Sort-of Waste Treatment Tax Exemption

The Oshkosh Northwestern reported on March 24 that an issue is being raised by Winnebago County officials and state reps surrounding tax breaks for waste treatment and equipment storage facilities. According to the article:

A bipartisan group of state lawmakers on Thursday introduced a bill designed to block manufacturers that convert waste into sellable products, such as paper mills, from claiming the exemption. reworking state law so only a facility or equipment that exclusively and directly treats waste would qualify for the exemption.

Rep. Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said closing the loophole is not just a Fox Valley issue, but of concern statewide because of how state funding for public schools and shared revenue works.

"It does have statewide impact. Its not just Winnebago County or Outagamie County or Brown County. There's going to be a ripple effect on this," Hintz said.

One of the bill's authors, Sen. Dave Hansen, D-Green Bay, accused manufacturers of trying to exploit a loophole that the tax commission's ruling created.

"The decision was not fair to the property taxpayers of this state," Hansen said.

The article was written by: Bethany K. Warner of the ONW and Michael King of the Appleton Post-Crescent and The Associated Press.

Hintz: Regulate political ads

Rep. Gordon Hintz is part of a task force that is working to make ads from special interest groups more transparent.

State Representative Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) says the often negative ads distort the facts and mislead voters. He says candidates can choose to ignore the ads, but the public may have a hard time distinguishing between serious political messages and attack ads. The Oshkosh Democrat says the ads have no place in Wisconsin's political system.

I suppose this wouldn't have anything to do with the nasty ads leveled at Hintz during his campaign...

Doyle's Health Fund Transfer

The Oshkosh Northwestern and The Associated Press reported on March 23 that State Senator Carol Roessler and Rep Gordon Hintz have concerns about a proposed transfer of funds from a medical malpractice fund to pay for other medical initiatives, such as incentives for providers to switch to electronic records and to "pay Medicaid costs and increase provider reimbursement rates."

According to the article, "Representative Gordon Hintz, D-Oshkosh, said he is concerned about how using the fund could impact future budgets. He said most of the time money in segregated funds should be used for orignal purposes and that a plan such as this will not make for a longterm solution.."

See the Oshkosh Northwestern article here.

A similar measure was killed in 2005. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal covered the story here. According to that article, "Committee co-chairman Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said the committee needed to protect the state's Patients Compensation Fund, which is credited with creating a physician-friendly business environment and contributing to quality health care in Wisconsin. Physicians pay into the fund, which is used to cover liability claims from injured patients."

According to reporting by Shamane Mills on the Wisconsin Public Radio website from Friday, March 23, 2007:

The Legislative Audit Bureau says the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund is financially sound. It has a balance of nearly 60 million dollars; money set aside for malpractice claims not covered by doctors’ insurance. Yet Legislative Audit Committee co-chair Suzanne Jeskewitz is uneasy about planned and unplanned withdrawals from the fund. She says it looks like there’s lot of money in that fund and there is, but what’s unknown is future liability.

The audit bureau report says estimating the fund’s liabilities is challenging because claims can be filed years after they happen, and some of those injuries might have occurred when the state Supreme Court lifted limits on pain and suffering. A $750,000 cap was later put into law, but Mark Grapentine from the Wisconsin Medical Society notes it’s only been on the books since 2005 and hasn’t been tested in the courts yet. He says it’s wiser to leave fund as is.

Kaufert and Health Savings Accounts

Assembly Bill 47, introduced by Rep Kaufert, creates a non-refundable state income tax credit for contributions to health savings accounts.


According to the Legislative Reference Bureau:

Under current federal law, certain individuals may make tax-deductible contributions to health savings accounts and withdraw the money tax-free when needed to cover routine and preventive medical care.

Under this bill, an individual who makes contributions to such an account may claim a nonrefundable income tax credit for 6.5 percent of the allowable amount that the individual claims as a federal tax deduction for a contribution to a health savings account (HSA) or 6.5 percent of the federal tax-exempt earnings relating to an HSA, or both.


According to legislative fiscal estimates:

It is estimated that the revenue loss associated with this bill for fiscal year 2008 is $8.4 million. The estimated loss increases to $13.1 million in fiscal year 2009 and $17.6 million in fiscal year 2010


Questions: I am interested in what percentage of the public this bill would affect (or what percentage of the public has health savings accounts). Also, I am curious what this population's average annual income is. Finally, I am curious what percentage of this population currently does not have health coverage.

Open Caucuses to Public View

By state Rep. Cory Mason, Freshman Assembly Democrat-Racine

From the Racine Journal Times on 3/14/07

Open Government. Everyone says they are for it. As Justice Brandeis put it in 1933, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant” for corruption in government. This week is Sunshine Week, where we acknowledge the virtue of open government in our democracy.

Ironically, I am writing this during one part of our state government that is closed to the public: the “closed caucuses,” meetings which both political parties engage in during days the Legislature is in session.

I’ve only been in office for two months, but so far, session days in the state Assembly have three steps. First we meet in the Assembly chambers, take roll, and pass well-deserved and heartfelt resolutions honoring the memory of former legislators who have died and fallen soldiers who have given their lives for their country.

Next, the Assembly adjourns to split into two groups. The Republicans go into one room and the Democrats to another. These meetings are usually “closed” shortly after we start. In other words the public, the press, legislative staff, and anyone who is not a state representative has to leave the room. This is the longest part of the session day where the respective parties review each bill that will be addressed.

In these closed meetings the legislators in their respective parties devise strategy, debate the merits of the day’s bills, and employ shuttle diplomacy between the closed meetings to see if the two parties can reach consensus. Finally, after both political parties are done meeting, the Assembly comes back to order and votes on the issues of the day. This process goes much more quickly than the closed meetings – not surprising since the real debate has already taken place behind closed doors.

On Tuesday of this week, Legislators met for five hours in closed meetings before both parties were done. Our legislative activity on the floor took less than an hour with very little debate.It seems to me that if we are really committed to open government, we ought to open our respective meetings to the public.

So in recognition of Sunshine Week, I am announcing a bill that will be introduced to open these closed meetings to the bright light of public scrutiny. Some legislators argue that there are real advantages to the closed meetings: members can ask questions they are not comfortable asking in public, strategies are developed that help the parties operate more effectively, and legislators have a space to vent their frustrations and practice their speeches.

However, none of the advantages to these closed meetings are a reasonable trump to the public’s right to have access to the Legislature’s entire debate.The Legislature has agreed to have its deliberations televised by Wisconsin Eye, sort of a C-SPAN for the Wisconsin Legislature. But that investment could be a cruel hoax on citizens if the real debate occurs behind closed doors.I hope my colleagues will embrace Justice Brandies’ words about sunshine and join me in support of opening all of the Legislature’s deliberations to the public.

Cory Mason is a Democratic state Representative from Racine. He took office two months ago in January, 2007.

Cory Mason, pic from www.mason4assembly.com

Supreme Court Campaign Finance Reform Bill

Reps. Hintz & Hilgenberg to Introduce Supreme Court Campaign Finance Reform Bill

www.thewheelerreport.com/releases/Mar07/mar19/0319hintzscourt.pdf

MADISON – Representatives Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh) and Steven Hilgenberg (D-Dodgeville) announced today their plans to introduce a bill to allow for public financing for all Wisconsin State Supreme Court races. Wisconsin is currently in the midst of a Supreme Court race that may turn out to be the most expensive in state history.

"It’s time that we ensure that these Supreme Court races are decided by the people of Wisconsin, and not those individuals or special interests groups with the largest pocketbook,” said Rep. Hintz. “The candidates for this year’s Supreme Court race have already raised and spent nearly a million dollars combined, and outside special interests will undoubtedly spend even more. When a non-partisan race for a position requiring impartiality is heavily influenced by big money, the public trust is eroded. The best way to restore trust is to take money out of the equation. Enacting a public financing system for Supreme Court races will accomplish that goal.”

“This is not a new idea,” added Rep. Hilgenberg. “This legislation has received bipartisan support in the past. People are tired of outside money and interest groups dominating elections, and are left with the perception of pay for play. The legislature talks about addressing campaign finance concerns, but fails to act as yet another election is dominated by big money. The time is now for action on campaign finance reform.”

The bill would create a “democracy trust fund” for financing Supreme Court candidates and limit the amount of public financing benefits available to a candidate to $100,000 in the primary election and $300,000 in the spring election. The “democracy trust fund” would be funded with general purpose revenues.

The legislation would also greatly reduce the maximum amount that an individual or a committee could give to a candidate by establishing a $1,000 contribution limit. Currently individuals can give up to $10,000 and committees can contribute up to $8,625.

“By passing this legislation we can take another step toward restoring confidence in our electoral system. I am proud to work with my friend, Representative Hintz, to provide what’s necessary to get the ball rolling and moving FORWARD on this important task we have before us,” added Rep. Hilgenberg.

“This is the best way to demonstrate the positive attributes of public financing and maintain impartiality and integrity in our Supreme Court,” added Rep. Hintz. “We have an opportunity to take a big first step in fixing Wisconsin’s broken electoral system and we’re urging our colleagues in the State Legislature to join us to ensure that Wisconsin elections are decided by the many, not the privileged few.”

--------------------------------------------

Why stop there?

Governor's race? -- It’s time that we ensure that these Governor races are decided by the people of Wisconsin, and not those individuals or special interests groups with the largest pocketbook,

54th Assembly race? -- It’s time that we ensure that these Assembly races are decided by the people of Wisconsin, and not those individuals or special interests groups with the largest pocketbook,

Indeed, the "public trust is eroded". This may be a good first step. I'm interested in the Republican Party response, as their platform explicitly states No public funding of campaigns!

Rep Owens and Online Notices

Rep Owens Press Release from WisPolitics.Com


Rep. Owens: Legal Notices Online are Effective

3/16/2007 Contact: Rep. Carol Owens (888) 534-0053

(MADISON) -- I would like to respond to the March 16th editorial published in your paper. The purpose of my legislation is to give another option to reach our constituents regarding legal notice publications.

It is critical for the public to know what is going on in the area. Government has the obligation to inform the public, the more ways we can do that the better. I want the maximum number of people to have this knowledge. This legislation does not forbid the publication of legal notices in newspapers, but gives another option to municipalities to inform their residents of the 53rd District and of this state.

Electronic communications are the future. Computers, iPods, and blackberries are all options for people today to get their information. I admit, I am not the most computer savvy person but I realize that my constituents receive their government related news from different sources such as the Internet, television, radio, and newspapers to name a few. My constituents are catching onto the changing time, which includes using the Internet.

This legislation eliminates the government mandate to publish legal notice in the newspapers. As a public official, I am always hearing from constituents who are fed up with government mandates. Well, this is a way to eliminate one of many mandates. Legal notices are to be published in local newspapers according to current law. The one that is benefiting from this publication financially is the local newspaper. This is giving an additional option to the municipality to save money and still publish the legal notice online. More importantly, the Internet gives another option to make sure that the public has access to this information.

The Northwestern itself publishes the newspaper online. I truly believe that as we move forward in this information era, we must use every practical means to get news and notices to the public. My bill is about open government and public access.

------------------------------------------

See the Oshkosh Northwestern's editorial today criticizing the proposal. Maybe the Northwestern and other state newspapers will provide a community service and print the notices for free.

Hintz and Voter ID

Following a previous post on Voter ID legislation, I asked our 4 assembly reps (by email) what their position on the Voter ID bill is, and why they either support or oppose it.

Too often our representatives fail to offer any rationale for their support or opposition of legislation. We believe it is important for our elected officials to lead with openness and to make their positions publicly known. Publicly articulating their position on an issue will result in greater accountability, a greater informed citizenry, and a better democracy.

Both Carol Owens and the office of Roger Roth responded stating that they require a mailing address to respond to if they are to offer their positions. I again requested that they provide the public with their reasons and positions, but have not received a reply. Dean Kaufert did not reply to two requests.


Gordon Hintz replied on March 8 with the following (note - We commend Rep Hintz for providing the citizens of Winnebago County with his position on this bill. I again strongly encourage Reps Carol Owens, Roger Roth, and Dean Kaufert to recognize their public stature and provide the public with articulations of their positions) :

(verbatim) Assembly Joint Resolution 17 (AJR 17) proposes an amendment to the Wisconsin State Constitution that would make it a requirement to provide a photo identification in order for people to vote or to register at the poll on election day.

We have a responsibility to everyone in Wisconsin to conduct fair, honest elections that are truly representative of the will of the people. Supporters of this constitutional amendment feel that photo identification is a necessary requirement to protect against fraud. Investigations into claims of election fraud have shown almost no cases of individuals impersonating someone else at the polls, the only type of fraud identification at the polls prevents. However, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has shown that identification requirements do serve as a barrier to voting for groups, especially minorities.

A UW-Milwaukee study found that approximately 23 percent of Wisconsin residents aged 65 or older do not have driver’s licenses or photo identification and that less than half of African-American and Hispanic adults living in Milwaukee County have valid driver’s licenses. I feel that such a requirement would not only disenfranchise certain groups, but would also greatly decrease voter turnout at a time when participation in our electoral process is already incredibly low.

Creating this obstacle to voting as proposed is not simply a matter of passing a bill and signing it into law. This measure requires an amendment of our Wisconsin State Constitution. Our Constitution is a document that should be respected and honored, and not changed to satisfy the whims of a small number of politicians. Public policy
should be created to address problems or challenges and increase opportunities for our citizens. This bill does neither.

Thanks again for contacting me. Below is some additional information from the National Campaign for Fair Elections, including a summary of the fraud charges in 2004 that contradicts the perception many of my colleagues seem to have.

Best,

Gordon Hintz
State Representative, 54th District

According to the National Campaign for Fair Elections:
Implementation of restrictive polling place ID requirements creates added burdens for already harried poll workers, for miniscule gain. Data from the U.S. Department of Justice shows that while 196,139,871 votes have been cast in federal elections since October 2002, only 52 individuals have been convicted of federal voter fraud. Most of these convictions were for vote buying or for voter registration fraud, neither of which would be prevented by restrictive ID requirements at the polls.

A far-ranging federal probe into allegations of fraud in Wisconsin uncovered no evidence of a conspiracy to influence the 2004 presidential election. U.S. Attorney Steve Biskupic's investigation resulted in charges against 10 formerly incarcerated individuals for voting illegally and against four others for voting twice. Of those four, three cases have been dispensed with without conviction; the forth prosecution is still court pending. By way of comparison, 2,997,007 votes were cast statewide in Wisconsin in 2004. (Steve Schultze, No Vote Fraud Plot Found, MILWAUKEE JOURNAL-SENTINEL, Dec. 5, 2005 )

State Boards, Councils, & Commission

Click on the following link below for current boards, councils, and commissions, along with openings and instructions on applying.

www.wisgov.state.wi.us/appointments.asp?locid=19

Assembly Bill 36 - Urban Forests

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau

Current law requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to administer a program under which counties, cities, villages, towns, and nonprofit organizations receive grants of up to 50 percent of the cost for certain projects relating to tree management such as development of ordinances and tree inventories.

Under this bill, in addition to the grants under existing law, DNR may award grants to any of these entities, plus Indian tribes, for the costs of saving, removing, or replacing trees damaged in a catastrophic storm event in an urban area for which the governor has declared a state of emergency. This type of grant does not require that the recipient contribute to the costs of saving, removing, or replacing the trees. For further information see the state and local fiscal estimate, which will be printed as an appendix to this bill.

See AB 36 here.

Sick Leave Information

Additional information on the sick leave bill (AB 31) is available in an Amendment Memo from the Wisconsin Legislative Council.

Click here for the additional information.

Assembly Bill 27

Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
Currently, a registrant under the campaign finance law who is not exempted from reporting requirements must file regular reports with the appropriate filing officer or agency that include the name and address of each contributor whose cumulative contributions within a calendar year exceed $20, the date and amount of each contribution made by such a contributor, and the cumulative total contributions made by the contributor within the calendar year. In addition, a registrant must report the occupation and principal place of employment, if any, of each contributor whose cumulative contributions for the calendar year exceed $100. A registrant must keep a record of each contribution received by the registrant that exceeds $10 and must make a good faith effort to obtain all information that is required to be reported.

This bill prohibits the Elections Board from promulgating any rule:

1) which rovides that a registrant under the campaign finance law is considered to have complied in good faith with reporting requirements concerning identification of names and addresses of contributors, dates and cumulative amounts of contributions, and the occupation and principal place of employment of certain contributors if the registrant fails to provide the information required to be reported at the times that reports are required to be filed under the campaign finance law; or

2) that requires divestiture of any contributions with respect to which required information is not reported at the times required under the campaign finance law.

This bill is introduced as required by s. 227.19 (5) (e), stats., in support of the objection of the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules to the promulgation of proposed s. ElBd 1.46, Wis. Adm. Code, by the Elections Board.

The proposed rule accorded registrants 60 days in which to report required information relating to a contribution received that is required to be reported by law or to divest the contribution. The proposed rule also provided that a registrant that does not report the required information within 60 days of the date that it is required to be reported and does not divest the contribution within that period is considered not to have complied with the requirement to make a good faith effort to obtain the required information and required divestiture of any such contribution exceeding $250. In addition, the proposed rule provided that, if a registrant provides the required information within 60 days of the date that the information is required to be reported, the registrant is not considered to have violated filing requirements.

See the bill here.

Hintz and Air Guitar Nation Preview

Visit here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EW5ushVqEM

Additional Budget Information

Click on the following DOA link to view an agency breakdown of the Wisconsin 07-09 budget proposal:

www.doa.state.wi.us/debf/execbudget.asp


Click on the following link to view Assembly Bill 72 (Budget Adjustment Bill, which proposes adjustments to the 06-07 budget)

www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/AB-72.pdf


Click on the following link to view the Legislative Fiscal Bureau summary of the bill:

www.legis.state.wi.us/lfb/2007-09Bills/021907_SB39_AB72.pdf


Also visit a previous post on the budget proposal and analysis here.

AJR 17 - Voter Photo ID

AJR 17 states the following:

To create section 1m of article III of the constitution; relating to: requiring a photographic identification to vote, or register to vote, at the polls on election day (second consideration).

The Legislative Reference Bureau states the following:

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by the 2007 legislature for submittal to the voters in November 2008, was first considered by the 2005 legislature in 2005 Assembly Joint Resolution 36, which became 2005 Enrolled Joint Resolution 39.

It provides a qualified elector may not vote, or register to vote, at the polls on election day unless the elector presents a photographic identification issued by this state or by the federal government. After the date of ratification, the legislature, bylaw, with the concurrence of two−thirds of all the members present, may exempt any class of electors from these requirements.

Thank you to Tony Palmeri for linking several informative resources on the effects of voter identification requirements. See the post here. Most interesting from the New York Times article that Palmeri linked was the following:

"States that imposed identification requirements on voters reduced turnout at the polls in the 2004 presidential election by about 3 percent, and by two to three times as much for minorities, new research suggests."

The Capital Times enters a voice of opposition to the Voter Photo ID proposal here, in which Dave Zwiefel writes that:

"...in states where voters were required to sign their names or show an identifying document, blacks were 5.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters simply had to say their names. For Hispanics, the impact was closer to 10 percent. Those figures compared to a 2.7 percent combined rate for all races. And that, of course, is exactly what's behind initiatives in several states, including Wisconsin, to change existing laws to make it tougher for folks to vote in an election."

According to this site from Morwitz College of Law in Ohio:

"The exclusionary effect of some ID laws arises from the fact that a significant number of citizens don't have government-issued photo ID. Previous research suggests that some groups of voters -- including people of color, poor voters, and elderly voters -- are likely to be disproportionately affected, since they're less likely to have driver's licenses."

The Republican Party has the following to say about Voter Photo ID:

“The photo ID requirement is vital to the integrity of our elections in Wisconsin,” said Brad Courtney, Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. “From healthcare and social security reform to homeland security, Americans face important issues today and voters deserve to know their elected officials got
there fairly.”

In searching for the justification of this inevitable reduction of citizens participating in the democratic process, I found this and this from the Wisconsin Republican Party in 2005:

At least 278 felons illegally voted (and) 100 cases have been found of people voting twice or using fake names and addresses.

and

"an ongoing federal-local investigation into the Milwaukee 2004 elections found hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city. Yesterday, RPW handed the results of their own investigation over to federal authorities that show highly suspect cases of people voting twice--once in Milwaukee and once in the city to which they filed a change of address"

To view the Milwaukee voter fraud issue - click here for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Archive. What stands out is that many of these claims are invalid, that the issues have nothing to do with a photo ID, and that a photo ID would not prevent these issues.

I did come across an interesting review of Voter Registration in the state of Wisconsin by the Legislative Audit Bureau


Conclusion: The requirement of a government-issued photo identification to participate in the right to vote would clearly be detrimental to our democracy. The benefits of such a requirement have not been articulated well by the supporting party, while the negative effects that this bill has on the effects of voter participation have begun to be clearly documented. Our representatives in favor of a strong democracy should not support this bill. We will see what is more important to our representatives: a democracy which enables Wisconsin citizens to participate, or partisan pressure.

I will email the representatives and allow them an opportunity to explain their positions. They will likely (hopefully) be able to better articulate the pros and cons of this proposal.

Suspending the Rules

For the second time in consecutive Assembly meetings, Republican Assembly Representatives have attempted to suspend procedural rules by eliminating the third reading of a proposed resolution. See here and here.

The rule (Assembly Rule 40 - 1) states that:

Every assembly bill, and every senate bill received by the assembly for consideration, shall receive a reading on each of 3 separate and nonconsecutive legislative days under the appropriate order of business designated in rule 31 (general procedures).

This rule is in place to ensure thorough discussion and evaluation of proposals, both by the legislature and by the public. If there is a certain urgency that exists that warrants by-passing this rule, neither of these two cases meet it.

Let us all just follow the rules.