Social Security Spin

Tammy Baldwin visited my home town this week. The stated reason: Social Security. The real reason: spin.

According to the newspaper account: “Baldwin, D-Madison, defended the 70-year-old retirement program and questioned the impact of private or personal investment accounts...”

It’s no secret where I’m headed with this: Baldwin is standing in the way of real reforms that will have long-lasting and positive effects for millions upon millions of Americans, present and future. At best, she’s doing it out of ignorance. At worst, for political advantage.

But before we get to that, I’m going to give her credit for two things: first, having some interesting history and some basic facts about Social Security on her website.

Second, for honestly describing some of the program’s problems:

“Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. Current workers, through a payroll tax, fund current retirees.”

And:

“With absolutely no changes, the program will be able to pay full benefits to all retirees until 2042, according to Social Security actuaries, or 2052, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).”

Unfortunately, Baldwin thinks that’s a good thing. In her eyes, this does not rise to the level of crisis. What does?

“… if current workers are allowed to divert money out of the Social Security contract and into private accounts, there will not be enough revenue to pay benefits to current beneficiaries and, without raising taxes, the government would be forced to borrow that money, raising the deficit to an estimated $2 trillion. This would create a crisis (emphasis added).”

There’s something very wrong with that analysis.

First, private accounts won’t mean less money in retirement funds: the same amount will be withheld from our paychecks, and over time, there will likely be a much greater amount available for our aggregate retirements. The only difference: the government won’t be able to touch it.

Second, diverting money from Social Security to private accounts doesn’t change the fact that Social Security will run out of money – it only moves the date up. Baldwin’s end scenario – “not enough revenue to pay benefits” – is coming, whether we create private accounts or not.

So, what makes a crisis? Proximity. With 37 or 47 years to go, we’re all right. Move the date any closer, though, and…crisis.

It is a trade-off, I’ll admit. We trade full payment of already-owed benefits, plus more lucrative, more secure (untouchable by government) retirements for future retirees, in exchange for a couple trillion in debt, which, actuaries say, will be gone in a few decades.

Wait…what’s the crisis again?

And that’s not even her most egregious statement. Try this one, from the newspaper account of her visit:

“The Social Security Trust Fund has about $1.7 trillion in reserves…” which, she says, will keep the program going past 2018, when its expenses will outpace revenues.

At best, that’s some very strong spin. At worst, it’s an outright lie.

We all know that the “trust fund” has no money in it. The feds have already spent it.

The “reserve,” or “trust fund” is full of U.S. government bonds. Let’s say Baldwin is right, and they add up to $1.7 trillion. So what?

The government cashing a bond is like you or me cashing an IOU we wrote to ourselves. It’s meaningless. The government will have to get the money from somewhere, to pay itself the value of those bonds.

Does the Congresswoman have some budget cuts in mind? Probably not, but she’ll be happy to repeal the President’s tax cuts.

There are a couple of ironies here. One, Baldwin is horrified at the “$2 trillion” in new debt private accounts will require, when the “trust fund” she has so much faith in is nothing but debt. Plus, Social Security already has over $10 trillion in liabilities it won’t be able to pay.

Second, Baldwin and her anti-reform colleagues worry over possible benefit reductions, yet their solution – tinkering around the edges – is more likely to result in benefit cuts than the President’s, or Congressman Paul Ryan’s.

Pro-Social Security reformers can point to any number of arguments in their favor: the deceptive accounting on which the system depends; the far better rates of return offered by private accounts; the fact that the government can cut benefits under the current system, but can’t under private accounts; Alan Greenspan’s recent comments in favor of personal accounts.

Anti-reformers, on the other hand, have nothing but spin, hyperbole, and scare tactics.

When all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Aliens Among Us

Today, the State Assembly’s Republican majority took action to keep the state’s minimum wage at $5.15, at least until 2007.

What a bunch of wimps.

That’s not my assessment: that’s what an anonymous writer calling herself Ms. Forward says in her column, “A wage-free society,” featured recently on the über-left website, Fightin’ Bob.

The upshot:

“The regressives who run our state government … need to stop being only wimpy half-regressive and say what they really mean. They should be working to get rid of wages for minimum wage earners, not just to keep them abysmally low.”

“If he were really honest any common sense pro-business pragmatist would argue that, for the good of the state, all workers should be paid nothing at all. … Just think of the enormous waste of profit in our current system. All those people getting paid to work; it’s ridiculous. We can start with the lowest-paid workers and work (so to speak) our way up.”

I don’t want to read too deeply into this: she’s obviously being sarcastic. The question is: how sarcastic does she mean to be?

Really, really sarcastic. Drippingly so. Right? She must be.

Honestly, I’m not quite sure. I can’t conceive this as anything less than utter, complete, fanatical satire, but I think she intends much less. Having read through her column more than once, I’m think her worldview is so alien to me that I can’t fully grasp what she’s trying to say.

And, I think, the conservative view is just as alien to her.

No conservative would ever suggest what she does, however sarcastically, for three reasons. The first is ideological: we don’t even think government should have the power to set a minimum wage, much less forbid wages altogether.

The second is logical: nobody will work for nothing, therefore the work wouldn’t get done. Business would go out of business.

Side note: maybe that’s her real motive: to cause the fall of capitalism. Bonus: political contributions to Republicans dry up, so liberals can finally rise to their rightful place, telling the rest of us what to do.

The third reason is purely selfish: if people are working for no money, they don’t have any money, and thus can’t buy anything. Fewer consumers, less consuming. Less money for business.

Ms. Forward does address this: according to her, foreign nations will pick up our economic slack, because “Since they have universal healthcare in those commie places, they have the well-being to enjoy their paychecks. … It is time to start using the rest of the developed world’s economic un-freedom against them.”

She also advises landlords not to worry: when their low-wage (now no-wage) tenants are evicted, the government will simply “reimburse you for any post-eviction room you are not able to rent out.”

At this point, she’s no longer trying to maintain the parody. Her real beliefs have come into view. People can only afford a decent standard of living if they’ve got universal government health care. Government will pay landlords directly, instead of through the “middle man,” the wage earner.

Not to mention, government decides how much you make, or whether you make anything at all.

In her worldview, the government is the great provider. Government gives us what we need: health care, a place to live, a paycheck. Any sense of personal responsibility or accomplishment is an illusion.

In mine, we’re better off – both as individuals and as a society – when government stays out of things, so we can do for ourselves.

I could dismiss Ms. Forward as a kook, except she’s far from alone. For example, Governor Doyle, legislative Democrats, and most recently a letter-writer from Minocqua have all claimed that preventing a quick increase in the minimum wage prevents $400 million or more in economic activity. That’s the amount minimum-wage workers would earn at $6.50 an hour, but won’t at $5.15. If they don’t earn it, they can’t spend it. The economy suffers.

In their view, that money doesn’t exist today, because the government hasn’t created it. If the government mandates a higher wage, that creates $432 million.

Makes you wonder: why not raise the wage even higher?

The money already does exist, of course, and is in the economy already. It was created by business, not by government, but people like Governor Doyle, the letter-writer, and Ms. Forward can’t understand that. To them, government gives us what we have.

I’m sorry they can’t understand my point of view. I’m glad I can’t understand theirs.

I Don't Mind: They Don't Matter

So the Baraboo School District is closing down one of six elementary schools, and turning another from a full elementary school into a kindergarten center.

It’s an issue here in the Greater Baraboo Area: the sometimes-heated subject of articles, letters, and back-fence conversations.

As the parent of four children, two of whom have yet to reach kindergarten-age, I’ve got this to say:

I don’t care.

That’s a harsh way to say it, and of course I’ll explain further, but in essence, that’s the truth. And I wouldn’t feel any differently, if the school closing down were the one my kids use.

The issue: as usual, money. Baraboo School District is one of many in the state with a declining number of students, which, under the state’s school funding system, means slower-growing revenues.

Closing Fairfield Elementary will save $125,400 next year, according to the district, and expanding kindergarten to full-time will mean more state aid.

For the record, I’m mostly in support of the school board. Maybe there are better ideas, maybe not. It’s certain, though, that the status quo isn’t cutting it.

Note, I didn’t call this a “solution,” and neither is the board. And well they shouldn’t. School finance will continue to be a local and state issue which, I think, centers around this question: why are public schools so expensive?

Unfortunately, the age-old rationalization – “it’s for the kids” – has surfaced in Baraboo. It’s quite obviously not true: we’ve done without full-time kindergarten, well, forever. Why would we change during a time of ultra-tight budgets? For more money.

The way Wisconsin’s school funding works, more students equals more money. Full-day students are twice as valuable, finance-wise, as half-day students.

My family will be affected: one of ours will be in full-day kindergarten next year, and frankly, we don’t like it. Three hours a day is enough, we think, for five- and six-year-olds.

Be that as it may, the school district, with the state’s authority behind it, is about to tell us we must send our children for a full day of kindergarten. It’s the law.

In this, the law is an ass. Our child – being our child, not the state’s – is our responsibility, not the state’s. If we don’t want him to attend full-day kindergarten, well, the state shouldn’t have anything to say about it.

I temper my outrage, of course: I wasn’t complaining that the state “forces” us to send our kids to half-day kindergarten, and I wasn’t complaining about full-day first grade. Following my logic, the parent who thinks an 8th grade education is plenty has as much credibility as I do.

But that’s a topic for another time.

Whether full-day is a good idea is a moot point – those of us who disagree are in the minority. My wife stays home, so half-day is no problem for us. Two-income families are welcoming the change, simply because it’s cheaper and easier than daycare.

I wonder if the Baraboo daycare lobby ever weighed in.

Back to my state of non-caring: ironically, I’m brought to this by my very objection to government-mandated full-day kindergarten.

In the end, none of this matters: whether our youngsters spend 15 hours a week at school or 30; whether or not class sizes average 20 kids or 25; whether a “community center” is closed down or not.

Why doesn’t it matter? Because in the end, my wife and I don’t look to the government to raise our kids. What they do isn’t nearly as important as what we do – the parents.

Life throws you curves. You deal with them. A year from now, we may still grouse about not getting what we wanted, but we’ll have moved on, and if we value our kids, we’ll have continued doing what needs doing.

If my kids suddenly end up in a classroom with 30 other students, they’re still going to learn to read, write, and do arithmetic, because my wife and I (mostly my wife) will make sure of it.

That’s not to say we’ll sit by and let just anything happen. If the district were to, say, introduce fully self-guided curricula, on the theory that natural curiosity will lead kids to learn on their own, we’ll be in the first wave out of the trenches.

But losing the argument over kindergarten and school closings doesn’t mean our kids are lost. To believe so is to believe that our government is already in control.

It never will be, as long as we, the parents, don’t let it.

The Freeze: the Policy, and the Politics

The wheel and the axle. The chicken and the egg. Governor Doyle’s version of the property tax freeze, and the Republican version.

Which came first? Depends on how you look at it.

The Assembly will pass its version of the property tax freeze this week – essentially the same bill that the Legislature passed, and the Governor vetoed (twice), a year or two ago.

It was supposed to be the first punch thrown. That was the plan, until the Governor pre-empted it, throwing his own plan at the tax-freeze flank during his budget address, exactly one week ago.

This, from the party that opposes pre-emption. I guess it’s okay if the UN doesn’t complain.

The two plans are both similar and different, and it’s the similarities that end up meaning the most. More on that later. There’s some interesting politics at work, here, as well.

For the last couple of years, Governor Doyle has parroted the liberal, Democrat, anti-Republican line: the property tax freeze is a gimmick that will destroy our schools and bring an end to critical local services.

And suddenly, as of last Tuesday, it won’t. Doyle’s freeze is nearly as strict on counties, cities, villages and towns as the Republican freeze is.

The change of heart isn’t hard to understand: Doyle simply decided he couldn’t win re-election in 2006 without coming around on the issue, and so he has.

But he’s also handed legislative Republicans an opportunity, maybe two.

By embracing at least a version of the freeze, Doyle has moved the debate further to the right – into GOP territory. He hopes to take some of that territory as his own, but he also moves his negotiating base – any compromise will have to start from his current position.

That’s one opportunity: the chance to really get a property tax freeze. That didn’t exist, ten days ago.

On one hand, this could work to Doyle’s advantage: if Republicans give him a freeze that, he says, goes too far (which is almost certain), he can accuse Republicans of playing politics with the taxpayers.

But therein lies the second opportunity. As WisPolitics’ “Political Stock Report” noted this week: “…if conservative Republicans force Doyle to veto their freeze, Doyle will be on the wrong side of a 77 percent issue again, GOP strategists say.”

Somebody’s going to come out of this looking like the bad guy, and it’s more likely to be Doyle. After all, which side is more likely to really support a tax freeze, and which is more likely to feign support as a political expedient?

Neither plan actually freezes taxes – they both limit how much more local governments can tax each year, but don’t freeze it. Both plans give local voters the referendum option for overriding the limits – a government can spend more, if it has the voters’ permission.

There are some differences, too: the GOP’s plan limits all local governments, while Doyle’s leaves schools out of it. The GOP’s limit is stricter on counties and cities, but Doyle’s plan comes out ahead overall, because of the $850 million of state money he pumps into schools.

Finally, Doyle’s ends in only two years, while the GOP version ends in three.

And that difference turns out to be the most important similarity: both plans have a shelf life. Both will restrict taxation for a while, and then they’ll end.

Let’s say one version becomes law, whether it’s Doyle’s or the GOP’s (although Doyle has already made clear, he’ll veto any plan that lasts more than 2 years).

Pop quiz time: once the time limit expires, what will local governments do?

a. Realize how easy it was to live within those limits, and vow to stay under them for good;

b. Say phew, glad that’s over, and go back to business as usual;

c. Enact a big tax increase the first year they’re allowed to, using that two (or three) years of tax starvation as an excuse.

Did you pick C? Pat yourself on the back.

Let’s not fool ourselves: a property tax freeze is only temporary. Its effects, while taxpayers will doubtless enjoy them, won’t last.

Looked at that way, the political advantage could be more valuable than the policy. Doyle’s sudden embrace of the freeze could hurt chances for more durable reforms. On the other hand, his veto could help build support for constitutional limits – the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. It could also make election of a tax-fighting Republican governor more certain.

And somehow, I think Doyle knows that.

The Budget and 2006

Budget season has hit the state of Wisconsin, and with it, the first serious shot in the 2006 campaign.

Earlier this week, Governor Doyle got things started by introducing his budget – all 1200 pages of it – to the Legislature.

Much has already been said about the Governor’s proposal. Much more will be said over the next several months. Most of this talk is – and will be – a complete waste of breath.

Why? Because the Governor’s budget is not a serious proposal, and it’s not meant to be.

The Governor says his budget won’t raise taxes. It will – his budget expands the sales tax by at least $35 million. It’ll cost more to drive a car, or to run a day care.

Doyle raids over $400 million from the transportation fund – road maintenance money will be harder to come by the next two years. Another $300 million comes from funds for recycling, malpractice insurance, energy efficiency and helping the poor pay their electric bills.

He’ll need all that and more to pay for his agencies’ budget requests. Then he’s still got to come up with the $850 million he wants to divert to school aids.

But wait, the Governor’s budget relies on $60 million from the Ho-Chunk, which they’ve sworn they won’t pay. Small change, really: it also relies on $620 million in federal highway money that we might not – and probably won’t – get. His own DOT chief called it a “crap shoot.”

And when it’s all said and done, even Doyle’s top secretary said this budget leaves a billion-dollar structural deficit.

Does it add up? No. Is it responsible? No. But then, it’s not meant to be.

One need look no further than Doyle’s proposed property tax “freeze.” Some of the details are interesting, and worth some thought. But he buys down school taxes by pushing spending off to the future – exactly the sort of fiscal irresponsibility he promised wouldn’t happen on his watch.

Never mind that, though. The details of his plan don’t matter. His motives do.

Just last year (last month, according to one publication), Doyle was calling the property tax freeze a “gimmick.” But now he’s touting one that he says saves more than the Republican version.

Why the change of heart? Political positioning, of course. A year from now, on the campaign trail, he’ll be able to say Republicans had their chance for a freeze, but insisted on playing politics by sending him something – doesn’t matter what – which he had no choice but to veto.

Another example: Doyle transfers $850 million from other sources to schools. Good idea? No: the state has tried buying down property taxes before. It’s a short-term fix, but a long-term problem. Plus, the tactic leaves huge holes in transportation and other budgets.

But again, responsible policy isn’t the point. Forcing Republicans to “cut” $850 million from education is.

Why, Doyle wants to ask, do Republicans hate school children?

This is Doyle’s strategy: position himself to the right on taxes, and make Republicans look like obstructionists.

At the same time, he’s making nice with his most important interest group – the teacher’s union – by offering them a grab-bag of goodies: more jobs and higher pay.

How should Republicans respond? There’s plenty of ammunition available. His own secretaries are criticizing his plan. His claim that he balanced the budget without raising taxes is obviously false.

And we’ll find out more, in time. The trick will be getting – and keeping – public opinion, particularly when it comes to the property tax freeze. The 2006 race for Governor might be decided in the next few months.

This Too Shall Pass

It’s not as if we didn’t know it was coming, but that doesn’t make it any easier.

Beginnings are exciting. Unimaginably plentiful possibilities stretch out in seemingly infinite directions. Anything is possible, or so we believe.

Over time, some avenues become closed to us, while others loom larger. The possibilities are fewer. Still, there’s always the next step, the next day, the next moment that could bring something completely new, unexpected, wonderful.

And then it’s over, and all that remains before you is the barren wasteland: a shallow oasis here, the mirage of relief over there. Other than that, nothing but memories, what-might-have-beens, and pale glimmers of future beginnings.

I’m speaking, of course, of the NFL season.

Superbowl Sunday is a bittersweet day for the veteran NFL fan. The ultimate championship: a single game, grown to iconic status in America’s unique culture. We love the Superbowl. We hype it. We plan for it. We dissect everything about it. And when it’s over, football is gone.

Little is left to us Monday morning. For five months, Mondays were spent largely at the water cooler, endlessly describing and debating that fourth-down play, undeserved penalty, pancake block, wasted timeout, what the cheerleaders were wearing outside in 30-degree temperatures.

Oh, sure, we can speculate about next year, but it’s so far away. It’s retirement to an 18-year-old. An abstraction, at best.

And so, we’ve come to this. No football. Once the final gun sounds on Superbowl Sunday, the annual nightmare begins. Nothing to do after church now, but rake, mow, paint, and wash windows.

One. Two. Three. Sigh.

As usual, we feel we should have been ready for it. It’s not like the NFL doesn’t prepare us. Three weeks of playoff games, with dwindling numbers of teams each week and, thus, dwindling numbers of games. The updating statistical scrollers at the bottom of the TV screen seem suddenly ridiculous when there are only eight teams to compile them, rather than 32.

Then, suddenly, a week off. No football the Sunday after the conference championships. The weekly ritual is broken. We stand confusedly in our living rooms, trying to remember what we’re supposed to be doing, before dejectedly wandering off to sweep the basement.

And then, finally, the Superbowl – in its own way, the ultimate anticlimax, because, despite the crowning of the NFL champions, this is the end. After today, nothing. Two weeks ago, teams played to go on, or go home. After the Superbowl, everybody goes home.

Or to Disneyland, I guess.

And the Superbowl itself tends to be a letdown. Not always because of a lopsided game: the Superbowl has become such a national (and international) event, everybody wants in on the action. It’s like St. Patrick’s Day, when everybody wants to be Irish. Suddenly, everybody’s a football fan. Everybody wants to go to the party, join in the office pool, claim the best game-watching chair, whether or not they have any idea what a McNabb might be.

Or do they? There’s as much pre-game speculation and post-game analysis of the Superbowl commercials and the halftime show as there is of the game itself.

The result: an event, in which the supposed star of the show – the football game – is almost an afterthought. And now it’s gone.

Sure, there are some tonics to soothe our despair. Pigskin aspirins, just to take the edge off. There’s arena-league ball, which somewhat resembles actual football. There’s NFL Europe. The Internet. Even a cable channel dedicated to the NFL.

Small consolation, but more than our fathers got.

No, don’t get me started on the Pro-Bowl – a maliciously teasing flicker of light, barely penetrating the next seven months’ darkness.

Such is life. Anyone with kids can tell you how many times they’ve heard (and said): “they grow up so fast.”

Sure, now that they’re grown, it seems like it happened fast. It didn’t look that way when they were one, or five, or teenagers.

Or when your favorite team was 2-1, with a division game coming up. Then, it seemed it would last forever.

It’s easy to become depressed at this time of year. You’ve just lost a friend.

But just as the start of the football season seemed bursting with promise, sure to last forever only to fade slowly and end suddenly, so, too, will the off season. Time will go on, and what seems like forever will become months, then weeks, then only days.

Take heart. The NFL draft is a mere seventy days away.

The Danger of Photo I.D.

We want to make voting easier, and cheating harder.

That’s the new catch-phrase, popular among those who oppose requiring a photo I.D. in order to vote.

It’s fine rhetoric. Short, catchy, both supporting and attacking the latest effort at reform.

I wonder: do the people saying it have any idea how to achieve it?

Make voting easier? Wisconsin already has some of the most liberal voting rules in the nation. You can register at the polls, the day of the election, with no identification. You can mail your ballot in early, without ever leaving your house. You don’t even need a reason anymore.

There are things we could do, I suppose. We could expand voting to two days, instead of one. Maybe including a Saturday.

I’ll enjoy seeing how major media networks handle their exit polling, if we ever do that.

We could double the number of polling places, so they’re closer, and the lines are shorter.

Put aside any cost concerns: you’ll confuse people who are used to voting at a certain place. They’ll be disenfranchised.

My point: it’s not easy to make voting easier than we already do. A lack of ease in voting isn’t our problem – our problem is, making voting easier has also made cheating easier.

Has there been cheating? A little, at least. A drive to register felons to vote absentee; people registering with false addresses. Where there’s a little, there’s probably more. There has also been plenty of bureaucratic fumbling.

The bill before the Legislature will require everyone (with a few exceptions) to show photo I.D. before they’re allowed to vote. Absentee ballots will have to include a photocopy of the I.D.

This will, at least, cut down considerably on the opportunity for fraud. As long as poll workers check the addresses carefully, no one will be able to vote in more than one place.

The only obvious (to me) loophole: fake I.D. cards, or modified copies of I.D. cards for the absentee voters. We are living in the computer age, after all.

Requiring I.D. will mean more reliance on provisional ballots, more paperwork for the clerks, and more election day pressure on the poll workers, most of whom are basically low-paid volunteers. This, at a time when absentee voting is getting more popular, meaning even more paperwork.

The point being: enacting Voter I.D., and enforcing it, will (should) help staunch potential fraud by voters. But even if it makes voting fraud-proof, it won’t be the last word. If anything, it will only make confusion and chaos at the polls – the potential for mistakes and, possibly, bureaucratic fraud – worse.

Water flows along the path of least resistance. So does money. So does cheating. You close off one route, somebody will invent another one. Vain attempts to “get the money out of politics” have proven that.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t pass this bill: we definitely should. Don’t reject the good for lack of perfection.

But we can’t stop there. Clerk and poll staffs must be strengthened, even if it means hiring more, training more, and paying more. Procedures for dealing with absentee and provisional ballots must be worked out, tested, set in stone, and trumpeted to everyone who cares.

We have to do that, even if Governor Doyle vetoes the bill, which he probably will. Let the next election scandal be on his head, but don’t stop trying to prevent it.

The danger of photo I.D. isn’t that some people might be “disenfranchised.” The danger is that we’ll start thinking it’s the big solution, and forget everything else.

Wisconsin Counties Say: Vote for Higher Taxes!

Why are property taxes so high? State-mandated human services, and court costs. At least, that’s what the Wisconsin Counties Association (WCA) says.

The state mandates those services, but requires counties to pay a large share of the cost. So, the WCA wants counties to ask their voters: should counties pay, or should the state?

As of Monday, 46 counties (out of 72) had agreed to put the question on the April ballot – an advisory referendum: “Should the State of Wisconsin, not the county property taxpayer, pay for the cost of the state mandated court system (or state mandated human services)?”

At first glance, this is a great idea. I plan to vote yes.

Not because I think it’s unfair that the state mandates services on local governments. Let’s face it: counties are: administrative districts of the state. That’s why the state created them.

And not because the WCA thinks it will lead to “lasting property tax relief.” In fact, I think it will have the exact opposite effect. More on that later.

I’ll vote yes for one reason: income taxes are better than property taxes.

My home county – Sauk County – spends well over $5 million on courts and human services: about 25% of the property tax levy.

If the state took that over for every county, it would mean a lot more state spending. Which would mean…a tax increase. Maybe.

Politically, it’s much harder to raise the rate of the income tax and the sales tax. To propose such is a very big deal.

Raising the property tax rate isn’t nearly as big a deal. In fact, it happens all the time.

That’s ironic, because the property tax is far more destructive. What’s the basis of the income tax? Income. If you get a raise, you’ll pay more in income taxes, but you’ve got the extra income to cover that, and more.

Same for the sales tax: with the exception of those who can’t control their own credit cards, the amount we spend is directly related to the amount we earn. If a higher sales tax makes things more expensive, we’ll buy less, or find other ways to economize.

The property tax isn’t like that. There’s no direct correlation between property taxes and ability to pay.

Sure, when you first buy the house, you take property taxes into account. After that, though, all bets are off. Property taxes are going up 6% in Wisconsin this year – how many homeowners predicted that, when they took out the loan?

So, theoretically, I would support moving government off the property tax, and onto income and sales taxes.

But, that brings me back to my earlier point. To hear the WCA tell it, state mandates are to blame for rising taxes:

“What happens is the state legislature is making decisions on how generous programs should be and who is eligible, but they are not required to fund all of it,” said (WCA Legislative Director Craig) Thompson. “As a result, the property tax…continues to rise to meet the state’s mandates.”

So, if the state begins paying the whole bill, the county can cut taxes, and leave them cut. Right?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Put aside the fact that county taxes are only about a quarter of the whole property tax bill. School taxes make up half the bill, just by themselves, and the state already pays 60% of school costs.

The WCA would put more pressure on the state’s budget, which would very likely mean less money for school aids, which in turn means higher school taxes.

But that’s beside the point. Other taxes notwithstanding, if the state takes over paying 25% of the county’s bills, the county won’t cut taxes by 25%.

Oh, they’ll think about it. Then they’ll realize, hey, now we can really afford to buy that new van, or build that new library, or put five more deputies on the road. And still give the taxpayers a generous tax cut!

If not the first year, then the second, or the third. It’ll happen.

And anyway, reducing taxes really isn’t WCA’s goal. They’re just playing the same old game – blame another government – and why?

Because of the property tax freeze, and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. They oppose both.

I’m not opposed to having the state pay for state-mandated services, but that alone won’t bring “lasting property tax relief.” Not unless it’s accompanied by something else. Something that will control government spending in the future.

Don’t expect WCA to propose that, though.