By Dan Russler
The majority of Assembly District 33 is located south of Highway 18 and inside Jefferson County. Most of the remainder reaches south past Milton. This spring, those of us who live in District 33 are having our first opportunity to evaluate our new Assembly Representative, Scott Johnson.
Before he ran for election last fall, he was known primarily by those in Fort Atkinson as a former school board member who had served many terms.
Others within the district may know him from his campaign mailings. As voters within the district, it is our job to look past the negative campaign tactics and hyperbole sometimes used by politicians in both political parties.
Within a recent news release, Johnson itemized a list of issues that could be used by voters to evaluate his positive characteristics. My belief is that voters who would like to remain focused on staying “between the rails” will be best served by ignoring the negative and focusing on the positive.
Within the news release, Johnson wrote, “We have a very unique opportunity to provide people relief from inflation, while investing in major subjects of importance like education, roads, public safety, and building up our workforce.”
The full release is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/johnson-evers-budget-is-laundry-list-with-humongous-price-tag/.
Evaluating Johnson’s performance, as related to the five aforementioned issues, chosen by Johnson himself, gives voters a welcomed opportunity.
From my perspective, this year, Johnson’s most important tasks, as a new member of the Assembly, are related to passing the 2024-25 state budget.
It is worth noting that all five of Johnson’s priorities also are addressed in Gov. (Tony) Evers’ budget proposals, and the amount of money Evers proposed for these items represents three opportunities for action by Johnson: one opportunity is simply to vote to keep these five items in the new budget unchanged. Second is to argue that the amount of money for some items should be increased or decreased. The third is to argue that the scope of work described in detail for some items should be changed.
Within a story reporting that area officials gathered last month in Fort Atkinson to discuss state level funding, Johnson was quoted as saying: “Half of the state surplus is one-time money. We’re working on it. I have one vote and it’s a learning curve.”
The full story is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/fort-jefferson-county-officials-meet-to-discuss-broken-funding-system/.
Financial experts from organizations such as the non-partisan Wisconsin Policy Forum also have noted that a large portion of the State’s $7 billion surplus is only available as a “one-time” spending opportunity, which was left over after one-time federal COVID relief funds were distributed to our state. A remainder was due to new revenue from Wisconsin’s recently booming economy.
Both parties working on the budget draw their numbers from the Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, and so should voters. The bureau has published specific figures regarding the state surplus and projected revenues over the next three years. Most importantly for this evaluation model, they project that $2.4 billion of additional recurring revenue will be available annually for the state following this new, two-year budget cycle, in contrast to the one-time surplus mentioned by Johnson that will not be available any longer.
As a policy for this next budget cycle, the Wisconsin Policy Forum suggests that increased funding for new and existing state programs expected to run for more than the next two years should be restricted to the recurring $2.4 billion portion of the existing surplus. In other words, long-running state programs should not be funded with “one-time” surplus money.
I don’t believe Johnson’s future record should be evaluated on the basis of how he spent one-time surplus money. Voters, however, should focus on his performance related to his future record by focusing on how the state spends the additional recurring $2.4 billion portion of the surplus. Those monies will continue to be available following his first term in office. In other words, voters should focus on additional program funding, if any, Johnson brings home to Jefferson County, especially as it relates to his published priorities, and can be supported through the recurring, $2.4 billion portion of the surplus.
Although Johnson has only one vote on the final budget, his paycheck is really earned by both writing new bills and negotiating in general. Voters need to focus on his unlimited opportunity to negotiate with his own party and across the aisle, not just the use of his one vote. Given his own priorities, his outcome evaluation should be justified on whether he is able to negotiate increases to Evers’ budget on monies and other benefits coming into Jefferson County related to the five priorities he, himself, defined.
To help with Johnson’s “learning curve,” voters might suggest that Johnson does have opportunities to spend his time initiating proposals in the State Assembly that don’t require surplus funds.
One example would include negotiating for the return of more sales tax revenue to local jurisdictions via the state’s shared revenue program. Evers’ proposal of an increase to 20% is well within the $2.4 billion portion of the state surplus permitted for recurring programs. At that 20% level, on a per-resident basis, Jefferson County’s share would increase to about $20 million. Voters should urge Johnson to negotiate an increase to that 20% figure. To meet his personal five investment priorities, Johnson should negotiate the inclusion of these priorities in the new list of local activities funded by shared revenue. In any case, Johnson should not get any credit for any amount less than the $20 million in Evers’ proposal, since that would take little initiative on Johnson’s part.
Additionally, a new opportunity for the Republican Party faces Johnson.
According to “Axios,” in Raleigh, N.C., “After more than a decade of blocking North Carolina from expanding Medicaid to hundreds of thousands of the state’s working poor, the legislature’s Republican leaders reached a deal on a plan to do so …”
A link to the story is here: https://www.axios.com/local/raleigh/2023/03/02/north-carolina-republicans-reach-agreement-to-expand-medicaid.
Wisconsin remains one of only 11 states that still declines funds intended for the working poor in order to build up the workforce. One can’t build up a workforce that goes home to poor diets and inferior housing.
Building up the state’s workforce, which Johnson promoted in his press release, is a complicated process. It includes building up workforce housing, as described in Evers’ budget proposal, building up workforce healthcare, as in the Medicaid expansion for the workforce, and building up workforce educational programs, as in enhanced Wisconsin Extension and apprenticeship programs. In the Jefferson County area, building up the workforce for small businesses is especially important. Johnson has the same opportunity to help build up the workforce for small businesses as Republicans in North Carolina did. Small businesses often can’t compete for the workforce with larger companies due to the expense of health insurance. By adopting a similar budget strategy as that used by legislators in North Carolina, Johnson could achieve the same enormous benefits here. Specifically, almost no new spending was required in the North Carolina budget in order to add Medicaid expansion. Johnson should be able to negotiate this kind of budget-neutral solution in Wisconsin just as well as Republicans in North Carolina did, without touching the one-time surplus funds.
A third opportunity for Johnson is to submit a budget proposal on tax simplification that would offset the sales tax returned to local jurisdictions. Key to understanding a true fair tax proposal is establishing a common, fair income goal for all residents. In Wisconsin, the average household income is currently about $67,000. At this level, two people can purchase healthcare insurance, purchase an adequate amount of healthy food, pay utility bills, and still have a small amount left over for discretionary spending. Households earning less or supporting children should receive workforce counseling and the other support systems necessary to build up the workforce and approach the average income. Households earning more income than the defined average should become the primary source of income tax revenue.
A “fair tax” proposal should include two key features: One should be a flat tax rate on income above $67,000. The second should be only a single rate for any kind of income, including capital gains. In my opinion, the current tax subsidy for investors related to capital gains income is the least fair tax of all. The investor subsidy related to capital gains generates more free money for investors to invest again and again, offering benefits that accrue mostly to people already receiving above average incomes. Certainly, this subsidy doesn’t belong in any fair tax proposal. Johnson could bring more money for his priorities to Jefferson County by supporting this kind of tax return simplification as part of any income tax reform.
All three of these opportunities would provide more money for Johnson’s priorities in Jefferson County, and the extra money would circulate again and again within the Jefferson County economy.
Other examples for Johnson exist. We must keep in mind that we hired Johnson for his writing and negotiation skills. His “I have one vote” excuse just won’t cut it if he doesn’t deliver on his own priorities.
Describing himself as a writer of “commentary by a nonpartisan centrist,” Dan Russler is a member of two ad hoc analytical groups: Fair Maps of Jefferson County and the Wisconsin Map Assessment Project (WIMAP).
Dan Russler
This post has already been read 1435 times!
