A TABOR for UW Tuition

Chairperson for the Assembly Colleges and Universities Committee, Rep. Steve Nass (R-Whitewater), has proposed to the GOP members of the JFC a number of motions concerning the UW.

First and foremost on the list is capping tuition increases to the level of inflation, which is essentially a TABOR for tuition.

According to the press release by Nass:

Over the last ten years, the annual increase in UW System tuition has been 8.5%, while inflation has been running about 2.5% per year during that period. In 1996-97, UW System students covered only 35% of their instructional costs. Today, UW System students now pay for 58% of the instructional costs.

It's true that tuition now covers a larger portion of instructional costs. But it's also true that state GPR dollars cover a smaller portion of it. In fact, according to the LFB, while the UW System generated 34 percent of its total funding from the state in 1996-1997, only 24 percent came from the state in 2006-2007.

Yet, not once does Nass suggest putting more state money into the UW to make up even a portion of the cuts that would come through tying tuition to inflation.

And why would he? According to Nass, the difference is just waste, anyway. As he sees it:

Families in this state have no problem with paying the lion’s share of the costs of higher education. However, these families have the right to know that their hard earned money won’t be wasted on continuing the scandalous behavior and poor management that has plagued the UW System. The problem isn’t with the rank-and-file faculty and staff, it’s with the leadership of the System and it starts right at the top.

While Nass doesn't provide specifics on what wasteful scandals he's referring to, it's probably safe to assume that among the list would be the failed HR computer system and the hubbub over back-up jobs for executive level administrators like Paul Barrows.

The HR system ran up a tab of $26 million (which includes the salaries of permanent state employees who worked on the project) and Barrows was paid about $110,000 while on personal leave for seven months a few years ago.

These are troubling, indeed. And I'm sure Nass could come up with a few others to add to the list.

But I'm wondering if he could come up with enough in the past 10 years to justify the roughly $1.8 billion that an inflationary tuition cap would've cost the UW System between 1996-1997 and 2006-2007?

Yep, a little over $1.8 billion is what the UW System would be out in funding if tuition was limited to the inflation rate during each of the past ten years. You can check the math using the tuition numbers on page 18 of this LFB report and the inflation numbers on page 7 of this LFB report.

It's truly no problem to examine how we can keep UW tuition down, just as it's no problem to examine ways to keep general taxes and fees down for the state as a whole.

But we need to do so with realistic and fiscally responsible proposals that consider cost and services, as opposed to those with rigid adherence to restrictive revenue caps or uncompromising budget pledges.

Assembly Republicans Did Learn Their Lesson

See LATE UPDATE Below (5/24)

Owen from "Boots and Sabers" has created a bit of a stir in the Republican Assembly caucus by asking members to sign a pledge not to pass a budget bill with any tax or "unnecessary" fee increases.

In a post yesterday, Owen relays a rumor that Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch was telling Republicans not to sign the pledge. Rep. Robin Vos denies this claim, but a number of Assembly Republicans are still refusing to sign it.

Owen's view is that by refusing to sign a budget with any increases, the Assembly Republicans will be sending a strong message to "the base" for 2008. The fact that this would result in no budget being passed and, subsequently, freeze state funding to agencies and local units at FY 2006 levels would demonstrate Republican resolve, Owen argues.

A few Assembly Republicans have signed the pledge, including Rep. Lasee, Rep. Zipperer, Rep. Nass, Rep. Kramer, Rep. Vukmir, Rep. LeMahieu, Rep. Lothian, and Rep. Pridemore. But it appears the bulk, including most of the leadership, is trying to walk a tightrope of agreeing in principle with the pledge while refusing to actually sign it.

Does any of this sound familiar? For those who followed the demise of the failed "Taxpayer Protection Amendment" last spring, it probably does. It was quite a spectacle.

At least six versions of the amendment were proposed in a two month span (five coming in a flurry at the end); the sponsors organized invite-only public hearings that sometimes were hidden from the media and the public; Assembly Republicans stayed up to all hours of the night to finally pass a version that those in favor of the initial proposal wouldn't even support; all the while, Republican leaders in the state Senate along with gubernatorial hopeful Mark Green spoke the language of the amendment without ever formally pledging their full support for it.

It seemed most in the state GOP, particularly those outside of the grasp of the southeastern part of the state, just wanted the amendment to go away. (And it's no coincidence that all of the representatives who have signed Owen's pledge, thus far, are from around the southeastern part of the state.)

But what's really a bit astounding to see now is how the "the fire-breathing tax-limiting fiscal conservatives of southeastern Wisconsin," as Charlie Sykes once described them (he included himself in that group), are apparently reacting to this utter failure to pass any of the TABORs.

As Sykes put it on his blog yesterday in response to the rumors that Assembly Republicans were conspiring against Owen's pledge: "Do you think the GOP learned it's lesson last year? Apparently not."

The logic there is truly eye-opening. An upset electorate supposedly tossed Republicans for not passing TABOR, and in their place elected Dems who didn't campaign on the premise of pushing anything close to TABOR and who undoubtedly would vote against it if given the chance.

It seems to me that the Assembly Republicans who are refusing to sign Owen's pledge did learn their lesson from last year, and it's those "fire-breathing tax-limiting fiscal conservatives of southeastern Wisconsin" who just won't let the party move on.

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

Side-Note: Before any commenters mistake what I'm writing here, I want to clarify that I don't think taking a position against the governor's budget is a problem. Rather, the problem is signing on to stringent and uncompromising pledges for virtually no revenue increases. This is essentially the same critique I put forward regarding WMC's reaction to the budget.

Similarly, the most fundamental problem with TABOR was how it wrote fiscal policy into the state constitution. That's why each version that was written came out a loser. Yeah, the details were bad, too, but it's the basic premise of inflexibility and loss of local control that truly made any incarnation of TABOR a non-starter.

I understand conservative voices like Owen, Sykes, and Belling believe that taking an uncompromising attitude toward the state budget is the most ideologically pure tactic, and they're probably right about that.

But, for much of the state, ideological purity is just another way of saying extreme.

LATE UPDATE (5/24): Check out Cory Liebmann's post on how at least one Republican legislator characterizes his colleagues across the aisle. Hint: It isn't complimentary.

Health Care Reform, Slowly but Surely

In one of the more eye-rolling legislative press releases I've seen in awhile, Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) swiped at Senate Democrats for not already proposing comprehensive health care reform in the current legislative session.

“The State Senate has now been in session for four days in regular session," Fitzgerald explained.

That's right. Four whole days.

Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson properly shot back her own press release that easily dismissed the minority leader's rhetoric. As Robson explained, the Dems are choosing to take their time getting feedback from the public before moving forward on any single plan.

And if the state GOP's experience with TABOR is any indication, proceeding slowly but surely is a wise move. Rather than creating a three ring circus situation like the one that existed last spring -- where conservative Republicans fell over each other proposing new amendments that would appeal to moderate Republicans only to alienate other conservative Republicans in the process -- any significant reform measure needs to make sure the horse is before the cart from the beginning.

On Monday, for instance, the Marshfield News Herald did a story on a forum held by the Stevens Point League of Women Voters that featured speakers on each of the three health care reform proposals made during previous legislative sessions (the proposals that Fitzgerald and Republicans, then in control of the entire legislature, opted to do nothing about).

As David Riemer -- spokesperson for the Wisconsin Health Plan (WHP) -- pointed out at the event, none of the plans is likely to move through the legislature in its current form. Ultimately, a hybrid proposal is most likely to be put forward.

In light of a recent UPI/Zogby poll on health care reform, this is probably the best route to go. While 9 out of 10 Americans want health care reform, the disagreement is in the details. But the poll did show that a majority believed any reform measure needs to be a combination of public and private solutions.

If the Wisconsin public feels the same as the rest of the country, it suggests that Riemer's WHP is best positioned out of the three existing proposals to appeal to the broadest range of citizens. While the WHP is a combination of public and private solutions through its continuation of private insurance and use of HSAs within a publicly accountable centralized structure, the Wisconsin Health Care Partnership Plan leans more heavily on government regulation and the Wisconsin Health Security Act does so exclusively.

Whichever plan is ultimately pursued by legislative Democrats in the state, it's clear proceeding cautiously is smart. The sheer scope of any significant reform measure is complicated by the fact this is a budget year, and the mix becomes outright volatile when considering all of the ways to spin and attack any proposal that fundamentally alters the way an expensive and complex system is funded.

There's inevitably going to be winners and losers with an undertaking as large as fundamental health care reform. And rather than simply consider whether more winners will exist in the proposed system or whether the extent of losing in the new system is less than the losing that's already taking place in the existing system, the debate can quickly focus on the fact that there will be losers at all.

Therein lies the catch-22 of actually passing fundamental health care reform: There can't be any losing in a reform measure that can't help but create winners and losers. Changing the terms of how reform measures are evaluated is the monumental task, and it's one that takes securing the broadest level of public awareness and support possible before even stepping into the ring.