UW System and the Budget

[Fatter than Joey]

Obviously Bush and Doyle can "make law" by signing it into effect, but it has to get to them first, meaning it has to pass through the Senate and the House.

 

I don't equate the words "make" and "pass" -- I find making a football to be different than passing a football.

 

However, you keep saying the GOP doesn't have enough votes to pass their version of the budget, and to me it almost sounds like you're saying "well since they can't pass theirs, they should pass the other one".

 

I said that, but you are interpreting what I said incorrectly -- All I was simply saying is that the GOP budget will not see Doyle's desk -- that was in reference to someone comparing Doyle to a dictator. I don't expect the GOP to accept the DEM budget as it stands, but they are going to have to make concessions.

 

You mentioned cigarette taxes and the hospital tax

 

If you pick up a newspaper you will quickly find that these are the two issues that are grinding everything to a halt. I really don't have opinions about them,

but these are in fact the two items that the house cannot compromise on.

 

As far as the whole shutting down the UW system, that is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a scare tactic

 

Over 20 states have laws that suspend government operation if a budget is not passed. Again, this is not a novel thing that Doyle has developed.

 

why can't we just please, stop spending money we don't have?

 

This is a common misconception. Generally spending money that we don't have (deficit spending) is something that is associated with the GOP. The DEMS are more infamous for taxing and spending -- but that is entirely different than spending money that we don't have.

 

The idea that the GOP is more fiscally conservative/responsible nowadays is a bit of a antiquated one.

 

If you read Allan Greenspan's new book -- You will find out who in his opinion (largely fiscally) was the best Republican president that the USA has had for a long time -- Bill Clinton.

[JumpinMacFlash]

I spent about 20 minutes today talking with the Dean of Students regarding the state budget. He mentioned that our Chancellor is stressing a Nov. 1 deadline to determine the university's course for the next semester. This includes sections and classes offered and faculty retained.

 

Apparently, the amount of money Platteville would have to cut comes out to around $1.4 million. The first place funds get cut is in personnel. The first victims would be instructors in lower level courses working on a semester-by-semester basis. But that won't come close to being enough. Cutbacks on upper level sections, supplies, energy consumption and department funding are all possible. Also, the idea of a one-time $300 system-wide surcharge on tuition could come into play.

 

Not sure what happens if they execute their eventual plan and the budget is passed after the fact.

[paul253]

Over 20 states have laws that suspend government operation if a budget is not passed. Again, this is not a novel thing that Doyle has developed. .

 

If over 20 states jumped off a cliff, would you advocate Wisconsin doing it too? http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

 

The shutting down of government is a ridiculous idea and I am very, very glad Wisconsin doesn't allow it. Yes, it forces a quick decision, but forcing a quick decision isn't usually in the best interest of the people. I have no problem operating on this years budget (and getting next year's right), assuming all the money promised to various groups and projects next year is suspended.

 

Two different posters gave out these numbers in earlier posts, so I'll work under the assumption they're both accurate. Assuming the UW system has about 160,000 students, and each student's tuition would go up about $800 next semester to cover money not handed out b/c a budget wasn't passed. That accounts for $128,000,000 more in tuition alone. I have a very hard time believing inflation costs for the system rise $128 million each year, meaning new spending, a lots of it, has to be occurring. I don't think the UW system is going to drop off the face of the earth if they don't get to spend all that new money next year. That why I say it's nothing more than a scare tactic. The fact is we could come up with 20 different areas to cut money from before we even have to touch the UW system, but since the schools draw the biggest gasp from the public, thats what was brought up.

[iluvlamp]

Why can't the government ever cut spending? Why when the people are taxed that tax stands for all-time. If this billion dollar tax increase is passed that means a billion worth of taxes for this two year budget. And the next two. And the next two. And the next two. This state is a ridiculous example of government taking money from our pockets and then taking more. I don't care what leadership has been in power because it's always the same when it comes to Madison. Take, Take, Take. I guess people must make a lot of money in this state because there should have been a tax revolution a long time ago. We've had George the Thirds running this state for the last 25 years. Where's our tea party? Who's the tax payers Sam Adams?

 

/that felt good

[RyDogg66]

It would make more sense to close a few of those ridiculous UW-System schools. Do we really need UW-Baraboo/Sauk County? or UW-Barron County or UW Fond du Lac, UW Richland Center...etc.

 

Nowhere in the Wisconsin or US Constitution does it say that you are entitled to a university in your own county. Shut down some of these schools and start saving some money.

 

That being said, this isn't all Doyle's fault. Why dont they just meet in the middle of the Cig Tax (1.00 raise).

[craigharmann]

Honestly, we live in a tax hell. We need to find legislators (on both sides) that will do what they say and say what they do. The biggest thing, to me is that taxes need to be CUT and the state needs to be living within its means. Why do think people have issues with credit cards and mortagage issues? They're trying to have it all and not pay for it. To me, the state and leadership of the state is trying to have it all and make us pay for it.

[Fatter than Joey]

If over 20 states jumped off a cliff, would you advocate Wisconsin doing it too?

 

No -- I am not saying that I would advocate this action, rather that what Doyle is doing is not that out of line with what happens across the country on a regular basis.

 

The shutting down of government is a ridiculous idea and I am very, very glad Wisconsin doesn't allow it.

 

Well -- I am not sure it is any more or less ridiculous than applying an old budget to a new cycle. Things are ok today, but probably will be getting a lot more hairy around the 2nd-3rd quarter.

 

Yes, it forces a quick decision, but forcing a quick decision isn't usually in the best interest of the people.

 

In theory you are right -- however they have had 110 days. If progress was being made, that would be one things. It is 100% stalemate at this point.

 

I have no problem operating on this years budget

 

You can't operate a business like that -- your expenditures and revenues change from cycle to cycle. I guess I don't see why it makes any more sense to operate the state in that fashion.

 

The fact is we could come up with 20 different areas to cut money from before we even have to touch the UW system, but since the schools draw the biggest gasp from the public, thats what was brought up.

 

Maybe -- generally though when you start slashing things you slash less things sinking the most money -- Much like in the MLB -- when a team decides to slash payroll they start with the biggest salaries.

[giffted1]

It would make more sense to close a few of those ridiculous UW-System schools. Do we really need UW-Baraboo/Sauk County? or UW-Barron County or UW Fond du Lac, UW Richland Center...etc.

 

Ridiculous? Two-year colleges are valuable to the UW system. Two-year colleges offer a much better learning environment than four year schools...smaller classes, less emphasis on athletics, no parties, etc. The education system is the last place we should be making cuts.

 

The only way any of this garbage in Madison is going to change is if the voters make it change. If we continue electing these people we have no reason to complain.

[JumpinMacFlash]

It would make more sense to close a few of those ridiculous UW-System schools. Do we really need UW-Baraboo/Sauk County? or UW-Barron County or UW Fond du Lac, UW Richland Center...etc.

Nowhere in the Wisconsin or US Constitution does it say that you are entitled to a university in your own county. Shut down some of these schools and start saving some money.

 

I think it would be pretty foolish to shut down two-year campuses. All thirteen of them together make up the UW-Colleges (yea, they are all together), and UW-Colleges, I'm pretty sure, has the third highest enrollment, only behind Madison and Milwaukee. They are considered and budgeted collectively, and there is a considerable amount of interest in them, over 12,000 students enrolled this year.

 

I'm a graduate of UW-Richland, and while I was there I learned so much there. The faculty is incredible and first-rate. Also, not knowing what I wanted to do for certain out of high school, it was a great alternative. I was able to get my gen ed credits out of the way, and since I've transferred to Platteville, I'm going to have a much easier time satisfying my credit requirements than a lot of the people I know. I think the two-year schools are very worthwhile and should be preserved as is.

[paul253]

Well -- I am not sure it is any more or less ridiculous than applying an old budget to a new cycle. Things are ok today, but probably will be getting a lot more hairy around the 2nd-3rd quarter.

 

So you'd honestly rather shut down the entire government than to live off the budget that we've lived off of for the last 2 years? Thats like saying you'd rather quit your job and find a new one if your company decided not to give you your annual 2% raise because you don't think you'd be able to live off your current salary. I don't think anyone can argue that Wisconsin is one of the highest taxed states in the country, and what do we have to show for it? Higher taxes are forcing people out, and keeping people out, meaning our population goes down, and the tax base with it. Therefor since tax money is down, we decide to raise taxes in order to bring in more funds. Its an ugly cycle. The fact that they are proposing increasing spending A BILLION DOLLARS just blows my mind. I think someone needs to audit the state and if they do, I believe we'll find plenty of ways to save money without shutting down our universities.

[RyDogg66]

Ridiculous? Two-year colleges are valuable to the UW system. Two-year colleges offer a much better learning environment than four year schools...smaller classes, less emphasis on athletics, no parties, etc. The education system is the last place we should be making cuts.

 

The only way any of this garbage in Madison is going to change is if the voters make it change. If we continue electing these people we have no reason to complain.

The two year school in and of itself isnt so much ridiculous as the number of them that are out there. There are simply way to many.

 

[hawing]

Some of the Colleges may have been sited where they are due to politics (I have no knowledge of this, though it's at least plausible), but I'm not convinced that there are too many. Everyone who starts at a UW College isn't adding to the crowdedness at Madison and (at least some) of the other four year campuses, and that in itself is useful. And since the Colleges operate collectively (as JumpinMac indicated), they may be a relative bargain when it comes to cost effectiveness. I know that some of their library functions are centralized, for example.

[valpocrewsader]

Inflation is a way of life. If your income goes up 3% and your taxes go up 3%, your TAX RATE stays the same and taxes in effect stay the same. Its never wise to compare taxes on real numbers and much more useful/relevant to compare tax RATES.

And this is fine with the anti-tax crowd, right? Of those opposed to tax increases, I don't think there are many who are incredulous that they will see a nominal tax increase if their income rises or their home is now appraised higher. It's the concept of the RATE increasing that is being fought against. I'm just confused because most of your post sounded like taxpayers should be more open to tax rate hikes to pay for education, but then you talk about salary and real estate inflation with rates staying the same, which seems to be making the case for the other side.

 

 

EDIT: Just wanted to say that this is an honest question. Maybe I haven't been paying attention and it's true that the tax freeze movement is truly about nominal taxes staying the same even while income and home values increase?

[TooLiveBrew]

Makes me feel that they care more about cigs then they do education...

 

There's no money to be made in education! http://static.yuku.com//domainskins/bypass/img/smileys/wink.gif

[igor67]

The single biggest percentage increase in the WI budget over the last 20 years has been prisons. This was a policy change emphasizing punishment for drug offenses (and later sex crimes). The counter point has usually been spending more money on effective schools to cut back on drug related crimes.

[Chio151]

Honestly, we live in a tax hell. We need to find legislators (on both sides) that will do what they say and say what they do. The biggest thing, to me is that taxes need to be CUT and the state needs to be living within its means. Why do think people have issues with credit cards and mortagage issues? They're trying to have it all and not pay for it. To me, the state and leadership of the state is trying to have it all and make us pay for it.

Of all districts and governments spanning the entire globe, your taxes are likely in the bottom third, and yet you live in the most prosperous nation in the world and in a state with a great quailty of live. A little perspective and life looks great.

 

Personally, I'd like to see us model our state budget after the federal government of Ireland. 15 years ago they decided to greatly lower regulations and superfluous taxes on corporations, while at the same time dramatically increasing their budgets for education. The result, they turned themselves from a war-torn shell of itself to probably the most admired country in Europe. All this, while remaining generally progressive. Darn smart, those Irish.

[JumpinMacFlash]

Some of the Colleges may have been sited where they are due to politics

 

When the UW Colleges were put in place, they were meant to be satellite campuses for the four-year schools, since there are 13 of each. There was a two-year campus built in close proximity to it's "parent" campus. For example, UW-Richland was the satellite for UW-Platteville. So if you eventually wanted to go to Platteville but not immediately, you would probably go to Richland and once you were finished, you would have a guaranteed transfer. I don't know all the pairings, but they're probably discernible by geography.

[hawing]

Yeah, JumpinMac, I know of the general intent for the Colleges, but I'll respectfully question the "close proximity" element, just based on the UW System map:

 

http://uwhelp.wisconsin.edu/images/admission/SYSMAP.gif

 

We're in agreement, otherwise: the Colleges' role is just as useful as those of the four year campuses. You have a closer perspective than many of us, since you were enrolled at a College. My UW System experiences (as a student and employee) have been at four year campuses only.

 

When I worked at UW-Green Bay, I remember seeing older library books that were marked UW-Green Bay / Marinette Campus (as well as Menasha - now Fox Valley - and Manitowoc). So at some point there was a degree of centralization between UWGB and those three Colleges.

[danzig6767]

The thing that gets glossed over in the large cigarette tax is i thought Democrats are for the poor and middle class?A large percentage of smokers are poor or middle class and a 1.00-1.25 per pack tax is a large increase in the already high cigarette tax that will end up taking more money out of the pockets and hurt most poorer folks and middle class people that smoke.

 

I'm a very light smoker and already buy mine over the net to avoid the high taxes,so i don't care personally if the tax is raised because i won't be buying my cigarettes here.For alot of poor people that do smoke though and don't think/know about buying their cigs online,this tax could end up taking 30-60 dollars a month out of their already small incomes.That's alot of money.Now you could say they shouldn't smoke,but they are addicts basically and the vast majority will still smoke.

 

Smokers are obviously an easy target when it comes to taxes as evidenced by how often they get raised.It is a very bad habit,plus smokers generally just bend over and take it minus the lube whenever politicians want to tax them further.As i said earlier,i'll continue buying my cigarettes online so this tax won't hurt me,but most won't and this tax is basically a hefty tax on a segment of the poor and middle class,but it never gets reported as such and that's the group of society that Democrats say they trying to help out financially the most.

[brettac1]

I'll see what the deal is with this in regards to my tax-free establishment, danzig, if it effects me, expect a PM about the online buying.

[danzig6767]

Well Brett,fell free to PM me,but Google should do the trick for you.I simply put cheap cigarettes into Google on night after paying over 40 for a carton of Marlboro Lights locally.I found quite a few sights and one had them for 25.99.I was a bit leery at first and picked one that actually had a phone number so i would be less concerned it was some bogus site.Ordered three cartons and shipping was six dollars the first carton and a dollar for each one added.Ended saving close to 40 dollars and they arrived in two days.Since then i've told a few buy them online also.If the new tax takes effect,they are basically going to be almost half price on the net.

 

Doyle can take his tax and shove it up his backside,he isn't getting a penny from me.My guess is cities on the border of Wisconsin will do brisk business and what the state projects in revenue from the tax will be less than expected as people here will look for places to buy cigs without the tax.A carton last me two weeks,but for heavy smokers,this tax is alot of cash.I won't be the only one doing things to avoid it.

[dadofandrew]

The vast majority of cigs are bought at stores, and will continue to be. A few folks will cross the border, and a few will buy online. It's a smallish number though.

[paul253]

It's a smallish number, but its going to be going up now that the tax increased a dollar a pack. I don't smoke, but i know plenty of people who do. Non-smokers don't really understand how much extra a dollar a pack is going to cost the average smoker each year. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less about how much a pack of cigarettes cost, but let's not forget about that whole diminishing returns theory. With less and less people smoking, or buying cigarettes in other states or online, thats less tax revenue coming in. Raise the tax again to cover the loss of those people, and even more people will quit or buy elsewhere.

 

I'm glad that there was a budget passed so we could avoid the whole government shutoff Gov. Tax-a-lot was threatening (does the state constitution even allow that?) I just hope someday, somewhere, politicians in this state (from all sides) can figure out a way to control spending and ease up on taxes. People, and jobs, are moving else where because they don't want to pay outrageous tax levels.

 

I think a major problem this state has is we are trying to copy/compete with other states and cities instead of actually determining how useful this stuff actually is to us. I mean, how long have we had this stupid train debate going? Light rail or no light rail? Commuter trains extended or not extended? Why don't we just put it to a state wide referendum instead of going back and forth and spending millions of dollars on "studies" to determine who's going to use it. Politicians (again, from all sides) now a days are so worried about getting re-elected and helping the people that give them money that the best interest of the people is merely an after thought.

[danzig6767]

The vast majority of cigs are bought at stores, and will continue to be. A few folks will cross the border, and a few will buy online. It's a smallish number though.

Oh no question about that

This is a large tax though,more than any prior ones.For some people that smoke alot and say are married to another smoker,that's a double whammy.So more people than who currently find places like across the border,Indian reservations,and online will find other places to buy them.Certainly nowhere near the majority,but i'd assume quite a bit more than now once people actually feel the pinch when buying them.Once i bought mine online,i told other people who now do it.To what degree that happens with others,i have zero clue.

The thing is,it's weird to me that more don't look into it.It's not like the internet is some new thing that just came out last month.I buy quite a bit of stuff online now that saves me money.With the new tax on cigs,name brands will be 50 plus a carton in stores and they are 25-30 online.For a heavy smoker who isn't well off financially,that's not pocket change.Oh well,if most just pay the tax,that's their problem,not mine.

 

[dadofandrew]

As Danzig points out, don't all casinos sell them tax free? That's much easier than online for many people, and you don't have to pay shipping either (and can buy a pack or two or a carton, not several cartons to make it worthwhile. Still, whenever I pay for gas, 50% of the folks ahead of me are buying tobacco of some kind.

 

Cigs are a health issue as well, and alcohol is also often associated with early death. Neither is necessary at all, so I don't have much of a problem with taxing them. If you can come up with a way to tax junk food without clumsily doing it, that's fine too.