Unclear on the Concept, or What’s a Budget For?

Rep. Rob Hutton (R-Brookfield) announced on Tuesday that majority Republicans “are debating whether to add repeal of the state’s prevailing wage laws to the 2013-15 budget. He said the move would not be aimed at limiting public scrutiny of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 49 but because the measure’s fiscal impact may make the budget a better home for it.” (Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/prevailing-wage-repeal-may-be-tucked-into-state-budget/article_04555ca1-6565-5c59-8d22-a67a11eda3b4.html#ixzz3W9XUkIqJ)

The announcement came after the four public hearings on the budget, and as of this writing has not been published in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

It is well past time for Rep. Hutton, and apparently other Republicans, to learn about the budget bill. The statutes governing the compilation of the budget are located in Chapter 16, Wis. Stats., and include Sec. 16.46 (Biennial budget, contents); sec. 16.461 (Biennial budget, summary of funds); sec. 16.465 (Budget stabilization fund reallocations); and sec. 16.47 (Budget bill). The legislature is currently dealing with the executive budget bill, described in pertinent part below.

16.47 Budget bill.
(1) Except as provided in s. 16.529 (2), the executive budget bill or bills shall incorporate the governor’s recommendations for appropriations for the succeeding biennium. The appropriation method shown in the bill or bills shall in no way affect the amount of detail or manner of presentation which may be requested by the joint committee on finance. Appropriation requests may be divided into 3 allotments: personal services, other operating expenses and capital outlay or such other meaningful classifications as may be approved by the joint committee on finance.
(1m) Immediately after the delivery of the budget message, the budget bill or bills shall be introduced without change into either house by the joint finance committee and when introduced shall be referred to that committee. …

The budget bill is thus about state appropriations.  It has nothing to do with whether a particular proposal will have fiscal impact. In fact, as Rep. Hutton should know by now, every bill proposed in the legislature should have attached to it a “fiscal note” explaining the fiscal impact of the bill. The fiscal note may be prepared by an agency affected by the bill or by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, but the mere fact that a bill has a fiscal impact does not make is part of the budget bill.

Rep. Hutton, and others, are also ignoring, perhaps willfully, the LFB’s lengthy memo on prevailing wage legislation’s fiscal impact and the anticipated impact in Wisconsin. Several Wisconsin agencies indicated, with respect to the currently-proposed legislation, that the fiscal impact could not be determined. Others indicated that it was small. The LFB also offered detailed analysis of the impact of prevailing wage legislation in other states, finding that the impact was mixed, if not negligible. (The memo is available here: http://host.madison.com/prevailing-wage-legislative-fiscal-bureau-memo/pdf_8015cf7d-c51a-5d14-9e20-e710d7623fbb.html)

An attempt to repeal Wisconsin’s prevailing wage law has nothing to do with state appropriations and everything to do with reducing wages even further, in a state that has already fall behind most of the Midwest. The proposal does not belong in the budget. The Joint Committee on Finance should reject this attempt at an end run around a full debate of a contentious issue.
Share:

Related Articles

5 thoughts on “Unclear on the Concept, or What’s a Budget For?

  1. It’s beginning to appear that more and more of Walker’s lap dog legislators are beginning to realize that without Walker for cover the public is becoming more aware of how damaging the legislation rushed through over the past 4 years without giving credence to public opinion has been. The public is also beginning to express its displeasure with the huge cuts to services the Walker budget includes that are only there because Walker gave away the treasury to win re-election. These Republican legislators might just be fearing the 2016 elections if they must stand before the public without Walker’s mouth [blatant lies] and money!

  2. Jerry, I think the world is seeing how NOT DAMAGING act 10 has been. Nary a Democrat ran against his signature legislation in the last election cycle. You must be refering to other legislation I guess…

    2016 might show a slight shift towards the Dems but that will be the typical high president turnout for the dems and nothing else…

      1. Republicans think that reducing the size of the middle class and downward pressure on wages will lead to a booming economy, even though that has never worked, anywhere. Somehow they think Wisconsin’s outcome will be magically different, for whatever reason. Deep down, they have simply enjoyed seeing working class people (ie. “union thugs”) getting hurt. That’s basically all that matters to them.

Comments are closed.