Gov. Doyle by the numbers

John Gard's whining retort to last night's speech by Gov. Doyle deserves to be exposed with a few bright shining facts pulled directly from the recent Wisconsin Bienium budget:

When Governor Jim Doyle assumed office in January 2003, he inherited a situation unlike that faced by any previous Wisconsin Governor: a $3.2 billion deficit. Caused by nearly two decades of a state government living beyond its means, even in times of unprecedented economic growth, the state faced serious choices. For years instead of confronting the fiscal realities, decisions had been made to delay solving the problem until another day.

In facing this historic deficit, Governor Doyle remained committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes. He firmly believed that the taxpayers of Wisconsin had done their part and they should not pay the price for the fiscal mismanagement of previous Governors and legislators. He proposed a budget that...

• cut agency requests by nearly one billion dollars
• reduced spending on state operations by nearly 10%
• eliminated 2900 positions, and
• balanced the budget without raising taxes.
• At the same time, he invested nearly $200 million in education
• protected vital local services, and
• insured access to affordable health care for Wisconsin's working families and seniors.

Since the passage of Governor Doyle's first budget, and the enactment of many of the key provisions of his Grow Wisconsin plan, Wisconsin has been on the move. In the past year, the state has created 70,000 new jobs, leading the Midwest in job growth and the entire nation in the resurgence of manufacturing employment.

The results of the gains in the state's economy are reflected in the revenue estimates for the 2005-07 biennium produced by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. They project a healthy growth in state revenues of $485 million in FY06 (4.3%) and another $599 million in FY07 (5.1%). Leading this growth is a surge in individual income tax revenue, generated by growing employment and rising wages. The revenue estimates assume a 6.6% growth in individual income tax receipts in FY06 and 6.9% in FY07, following a strong 6.7% gain in this year.

Despite the upbeat economic news, the state still must deal with a $1.6 billion deficit. The deficit results from the remaining fiscal problems leftover from the reckless decisions that led to the $3.2 billion deficit, cost pressures caused by the national economic slowdown, and the accelerating costs of Medicaid and the diminishing federal support for financing it.

As with Governor Doyle's initial budget, a key guiding principle in developing the 2005-07 budget is to balance the budget without raising taxes. Creating a more competitive tax climate fosters economic growth by attracting more companies to locate in the state and encouraging businesses to expand their operations within the state. Consequently, the 2005-07 budget does not raise income, sales, corporate, or excise taxes.

Not only does the budget not raise taxes, but taxpayers in Wisconsin will benefit from a number of tax reductions that will begin to take effect during this biennium including the single factor sales tax reform, the dairy modernization tax credit, the venture capital tax credits, and the energy sales tax exemption for manufacturers.

Eliminating a $1.6 billion deficit without raising taxes, and meeting the goal of two-thirds funding of schools, requires tough fiscal choices in the rest of the budget. As with Governor Doyle's first budget, this one makes significant cuts in state government spending to balance the budget and free up resources to invest in the most critical functions of state government. The budget reduces the size of state government by eliminating over 1,800 positions, bringing the total reduction over the last two budgets to nearly 4,000 . The budget reduces expenditures for basic state government operations by $272 million. The overall growth in state GPR spending is a modest 3.7% in FY06 and 3.9% in FY07.

Over 90,000 uninsured kids...
Governor Doyle's budget starts with the central belief that the state should do everything it can to preserve eligibility and benefits for the Wisconsin citizens who depend on the state for health care. Cutting off hundreds of thousands of people from access to health care, like many other states are doing, is shortsighted and only exacerbates a serious problem. Those who lose their coverage are then less likely to receive preventive care, end up with worse health conditions, and utilize emergency rooms rather than doctors' offices. The costs of their care are usually assumed by the health care industry, and eventually passed on to the businesses and individuals who purchase health insurance.

The budget places assessments on nursing homes and HMOs and uses the money to leverage additional federal funds and then pay back the providers with higher rates. In the current Medicaid environment this is one of the few ways states can attract additional federal dollars and it is a system that many states are adopting.

The budget also transfers $180 million from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund to pay for the health care quality initiatives, fund supplemental payments to hospitals (direct graduate medical education, rural hospitals adjustment, pediatric service adjustments, and essential access to city hospital), and help keep hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin residents on medical assistance. The fund currently has a balance of over $700 million and a recent independent analysis suggested it was over funded by as much as $200 million.

Finally, the money from the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund will be placed in a new Health Quality Fund, along with the proceeds of up to $130 million from the issuance of revenue bonds, to support the critical health services provided by Medicaid. The bonding will attract an additional $177 million in federal revenue to support Wisconsin health care programs. If, however, the current revenue estimates are too conservative, additional state revenue will be used to replace the bonding.

It's hard to listen to the King of pork barrel spending complaining about the Governor's plans to work for the best interests of the people of Wisconsin. It must be frustrating for the Republican leadership, so constrained by their Gods, Guns and Gays agenda, to have to listen to such a powerfully uplifting and broad based agenda that puts healthy kids at the top of the list. It must be painful for John Gard to get needled once again by the Governor's plans to encourage Wisconsin medical research teams to continue leading the way in stem cell research.

Governor Doyle has already made that U-turn John... away from pork barrel spending based on campaign donor payback. Where will we get the money to help the people of Wisconsin? From the money we won't spend on corporate welfare for greedy cash siphons like Wal-Mart.

Try to find a big D in this list

While the media tries to portray this as a fair 'n balanced scandal, the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics says the following is a list of officeholders and candidates that received political donations specifically from Abramoff since 2000:

Tom DeLay (R-Texas). John Ashcroft (R-Mo.). Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). John Ensign (R-Nev.). Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). Mark Foley (R-Fla.). Richard Pombo (R-Calif.). Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-Mo.). Curt Weldon (R-Pa.). Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.). Doug Ose (R-Calif.). Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla.). George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash.). Jim Bunning (R-Ky.). Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.). Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). Dan Burton (R-Ind.). Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Suzanne Terrell (R-La.). Rob Simmons (R-Conn.). Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss.). Connie Morella (R-Md.). Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.). James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.). James M. Talent (R-Mo.). John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.). John Thune (R-SD). Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Bob Ney (R-Ohio). CL. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho). Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Elizabeth Dole (R-NC). Heather Wilson (R-NM). J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.). Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). James V. Hansen (R-Utah). John Cornyn (R-Texas). Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii). Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Mike Ferguson (R-NJ). Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). Ralph Regula (R-Ohio). Ric Keller (R-Fla.). Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.). Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Thad Cochran (R-Miss.). Dave Camp (R-Mich.). Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.). Tom Young (R-Ala.). Bill Janklow (R-SD). Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.). Spencer Abraham (R-Mich.). William L. Gormley (R-NJ). Bill McCollum (R-Fla.). Bill Redmond (R-NM). Bob Riley (R-Ala.). Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif.). Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo.). George Allen (R-Va.). Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.). Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC). Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Bob Smith (R-Fla.). Joe Pitts (R-PA). Charles H. Taylor (R-NC). Bob Ehrlich (R-Md.). Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa.). Ed Royce (R-Calif.). Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif.). Jerry Weller (R-Ill.). Mark Emerson (R-Utah). Tom Davis (R-Va.). Van Hilleary (R-Tenn.).

The Tribes that hired Abramoff are the ones that made fair 'n balanced contributions down both sides of the aisle. You'll even see Barbara Boxer and Paul Wellstone on their list.

Wolf Blitzer recently asked Howard Dean this question: "Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff... give that money to charity or give it back?"

Dean: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff. Not one. Not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican, every person under investigation is a Republican, every person indicted is a Republican, this is a Republican finance scandal, there's no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money and we've looked through all those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

Blitzer: But there... but... but... through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

Dean: ...There's no evidence for that either... they took money from Indian tribes, but they aren't agents of Jack Abramoff... I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared, they should be scared. They haven't told the truth, they have misled the American people and now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this."

Blitzer: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we've got to leave it right there...

Dear Herb

Does any of this sound familiar to Wisconsin's Democrats? Does anyone have a sharp pencil? Dear Sen. Kohl...

Are Voters Ready to Dump Lieberman?
by EMILY BIUSO
[posted in The Nation online on January 11, 2006]

At the close of a regular Democratic Town Committee meeting in Manchester, Connecticut, in December, 79-year-old Joe Rafala, a World War II veteran and party worker for more than sixty years, decided he had had enough with the state's junior senator, Joe Lieberman.

Rafala, like many in Connecticut, had voted for Lieberman in the past but is troubled by Lieberman's continued public support for the Iraq War. Before the meeting adjourned, Rafala presented a surprise motion proposing that the committee reproach the senator by sending him a letter criticizing his stance on Iraq.

"I was upset about our boys and girls in the armed forces getting killed, coming home in body bags," Rafala says. On January 3, the committee overwhelmingly passed the resolution. Rafala, who considers himself a moderate Democrat, speaks for many in the state who have tired of Lieberman's constant cheerleading for the war and for President Bush. "This man has gone too far," he says.

It's pretty unusual for a Democratic Town Committee to formally criticize its Democratic senator. Lieberman appears to be taking the action seriously, as he has offered to meet with Rafala and others from the committee early next week. But the senator's office did not respond to requests to comment for this article.

Lieberman has been a fixture in Connecticut politics since 1970, when he served in the State Senate. He was a popular state attorney general in the 1980s, and voters catapulted him to the US Senate in a stunning upset in 1988 against incumbent Lowell Weicker. Though liberals griped at Lieberman's frequent backbends toward the center, support for him remained strong. In 1994 Lieberman won the largest landslide victory ever in a Connecticut Senate race against Republican Gerald Labriola. Six years later, when he simultaneously ran for re-election and stood as Al Gore's vice presidential running mate, Connecticut voters sent him to the Senate again, apparently untroubled that his ambitions appeared to lie elsewhere.

But Lieberman's support for the war has alienated many of his constituents who are frustrated with an occupation that seems to have no end in sight.

Just as a political moderate like Joe Rafala is an unlikely figure to emerge as a critic of Lieberman's stance on the war, Manchester is an unlikely town to play host to any kind of protest. Democrats have dominated local politics for thirty-three of the past thirty-five years, and registered Democrats far outnumber registered Republicans. A former mill town in central Connecticut with a population of 55,000, Manchester sits just east of Hartford. The median household income is $49,000, which is a little above the national average but below the state average. "These aren't some guys sitting around on their yachts," notes Tom Breen, a reporter at Manchester's Journal Inquirer.

The chairman of the Manchester Democratic Town Committee, 82-year-old Ted Cummings, is also a veteran of World War II; he has led the party there for forty-four years--longer than any other chairman in the state. Manchester's Democrats have traditionally been moderate, he says, but lately they've been critical of the Patriot Act and of the Bush Administration's failed attempt to privatize Social Security. Like Rafala, Cummings once supported Lieberman, but now he is fed up.

"Lieberman doesn't speak about the fundamental and most critical problems in nation-building," Cummings says. "People are asking, 'What side is he on?' "

Others in Connecticut are asking the same questions.

Myrna Watanabe, chair of the Harwinton, Connecticut, Democrats, is planning to propose a similar resolution to the committee in her northwest Connecticut town. She has been publicly critical of Lieberman recently and is hoping the other committee members will agree to admonish him in a letter. "They are disgusted with Joe," she says, "and pretty disgusted with the war."

Even longtime political allies of Lieberman are speaking out. Toby Moffett, a Democratic US Congressman who represented parts of northwest Connecticut from 1975 to 1983, overcame his reluctance to criticize Lieberman because he felt he couldn't remain silent about the war, which he calls "a gigantic, horrendous mistake."

"There's not a nicer person in politics--he's genuinely nice," Moffett says of Lieberman. "But his support for this outrageous war far outweighs that he's likable.... It's pretty serious for someone representing the state to take exactly the opposite position."

Keith Crane, a member of the Branford, Connecticut, Democratic Town Committee, was so infuriated with Lieberman that he founded DumpJoe.com. He started the group in February 2005, the day after Lieberman voted to confirm Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and built the organization--which has attracted more than 300 members so far--using connections and skills he gained participating in meet-ups for the Howard Dean presidential campaign. At a recent state Democratic fundraiser, Crane and some others handed out buttons that featured a picture of Lieberman kissing the President--an act that got them thrown out of the event. "Most people agree with us that he's a crummy senator and an even crummier Democrat," he says.

But are Connecticut voters really ready to dump Joe? Recent polls suggest that Democrats, at least, are starting to consider it. Remarkably, Lieberman's approval ratings are higher among Republicans and Independents than among members of his own party. Among Connecticut liberals, Lieberman is essentially tied with a potential challenger in the 2006 election, the maverick Republican Lowell Weicker.

It was only in December that Weicker raised the possibility of a run against Lieberman, but Connecticut has been swept up with Lieberman-Weicker fever ever since. Weicker was a Connecticut senator from 1971 until Lieberman defeated him by a slim margin in 1988. Weicker, by then an Independent, went on to become governor of the state in 1990. He has reluctantly offered himself as a Lieberman opponent this time around because, as he has told reporters, "I'm not going to give Joe Lieberman a free pass on the war."

Howard Reiter, chair of the University of Connecticut's political science department, notes the twist involved if the two decide to face off again. "When Lieberman defeated Weicker...Weicker would consistently get higher ratings in the other party than in his own," Reiter says. "It's ironic that Lieberman is in the same situation now."