Prairie: Uline. Uline came in from Illinois with about 1200 good jobs, $40-60,000 jobs. They spent $200 million in our area on construction, on a corporate headquarters, a million-square-foot warehouse—and by the way, they're planning another one right now. They gave $8 million for an olympic-sized pool for the community. Just a wonderful success story. So I had a chance to get a tour of this beautiful facility. And of course, when I had a chance I asked a corporate spokesman, I said "Did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin. Hearing the rhetoric around the state capitol, did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin?" The guy though for a minute and he said "Yes, we were worried if we could get enough qualified workers so we could operate in this area, but we were assured by other businesses we could get enough qualified workers." That, I would suggest, is the key to economic development: getting good qualified workers. Yet this administration says the state is "open for business" and shuts the door on education. How does that help economic development? Taking a billion dollars out of K-12, cutting our tech schools when we have a 9% unemployment rate and people need to be retrained, and cutting 30% out of our tech schools. No, I learned the lesson from Uline. The corporations told us: "we need good, quality workers." We are in worldwide competition out there. The worst thing you can do for economic development is slam the door on education, and that's this what this budget does.

Sen Jauch on Wisconsin Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch discusses the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget passed on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

Mr. President and members,

The senator from the 20th is the perfect spokesperson for the extreme policies of the Republican majority that is, could be defined as "madness on steroids."¹ For 163 years, Mr. President and members, Wisconsin has been a beacon, it has been a model of good government. It has set the standard for the rest of the nation on how we educate our children, how we care for our neighbors, how we show respect for our elderly. The moral compass always pointed to Wisconsin. As a result of this budget, the senator from the 20th, their moral compass points to Mississippi. The fact of the matter is I'm glad the senator from the 20th spoke because his words speak the truth of this budget: the Republican majority has a disdain for the working class. The Republican majority has no respect for the people of Wisconsin who don't make much. Their whole commitment is to starve the programs that serve the public and reward the economic elite of the state, and this budget demonstrates that in spades. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that the test is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have so little. The Republicans fail that test and the senator from the 20th is proud of that fact. This is a budget that does increase the financial burden on the people of this state who have the least. The citizens that the senator from the 20th was speaking about who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit love Wisconsin, they're Wisconsin workers, they care about their families and they will have $500—if you're a family of three children—you will have $500 less in your pocket to meet the needs of your families. That is neither fair, Mr. President, nor is it moral. It is indefensible. It is a tax increase. It is $534 less to be able to meet the needs of their families, and the fact is that the Republicans don't care. They can't look at the citizens of Wisconsin with a straight face because they are abandoning everything that is good about this great state. For 163 years, Mr. President, we have led the nation in education. This is a budget that doesn't move us forward, it goes backward. This budget does not enhance the quality of life for our citizens, it weakens it. For 163 years, Wisconsinites have practiced shared responsibility, in helping their neighbors, in helping each other try to lead better lives. In ensuring there is a strong state-local partnership to help communities—poor communities meet the essential needs of their citizenry. The Governor and the Republicans mouth the words but they don't understand the meaning. They spear those poor communities, poor schools, poor families, while they provide advantages for the economic elite.

There's a woman who testified, Mr. President, in Janesville. She said: "I've never done this before. I'm the mother of two children. We're very proud of the education our two boys received in the Janesville school district. I've never spoken at a public hearing; I don't consider myself political." In other words, she was the face of Wisconsin. She would, if listening today to the words of the senator from the 20th: she said "When I heard the words, when I read the proposals from Governor Walker"—and certainly she would add, and heard the words of the senator from the 20th—"In one word, I was heartbroken." I didn't know how much I loved Wisconsin until these proposals were introduced. Mr. President and members, I attended 19—4 finance hearings, should have been more. I attended 15 listening sessions, public hearings on the budget, throughout the state of Wisconsin. At least 900 testified at public hearings in finance, I presume there were 1500 or 1600 other people who spoke strongly about their disdain for this budget. Their frustration that the Republican majority is so out of touch with the real needs, and that they do not understand the adverse consequences, the pain that they're going to impose upon the people of Wisconsin.

I could not believe that the senator from the 8th had the gall to suggest that this budget does not cut public education. Not only does the governor's budget not provide the tools—unless it is a meat axe, to public education—not only doesn't he provide the tools, but then this budget gleefully directs local school districts to cut another $800 million even though these school districts have been cutting their budgets for the last 15 years. It's a budget that cuts $250 million from the University of Wisconsin, $500 million from Medicaid and BadgerCare, at the same time that it provides almost $200 million more in corporate tax breaks. Mr. President and members, the state is not broke, this government is broken. It is morally bankrupt, and it is shown in the policies in page after page after page. Because the only people being asked to share in the sacrifice, Mr. President and members, are those that have the least ability to afford it.

And so Mr. President and members, I'm not sure what happened to Wisconsin. I'm often asked that question as I travel around the state: "What in the world happened to the state we loved?" A state that recognized that low-income working families pay taxes, they coach little league teams, they support church fundraisers, they dig into their pockets, they donate food to food shelves, they're there when a neighbor needs their help, they serve on the volunteer fire department, and then they hear the senator from the 20th—defining the Republican voice of extremism—suggest that somehow they're getting too much. Mr. President, the second to the last amendment passed by this committee was a $146 million tax cut to corporations; 64% of the corporations in this state currently do not pay any income taxes to the state of Wisconsin. The burden is being felt by the working-class families, and they're going to have a greater burden to pay as a result.

Mr. President and members, Governor Walker campaigned on making government smaller. This is big government at its worst. There are more unfunded mandates and dictates to local units of government to tell them how they should spend their money, restrictions on decisions they can make. Mr. President, it isn't... it is bad government. It is bigger government. Because they are making the decisions from Madison about communities that they've never visited, they've never been in. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that makes Grover Norquist feel proud. Grover Norquist is the pied piper of extremism, extremist philosophy. Grover Norquist said that he wanted to squeeze government spending so much that you could drown it down a bathtub. That's exactly what this budget does, is it squeezes spending. Its intention is to squeeze spending so that there aren't the resources to support public education, to support higher education, to support vocational colleges, to support programs for our elderly and our disabled. And Mr. President and members, the Republicans are gleeful about the fact that they are starving government of the ability to meet the needs of their families. Because the Republicans' friends are doing well, and they are rewarded for doing so well in this budget. Mr. President, $500 million is going to be cut from Medicaid. There's a woman in Superior who has Stage 4 cancer, who takes care of her disabled husband, who asked the question: "whose going to take care of my disabled husband when I die because I can no longer get BadgerCare. Because if I don't get BadgerCare I will die." Where's the answer in this budget, Mr. President? It is that these Republicans are turning their back on her and the tens of thousands of other citizens in Wisconsin who have needs. Mr. President, the pain to our local communities and damage from these cuts are going to last a very long time. Schools are going to be closed. Wisconsin is "open for business" but our schools are closing. To the parent whose child is now in a class of 31 what do you tell her? We can't afford to provide support for any more of your public school, but if you'd like to move to Milwaukee or Racine, we'll make sure that there's a chance for you to be able to go to private school and we'll take care of that support. Mr. President and members, this budget abandons our moral and constitutional obligation to equal education. The tradition of stewardship to our natural resources wouldn't be recognized as a result of the items in this budget. It hands the keys to our resources over to developers and contractors, but proposes cuts to local transit systems.

Mr. President and members, people are frightened in Wisconsin by the economic situation that is adding so much stress to their lives. They're extremely frightened that their own government is abandoning them. This budget is an attack on these very same families. It is an assault on the middle class. It is an abandonment of our responsibilities as officials to make sure that every citizen has the same opportunity, for equal opportunity. These citizens understand sacrifice, they know what it means to give. They help their neighbors, they strengthen their community. They're victims of the recession and now they're a victim of their own government. The Wisconsin way is the manner in which citizens collectively work to improve the common wealth. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that forsakes the traditions and forgets the people of the state of Wisconsin who will be so adversely impacted by the decisions in this budget. It's a shameful moment in Wisconsin history.

Video posted to youtube by @nicknicemadison

---

¹Senator Jauch here refers to the preceding speaker, Senator Glenn Grothman, who spoke in favor of the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit calling it a government handout akin to welfare. That speech can be seen on youtube.

Sen Jauch on Educational Equality

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch speaks for a motion before the Joint Committee on Finance during its May 27, 2011 meeting. The motion seeks to address the increased inequality within Wisconsin's education funding which would result from Governor Walker's proposed budget.

Thank you.

This motion gives us an opportunity to talk about our moral and constitutional obligation to provide equal education for every child in the state of Wisconsin. And I think that one thing that should not be argued at all is that both the reduction in aids—the $850 million reduction in aids, the $890 million reduction in levy limits—is going to result in an educational system that provides less opportunity and is less equal than the one before it, and that it is moving away from that constitutional responsibility we have to every child. It says:

In order to provide reasonable equality of educational opportunity for all children the state must guarantee that basic educational opportunity be available to each pupil, with the state contributing to a district's educational program if... [it] meets state standards.

The standards will remain in place the dollars will not. And we will have those school districts unfortunately that are the least-spending school districts that are the most adversely impacted. One would think, under the rhetoric and the way the governor is treating public education in this budget, is that public education is public enemy number 1 instead of public envy number 1. Our public schools are the reason that Wisconsin is recognized as a state that is committed to its future. Education is the way in which we commit to the promise of our future: our children. And as a result of this budget, it is going to be less equal, less opportunity, and the poor are going to fall further behind.

Much is said again about, by Governor Walker, that he was going to provide the tools to school districts that would make up the difference for the cuts that he was making in general aids. He wasn't telling the truth. He was using bad math. He was deceiving people. He was hiding the fact that there is going to be a gap that school districts are going to have that they can't make up, forcing them to make additional cuts. The ones that are making the cuts are those that have been making the cuts all along.

But there's a huge inequity that I want to point out. Just from the Governor's proposal that's not being addressed in the Republican motion. One would think that there was shared sacrifice by all communities in this budget. You look at the Governor's budget: I have an example of three communities, three school districts that will see increases in their state aids, not decreases. I don't have any districts in northern Wisconsin that see increases, they all take deep cuts. So here are three that have increases: Mequon-Thiensville, Nicolet, and Pewaukee. Good school districts no doubt. Mequon: 3.2% increase, Ashland: 6.4% decrease. The equalized property value per pupil in Mequon is $1,300,000, it's $1,316,092. The equalized value in Ashland, Wisconsin is $299,582. In other words, there will be more money in this formula going to a community that has property value worth five, four times what is available for the citizens in Ashland. I want to hear the argument as to why that meets our state constitution's expectation, requirement that there be equal education opportunity between every child. Nicolet: 2.9% increase. Nicolet's equalized value is $3,729,000. Rice Lake: Rice Lake's decrease is 10.2%. Their equalized value is 596,000. Nicolet has almost six times the property value. They're getting an increase in their state aid, Rice Lake is seeing a decrease. Pewaukee: 7.4% increase. They have $1,114,000. Superior, which you visited is seeing a 10.2% cut, $404,000 equalized value.

In other words, these statistics reveal how there is prosperity for the wealthiest and sacrifice for the poorest, and that we become less equal as a state. Matter of fact, I'm beginning to wonder the state we live in today. Wisconsin has always been a progressive state. Not a red-blue state but a state that has supported the values of the citizens of Wisconsin, and that means that they favor equal opportunity. They don't want to build walls around rich communities and disparity for opportunity for those communities and then disparity for poor communities. We have an equalization formula that is established to try to balance state funding for those poor schools, so they don't fall further behind. So the fact of the matter is that this formula widens the gap between the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for those who have been struggling all along to be able to have a chance to provide their children an equal opportunity with those that live within the wealthiest communities that have been spending more money.

Now, as part of a history lesson, go back to 1995 when revenue was... I think it was '95 when revenue controls were put into place. When revenue controls were put into place, you did have a gap between the rich and the poor. Matter of fact, I think it was Nicolet that was spending about 10,000 per student and Rice Lake was spending around 5,000 or 4,000-5,000. They were spending substantially less. When the revenue controls were implemented Nicolet was a allowed the choice between a cost-of-living or $140. Nicolet was able to increase their child by $310, Rice Lake could only increase their spending per kid by 140. In other words, revenue control said a child in Nicolet was worth more than a child in Rice Lake. That gap was created, that disparity was established in 1995 or four when revenue controls went into place, and that gap is now widening even further. That means that a community that has wealth has a chance to invest. Sort of the policy of the state where the child in the poor district is treated like Raggedy Ann and the child in a poor [sic] district is a fashion model. It's not fair, and this budget is going to make it worse. The paper points out that when there is less money put into public K-12 education, two things happen. This budget reduces state aid down to about 61%—is that the—Fiscal bureau?—we were once at 66%? We were once at 66% and this budget's what, now going down to about, reducing down to 61? And last year was about 62? So anyway, it's going the wrong direction. It's going in the direction where the state is committing less dollars to public education, local property taxpayers are picking up more, which burdens the poorer communities because they are less able. What this budget is doing is forcing poor people to have to dig deeper into their pockets to raise their own property taxes.

We could go—I talked about South Shore, I think it was a week ago. I mentioned to you that South Shore was facing a referendum because they were looking at dissolution as a result of this budget. They voted 7-1 to increase their property taxes. They were forced into voting to raise their property taxes because they value education and they know the state of Wisconsin, this legislature and governor, does not. So they were forced to go through a fight to save their schools because this legislature doesn't have the commitment to save the schools. There are going to more school districts around this state that are facing dissolution, where they're carved up by someone in Madison because they can't get to consolidation. And a lot of those are going to happen up in rural Wisconsin, where you'll lose your identity, you'll lose your sense of who you are. You lose your community. When a community loses its school it loses its centerpiece. And this budget treats schools as though they are the cause of our problems in this state. At the same time it celebrates private education as though Wisconsin will triumph if a few parents have a few more choices for themselves while we deny the rest of the parents the chance to have equal opportunity for education. So what this... The point that I'm trying to make is to remind us of the history lesson that the less money the state puts into K-12 education the more likely you are going to face a constitutional challenge when you have a real Supreme Court. A constitutional challenge: when the Supreme Court made its decision in Vincent vs Voight the Supreme Court said:

the present school finance system more effectively equalizes the tax base among districts... [than the previous school finance decision of the court] Kukor [vs Grover].

The court noted this was due to the significant increase in state function in the time between the two decisions. In other words, they hung their hat on that decision. On the basis that the state of Wisconsin was putting more money into education. Try to have that decision today where the state of Wisconsin is cutting money to education, and the gap between rich and poor is widening even more. So the fact of the matter is that this budget is abandoning our commitment to public education. It is going to be harder for kids to have the chance to get an equal education. It is wrong for us to treat the parents and the taxpayers of the state who live in those districts who've been spending less to accept that.