This is becoming a pattern

Owen responded to my criticisms of his TABOR post. Rather than keep posting there, I'm bringing the fight here. He takes my six points one by one. He starts with this:

Wisconsin ranks 30th in taxes and fees as a percentage of personal income.  So, if we divide total taxes and fees levied by the total personal income for Wisconsin, we will get a percentage that ranks Wisconsin 30th.  What this statistic hides is the tax and fee distribution for the state.  Wisconsin’s tax system is very progressive.  So while the poor folks in Wisconsin are paying taxes and fees at a much lower rate than the national average, the better off folks are paying a much higher percentage.  The people who are complaining about the tax burden are the better off folks.  It is only natural that the people who are actually paying the taxes are the ones who are complaining.

This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, according to our own Department of Revenue,

State and Local Tax Burdens Are at Historically Low Levels [. . .] State and local taxes were 11.3% of personal income in FY2003

Tax burdens were relatively constant around 12% of income from FY85-FY91.

From FY91-FY96, the overall tax burden gradually rose to a high of 12.7% in FY95.

Since FY96, overall tax burden has generally declined, mainly because of declines in the property tax and individual income tax burdens.

We may have a high tax burden (discounting fees), but it is not significantly different than it was 20 years ago, except to be less.

Beyond that, it's laughable to suggest that Wisconsin's taxes are progressive. Yes, the income tax kind of is (except for all the exemptions for the wealthy and corporations the legislature keeps passing), but the vast majority of us pay more in property tax than income tax. Again, from the DOR: Out of that 11.3% we pay here in Wisconsin, "property tax accounted for 4.2% of income,  individual income tax 3.1% and sales tax 2.5%." The property tax is just about the most regressive tax there is! Sure, the wealthy with their big, expensive houses pay more property tax on those houses, but the wealthy also have a significantly higher income, which makes the proportion of property taxes they pay much smaller as a percent or income than the poor. Some nice retired widow on a fixed income who finds herself living in an up-and-coming neighborhood will be forced out of her home by the nouveau-riche driving up property values.

Owen continues:

Regardless of this statistic, it is also a fact that Wisconsin government spends much more than other states.  In fact, even if you remove the differences in taxation caused by federal spending levels and the difference in reliance on fees, 70.5% of the difference in taxation between Wisconsin and the national average is due to spending.  When a state spends so much more than other states, it is fair for citizens to ask, “why?”

Well, the study Owen cites tells us why:

More spending on K-12 education--$778.4 million, 32.2% of additional taxes; a larger higher education system and lower student tuition and fees--$311.4 million, 12.9% of Wisconsin’s additional taxes; and higher spending in other areas, most notably local streets and roads--$614.0 million, 25.4% of the state’s higher taxes. [. . .]

[T]hree items explain most of Wisconsin’s higher K-12 spending.  State school districts spend 52% more on employee benefits (but not on salaries) than the national norm [ed. note--I will come back to this].  Wisconsin has smaller student-teacher ratios.  And, due to a building boom in the 1990’s, the state spends more on capital expenditures and debt.

Similarly, two factors explain the greater higher education spending here.  First, Wisconsin’s public university and technical college system is about 22% larger than average.  Second, resident tuition for both systems is low, and, thus, taxpayer subsidies are high.

Wisconsin’s extensive state and local road system also contributes to higher taxes.  Road and highway spending here is 40% above the national average.  Although weather is a factor, a more important factor explaining Wisconsin’s state-local road spending is the fact that Wisconsin is sixth in paved road miles per capita. [. . .]

Specifics aside, it is worth ending where we began.  Certainly there are arithmetic answers to the question “Why Are Wisconsin Taxes High.”  Revenue mix, K-12 education, colleges and universities and highways all play a role.  But what first led Wisconsin to exhibit these priorities?  One cannot ignore that the state’s Yankee/immigrant heritage laid the groundwork for our current levels of government spending and taxing.  The state’s long-held view of government as an active participant in society influenced spending decisions throughout the last century.  And the tradition of strong local governments meant services are still provided in a decentralized manner, which requires higher state taxes to find local spending and property taxes

Sorry to quote at length, but it bears repeating here, and maybe had Owen read to the end of the article, he'd be able to answer for himself. This state has a commitment to public education rooted in our constitution, a world-class university system, and more roads than you can shake a stick at. If you're willing to sacrifice these, Owen, then make your case. (I won't even get into prisons, because, as much as we spend--and it's plenty; we rank in the top 10--it is not significantly above the national average!)

More from Owen:

Frankly, I find Folkbum’s condescending “It’s not as bad as you think” comment to be the height of arrogance.  It reminds me of Bobby Knight’s comment that getting blown out in a basketball game is a lot like rape, “you may as well sit back and enjoy it.” [. . .] As someone who gets paid by taxes, Folkbum, I find your attitude that I should just “sit back and enjoy” paying my taxes to be offensive.

I think he means that I get paid by taxes, not him (watch those dangling modifyers!), but I find his putting words in my mouth offensive. I never said we should enjoy it, and in fact proposed ways to reduce our tax burden myself. This is argumentation from the Rush Limbaugh school of debate; it is dishonest and has no place here.

Responding to my contention that the property tax burden is borne unduly by homeowners, Owen writes,

At least you recognize that someone pays too much in taxes.  Wisconsinites do, indeed, pay too much in property taxes.  You are wrong on how TABOR would affect them.  TABOR is not a tax limitation--it is a spending limitation.  If government wants to substitute sales taxes for property taxes, it would be permitted under TABOR.  The only thing that TABOR would do is insure that the overall spending remains the same.  Big difference.

Let's examine what TABOR would do, shall we? From the proposed amendment language, my emphasis:

To create section 11 of article VIII of the constitution; relating to: elector approval for certain taxing, spending, and bonding decisions by the state and local governmental units, emergency taxes, required reserves, refunds of amounts in excess of the approved amounts, and reduction of tax rates to reflect the excess of revenues over expenditures (first consideration). [. . .]

(4) Beginning on the first day that occurs after the ratification of this paragraph, a governmental unit must have elector approval under this section in advance for any of the following:
(a) Exceeding a spending limit under this section, but no approval may be given under this section for exceeding a spending limit on a permanent basis.
(b) Unless it is an emergency tax meeting the requirements of sub. (6) (b), a new tax, tax rate increase, extension of an expiring tax, or a tax change causing a net tax revenue gain to the governmental unit, including one required under section 5 of this article, section 4 of article X or section 3 (3) or (4) of article XI.
(c) Authorizing bonding other than bonding to refund or refinance outstanding bonds.

So no, Owen, it is not just a spending limit. If we pass TABOR, the unfair property tax rate (and remember, property taxes are regressive) will be set in stone unless we pass a referendum to change it--and don't think for a second that even a tax fairness ballot issue won't be spun to death as a tax increase, so any chance of such a measure passing is mighty slim.

I showed how one small aspect of Colorado's public life has been damaged under TABOR has fallen--the health of its children. Owen responded, "TABOR was implemented [in Colorado] in 1992.  It’s hard to say how much TABOR would affect such broad metrics in a mere 4 or 5 years." I showed how over the course of a full decade--1993-2003--Colorado fell from 9th to 25th. Even if these stats are "volatile," as Owen claims, a clear fall from the top ten to no better than average is meaningful. I'm not saying TABOR is wholly responsible--there's a whole list of factors involved--but the coincidence is striking.

More Owen:

For those of you who aren’t in Wisconsin, we have an automatic gas tax increase every year that the legislature put in place so that they don’t have to vote on it every year.  I agree with Folkbum that this automatic increase is deplorable, but I must remind him that it has been in place for years and neither party has made any effort to repeal it.

I must remind Owen that had he read the link I provided, he'd see that (Democrat) Spencer Black's 2003 bill repealing the tax was recommended unanimously out of (Republican-controlled) committee but unceremoniously killed by (Republican) Assembly Speaker John Gard. A similar thing happened in the Sate Senate last year. We spend a lot on roads in Wisconsin, much of it fueled (heh) by the gas tax, as noted in the WISTAX study I quoted above. A big part of the reason for this road frenzy is that legislative leadership is in the pockets of the road builders. This is not a reason to change the Constitution; rather, it's a reason to change legislators. (And if the good people of Peshtigo want to kick Gard out of the Assembly, please, jeebus, let them!)

Still more:

Yes, TABOR only addresses spending.  Yes, costs are also something that should be addressed.  It doesn’t fix waterway erosion, federal financing disparity, or MMSD’s sewage dumping either.  So what?  This is a false argument.  Increasing taxes doesn’t fix costs either, does it?  TABOR is designed to address a single issue in Wisconsin: extravagant government spending.  Don’t try to make it more than it is.

My constant gripe about TABOR (and you can go back and read the last several months of this blog if you doubt me) has been that this legislature is perfectly willing to cap taxes and spending but refuses to address costs first. If they have the means to keep costs low, then they can cap revenue and spending without fear that cost overruns will lead to dangerous cuts in other areas. Yet this legislature won't do that. Leaving aside his repeated misstatement about what TABOR really limits, Owen apparently believes I said we should raise taxes. I said no such thing. In fact, I have consistently called for cost controls so that we don't have to raise taxes. But, again, this legislature lacks the political will to do so. We can't be reasonably expected to accept TABOR's caps without those controls.

The specific example I used was health care. If you go back up to the WISTAX study I quoted from at length, you'll note that in discussing education, it notes that we spend 52% more on health care for school employees than other states. I don't know where they got that data, but I'd believe it. Wisconsin is one of the most expensive states when it comes to health care, and the costs of health care in southeastern Wisconsin, where Owen and I live, is even worse--they were up 12% last year alone. If these costs had been increasing at or below the rates of inflation for the past two decades, we wouldn't have many of the problems we have now. If they continue increasing at that rate, and we have TABOR in place, we will either face cuts in benefits to municipal employees or cuts in other services to offset the costs. We have a chance for a win-win situation here--controlling costs would not only benefit us municipal employees, but private sector employees as well. I don't understand why some people are so averse to both saving taxpayers money and making their own lives easier.

I said, "the underlying assumption of TABOR is that elected officials are mindless boobs who can’t be trusted to control themselves when it comes to spending.  When you support TABOR, essentially, you are supporting a subversion of the system of representative democracy that has sustained this country for more than two centuries.  If you don’t like how your elected officials spend, then feel free to vote, campaign, or run against them in the next election.  It’s that simple." Owen said,

This is the one argument that I think is a valid argument.  I believe in our republican form of government.  That does not mean, however, that the citizens must cede all power at all times.  In Wisconsin, the elected officials have proven over the years that they can’t be trusted to control spending in any real form.  Given that they have betrayed that trust and abused the power given to them by the people of Wisconsin, I don’t see the problem with taking that power back.

I was part of a movement around this time last year that had at its core the notion of taking our country back. Unlike conservatives and the groups they belong to who believe, as Owen apparently does, that taking our government back involves amending the constitution (FMA, anyone?), what we were up to was changing the people in leadership positions. Sure, maybe we failed on the grand scale, but the movement is still afoot and you have not heard the last from us. But we recognized that the true power of the people lies in how we vote. I'm not exactly sure where Owen lives, but he's almost certainly represented by Republicans. I would be happy to join Owen in any attempt to unseat those incumbents this fall.

But there is a growing bi-partisan call to abandon the restraints of TABOR in favor of something more sensible. Republicans from Mary Lazich (who might be Owen's senator), who thinks TABOR is too liberal(!) to former governor Lee Dreyfus are lining up against the bill. Dreyfus, I think, has the most sensible take:

Dreyfus said amending the Wisconsin Constitution to clamp limits on state and local property tax increases amounts to legislators shirking their own fiscal responsibilities.

The key question to ask legislators, he said, is: "Why are you passing the buck? Why aren't you doing what you're supposed to do?"

It's the duty of state legislators to keep a rein on state tax increases and the vast majority of them campaign for office promising to do just that, Dreyfus said.

Despite those pledges, he said, over the years state spending has exploded with the biannual state budget now billions and billions of dollars higher than when he left office 21 years ago.

"Maybe we don't need to change the Constitution, we need to change the legislators," said Dreyfus. "The people of Wisconsin will figure this out quickly."

In the end, the referenda required to do just about anything under the restraints of TABOR pose their own dangers. Voters refuse to finance desperately needed new schools already (though in all honesty that's not always the case). And as I said, any change to the tax law will be spun by special interest groups like WMC to be tax increases, and that won't go over well. We need to address tax fairness, cost controls, and bad lawmakers first. If those issues are resolved, then I might consider supporting TABOR. As it is now, the proposed amendment is simply untenable.