What a surprise!
The Board suggests that Walker should toss out his promise to Milwaukee County voters that he would hold the line on tax increases.
Walker should simply act more like tax-hiker Mayor Tom Barrett and burden residents with higher taxes.
Editorial: Public need and taxes
Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker submitted his 2008 budget to the County Board Thursday and, like his counterpart just down the street at City Hall, Walker finds himself hamstrung by the uncertainty of the still-in-flux state budget, coupled with the harsh reality of unfunded state mandates.
"The reality is that the state is sticking it to Milwaukee County," Walker told supervisors, expressing some of the same frustration Mayor Tom Barrett did earlier this week when he submitted his 2008 city budget.
Given that reality, Walker, to his credit, has managed to craft a budget that boldly addresses some pressing community needs, including providing an additional $1.7 million for services for those with mental illness and $1 million for housing for people with mental illness.
But unlike Barrett, who reluctantly realized he had no choice but to propose a 3.3% hike in city property taxes to provide the services taxpayers want and need, Walker is proposing once again to hold the line on county property taxes. His proposed levy of $241 million is identical to the 2007 levy in keeping with Walker's pledge when he first took office to constantly keep taxes in check.
Barrett, the reluctant tax hiker.
That's a joke!
To be fair, the Board does praise Walker for making "great progress" in the county.
But according to the Board, so much more could be done if he would just jack up taxes.
Under normal circumstances, [keeping taxes in check] would be admirable. But these aren't normal circumstances and, as Walker himself correctly noted at several points in his budget speech, the playing field is far from level. While the county has made great progress, in large part because of Walker, to get leaner, the state, as Walker said, "has taken little or no action to reduce the overhead costs" of state institutions for juvenile offenders. So while the average daily population at these institutions has declined by 644 in the past seven years, the rates the state will charge the county to house those offenders is about 22% higher. Excellent point.
The county can legally increase its 2008 levy by $13.7 million. But raising it, by say, only $3 million, would have given Walker the financial breathing room he admits he would like to have. And considering the size of the county budget, it would hardly constitute a financial hardship for taxpayers. It would have provided more than enough money to keep county bus fares at $1.75 rather than raising them to $2 as Walker proposes to do. Admittedly, Walker's decision to raise fares 25 cents rather than cut routes is the much better alternative.
The Board fails to see that putting a greater burden on taxpayers is a hardship.
The Board fails to acknowledge that Walker chastises the state for taking " 'little or no action to reduce the overhead costs' of state institutions for juvenile offenders."
Walker is criticizing the state government's lack of responsibility when it comes to spending the people's money wisely, not being a cheerleader to place a greater tax burden on the people.
He's not advocating straining Milwaukee County's residents with higher taxes.
The Board concludes:
But by easing up on his self-imposed pledge, Walker could have achieved much more.
What's with this "self-imposed pledge" crap?
Is that the JS Board's Clintonian-inspired word game to redefine a promise?
Of course, Walker could have "achieved" more by picking the pockets of Milwaukee County taxpayers instead of demanding more accountability from the state government to be fiscally responsible.
The Board fails to see that Walker reneging on his "self-imposed pledge," AKA the promise he made to the people who elected him, would be a breach of trust. He would be going against the will of the people.
He would be crowning himself King Scott.
He would be a dictator rather than the servant of the people.
Bottom line: The JS Editorial Board doesn't have faith in the people's capacity to determine what's in their best interests and what they want from their leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment