The State of Wisconsin has a projected $3 billion surplus. Here’s the YSDA plan for it.
Put $1 billion toward state parks. Our parks and natural areas have an estimated $1.3 billion in deferred maintenance. That’s everything from deteriorating roads and trails to failing waste treatment facilities at campgrounds. Parks are important for tourism, but they’re mostly enjoyed by state residents.
Put $500 million into a renewed Stewardship Fund. This fund which buys land for parks, trails and natural areas, lapsed at the end of June because Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree on a way forward. Why the Democrats simply didn’t take the annual $30 million or so that the Republicans offered and improve on that number once they had control of the Legislature (perhaps as early as next year) is beyond me. Nonetheless, paying cash is a better way to go. Stewardship has been a bonding program, but by spending cash for land we’d save about $260 million in interest.
Use $1.5 billion to pay off existing debt. This would save an estimated $60 million a year in interest payments and about $450 million over several years.
Because all of these are one-time or capital expenditures we would create no long-term annual general fund commitments and so there’s no worry about a structural deficit. That was the excuse Senate Democrats and some Republicans (including Tom Tiffany) used to kill a surplus spending plan proposed by Gov. Tony Evers, Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu.
I suspect that the real reason Democrats voted against it was that they want to shovel even more money into public schools without demanding any accountability. And the real reason Tiffany opposed it was that he wanted to be able to promise that he’d send it all back to taxpayers, which he has. Underlying both Democrats’ and Tiffany’s positions was a desire to spend the money themselves.
Sending a big chunk of the surplus to public schools is a bad idea for two reasons. First, that really does create an ongoing annual expenditure which could lead to structural deficits. And second, this has been the bane of Democratic politicians for years. They just want to send gobs of money to schools without demanding any reforms or measures of improvement.
Tiffany’s plan to just send the money back to taxpayers has appeal because, after all, it is our money. But $3 billion doesn’t go as far as you might think. We’d each get about $1,000 if the money were just sent back to every taxpayer equally, without accounting for actual taxes paid. That $1,000 is nothing to dismiss, but at a time when inflation is a concern, stimulating the economy is likely to make that a little worse. And, when you weigh that against the $700 million in interest payments that would be saved by supplanting debt (also taxpayer money) this plan looks more responsible to me. Moreover, the investments in parks and trails should provide some additional indirect revenues from tourism.
In any event, candidates for Governor and the Legislature should be discussing what they plan to do with the surplus and in some detail.
Why should we be shoveling more money into parks and trails without demanding better results? I’m guessing Wisconsin spends far more on parks than it did 30 years ago and yet kids are less active and more obese than ever. Why are you defending the outdoor recreation status quo, Dave?
LikeLike
Adjusted for inflation we’re spending a lot less on parks than we have in the past. Under Scott Walker, the general fund support for parks was fully eliminated. They depend now entirely on user fees. And park usage is up, not down. If anything an aging population uses parks more as they have more time for it. I’m not aware of any public concern about the management of our parks while Wisconsin’s public school test scores have lagged national averages. This is especially true in Madison, where every school referendum has passed for the last two decades. Schools, at least in communities where referenda have passed, are well-funded without corresponding results. A final note. I’m proposing a billion dollars for park and trail infrastructure — statewide. In Madison alone we’re spending $509 million on school building upgrades and on new school buildings — some of which are only 50% full now without any projection for future growth.
LikeLike
Yes, people are using the parks. And that is good enough for me. But it’s not hard to imagine some chorus emerging from the business community about how parks need to “prove” their value based on a variety of cherrypicked outcomes.
Similarly, millions of people use and depend on schools. It’s where most kids spend most of their waking hours. Why should adding books to the library or renovating a gym be contingent on improving standardized test scores, which have more to do with one’s upbringing than one’s schooling?
LikeLike
Because test scores aren’t a cherry picked outcome. They go to the core of what schools are for: educating young people on the basic skills of reading and writing. And on that basic performance test they’re failing terribly.
LikeLike
It would be incredible, given the cultural and technological forces at play, if schools were able to maintain the same level of literacy as past generations. Kids today don’t read because their parents and grandparents don’t read anymore either.
In terms of math, which is something that is more exclusively the domain of formal education, kids score about as well on math tests now as they did 30 years ago and they score substantially better than when you were in school. The difference is that when you were in school there wasn’t a national delusion that every kid needs to be “college-ready.”
There are some encouraging examples of strategies to improve reading skills etc but what nothing will ever be good enough. You deride the fuzzy concept of “fully funding” schools. But the concept of “failing schools” is equally malleable and just as cynically applied for political purposes.
LikeLike
So, what’s your suggestion for accountability? What should we measure?
LikeLike
I completely agree that there should be absolutely no “no long-term annual general fund commitments” created by spending this money, but I’d spend the dollars a little differently.
I agree that the parks department could use dollars to properly fix the failing waste treatment facilities, this is really important for sanitary safety in all parks, so I’d direct $500 million to be used for that purpose ONLY and require that there be absolutely no cost overruns, so they must budget accordingly. If, that’s a big if, they happen to have dollars left over after fixing the waste treatment facilities, the rest should all be spend on repairs/upgrades to restroom facilities. Once the waste treatment facilities have been properly fixed, the regular budget item for maintenance of those services should go down some and those excess regular maintenance dollars can be shifted to help offset deferred maintenance. Since there is already a budget for general maintenance, the rest of the “deferred” maintenance can wait for future budgets.
I wouldn’t allocate a penny towards the Stewardship Fund for purchasing additional land for parks, etc. We need to make sure that what we currently have is properly maintained before spending a penny on additional parks that will increase maintenance costs and can’t be properly maintained because of budget dollars. By purchasing additional park land, it WILL increase long-term general fund commitments and I’ve already stated that I’m opposed to that, so there is no need to set aside dollars for that at this time.
I would put the rest of the $2.5 billion directly towards debt. Actually pay off as many smaller loans as possible and pay down some larger ones if possible. Also, the state needs to stop screwing around with tax rates! Maintain tax rates at exactly what they currently are, hold budgets to roughly the current levels, and continue to pay off debt. I’d like to see the state put the amount of debt the state owes on a continuous down hill slide without increasing budget dollars or increasing taxes. I’d like to see the state debt be reduced to an annual manageable level, call it a sort of balanced budget if you like, by 2040-2045 without increasing taxes. Instead of increasing taxes, let’s do things that help businesses increase employment because increased tax revenues follows increased employment.
The state needs to be more responsible with our tax dollars and stop loading huge tax burdens on our children, grandchildren, etc, etc.
LikeLike