One more update on TABOR and taxes

Buried on the back of today's "Crossroads" section in the paper, there's an essay from Charity Eleson and Joel Rogers about Wisconsin taxes. They are more expert that I am (the bio tag reads, "Charity Eleson is the executive director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families. Joel Rogers is the director of the Center on Wisconsin Strategy"), but they make some of the same points I do about the "tax hell" thing being a manufactured crisis.

[Obligatory Troll Repellent: I am as appalled as anyone when I look at my property tax bill every winter. The last thing I want is for homeowners and consumers to have to fork out more than we do.]

From the article, emphasis mine:

Present state finance discussion is tilted strongly toward spending cuts, not revenue increases. Some say our public services are too generous, so we can easily afford to cut them. Others say we must cut them, since their present cost to the private economy is hindering its growth. Still others say our government is so overgrown that we can escape this thicket just by increasing its efficiency, i.e., cutting public employment.

But only a tiny minority is saying we should and must raise revenue--through tax increases, base broadening or charging more in fees. And most politicians fear that even raising the "R" word will doom their election chances. This isn't much of a debate at all.

This non-debate proceeds within a framework of non-facts, tirelessly repeated by business lobbyists, politicians and the media--that is, most of the people with power to shape public opinion in the state. These non-facts include the propositions that Wisconsin government spending and employment are both vastly above national averages, that the tax burden on business is particularly excessive and that public spending in general is hurtful to the economy, forcing a painful trade off between our shared quality of life and our private incomes.

All nonsense. In fact, Wisconsin government spending is only slightly above the national state average. Annually, we spend 2 cents more per dollar of income, and $236 more per capita. What this buys us is well above-average quality in our schools, parks, roads and other public amenities and services.

Wisconsin government is also not big in comparison with other states. As a share of total employment, state and local government employment here ranks 29th nationally; state government alone ranks 39th.

Nor are business taxes here exceptionally high. As a share of all taxes within the state, the Boston Federal Reserve put them at 49th among the states, 50th if you include the District of Columbia. And any good economist can tell you that public spending, per se, has no determinate relation to economic performance or private income.

That last paragraph is key to my whole argument here: If we had more tax fairness--in other words, a greater share of the tax burden paid for by someone other than the homeowner and consumer (I'm looking at you, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce), then we could avoid structural and budget deficits while easing the overall tax burden on working families.

So there.