More (Local) Government
A 1992 Wisconsin law limits the revenue a school district can raise through property taxes. When operating costs exceed that limit, districts have to ask voters to make up the difference. The idea behind the law was to control skyrocketing teacher salaries and benefits by holding annual increases to 3.8 percent per year. The state would also kick in money to hold down property taxes. The unintended consequence of this scheme was rising salaries for other district employees (janitors, administrators, cooks, bus drivers), while the revenue caps never grew with the rate of inflation. At the same time, state money is allocated based on enrollment rather than need, so poorer rural and inner-city school districts that are declining in student population have lost out again.
This has meant endless referenda over the past decade. Durand, the school district I live in, had one last spring.
These referenda have become especially divisive; both sides are essentially right. The schools need money just to keep operating at current levels, especially in the wake of higher fuel, energy, and healthcare costs. Yet the taxpayers simply do not have the incomes necessary to meet such increasing costs, especially in bad economic times. In a letter to the editor in the Durand Courier-Wedge, a gentleman asked, in all sincerity, why the school district wasn’t tightening its belt by eliminating field trips, like the one the band was planning to take, or activities such as forensics, instead of asking for more money. As you might expect, irate band members and their parents quickly responded, reminding readers that the band was raising its own money to pay for the trip, and forensics-team members and others who engage in extracurricular activities added that, to participate in these programs, they pay fees. Despite the preponderance of letters in favor of the referendum, the measure still lost, the district faces a three-million-dollar shortfall, and a reform slate of candidates, dedicated to open government and cutting spending, was elected to the school board.
Across the state, where similar struggles have occurred, the stalemate has stopped the progress conservatives made in Wisconsin in recent years and now threatens to reverse it entirely. Much has to be worked out philosophically and politically before conservatives can find their way again.
People complain about “government” far too carelessly. Which government upsets them? The federal government? State government? Local government? They never really say. This confusion has finally caught up to conservatives who run for office and govern at the state and local level. A conservative can complain about big government at the federal level, waving around the Constitution and saying that the Founding Fathers never meant for Washington to be as big as it is now. Such a candidate can always argue for devolving “more power to state and local governments,” but does he really mean it? Without clear principles for governing, conservatives at the state and local level usually do one of two things: Take a libertarian “all government at any level is bad” approach, which usually means slashing taxes to nothing and privatizing all government services; or pay lip service to this approach while taking conservative social positions on issues such as abortion, gun control, homosexual marriage, and so forth to prove themselves to local activists.
Local governments and school districts derive their operating budgets from property taxes, a system that often penalizes those who cannot afford to pay, especially when home values shoot up faster than incomes. Residents are squeezed even further because Wisconsin truly is a middling state. Manufacturing and agriculture still play major roles in the state’s economy. The more lucrative information and high-tech sectors barely exist here. Very few super-rich people live in Wisconsin, nor are there a lot of wealthy suburbs that can be tapped for money. Some school districts and governments do survive on monies collected from lake homes and woodland cottages, but, for the most part, they are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip, especially with an aging population living on fixed incomes.
In these circumstances, it is easy to whip up antitax fervor, and conservatives and their libertarian allies have done this on many occasions in order to win elections on the state and local level. The problem comes after taking office. If you are single-mindedly committed to cutting taxes, where do you get the money to run the government services that both the feds and the state expect you to provide?
Conservative Republicans in the most populated areas of the state, especially in the eastern “Golden Triangle” sector of Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee, talk of privatizing services in order to break the power of public-sector unions that back the Democrats. (This is what Milwaukee county executive and future GOP candidate for governor Scott Walker is doing. Most government employees in Wisconsin, no matter how big the municipality, are unionized.) But such solutions do not sell in the state’s more rural western and central parts, including Durand. Because of the loss of farms and factory jobs, government is often the largest employer in these communities, and public-sector jobs are the only decent middle-class jobs available.
These realities have had a profound effect on the state’s political scene since former Gov. Tommy Thompson left to serve in President Bush’s Cabinet after nearly 16 years in office. Thompson was a social conservative, but he was also a Main Street rural Republican. He cut taxes to help his business allies, but he also used state monies to buy political support, increasing state aid to local governments and devising a plan to have the state pay for one third of all building costs for schools. This set off an explosion of school construction and renovation across the state in the 1990’s that kept local economies humming (very Keynesian). He also replaced the state’s once-generous welfare system with workfare, which gave him a reputation for being a reformer and made him part of a class of Republican governors elected in the late 1980’s and early 90’s that tried to create a conservative approach to governing. That ultimately led to Republican control and dominance at the state and local level for a decade and a half and even to George W. Bush’s election in 2000.
Then came the recession of 2000-02. Suddenly there was no more money coming in, and problems began to arise that left Thompson’s hapless lieutenant governor, Scott McCallum, holding the bag. He decided to close the deficit by cutting off state aid to local government and education and castigating local officials for being big spenders. Since many of these officials were traditional small-town Midwestern Republicans like Thompson, this tore the party apart, leading to McCallum’s fall and the ascension of the state’s Democrats under current Gov. Jim Doyle.
The divide in Wisconsin’s Republican Party, as in many states, is not between moderate and conservative, but between rural and suburban. The suburban Republican Party is increasingly the stomping ground for DINKs (Double Income, No Kids) who live in the suburbs around Milwaukee, the Fox Valley, and Waukesha County. They have no connections whatsoever to local schools or other community organizations. Their spokesmen are three Milwaukee-based radio talk-show hosts who call down fire from heaven on local governments and school districts every chance they get. Numerous scandals in Milwaukee-area municipalities over the past decade have been fodder for their shows. (Among these was a massive pension scandal involving Milwaukee County employees, which helped Walker get elected as county executive.) But ripping local governments in Milwaukee on the airwaves only makes the party more Milwaukee suburban-centric, which only makes it more unappealing statewide. Thus, a proposal known as TABOR (Tax Payer Bill of Rights), which set strict spending guidelines for local municipalities that receive state funds, failed because the rural Republican Party refused to support it. The idea that politicians in Madison were going to set budget guidelines for communities all across the state was about as far from traditional conservatism as one could get.
Where does this leave conservatives at the local level? Ron Paul said that Republicans at the federal level should do more to control spending rather than worry about tax rates; the opposite is true at the state and local level. If the federal budget were cut and the size of the federal government were reduced, states and localities would have to pick up much of the spending and regulatory slack. But how could they do this if professional conservatives are taking libertarian positions on taxes and privatization that would starve state and local governments and drive middle-class government employees (many of whom are socially conservative) right into the arms of the Democrats?
Sean Scallon is a freelance writer and journalist living in Arkansaw, Wisconsin.
This article first appeared in the Correspondence section of the November 2008 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
Should local or state - any government really - control the schools and consequently tax everyone to pay for them ? I'm no libertarian, but wouldn't private schools for everyone who wished to pay for them be a better idea? Parents and charitable individuals might support efficient, high quality schools under these circumstances, no ? Is the Wisconsin public transportation system a government monopoly that suffers from the same problems as all organizations that are socialist in nature ? Just asking.
Sean, 30 years ago, I went into the Department of Commerce building on 14th Street in Washington, to visit a jobsite and prepare a bid for the sheetmetal work. I walked down several hallways to see soul brothers discussing basketball. They looked at me as not a man to order them around so thhey kept on with their jive. In the offices women sat at desks with no telephones, no filing cabinets, and no paperwork to process. One of the women -- very large was eating fried chicken, another was slowly working through a large pyramid od peanuts. I had to wonder what they did for lunch. All in all I witnessed 200 unemployed yet salaried government "workers."
That was one building, one department. Health and Human Services is 5 times the size of Commerce, imagine the waste there, because I seriously doubt anything has changed.
A federal hiring freeze would lower such waste by 7% annually, that money could be passed back to the states, who probably have several thousand useless eater on their own payrolls. They should implement their own hiring freezes and let all politics be local -- as Tip O'Neill recommended. Tip retired poor, which made me respect him even though he was a Massachusetts democrat.
I just want to say thanks to the webmaster for putting my story on the website and for the editors at Chronicles for publishing it. Also, thanks for the nice picture as well.
Etienne I have no problem with a federal hiring freeze (of course you mean the military as well?) and kicking that money back to the states. What states and and the counties and townships do with it is up to them.
Where I'm living, all the ads for all the Republicans running for the Assembly and Senate all basically say no new taxes, no health care proposals, no nothing. That's fine. But then what? Since they're not offering any serious proposals to reform government in any way (like say, making the legislature a part-time body and cut the salaries of legislators now making $50,000 a year. But I guess that's too much to expect for those wanting to get aboard the gravy train) once again they look like a bunch of nihillists reduced to making silly proposals that were test marketed on a talk show audience.
Gov. Jim Doyle and his Democrats have never had it so easy running against such neanderthals. Bring back Tommy Thompson and his Main Street Republicans I say. Yes, Thompson was no "movement" conservative but I'd say, as Austin Bramwell just recently penned, "To hell, with the movement!" Bring back some serious people.
"All in all I witnessed 200 unemployed yet salaried government 'workers.'”
That is probably better than government employees working hard on business that is not in the perview of the Federal government.
Sean,
I agree that it's tough times in your neck of the woods when the best employment is a government job. I deal with county governments on a daily basis processing construction paperwork. Most of the peolpe I deal with are couteous and helpful, but when I have to deal with state agencies (highway or health) the service is not as fast. I know from experience that the federal government is to be avoided at all costs. It seems that the higher one goes up the chain, the worse things get.
As a right-wing, extremist, ultraconservative neaderthal (someone who's not a liberal statist), I have no problem with government, after all, the holy apostle Peter says government exists that we may lead peaceable and orderly lives. My local police come when I call, and the water and sewers work just fine. My gripe is with elected officials who squander unprinted money in the guise of doing "something," even if it's both short-sighted and wrong.
My son joined the army to work out some personal things which remain unexplained. He could have done better, but I would have been wrong to stop him. However, I don't want him to cash his chips in whilst making the world safe for Halliburton, KBR, Exxon, CACI, Titan, L3, or the Mossad.
@3 Andrew
I once met a bureaucratic munchkin (GOP) who boasted the he managed a $2 billion budget. He also owned a timeshare, so how smart could he be? And what the hell could he spend that much money on? It had to be unnecesary at best or crooked at the worst.
I know some brilliant, hard working, and effective people who were working in the DoD back when I was involved in tactical missile guidance. One in particular had an annual budget of more than a billion dollars. The vast majority of his projects have worked out well. I have not had much exposure to bureaucrats in the other areas of the national government.
Most of my experience is in local government. While there are bad people even at that level, the normal amount of scrutiny by the public tends to limit much of the excess. I think that Jefferson was correct when he advocated his ward republics. Much of the problem at the local level comes from elected officials not understanding how incredibly easy it is to drive a government into insolvency. People get elected by making promises, but often do not understand the costs and dangers involved in many of those. The professional managers are normally Progressives who are ill prepared for any downturns in their local economies. After all, Progress is Inevitable! When reality appears and kicks them in the shins, many are shocked. I can relate to Sean's situation there in Wisconsin, as I administered a western Illinois city in similar straits. The libertarian dogma that all government is illegitimate is hooey, to put it politely. The Free Market Fundies, firmly believe in social Darwinism, even those who claim to believe in Christianity. Yet, they never seem to apply that Darwinism to their own beloved free market. If it is the best way to organize a society why is it not in place anywhere, much less everywhere? If government is so inefficient and ineffective in comparison, why is it that governments are ubiquitous? Local governments would seem to be so common because they do provide needed services at a reasonable cost. Of course,local government needs to be closely watched and constrained, and they do some really stupid things on occasion, especially public school districts, but they are closer to the people and far more accountable to them than is any other level of governance or large private sector corporation. There is a need for poor relief. Some people fall through the cracks. There are others who game the system, but these can be minimized with some effort. After all, the federal government just bailed out a bunch of corrupt banksters world wide to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars. comparing that nearly incomprehensible amount to the modest costs of poor relief of townships and counties shows that the latter is a real bargain.
Wisconsin local government tends to be much less corrupt and far more functional than what we have here on the other side of the Cheddar Curtain. This is one of the main reasons I am planning to retire Up North.
Sean,
It is good to see one of your columns up at Chronicles. I enjoyed another piece you wrote some months back on Sarah Pallin and her relation to the void created by the decimation of the Buchanan Brigades at Waterloo II. Pat reminds me of St. Paul in the number of times he has been shipwrecked, beaten with rods, cursed at, spat upon and humiliated by the very people he wanted to serve. My only regret for Pat is that in his later years he has become so blinded by his desire to reform his party and love for his country, that he might end up having to live his last years in some Republican nursing home set up by his detractors near the crack houses and occupied neighborhoods he always feared his party was creating for him and his followers. After Waterloo II, John McCain and the neo-cons offered him and his staff a greyhound bus to just leave the party's field of battle. Pat should have taken it. I was just one of the lowly pitchforkers and they wouldn't even give us our mules and horses so we could plant before winter. Keep up the good work. It inspires delight and memories in old veterans.
Sean console yourself in the fact that you do not live in New Jersey!
Mr. Scallon, thanks for the article.
If I'm ever lucky enough to find a constructive conversation or debate with friends about government, it invariably is aimed at the federal level. Broaching the topic of local government or politics usually runs the conversation down the drain, simply not enough is known (by me). I have begun to find this trend counterproductive if not hypocritical.
Topics such as education, taxes, border control, and land conservation are very interesting, though, and very much the concern of state governments and conservatives.
I'm including links to a speech given by former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson, at the recent Rally for the Republic. Just trying to get the word out for relatively conservative approaches to state issues. It may be difficult to interest readers in issues of Wisconsin, but I hope we can learn from generalizations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2EhAVQS2V8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcu8jWD2Qs0&feature=related
p.s. As a student in the twin cities, a large number of my good friends come from small towns in Wisconsin. I have been around the state a great deal, and it is a beautiful place.
Sean it looks like there is a similar fight up in Rhinelander right now on a school referendum issue such as the one you discuss in your article. The sticking point seems to be a new swimming pool there at the high school. The Antigo paper did a column on it today. Much as I dislike public education, I can see fixing up schools and paying a fair salary to the employees. Like you say, some of those jobs are the better paying ones in the area and are justly prized. But, I think that many districts fail to keep unnecessary items out of their spending plans which plays into the ideological biases of their foes. None of my schools had swimming pools while I was attending them, yet I still turned out reasonably well.
Thanks one an all for your comments.
I should disclose in case nobody knows around that I was appointed to the Pepin County (Wis.) Board of Supervisors this past summer, so I'm getting an intimate approach to local government.
I must say that I am lucky to live in Wisconsin. There are a lot of local political cultures that encourage cronyism, wastful spending and corruption or at least turn a blind eye to it and I feel sorry for those who have to suffer through it because in many cases it's local government that has more of a direct impact on your qualifty of life than anything the Feds do and if you have a bad government, as citzens in Detroit or New Orleans will tell you, it can make life miserable.
Here in Pepin County we have a culture of frugality in local government because we are acutly aware we are the smallest and one of the non-wealthiest in the state. We can only do so much and we do the best we can with what little we have. Actually, only 32 percent of our budget comes from local taxes, the biggest chunk comes from grants: state, federal and private. We've just finished a merger of several departments related to health and human services and we're looking at contracting out for providing meals at the county jail.
Heck, our county government building is located in an old Catholic hospital. How's that for making due?
Part of all the government problems in this country is that people really believe that we have a "democratic" form of government. We don't. At all levels we have representative government constrained by constitutions. As soon as anyone thinks "majority rules" they have discarded the constitutions (State and Federal) which limit all these government rulers. The rulers themselves forget or ignore that government is there to serve the legitimate (ie constitutional and traditional social) needs of the community NOT to rule anybody. It is interesting to note that in the great republics of Greece and Rome, CITIZENS did not pay income (thanks Karl Marx and his American eunuchs) taxes nor property taxes, although the wealthier did get tapped for various public expenditures if they did not voluntarily come up with them. I also believe that there should be NO public debt except for certain capital assets (roads etc) that have significant (61%, the Greek golden mean) public approval. And finally, all public compulsory schooling, which by the way, has nothing to do with education, should be ended along with its public funding. Education can and should be done at home with the natural (not forced) assistance of community and church. Public debt is corruptive because it requires things like evermore invasive and controlling (enslaving) institutions like the IRS to insure that everyone pays their "fair" share. Forced support for "public schooling" is going to be the gibbet that destroys most American communities.
Lee you may be right from abstract theory against compulsatory schooling, but if we ended public schools here and now with the wave of a magic, all of rural Wisconsin would be turned into an economic wasteland.
Go to a forgotten corner of your state and find a small town. Chances are you'll find an old school house there, a victim of the postwar consolidation craze. Look around you and see the old shuttered buildings and see for yourself what happens when schools close. You take away a school district and for many communities you take sources of jobs, sources of entertainment and community spirit. Such places are destroyed after you take away the gibbet of public education.
I'm not against homeschooling or priavte local schools if churches or community groups wish to pay for it, in fact I would make it easier. I give people the choice to opt out if they wish (just so long as they don't say, "Hey, I want to play for the sports team, I just don't want to go to school here.) But I think you'll find most people choosing to stay in, not because they are Marxists, but because it's where their grandpa, grandma, mother, father, sister, brotherm cousin, uncle and aunt went to school as well. Youwould be amazed at the family ties that make a good part of the student body at schools in rural and small town America.
In my opinion it is not just abstract theory. Keeping public schooling in rural areas (and everywhere else) is merely opting for a slow, spiraling suicide. The real problem with rural areas is the co-opting and strangling of real farming by the banks and corporate agriculture who, in mining the dirt for money and food stuffs, are slowly sterilizing the area of both soil and people. I remember, as a kid, spending several summers on the family farm in my dad's hometown (population 200). There were two main groups: German, Catholic, and Norwegian Lutheran. They got along fine and did everything but Church together, including weekly dances which were supplied with Canadian liquor by the Lutheran ministers son. My Grandfather and Uncle knew every farmer for a radius of !0 miles and could tell you how their kids, crops, and livestock were doing (I don't know half the people on my block). Europe, Christian, pre-Christian, Roman, Greek, barbarian, and Chinese, Indian, and Middle-Eastern regions, even with their tensions, all grew and prospered for millenia without public schooling. I don't pretend to know how to transition from our present "Puritanized" degeneration to real urban and rural culture, but if it isn't done only a desert will be left in its wake.