Posted on 02/11/2004 8:02:37 AM PST by ninenot
Madison - A new report warns that state tax collections will fall 1% below expectations by mid-2005, giving elected officials no new money to pay for a $401 million shortfall in health-care programs for the elderly, poor and disabled.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau report, released Tuesday, warns that lagging income tax collections mean the state's operating fund faces a deficit of $32.2 million by mid-2005. By law, the state cannot end a budget cycle in the red.
Reflecting what has been called the nation's "jobless recovery" from the recession, personal income tax collections over the 2003-'05 budget will be $422 million, or 3.7%, less than expected, the report predicts. That would more than wipe out the surplus anticipated when the budget was approved last year, said Fiscal Bureau Director Robert Lang.
But lower-than-expected income tax collections will be partly offset by $186 million more in corporate income taxes, 16.9% higher than expected, the report says. The state's 5% sales tax is expected to hold steady, bringing in about $4 billion a year.
Tuesday's report predicts higher tax collections overall, although not by as much as forecast only months ago. As a result, the health-care deficit overshadowed the new revenue numbers in what is an election year.
Medicaid programs won't run out of cash for a year, but waiting that long to fix the $401 million shortfall would make the solutions that much more unpopular, officials said.
"I think we ought to have it solved as soon as possible," said Charity Eleson, executive director of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, an advocacy group.
More than 770,000 Wisconsin residents rely on Medicaid for health care, Eleson added.
Aides to Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle and Republicans, who control the Legislature, took turns Tuesday asking each other to make the first move to fix the shortfall.
State Administration Secretary Marc Marotta said Doyle may call a special session of the Legislature, if Republicans would use it to quickly approve restructuring a $175 million loan payment due in May and use that money for health-care costs.
"If it's going to be a productive special session, yes, we ought to call them back," Marotta said.
The Legislature isn't scheduled to return to the Capitol until Feb. 24, leaving little time to approve the debt restructuring deal, Marotta warned.
He also said Doyle hopes that the state will get about $115 million more in federal aid, which would help cut the health-care deficit. The governor was in Fond du Lac and unavailable for comment.
If state debt isn't restructured to free up $175 million, Marotta said, the governor will have to push for spending cuts in other areas - which could include layoffs.
Doyle and GOP legislators have ruled out raising taxes to fix the health-care deficit, although Eleson said the state's 77-cent tax on a pack of cigarettes should be raised to pay for those programs.
Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), co-chairman of the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee, said he doesn't support the debt restructuring plan and will wait for Doyle to suggest ways to fix the $401 million health-care shortfall.
"He's the governor. He ran for governor. He needs to set forth the agenda on the ($401 million) problem," Kaufert said.
State Sen. Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), the other co-chairman of the Finance Committee, also called on Doyle to fix the shortfall in health-care costs. Darling said the governor had promised to get additional federal cash.
"It is impossible to ignore the disaster that would occur if Gov. Doyle is not able to bring this money back into Wisconsin coffers," Darling said, adding that the alternative includes cuts to the Medicaid program and layoffs.
But Doyle aide Dan Leistikow called Darling's predictions of painful spending cuts "a little premature."
In his report, Lang also warns that the state's budget picture could worsen if the Department of Revenue loses a sales-tax lawsuit now working its way through the courts.
If the Menasha Corp. wins its challenge over how the 5% sales tax is collected on computer software, the state treasury could eventually have to repay $342 million, Lang noted. No one knows when the case will be resolved, however.
Gene Smiley, a professor of economics at Marquette University in Milwaukee, said lagging personal income tax collections, higher corporate taxes and steady sales tax income is consistent with an economy that is slowly recovering.
Is there some moral imperative that the elderly, poor and disabled have a right to the assets of others to pay for their health care? Health care is a commodity. Should the poor etc. have a right to all commodities paid for, of course, by those of us who work?
There is, but only because the (basically) forced dependnacy on the system for the past two generations has caused the problem to start with. I don't think the situation is correctable at this point in the process.
The reason is due to the fact that they like spending YOUR money. They want to fund every pet project out there, new super schools with some of the stupidest children now in the US. They fail to realize that the money and tax base comes from people willing to work all day, 5,6, and sometimes 7 days a week. Instead of providing basic services at the lowest cost, they spend more every year, afraid they woun't get as much money handed to them next year. When our state had a surplus, instead of socking away most of it and investing it wisely, they spent it. AND SPENT MORE THAN THEY HAD IN THE SURPLUS. All they do is spend. When I confront them on the spending issues, all they could tell me was that there was no way they could ask a city or state worker to have a higher deductible on their health insurance than $50.00. I said Bulls*&t. I explained to them that because they raised my property taxes 40% in 1 year, I had to elect for a much hight deductible, $500. I stated that I had to work harder, spend more time away from my family just to keep at my present levels. So why shouldn't they sacrafice just as I am asked to do? I do not mind contributing, but let's spread it across the board. They rob me of something they can never repay me with, my TIME.
I think that He meant it to be voluntary. Jesus didn't tell people to go out and take from others, but urged giving. I believe there was a rich man who asked Jesus what he had to do to follow Him. Jesus replied give away his possessions. The rich man couldn't bring himself to do this and left. When the rich man was unable to part with his possessions, Jesus didn't take anything from him or send His disciples to rob the man.
So near as I can see there is NO moral imperative for the poor to forceably confiscate the assets of the hardworking to pay for their health care. This is nothing but theft and since you're referring to scripture here's one EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
Not true. No one forced the poor to be poor. Dependency is a voluntary situation generally brought on by a series of bad life choices.
Why are the poor poor and the rich rich? It's because of what they do and what they don't. The rich (with the exception of a few democrats) generally don't inherit their money, but earn it. Likewise the majority of the poor are poor because of selecting other life priorities over making money. There was a study done a couple of years ago contrasting the hours worked per week by the richest American families to the poorest. The poorest averaged less that 20 hours a week worked, while the richest averaged over 100 hours a week. Not everyone fits this mold, but the majority do.
Maybe by these words of yours:
Actually, there IS a moral imperative. Please look up the Golden Rule, found in the New Testament, and stated by JChrist
in response to my question, "Is there some moral imperative that the elderly, poor and disabled have a right to the assets of others to pay for their health care?"
Since you claim that they do and have the chutzpah to claim that Jesus's teachings give them this right, then you are in effect saying that the poor have the right to take from the rich. Taking what isn't given freely is generally called "stealing" except when the government steals, Since government stealing is so commonplace there are special words for it, "taxation" and "confiscation" It's still stealing though.
But maybe rational reading is beyond YOUR understanding.
I love it when someone resorts to personal insult. It means that you no longer have any rational argument. Not that claiming Jesus gave the poor the moral imperative to take from the rich was a rational argument to start with.
I don't find any requirement for charity in th egolden rule. God asked that charity be done in His name, not anyone elses.
"2) WHO should ADMINISTER such an imperative? "
God asked that it be done in His name. The govm't demands everyone take part and it be done in the party's/politicians name.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.