Read the The Tuesday Count. New edition available now!

Difference between revisions of "Wisconsin state budget"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Text replace - " <ref>[http://www.d" to "<ref>[http://www.d")
(Expenditure trends)
(22 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{tnr}}
+
{{PLP banner|State=Wisconsin|EP=Y|PE=Y|SC=Y|PP=Y|SB=Y|Ballot=Y}}{{budget infobox2|
{{budget infobox|
+
| state = Wisconsin  
state = Wisconsin |
+
| image = Flag of Wisconsin.png|
image = Flag of Wisconsin.png|
+
| budgetcal =Biennial
budgetcal = Annual |
+
| fiscalyear =2014-2015
fiscalyear = 2014 |
+
| credit=AA (as of May 2012)
datelaw= May 8, 2013 |
+
| percentchangedr =   
lasteraltered =  |
+
| expenses = $14 billion
revenue |
+
| all funds expenses =$42.8 billion (FY 2013 estimate)
percentchangedr =  |
+
| spending change = 4.71%
expenses = $14.77 billion|
+
| change =up
all funds expenses = |
+
| governor = Scott Walker
percentchanged = |
+
| % federal = 28.19%
}}
+
| state debt = $45,026,643,000
[[Wisconsin]] Assembly and Senate approved a $66 billion budget for FY2014 and FY2015, enacted on June 30, 2013 with a partial veto from Governor [[Scott Walker]]. The FY2013-15 budget as passed can be found online.The state operates on a biennial budget cycle, which currently encompasses FY2014-015. The fiscal year begins on July 1.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/budget/state-experiences-with-annual-and-biennial-budgeti.aspx National Conference of State Legislatures "State Experiences with Annual and Biennial Budgeting" April 2011]</ref><ref>[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/20.pdf State of Wisconsin 2013-2015 Budget. Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>
+
| per cap debt = $7,863
 +
}}{{tnr|limit=3}}This page contains information about '''budget processes and policy issues''' in [[Wisconsin]], including:
 +
* A summary of the budget drafting process
 +
* Trends in expenditures and revenues
 +
* Current and past fiscal year budget developments
 +
* Financial transparency measures
  
As of FY2012, Wisconsin has a total state debt of approximately $79.6 billion when calculated by adding the total of outstanding official debt, pension and other post-employment benefits (OPEB) liabilities, Unemployment Trust Fund loans, and the budget gap.<ref>[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/state-budget-solutions-third-annual-state-debt-report-shows-total-state-debt-over-4-trillionState Budget Solutions "State Budget Solutions' third annual State Debt Report shows total state debt over $4 trillion" Aug. 28, 2012]</ref> The FY2013 state debt total is less than the prior year's approximately debt total of $81,154,800,000.<Ref>[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/report-reveals-aggregate-state-debt-exceeds-4-trillion-2 State Budget Solutions “Report reveals aggregate state debt exceeds $4 trillion” Oct. 24, 2011]</ref>
+
Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, Wisconsin's total expenditures increased by approximately $2.7 billion, from $40.1 billion in 2009 to $42.8 billion in 2013. This represents a 6.31 percent increase, below the cumulative rate of inflation during the same period (9.06 percent, calculated using the Consumer Price Indices for January 2009 and January 2013).<ref>[http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1402.pdf ''Bureau of Labor Statistics'', "CPI Detailed Report Data for February 2014," accessed April 9, 2014]</ref><ref>[http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Cumulative_Inflation_Calculator.aspx ''InflationData.com'', "Cumulative Inflation Calculator," February 28, 2014]</ref>
  
Wisconsin's total state debt per capita was $13,936.26 in FY2012.<ref>[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/state-debt-more-than-37000-per-private-worker-13000-per-capita State Budget Solutions "State debt more than $37,000 per private worker, $13,000 per capita" Oct. 2, 2012]</ref>
+
==Budget process==
 +
{{Wisconsin budget process}}
  
 +
==Expenditures==
 +
===Definitions===
 +
{{Budget types background}}
 +
===2013 expenditures===
 +
[[File:Wisconsin total expenditures 2013.png|right|thumb|500px|Breakdown of expenditures in FY 2013.<small><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>]]
 +
The table below breaks down expenditures for fiscal year 2013 (comparable figures from surrounding states are provided to give additional context).<ref name=expenditures2013>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2011-2013," accessed February 21, 2014]</ref> Figures for all columns except "Per capita expenditures" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita expenditures" have not been abbreviated.
  
==Federal Aid to State Budget==
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:55%;"
 
+
! colspan="7" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Total state expenditures, FY 2013 ($ in millions)<ref name=expenditures2013/>
The chart below represents how much of the state’s budget comes from the federal government. The number is the corresponding ranking in relation to the rest of the nation (if #1, the state receives the highest percentage of federal funding in the nation):
+
{| class="wikitable sortable"
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''State'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''2008'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''2009'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''2010'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''2011'''
+
 
|-
 
|-
| Wisconsin || 25.22% (#41) || 29.83% (#37) || 33.72% (#35) || 32.79% (#36)
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | State
|}
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | General fund
*Figures were calculated by dividing each state’s intergovernmental revenue into its general revenue.<ref>[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment/federal_aid_to_state_and_local_governments.html '''US Census''' Federal Aid to State and Local Governments]</ref><ref>[http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-federal-aid-state-budgets ''Tax Foundation''' "Monday Map: Federal Aid to State Budgets. Accessed October 15, 2013]</ref>
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Federal funds
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Other funds
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Bonds
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Total
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Per capita expenditures**
 +
|-
 +
|'''Wisconsin''' || '''$14,042''' || '''$10,815''' || '''$17,912''' || '''$0''' || '''$42,769''' || '''$7,447.53'''
 +
|-
 +
|[[Illinois state budget|Illinois]] || $29,260 || $15,407 || $19,825 || $1,955 || $66,447 || $5,158.07
 +
|-
 +
|[[Iowa state budget|Iowa]] || $6,231 || $5,682 || $7,539 || $157 || $19,609 || $6,345.10
 +
|-
 +
|[[Michigan state budget|Michigan]] || $9,164 || $19,295 || $20,107 || $182 || $48,748 || $4,926.22
 +
|-
 +
|[[Minnesota state budget|Minnesota]] || $20,056 || $8,637 || $6,263 || $810 || $35,766 || $6,598.43
 +
|-
 +
|align="left" colspan="8" | <small>**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total expenditures and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates.<ref name=2013census/><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>
 +
|}
  
==Fiscal Year 2012-13 State Budget==
+
===Expenditures by function===
 +
[[File:Wisconsin expenditures by type 2012.png|right|thumb|500px|Breakdown of expenditures by function in FY 2012.<small><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>]]
 +
State expenditures in Wisconsin can be further broken down by function (elementary and secondary education, public assistance, etc.). Fiscal year 2012 data is included in the table below (information from neighboring states is provided for additional context). Figures are rendered as percents, indicating the share of the total budget spent per category.
  
The FY2013-15 state budget documents can be found online through the Department of Administration.<ref>[http://www.doa.state.wi.us/section_detail.asp?linkcatid=909&linkid=156&locid=166 Wisconsin Department of Administration Budget Documents. Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:55%;"
 +
! colspan="8" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Expenditures by function, FY 2012 (as percents)<ref name=expenditures2013/>
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | State
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Elementary and secondary ed.
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Higher ed.
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Public assistance
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Medicaid
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Corrections
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Transportation
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Other**
 +
|-
 +
|'''Wisconsin''' || '''16.7%''' || '''14.1%''' || '''0.4%''' || '''16.5%''' || '''2.9%''' || '''6.9%''' || '''42.5%'''
 +
|-
 +
|[[Illinois state budget|Illinois]] || 15.8% || 5.5% || 0.1% || 19.7% || 2.2% || 8.5% || 48.1%
 +
|-
 +
|[[Iowa state budget|Iowa]] || 16.8% || 25.0% || 0.6% || 19.6% || 2.7% || 7.5% || 27.8%
 +
|-
 +
|[[Michigan state budget|Michigan]] || 27.2% || 4.1% || 0.9% || 26.1% || 4.7% || 6.9% || 30.2%
 +
|-
 +
|[[Minnesota state budget|Minnesota]] || 23.8% || 9.7% || 1.4% || 27.6% || 1.5% || 8.3% || 27.7%
 +
|-
 +
|align="left" colspan="8" | <small>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]<br>'''Note**''': "Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments."<ref name=expenditures2013/></small>
 +
|}
  
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau said on Sept. 5, 2012 that higher-than-expected tax collections will create a surplus of $273 million.<ref>[http://wtaq.com/news/articles/2012/sep/06/state-expects-small-budget-surplus/ WTAQ.com "State expects small budget surplus" Sept. 6, 2012]</ref>
+
===Expenditure trends===
 +
From 2008 to 2012, Medicaid spending rose three percentage points, or 22 percent, as a share of the budget; higher education increased by 3 percentage points, or 7.6 percent, as a share of the budget, and elementary and secondary education went down 2.4 percentage points, for a 12.5 percent decrease as a share of the budget.  The table below details changes in expenditures from 2008 to 2012.<ref name=expenditures2013/><ref name=expenditures2011>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/2010%20State%20Expenditure%20Report_0.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2009-2011," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref><ref name=expenditures2012>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report%20%28Fiscal%202010-2012%29.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditures Report, 2010-2012," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref><ref name=expenditures2009>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/2009-State-Expenditure-Report.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2009," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref><ref name=expenditures2008>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/FY08%20State%20Expenditure%20Report.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2008," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref> Figures are rendered as percents, indicating the share of the total budget spent per category.
  
'''Passage of the Budget'''
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:65%;"
 +
! colspan="8" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Expenditures from 2008 to 2012 (as percents)
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Year
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Elementary and secondary ed.
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Higher ed.
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Public assistance
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Medicaid
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Corrections
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Transportation
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Other**
 +
|-
 +
|2012 || 16.7% || 14.1% || 0.4% || 16.5% || 2.9% || 6.9% || 42.5%
 +
|-
 +
|2011 || 17.3% || 13.7% || 0.3% || 17.0% || 3.0% || 6.4% || 42.2%
 +
|-
 +
|2010 || 18.1% || 12.3% || 0.3% || 17.1% || 3.1% || 7.1% || 41.9%
 +
|-
 +
|2009 || 18.6% || 12.5% || 0.2% || 15.4% || 3.3% || 7.5% || 42.4%
 +
|-
 +
|2008 || 19.1% || 13.1% || 0.3% || 13.5% || 3.4% || 7.0% || 43.6%
 +
|-
 +
|style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''Change in %'''
 +
| style="background-color:black; color:white" align="center"|'''-2.40%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''1.00%'''|| align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"| '''0.10%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''3.00%''' ||align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"| '''-0.50%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''-0.10%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''-1.10%'''
 +
|-
 +
|align="left" colspan="8" | <small>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]<br>'''Note**''': "Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments."<ref name=expenditures2013/></small>
 +
|}
  
On June 26, 2011, Gov. Scott Walker signed the $66 billion FY2012-13 state budget that passed the legislature along party lines into law. The budget does not raise general taxes, but it cuts more than $1 billion from education and local governments.  The governor also rewrote a section of the budget to now require public employees to work five years before qualifying for pension.<Ref>[http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110627/GPG0101/106270493/Walker-signs-state-budget-Ashwaubenon-hundreds-protesters-gather-outside?odyssey=tab|topnews|img|GPG-News The Green Bay Press Gazette "Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signs state budget in Green Bay area" June 27, 2011]</ref> The state faced a $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next 2 years as reported by Wisconsin Republicans to MSNBC.<ref name=leave/>
+
==Revenues==
 +
===2013 revenues===
 +
[[File:Wisconsin GF revenues 2013.png|right|400px|thumb|Breakdown of general fund revenue sources in FY 2013.<small><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>]]
 +
The table below breaks down general fund revenues by source in fiscal year 2013 (comparable figures from surrounding states are also provided to give additional context).<ref name=expenditures2013>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/State%20Expenditure%20Report.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2011-2013," accessed February 21, 2014]</ref> Figures for all columns except "Per capita revenue" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita revenue" have not been abbreviated.  
  
The full [[Wisconsin State Assembly|Assembly]] approved the $66 billion FY2012-13 [http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/acts/11Act32.pdf budget] by a vote of 60-38 on June 16, 2011. The budget increased spending of state and federal money by $1.1 billion, an increase 1.8% over the biennium.  Under the spending plan, the state will end the biennium with an estimated $300 million surplus in its main account. The budget reduces aid to schools by $800 million over two years and limits property taxes to facilitate significant tax cuts for manufacturers, multi-state corporations and investors. It also limits spending on health programs for the poor.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/123983254.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Budget passes Assembly with provisions on choice schools, broadband funds" June 16, 2011]</ref>
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:55%;"
 +
! colspan="8" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Revenue sources in the general fund, FY 2013 ($ in millions)<ref name=expenditures2013/>
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | State
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Sales tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Personal income tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Corporate income tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Gaming tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Other taxes and fees
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Total
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Per capita revenue**
 +
|-
 +
|'''Wisconsin''' || '''$4,410''' || '''$7,497''' || '''$925''' || '''$0''' || '''$1,254''' || '''$14,086''' || '''$2,554.62'''
 +
|-
 +
|[[Illinois state budget|Illinois]] || $7,335 || $16,630 || $3,086 || $340 || $8,899 || $36,290 || $2,817.08
 +
|-
 +
|[[Iowa state budget|Iowa]] || $2,109 || $3,315 || $448 || $120 || $645 || $6,637 || $2,147.61
 +
|-
 +
|[[Michigan state budget|Michigan]] || $1,832 || $5,844 || $438 || $0 || $1,075 || $9,189 || $928.59
 +
|-
 +
|[[Minnesota state budget|Minnesota]] || $4,817 || $8,649 || $1,165 || $39 || $2,786 || $17,456 || $3,220.44
 +
|-
 +
| align="left" colspan="8" | <small>**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total revenues and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates for 2013.<ref name=2013census>[http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk ''United States Census Bureau'', "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013," accessed February 26, 2014]</ref><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>
 +
|}
  
The [[Joint Finance Committee, Wisconsin State Legislature|Joint Finance Committee]] approved the state budget on June 3, 2011 with a party line vote of 12 to 5.  The committee scaled back a plan to privatize enrollment for state aid programs for the poor and approved a new tax cut for manufacturing and agricultural businesses.<ref>[http://whbl.com/news/articles/2011/jun/04/joint-finance-approves-budget/ WHBL.com "Joint Finance Committee Approves State Budget" June 4, 2011]</ref>  It was approved by the [[Wisconsin State Legislature|Legislature]].  The legislature was prepared to add in the collective bargaining limits to the budget bill if the [[Wisconsin Supreme Court|Wisconsin Supreme Court]] had not ruled, but the Supreme Court did reinstate the law, finding that legislators did not violate the state's open meeting's law, the night before the budget went before the full Assembly.
+
===Revenue trends===
 +
The table below details the change in revenue sources in the general fund from 2009 to 2013.<ref name=expenditures2013/><ref name=expenditures2011/> Figures for all columns except "Per capita revenue" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita revenue" have not been abbreviated.  
  
'''Mortgage settlement money'''
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:65%;"
 +
! colspan="8" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Revenue sources in the general fund, Wisconsin ($ in millions)<ref name=expenditures2013/><ref name=expenditures2011>[http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/2010%20State%20Expenditure%20Report_0.pdf ''National Association of State Budget Officers'', "State Expenditure Report, 2009-2011," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref>
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Year
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Sales tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Personal income tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Corporate income tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Gaming tax
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Other taxes and fees
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Total
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Per capita revenue**
 +
|-
 +
|2013 || $4,410 || $7,497 || $925 || $0 || $1,254 || $14,086 || $2,554.62
 +
|-
 +
|2012 || $4,289 || $7,042 || $907 || $0 || $1,278 || $13,516 || $2,361.06
 +
|-
 +
|2011 || $4,109 || $6,701 || $853 || $0 || $1,249 || $12,912 || $2,261.78
 +
|-
 +
|2010 || $3,944 || $6,089 || $835 || $0 || $1,264 || $12,132 || $2,132.51
 +
|-
 +
|2009 || $4,084 || $6,223 || $630 || $0 || $1,177 || $12,113 || $2,142.08
 +
|-
 +
|style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''Change in %'''
 +
| style="background-color:black; color:white" align="center"|'''7.98%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''20.47%'''|| align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"| '''46.83%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''N/A''' ||align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"| '''6.54%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''16.29%''' || align="center" style="background-color:black; color:white"|'''19.26%'''
 +
|-
 +
|align="left" colspan="8" | <small>**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total revenues and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates.<ref name=2013census/><ref name=2009census>[https://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2009/index.html ''United States Census Bureau'', "Vintage 2009: Annual Population Estimates," accessed February 26, 2014]</ref><br>'''Source:''' [http://www.nasbo.org/ National Association of State Budget Officers]</small>
 +
|}
  
Gov. Walker and Attorney General [[J.B. Van Hollen|J.B. Van Hollen]] have announced plans to use $25.6 million of the national mortgage settlement money, approximately 18 percent of the funds the state will receive, to plug holes in the state's budget.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/national-mortgage-settlement_n_1269560.html?ref=business The Huffington Post "National Mortgage Settlement: Some States Using Mortgage Deal Funds To Close Budget Gaps " Feb. 10, 2012]</ref>
+
==State budgets by year==
 +
{{See budget bill|Link=[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/20.pdf 2013 Wisconsin Act 20]}}
 +
===Fiscal year 2014===
 +
{{Budget bill box
 +
|State = Wisconsin
 +
|Year = 2014
 +
|Link =https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab40 Assembly Bill 40
 +
|Introduced =February 20, 2013
 +
|Days =
 +
|State House =June 18, 2013
 +
|Vote lower house =55-42
 +
|State Senate =June 21, 2013
 +
|Vote upper house =17-16
 +
|Conference =
 +
|Conference upper house vote =
 +
|Conference lower house vote =
 +
|Governor = [[Scott Walker]]
 +
|Signed =June 30, 2013
 +
|Vetoed =Partial
 +
}}
  
'''Cuts'''
+
On June 30, 2013, [[Governor of Wisconsin|Governor]] [[Scott Walker]] signed Assembly Bill 40, the budget bill for the 2013-2015 biennium passed by the [[Wisconsin State Legislature]], into law, making it Wisconsin Act 20.<ref>[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/proposals/ab40 ''Wisconsin State Legislature'', "Assembly Bill 40," accessed May 7, 2014]</ref> The new biennium started with a $670 million surplus, which was the state's largest opening balance in over a decade. The Rainy Day Fund had also restored some of its depleted funds, bringing the balance to over $243 million, which was its highest balance on record.<ref name=vetomessage>[https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/veto_messages/2013_wisconsin_act_20 ''Wisconsin State Legislature'', "Governor's Veto Message," July 1, 2013]</ref>
  
On Dec. 23, 2011, the state Department of Administration announced $123 million in cuts for FY2012 that were initially part of the budget passed in June but had not yet been specified. It is cutting $46.1 million from the University of Wisconsin System, followed by trimming $18.5 million from the Department of Health Services and cutting $9.4 million from the Department of Corrections.  The Department of Children and Families will lose $8.3 million and plans to cut $8.1 million in "income augmentation."  the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp will see a $2.1 million reduction in funds.<ref name=details>[http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/walker-releases-details-of-budget-cuts-uw-system-to-take/article_b5d4ca6e-2d9f-11e1-ba62-0019bb2963f4.html Wisconsin State Journal "State releases details of budget cuts; UW System to take biggest hit" Dec. 24, 2011]</ref>
+
The governor made 57 vetoes to the budget bill before signing it into law. According to Gov. Walker, these vetoes removed unnecessary reports and requirements, clarified program intentions and timelines and promoted efficient administration. In total, the vetoes cut spending by $865,000.<ref name=vetomessage/>
  
The University of Wisconsin System will lose an addition $19.7 million in FY2013 as part of an additional $5 million in cuts that are planned.<ref name=details/><ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/walker-to-outline-174-million-in-new-budget-cuts-1o3i8s0-136144893.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "UW System shoulders biggest share of new budget cuts" Dec. 23, 2011]</ref>
+
===Fiscal year 2013===
 +
::''See also: [[Wisconsin state budget (2012-2013)]]
  
The governor in October 2011 asked state agencies to plan for $300 million in possible cuts over the next two years, which was up from the $174 million in cuts agencies had been expecting.  Some state agencies to return some of their state funding already allocated in the budget. Of the $174 million in original cuts, most would be to the University of Wisconsin System, which represents about 7% of the state's General Program Revenue expenditures.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/132130383.html?page=1 The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "UW System, state government face deeper cuts" Oct. 19, 2011]</ref>
+
===Fiscal year 2012===
 +
::''See also: [[Wisconsin state budget (2011-2012)]]
  
'''Education'''
+
===Fiscal year 2011===
 +
::''See also: [[Wisconsin state budget (2010-2011)]]
  
Per-pupil funding for 2012-'13 school year is slightly higher than the per-pupil funding that the state budgeted for in the pirior last school year, but still $911 below the amount the state was sending to school districts per pupil before the start of the recession in 2008.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/amount-budgeted-per-pupil-lags-total-before-recession-016o697-168557806.html The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "Amount budgeted per pupil lags total before recession" Sept. 4, 2012]</ref>
+
===Fiscal year 2010===
 +
::''See also: [[Wisconsin state budget (2009-2010)]]
  
'''Merit Raises'''
+
==Historical spending==
 +
State budget historical spending below was compiled by the [[National Association of State Budget Officers]]. Figures reflect the reported "Total Expenditures" in Table 1. Figures for all columns are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000).<ref name=expenditures2013/><ref name=expenditures2012/>
 +
{{State budget historical spending
 +
|State=Wisconsin
 +
|totalbudgets= 3
 +
|2011-2012genfund=13381
 +
|2011-2012otherfund=17371
 +
|2011-2012fedfund=10572
 +
|2011-2012bonds=0
 +
|2011-2012budgettotal=41324
 +
|2010-2011genfund=13565
 +
|2010-2011otherfund=17043
 +
|2010-2011fedfund=12236
 +
|2010-2011bonds=0
 +
|2010-2011budgettotal=42844
 +
|2009-2010genfund=12824
 +
|2009-2010otherfund=15730
 +
|2009-2010fedfund=11531
 +
|2009-2010bonds=0
 +
|2009-2010budgettotal=40085
 +
}}
  
Gov. Scott Walker established a program that has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in merit raises and bonuses to some state workers despite the talks of budget deficits and cost cutting. An analysis of data The Associated Press obtained through an open records request showed Wisconsin agencies have handed out more than $765,000 in bonuses and merit raises this year to nearly 220 employees, despite the state facing a $143 million shortfall. <ref> [http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/wis-governor-reinstated-bonuses-shortfall-16181124#.T5WKf9X4IdM/ ABC, Wis. Gives $765,000 in Bonuses Despite Budget Hole, April 20, 2012] </ref>
+
==State debt==
 +
According to a January 2014 report by the nonprofit organization [[State Budget Solutions]], Wisconsin had a state debt of over $45 billion. Its state debt per capita was $7,863. The report revealed that state governments faced a combined $5.1 trillion in debt, 33 percent of annual gross state product. The obligation amounts to $16,178 per capita in the nation. A bulk of the state debt -- 79 percent -- was linked to unfunded [[public pensions]].<ref>[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/state-budget-solutions-fourth-annual-state-debt-report ''State Budget Solutions'', "State Budget Solutions' Fourth Annual State Debt Report," January 8, 2014]</ref><ref>[http://washingtonexaminer.com/exography-unfunded-public-employee-pensions-are-driving-state-debts-skyward/article/2542548 ''Washington Examiner'', "EXography: Unfunded public employee pensions drive state debts skyward," January 21, 2014]</ref>
 +
{{State debt box
 +
|State = Wisconsin
 +
|totaldebt=$45,026,643,000
 +
|totaldebtrank=31
 +
|percapdebt=$7,863
 +
|percapdebtrank=47
 +
|expenditures =$30,752,000,000
 +
|expendituresrank =49
 +
}}
  
'''Sheboygan County'''
+
===Public pensions===
 +
::''See also: [[Wisconsin public pensions]] and [[Wisconsin public employee salaries]]''
  
City of Sheboygan officials are disputing claims by the Walker administration that their budget measure to have public employees contribute more to health insurance will save the city $1.3 million. City officials said the city is likely to save only $420,000 because employees were already contributing between 8 and 10 percent. <ref> [http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120424/SHE0101/204240377/Wisconsin-Gov-Scott-Walker-s-budget-reforms-Sheboygan-County-numbers-appear-inflated/ Sheboygan Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget reforms: Sheboygan County numbers appear inflated, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
A 2012 report from the Pew Center on the States noted that [[Wisconsin public pensions|Wisconsin's pension system]] was fully funded at the close of fiscal year 2010. Consequently, Pew designated the state's pension system as a "solid performer."<ref name=wisconsinpew>[http://www.pewstates.org/research/state-fact-sheets/widening-gap-update-wisconsin-85899399360 ''Pew Center on the States'', "Widening Gap Update: Wisconsin," June 18, 2012]</ref>
  
Sheboygan County officials reported similar findings. Officials reported saving about $1.6 million in its 2012 budget as a result of benefit concessions under Walker's bill, compared to the $2.1 million the Walker administration both claimed. <ref> [http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120424/SHE0101/204240377/Wisconsin-Gov-Scott-Walker-s-budget-reforms-Sheboygan-County-numbers-appear-inflated/ Sheboygan Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget reforms: Sheboygan County numbers appear inflated, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
Taken together, the funding ratio for the state's pension system increased from 99.6 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 99.9 percent in fiscal year 2011, an increase of 0.3 percentage points, or approximately 0.3 percent. Likewise, unfunded liabilities decreased from $320.5 million in fiscal year 2006 to $99.3 million in fiscal year 2011.
  
The Sheboygan Area School District, school officials have previously reported saving about $4 million as a result of the collective bargaining bill, versus the $6.6 million reported by the Walker administration. <ref> [http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20120424/SHE0101/204240377/Wisconsin-Gov-Scott-Walker-s-budget-reforms-Sheboygan-County-numbers-appear-inflated/ Sheboygan Press, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's budget reforms: Sheboygan County numbers appear inflated, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
===Credit ratings===
 +
States sometimes sell general obligation bonds to investors in order to finance large-scale undertakings (e.g., road construction and other public works projects). Credit rating agencies, such as Standard and Poor's, assign grades to states, evaluating their ability to pay the principal and interest on such bonds. Standard and Poor's grades range from AAA, the highest available, to BBB, the lowest. Generally speaking, a higher credit rating indicates lower risk for an investor, which in turn lowers costs for taxpayers.<ref name=credit>[http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/infographic-sp-state-credit-ratings-20012012-85899404785 ''Stateline: The Daily News Service of The Pew Charitable Trusts'', "Infographic: S&P State Credit Ratings, 2001-2012," July 13, 2012]</ref>
  
'''Regional Libraries'''
+
The table below lists the Standard and Poor's credit rating for Wisconsin from 2001 to 2012 (grades from surrounding states are provided for additional context).<ref name=credit/>
  
Last year, lawmakers cut state support for Wisconsin's 17 regional public library systems by 10 percent. <ref> [http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/65488/group/News/ Superior Telegram, Budget cuts threaten regional library system, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:55%;"
 +
! colspan="6" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | S&P credit ratings from 2001 to 2012
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" |
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | '''Wisconsin'''
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Illinois
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Iowa
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Michigan
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Minnesota
 +
|-
 +
| 2012 || AA || A+ || AAA || AA- || AA+
 +
|-
 +
| 2011 || AA || A+ || AAA || AA- || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2010 || AA || A+ || AAA || AA- || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2009 || AA || A+ || AAA || AA- || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2008 || AA || AA || AAA || AA- || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2007 || AA- || AA || AA+ || AA- || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2006 || AA- || AA || AA+ || AA || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2005 || AA- || AA || AA+ || AA || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2004 || AA- || AA || AA+ || AA+ || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2003 ||  AA- || AA || AA+ || AA+ || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2002 || AA- || AA || AA+ || AAA || AAA
 +
|-
 +
| 2001 || AA || AA || AA+ || AAA || AAA
 +
|-
 +
|}
  
===Medicaid===
+
==Federal aid to state budget==
The governor's administration had expected to receive $45 million from the federal government as reimbursement for past medical costs that the state paid, it believes improperly, because of systemic federal mistakes involving disability programs. On Oct. 30, 2011, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that she lacked the legal authority to make the payments or provide a "quick solution" to the issue.<ref name=mail>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/45-million-federal-check-not-in-the-mail-132900383.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "$45 million federal check not in the mail" Oct. 30, 2011]</ref>
+
::''See also: [[Federal aid to budgets in the 50 states]]''
 +
The chart below notes how much of the state’s general revenues come from the federal government. Figures were calculated by dividing each state’s federal intergovernmental revenue into its general revenue. The number in the rightmost column indicates the state's ranking in relation to the rest of the nation (e.g., if "1," the state receives the highest percentage of federal funding in the nation). Figures from neighboring states are included to provide additional context.<ref name=federalaid>[http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=COG_2012_FIN009&prodType=table ''United States Census Bureau'', "State Government Finances: 2012," accessed February 24, 2014]</ref>
  
The state will now have to find a way to adjust when the budget already called for t $220 million in savings in state money in programs that provide medical care for children and families, nursing home care for the elderly and disabled, and prescription drugs for seniors.<ref name=mail/>
+
State governments receive aid from the federal government to fund a variety of joint programs, such as Medicaid. Federal aid varies considerably from state to state. For example, [[Mississippi state budget#Federal aid to state budget|Mississippi]] received approximately $7.7 billion in federal aid in 2012, which accounted for more than 45 percent of the state's general revenues. By contrast, [[Alaska state budget#Federal aid to state budget|Alaska]] received roughly $2.9 billion in federal aid in 2012, just under 20 percent of the state's general revenues.<ref name=federalaid/>
  
==Governor's 2011-2012 Budget==
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:50%;"
===Proposed Budget===
+
! colspan="4" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Federal aid to state budgets in 2012
Governor [[Scott Walker|Scott Walker]] said that he will not raise taxes but will tackle the estimated $3.1 billion shortfall with the budget that he was to present on Feb. 22, 2011. The Governor said that he would delay actually introducing his proposed budget bill until after that.<Ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/109784234.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Poll show misperceptions about state budget" Nov. 21, 2010]</ref><ref name=protest>[http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110215/GPG0101/110215202/Union-supporters-across-state-protest-Walker-budget-proposal The Green Bay Press Gazette "Union supporters across Wisconsin protest Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal" Feb. 15, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Assembly's abrupt adjournment caps chaotic day in Capitol " Feb. 18, 2011]</ref>
+
|-
 
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | State
Budget highlights include: <ref> [http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9NR74U82.htm/ BusinessWeek, Wis. budget debate to begin under security, June 13, 2011] </ref>
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Federal aid as % of general revenue
*$800 million reduction in school spending
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Total federal aid
*Reduces the ability to make up the difference through property tax increases
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | National rank
*Cuts University of Wisconsin System funding by $250 million
+
|-
*Eliminates $500 million from the state's Medicaid programs
+
| '''Wisconsin''' || '''28.19%''' || '''$8,855,079,000''' || '''38'''
*Establishes an enrollment cap on the Family Care program designed to keep poor, elderly people out of nursing homes
+
|-
*Property taxes are held nearly flat with the projected increase on the average home about $50 over the next two years
+
| [[Illinois state budget|Illinois]] || 25.66% || $15,646,844,000 || 43
*Eliminating  benefits for some poor families under the Earned Income Tax Credit and freezing benefits under the homestead tax credit program
+
|-
 
+
| [[Iowa state budget|Iowa]] || 33.27% || $6,073,376,000 || 25
The proposed budget will include the possibility of selling power plants at state facilities, including university campuses and prisons.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/business/116204654.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Walker proposes selling state-owned power plants" Feb. 14, 2011]</ref>  State agencies have requested $1.1 billion in new funding for a "cost to continue" budget for the 2011-13 biennium.<ref>[http://watchdog.org/6740/wisconsin-state-agencies-determined-to-spend-more/ ''Watchdog'', Wisconsin State Agencies Determined to Spend More, Sept. 29, 2010]</ref>
+
|-
 
+
| [[Michigan state budget|Michigan]] || 33.74% || $17,849,942,000 || 24
Gov. Walker introduced his proposed budget for the two-year budget period that begins on July 1, 2011, on March 1, 2011.<ref name=slash>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/us/02wisconsin.html The New York Times "Wisconsin Budget Would Slash School and Municipal Aid" March 1, 2011]</ref>  The proposed budget does not raise taxes or fees, but reduces school and local government aid from the state by $1.5 billion to items like the schools and local governments.<ref name=slash/>  The plan cuts aid to school by approximately 8%, and calls for local school districts to be limited in how much they can raise in property taxes.<ref name=slash/>  The governor also suggested local governments be restricted in how they could raise property taxes to make up for the losses they will have as a result of the budget.<ref name=slash/>
+
|-
 
+
| [[Minnesota state budget|Minnesota]] || 28.13% || $9,608,018,000 || 39
The governor had originally planned to unveil his proposed budget only after state lawmakers approved his bill to reduce collective bargaining rights for public workers, but that has not happened due to lawmakers leaving the state.(see below).<ref name=slash/>
+
|-
 
+
|}
Democrats described the cuts as devastating to ordinary families.  Republicans supported the plan, saying it was but one more piece of evidence that public sector workers needed to pay more for their health and pension benefits and that collective bargaining on matters beyond wages could no longer be afforded.<ref name=slash/>
+
 
+
===Stimulus===
The extent to which the governor's budget cuts spending is a topic of debate.  The governor's office said that his budget reduced spending overall by 6%. Two other analyses, however, found that the governor's budget transferred spending to new quasi-public authorities and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and that those figures were considered outside of the budget but that, when those numbers were factored in, the governor's budget actually increases spending by 1.5%.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118779749.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Spending would increase 1% under Walker budget" March 28, 2011]</ref>
+
According to [http://www.recovery.gov/ Recovery.gov], the official government website for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, under the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act]], Wisconsin received $3.63 billion in federal funding between February 2009 and June 2013.<ref>[http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx ''Recovery.gov'', "Stimulus Spending by State," accessed February 21, 2014]</ref>
 
+
The debate over Republican Gov. Scott Walker's budget plan, which Democrats decry as an attack on the middle class, was delayed June 14  while both parties waited for a host of changes to be drafted to the $66 billion spending plan. Debate on the budget was delayed until June 15, Republican lawmakers announced. <ref> [http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/54815/group/News/ Superior Telegram, Wisconsin Assembly delays budget debate to Wednesday, June 15, 2011] </ref> Republicans control the Assembly 59-38-1 with one vacancy. They also control the Senate 19-14.
+
 
+
Despite the state's budget issues, Wisconsin may give some $200 million to out-of-state financial management companies willing to invest in small businesses as part of a bigger economic development initiative. The bill would create a Wisconsin Venture Capital Authority aimed at boosting start-up businesses by setting up two venture capital investment programs, a Badger Jobs Fund and a Jobs Now Fund, totaling $400 million. It could end up costing the state up to $590 million over the 17-year life of the legislation, according to the Department of Revenue. <ref> [http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_a60652c8-9520-11e0-8804-001cc4c002e0.html/ Wisconsin Strate Journal, State budget: Venture capital idea draws fire from both sides, June 14, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
'''Capital Budget'''
+
 
+
On March 14, 2011, Gov. Walker recommended a capital budget of $1.1 billion for building projects over the next two years, down 28.8%  from FY2011's capital budget.  To reduce the budget, the proposal recommends deferring a number of large projects.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/117982579.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Walker unveils $1.1 billion capital budget plan" March 14, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
'''Education Funding'''
+
 
+
Walker's first budget cut $792.2 million, or 7.1 percent, in state aid for K-12 schools over the biennium ending June 2013, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. However, school districts faced an even steeper $1.6 billion net reduction in funding because Walker's budget slashed the amount of money school districts could legally raise through property taxes. Most districts were able to offset much of the lost revenue by having employees pay more for pension and health insurance premiums. Many switched health insurance plans. <ref> [http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/65481/group/News/ Superior Telegram, Education expected to be a 'major issue' in Walker recall election, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
 
+
Three out of four districts also reduced staff, according to data released last week by the Department of Public Instruction. More than 2,300 positions were cut statewide, but a disproportionate number came from three districts -- Milwaukee, Kenosha and Janesville -- where employee unions refused to accept pension and health insurance contributions. A record number of retirements also mitigated the number of layoffs. <ref> [http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/65481/group/News/ Superior Telegram, Education expected to be a 'major issue' in Walker recall election, April 23, 2012] </ref>
+
 
+
===Public Employee Unions and the Budget Bill===
+
 
+
Gov. Walker introduced and the legislature passed a budget bill that would impact what state employees pay for their health care costs and their ability to collectively bargain.<ref>[http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-assembly-poised-to-pass-controversial-labor-bill/?hpt=T1 CNN.com Live: Wisconsin Assembly passes controversial labor bill March 10, 2011]</ref> Initially the legislative language regarding collective bargaining and employee health insurance and pension fund contributions was part of a budget bill, but then taken out of the budget bill and used to create a separate bill, [[Wisconsin Act 10, the "Scott Walker Budget Repair Bill" (2011)|Wisconsin Act 10].  The bill polarized lawmakers and up to 40,000 thousands of union protesters filled the state Capitol in protests that lasted for weeks.<Ref name=slash/><Ref name=protest/>  The governor signed the bill into law on March 11, 2011.<Ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/ MSNBC.com "Wis. governor officially cuts collective bargaining" March 11, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
The law requires all public employees to pay more for their health care and pension benefits at the same time it takes away all collective bargaining rights except over raises no greater than inflation. Local police and firefighters, along with the state patrol, would retain their bargaining rights. <ref> [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/14/business-us-wisconsin-budget-unions-wisconscin_8515786.html/ Forbes, Latest union proposal exempts Wis. transit workers, June 14, 2011] </ref>  Walker counted on the public worker concessions generating about $300 million in savings to the state over the next two years to help balance the budget. <ref> [http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/06/14/business-us-wisconsin-budget-unions-wisconscin_8515786.html/ Forbes, Latest union proposal exempts Wis. transit workers, June 14, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
'''Recall Election'''
+
 
+
The governor's actions related to collective bargaining in the state led Democrats to collect over 900,000 valid signatures to the recall Gov. Walker.  The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board voted unanimously for the recall election.  It set the primary on May 8 and the general election for June 5.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74676.html Politico "Scott Walker recall set for June 5" March 30, 2012]</ref>
+
 
+
Exit polls following the April 2012 presidential primary show Walker has strong support from the Republican voters. Republican primary voters overwhelmingly — by about 8 in 10 — approve of Walker’s job as governor. <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/04/us/politics/wisconsin-exit-polls-hint-at-leanings-for-november.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1333724659-j1RBxqlQ2MWz8Hf8LLXieQ/ NY Times, In Wisconsin Exit Polls, Hints at the Leanings of November Voters, April 3, 2012] </ref>
+
 
+
Polling indicates that the recall battle will tight. A recent poll from Marquette University Law School showed Walker with a slight advantage over two of his possible Democratic challengers. Measured against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, whom Walker defeated for governor in 2010, Walker has a two point lead of 47 percent to 45 percent. Against former Dane County executive Kathleen Falk, Walker has a 4-point lead of 49 percent to 45 percent. <ref> [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/gov-scott-walker-most-polarizing-man-in-wisconsin/ ABC, Gov. Scott Walker: Most Polarizing Man In Wisconsin?, April 4, 2012] </ref>
+
 
+
If successful in challenging Walker Falk promised to veto any budget that did not repeal Walker's collective bargaining reforms. Barrett said that strategy would not work. Barrett said he would attempt to repeal Walker's union reforms by calling a special legislative session. <ref> [http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tom-barrett-concedes-recall-wont-undo-walker-reforms_636917.html/ Weekly Standard, Tom Barrett Undermines Efforts to Undo Walker Reforms, April 12, 2012] </ref>
+
 
+
'''Court Challenges'''
+
 
+
On March 30, 2012, Wisconsin Federal District Court Judge [[judgepedia:William Conley|William Conley]] ruled that some portions of Wisconsin’s Act 10 violates the equal protection rights of state employee unions.  The judge found that the law’s prohibition of automatic dues collecting and the requirement that the affected unions hold annual recertification elections was unconstitutional because police and firefighter unions were exempt from those portions of the law.<ref>[http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/30/federal-judge-strikes-down-part-of-scott-walkers-anti-collective-bargaining-law/ Forbes.com "Federal Judge Strikes Down Part Of Scott Walker's Anti-Collective Bargaining Law" March 30, 2012]</ref>
+
 
+
Dane County Circuit Court Judge [[Maryann Sumi|Maryann Sumi]] struck down Gov. Scott Walker's controversial bill stripping collective bargaining rights from public employees. Sumi ruled the March 9 meeting of the state Legislature's Joint Committee of Conference violated [[Wisconsin Open Records Law]] and that the budget bill "consequently has no force or effect." <ref> [http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/232870-wis.-judge-rules-against-governors-budget-bill/ Legal News Online, Wisconsin Judge Rules Against Governor's Budget Bill, May 24, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
Democratic lawmakers left the state to block the Republican majority from passing the budget legislation, which included a controversial measure to diminish collective bargaining rights. But in an unexpected move, Walker and the Republican lawmakers split their bill into two, allowing the non-budget collective bargaining measure to fly through with no Democrats in the room. The Senate’s 19 Republicans approved the measure, 18 to 1, in less than half an hour, without any debate on the floor or a single Democrat in the room. <ref> [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/us/27wisconsin.html/ New York Times, Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Law Curbing Unions, May 35, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
In her ruling Sumi wrote "This was not a case in which proper notice was missed by a few minutes or an hour. Not even the two-hour notice justified by 'good cause' was provided." The judge said state lawmakers were "understandably frustrated by the stalemate" but added frustration does not justify foregoing compliance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law in order to move the budget bill forward. "This case is the exemplar of values protected by the Open Meetings Law: transparency in government, the right of citizens to participate in their government, and respect for the rule of law."<ref> [http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/232870-wis.-judge-rules-against-governors-budget-bill/ Legal News Online, Wisconsin Judge Rules Against Governor's Budget Bill, May 24, 2011] </ref>
+
Sumi's May 23 ruling was a reaffirmation of a ruling she made March 18 halting implementation of the governor's bill. However, the governor challenged Sumi's initial stay of his budget plan. The state Supreme Court will hear arguments in June to determine if Sumi had the authority to block Walker's budget bill. <ref> [http://www.legalnewsline.com/news/232870-wis.-judge-rules-against-governors-budget-bill/ Legal News Online, Wisconsin Judge Rules Against Governor's Budget Bill, May 24, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
In addition, Sumi said that the legislature could fix it all by giving new, adequate notice of a meeting -- and then pass the law again. <ref> [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/26/6723497-judge-strikes-down-wisconsin-union-rights-law/ MSNBC, Judge Strikes Down Wisconsin Union Right Law, May 25, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
On June 14 the state Supreme Court reinstated Gov. Walker's plan that would impact collective bargaining for public workers. The court was divided in its decision, ruling 4-3 to overturn the lower court's decision.The court found a committee of lawmakers was not subject to the state's open meetings law, and so did not violate that law when they hastily approved the measure and made it possible for the Senate to take it up. In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a Dane County judge who had struck down the legislation, ending one challenge to the law even as new challenges are likely to emerge. <ref> http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html/ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law, June 14, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
The high court struck down Sumi's ruling, saying the judge exceeded her jurisdiction, "invaded" the Legislature's constitutional powers and erred in halting the publication and implementation of the collective bargaining law. <ref> http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123859034.html/ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Supreme Court reinstates collective bargaining law, June 14, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
'''Public Protests'''
+
Thousands of opponents to Walker's collective bargaining actions filled the streets of the state capital protesting the proposed legislation. Following the Supreme Court's overturning of Sumi's ruling, thousands returned to the capitol to again protest the legislature's plan to end collective bargaining. <ref> [http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/20655-2/ Public News Service, Thousands Protest WI Budget, June 15, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
The upheaval the measure caused continues to roil state politics. Six of the Republican senators who supported the law, and three of the Democratic senators who opposed it, will faced special recall elections in July 2011. <ref> [http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/15/us-wisconsin-unions-idUSTRE75D6O520110615/ Reuters, Divided Wisconsin Supreme Court upholds anti-union law, June 14, 2011] </ref>
+
 
+
'''Health Care Costs'''
+
 
+
Protests erupted over the Governor's budget bill that would require state employees to contribute 5.8% of their salary toward their pensions, and also pay 12.6% of their health insurance premiums.<Ref name=protest/><ref name=leave/>  The move is anticipated to save nearly $300 million over the following two fiscal years.<ref name=crowd/>  Gov. Walker said that asking employees to pay half the national average for health care "is truly a modest request."<ref name=cbs>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/18/earlyshow/main20033283.shtml CBSNews.com "Wis. gov: I took "bold political move" on budget" Feb. 18, 2011]</ref>  Walker also denied that his proposal is trying to break the unions.<ref name=cbs/><ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704657704576150390393461846.html ''Wall Street Journal'', Union Fight Heats Up, Feb. 18, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
'''[[Wisconsin Collective Bargaining| Collective Bargaining]]'''
+
 
+
The law eliminates almost all union bargaining rights  on everything except salary.<ref name=crowd>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/116228594.html The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel "Budget bill draws a crowd" Feb. 15, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WI_BUDGET_WOES_PROTEST_WIOL-?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Wis. state workers and allies descend on Madison to protest halt to collective bargaining" Feb. 15, 2011]</ref>  Unions will be unable to seek pay increases above those pegged to the Consumer Price Index unless approved by a public referendum.<Ref name=leave>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41644074/ns/us_news-life/ MSNBC.com "Wis. union vote on hold after Democrats leave state" Feb. 17, 2011]</ref>  In addition, unions also will have to hold annual votes to stay organized and would be unable to force employees to pay dues.<ref name=leave/>
+
 
+
Employees who retain their collective bargaining rights are local police, firefighters and state troopers.<ref name=leave/>
+
 
+
'''Vote on the Health Care and Collective Bargaining Provisions'''
+
 
+
On March 9, 2011, the state Senate moved to separate the collective bargaining language from the fiscal budget legislation language, because a quorum isn't needed for a nonbudgetary bill.  The Senate could then vote on the collective bargaining language.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/09/wisconsin-republicans-plan-pass-budget-democrats-sources-say/#ixzz1G9WE1VCa Fox News "Wisconsin Republicans Plan to Pass Budget Bill Without Democrats, Sources Say" March 9, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
When Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald read the bill to a joint conference committee, Rep. Peter Barca objected, saying the committee's meeting was in violation of the state's open meetings law. The vote was held and the measure was approved.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/ MSNBC.com "Wis. GOP votes to push through anti-union bill" March 9, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
After the Senate vote, the collective bargaining bill moved to the Assembly on March 10, 2011, amid intense protests that prevented lawmakers from entering.  Capitol police closed the building and removed demonstrators inside who refused to leave and reopened one entrance to the building, allowing lawmakers to enter for the vote.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/10/wisconsin.budget/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1 CNN.com "Wisconsin Capitol re-opens as state Assembly takes up bill" March 10, 2011</ref>  The Assembly passed the bill that afternoon.<ref>[http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/wisconsin-assembly-poised-to-pass-controversial-labor-bill/?hpt=T1 CNN.com Live: Wisconsin Assembly passes controversial labor bill March 10, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
The governor signed the bill into law on March 11, 2011.<Ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41996994/ns/politics-more_politics/ MSNBC.com "Wis. governor officially cuts collective bargaining" March 11, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
'''Layoffs'''
+
 
+
Republican lawmakers said collective bargaining rules must be changed so governments can avoid laying off thousands of workers.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/15/us-wisconsin-protests-idUSTRE71E7BY20110215 Reuters "Thousand of Wisconsin union workers protest budget plan" Feb. 15, 2011]</ref> Walker has said that he will have to lay off up to 6,000 state workers if the measure does not pass.<ref name=leave/>  On March 4, 2011,  The governor sent letters to state employee unions informing them that layoff notices would go out to 1,500 state employees in 15 days,<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030405713.html The Washington Post "Wis. governor begins process for layoffs" March 4, 2011]</ref> but he rescinded those layoff notices once the bill was approved, saying that the bill would lead to suffiicient savings that layoffs would not be necessary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/us/12wisconsin.html?_r=1 The New York Times "Wisconsin Governor Rescinds Layoff Notices" March 11, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
'''Democratic Senators Leave State'''
+
 
+
To avoid a vote on the measure, 14 Senate Democrats disappeared and could not be found.<ref name=missing>[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/18/us/18wisconsin.html?_r=2&hpThe New York Times "Democrats Missing, Wisconsin Vote on Cuts Is Delayed" Feb. 17, 2011]</ref>  They reportedly went to a hotel in  [[Illinois]].<ref name=leave/>  Republicans control the State Senate by 19 to 14, but to have a vote on fiscal matters, 20 senators must be present.<ref name=missing/>  The Senate Democrats, however, threatened to stay away for weeks.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110219/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions Yahoo! News "Wisconsin Democrats could stay away for weeks" Feb. 18, 2011]</ref>  The Senate scheduled votes on other bills of interest to Democrats, hoping that they would return to vote on them.<Ref name=deeper>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116721479.html Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Both sides in Wisconsin budget battle dig in deeper " Feb. 23, 2011]</ref>  On March 2, 2011, the Senate voted to levy fines of $100 a day for the 14 Senators who fled Wisconsin to stall the vote.<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/03/ohio-public-employee-unions-lose-wisconsin-and-indiana-democrats-seek-deals-.html ABCNEWS.com "Ohio Public Employee Unions Lose; Wisconsin And Indiana Democrats Seek Deals" March 2, 2011]</ref>  The remaining senators passed a unanimous resolution finding the missing Senators in contempt and ordering them to return to the Senate, with threat of arrest if they resisted.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703300904576178741090978496.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5 The Wall Street Journal "Pressure Mounts on Absent Democrats in Wisconsin, Indiana" March 3, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
The Assembly passed the bill just after midnight on Feb. 25, 2011.<ref name=approves>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/usa-wisconsin-idUSN2429675320110225 Reuters "Wisconsin Assembly approves plan to curb unions" Feb. 25, 2011]</ref>  Assembly Democrats, however, tried to stall the proposal by offering more than a hundred amendments.<Ref name=jarring>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/23/us-wisconsin-protests-vuvuzuelas-idUSTRE71M7IQ20110223 Reuters "In Wisconsin, a jarring new note in discordant debate" Feb. 23, 2011]</ref> Lawmakers extended debate for 43 hours.<ref>[]</ref>  On Feb. 24, 2011, the Assembly reached a deal to limit amendments and debates and appeared to be close to voting on the bill.<ref name=cops>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41755772/ns/politics-more_politics/ MSNBC.com "Wis. stalemate: Deal struck, cops sent to Dem homes" Feb. 24, 2011]</ref>  State troopers were then sent to the homes of the 14 missing Democrats, but they were not found.  Democratic Sen. Jon Erpenbach said all 14 senators remained outside of Wisconsin and would not return until Walker was willing to compromise.<ref name=cops/>
+
 
+
The governor said that if the bill is not passed and signed into law before Feb. 26, 2011, a key part of the proposal is lost because a refinancing of state debt that would free up $165 million will be lost if not complete by then and more cuts will be needed to balance the budget.<ref name=deeper/>  A payment on state debt is due by March 15.<ref name=approves/>
+
 
+
In the case of a walkout, Walker has put the National Guard on alert.<ref>[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-budgetwoes-nation,0,771747.story The Chicago Tribune "Walker says National Guard is prepared" Feb. 11, 2011]</ref>
+
 
+
'''School Closures'''
+
 
+
More than 15 [[Wisconsin school districts|school districts]], including the [[Madison Metropolitan School District, Wisconsin|Madison schools]] were closed for four days due to teachers and staff calling in sick.<ref name=order>[http://www.wkow.com/Global/story.asp?S=14060347 WKOW.com "MMSD denied temporary restraining order" Feb. 18, 2011]</ref><ref>[http://www.wfrv.com/news/local/Madison-schools-remain-closed-4th-day-in-a-row--116602448.html WFRV.com "Madison schools remain closed, Fourth day in a row" Feb. 21, 2011]</ref>  Judge [[judgepedia:Maryann Sumi|Maryann Sumi]] of the [[judgepedia:Dane County District Court|Dane County District Court]] denied the Madison school district requests for an injunction against Madison Teachers Inc. so that schools could reopen.<Ref name=order/>
+
  
 
==Budget transparency==
 
==Budget transparency==
'''Wisconsin''' currently has no government-sponsored state spending database.  As mentioned below, Milwaukee residents have some level of transparency, thanks to the independent transparency site hosted by [[Citizens for Responsible Government (Sunshine Review)|Citizens for Responsible Government (CRG).]]  
+
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; margin:1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center; width:15%;"
 
+
! colspan="2" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Transparency evaluation
Sign up for [[Show Me The Spending]]'s weekly transparency [[National Taxpayers Union:E-newsletter|e-updates]]. As transparency news about Wisconsin becomes available, it will be sent out by email and posted on this page.
+
|-
 
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" |
::'''See Also: [[Wisconsin Rep. Molepske re-introduces Open Government Act]]
+
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Contract Sunshine
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Searchability]] || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Grants]] || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Contracts]] || {{Yes (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Line item expenditures]] || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Dept./agency budgets]] || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|[[Criteria for evaluating databases|Public employee salaries]] || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
|colspan="2"|<small>Last evaluated in 2011.</small>
 +
|}
 +
::''See also: [[Evaluation of Wisconsin state website]] and [[Constitutional provisions regarding reading of bills]]''
  
 
===Government tools===
 
===Government tools===
 +
Wisconsin's [http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/data/acts/05Act410.pdf Contract Sunshine Act] called for the creation and maintenance of an Internet site so that anyone could access information about every state contract, purchase, and solicitation of bids or proposals that involved an annual expenditure of $10,000 or more. The site, [http://sunshine.wi.gov/ Contract Sunshine], launched in 2007.  In 2011, a state audit found the site to be of "limited value" and sometimes erroneous.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128802018.html ''The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'', "Audit says state informational website is of limited value," August 31, 2011]</ref>
  
Wiconsin's [http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/data/acts/05Act410.pdf Contract Sunshine Act] called for the creation and maintenance of an Internet site so that anyone could access information about every state contract, purchase, and solicitation of bids or proposals that involves an annual expenditure of $10,000 or more.  The site, [http://sunshine.wi.gov/ Contract Sunshine], launched in 2007. In 2011, a state audit found the side to be of "limited value" and sometimes erroneous.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/128802018.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Audit says state informational website is of limited value" Aug. 31, 2011]</ref>
+
The table to the right is helpful in evaluating the level of transparency provided by [http://sunshine.wi.gov/ Contract Sunshine].
  
The following table is helpful in evaluating the level of transparency provided by a state spending and transparency database:
+
===Multi-measure budget transparency profile===
 +
The Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois created a multi-measure transparency profile for Wisconsin, which measured state transparency as of September 2011 using indicators from a range of organizations.  These indicators measured both website transparency and other recognized facets of governmental transparency.  In addition, IGPA presented four unique indicators of non-transparency based on the observation that transfers or reassignments between general and special funds can obscure the true fiscal condition of a state.<ref>[http://igpa.uillinois.edu/ ''Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois'', "Home page," accessed February 21, 2014]</ref><ref name=allstates>[http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/50_States_Transparency_Profiles.pdf ''Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois'', "Budget Transparency Profiles - All 50 States," September 2011]</ref>
  
{|style="width:100%" class=wikitable
+
IGPA devised a budget transparency index based on information available from the National Association of State Budget Officers. Wisconsin tied for 33rd in the nation with 12 other states, earning four out of eight possible points.<ref name=allstates/>
|+ '''Criteria for evaluating spending databases'''
+
 
!State Database!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Searchability]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Grants]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Contracts]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Line Item Expenditures]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Dept/Agency Budgets]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Public Employee Salary]]!![[Criteria for evaluating databases|Exemption Level]]
+
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center; width:55%;"
 +
! colspan="2" align="center" style="background-color:#008000; color: white;" | Wisconsin - IGPA score for budget process, contents and disclosure
 +
|-
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Budget transparency indicator
 +
! valign="bottom" style="background-color:#444; color: white;" | Yes or no?
 +
|-
 +
| Performance measures || {{Yes}}
 +
|-
 +
| "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" budget || {{no (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
| Multi-year forecasting || {{Yes}}
 +
|-
 +
| Annual cycle || {{no (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
| Binding revenue forecast || {{no (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
| Legislative revenue forecast || {{Yes}}
 +
|-
 +
| Non-partisan staff ||  {{Yes}}
 +
|-
 +
| Constitution or statutory tax/spend limitations || {{No (Sunshine Review)}}
 +
|-
 +
| '''TOTAL''' || '''4'''
 
|-
 
|-
|align=center|[http://sunshine.wi.gov/ Contract Sunshine]||{{no (Sunshine Review)}}||{{no (Sunshine Review)}}||{{yes}}||{{no (Sunshine Review)}}||{{no (Sunshine Review)}}||{{no (Sunshine Review)}}||$10,000
 
 
|}
 
|}
 +
In addition to the individual state profile, IGPA offers a 50-state comparison and profiles for other states.<ref name=allstates/>
  
:: ''See also: [[Evaluation of Wisconsin state website]]''
+
===U.S. PIRG "Following the Money" report===
 
+
{{Following the Money 2014 Report by State|State=Wisconsin|Grade=A-|Score=90|Level=leading}}
===Multi-Measure Budget Transparency Profile===
+
 
+
The Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois created a multi-measure transparency profile for Wisconsin, which measures state transparency as of September 2011 using indicators from a range of organizations. These indicators measure both website transparency and other recognized facets of governmental transparency. In addition, IGPA presents four unique indicators of non-transparency based on the observation that transfers or reassignments between general and special funds can obscure the true fiscal condition of a state.<ref>[http://igpa.uillinois.edu/ Institute of Government and Public Affairs]</ref><ref> [http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/Wisconsin_Profile_IGPA_093011.pdf University of Illinois Transparency Profile for Wisconsin]</ref>
+
 
+
In addition to the individual state profile, IGPA offers a 50-state comparison and profiles for other states.<ref>[http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/50_States_Transparency_Profiles.pdf University of Illinois 50 State Transparency Comparison]</ref><ref>[ [http://igpa.uillinois.edu/content/state-transparency-profiles University of Illinois State Transparency Profiles]</ref>
+
==Budget background==
+
Wisconsin operates on a biennium, covering two fiscal years at a time. A fiscal year begins on July 1 and ends on June 30 of the following year with the biennium starting July 1 of odd-numbered years. Agency budget requests are submitted in September of even-numbered years. During the following months, the Governor meets with the departments and agencies to hear their budget proposals for the following fiscal year. Following the hearings the Governor issues a budget recommendation for the upcoming fiscal year to the [[Wisconsin_Legislature|Legislature]]. Both the [[Wisconsin_State_Assembly|State Assembly]] and the [[Wisconsin_State_Senate|Senate]] are required to make any necessary changes or adjustments to the budget until the bill is passed in both houses.<ref>[http://www.mhawisconsin.org/Uploads/publicpolicy/pp_wibudgetprocess.pdf ''Mental Health America of Wisconsin'',"Wisconsin budget process," retrieved March 18,2009]</ref> When the Lesgislature passes the bill the Governor approve of the bill as a whole, veto the entire bill or execute line-item vetoes.<ref>[http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4118169/The-Wisconsin-Biennial-Budget-Process-Overview-of-Governmental-Structure ''State of Wisconsin'',"The Wisconsin Biennial Budget Process Overview of Governmental Structure," retrieved March 18,2009]</ref> Gov. Doyle signed the FY 2010-2011 biennial budget (covering July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2011) with 81 vetoes.<ref>[http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=17649 ''National Conference of State Legislatures'', "Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Status," November 2, 2009]</ref>
+
  
 
==Accounting principles==
 
==Accounting principles==
::''See also: [[Wisconsin government accounting principles]]
+
::''See also: [[Wisconsin government accounting principles]]''
  
In Jan. 2012, an issues arose regarding the state's accounting principles. Under cash basis accounting, which the state uses, the governor announced that the state budget was balanced.  In Jan. 2012, however, state officials certified to federal government officials that under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the state will have a deficit.  Under GAAP, the states promises to pay money in the future are taken into account, whereas they are not in cash basis accounting. This so-called GAAP deficit goes back years in state government to past governors such as Democrat Jim Doyle who also have said they balanced the budget on a cash basis while the GAAP deficit remained, through current Republican Scott Walker.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/does-wisconsin-have-a-budget-deficit-4o3s9ro-137863973.html The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "Does Wisconsin have a budget deficit?" Jan. 22, 2012]</ref>
+
The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau is a nonpartisan legislative service agency created to assist the [[Wisconsin State Legislature]] in maintaining oversight of state operations. The Bureau conducts objective audits and evaluations of state agency operations to ensure financial transactions have been made in a legal and proper manner and to determine whether programs are administered effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with the policies of the legislature and the governor. The results of these evaluations are provided to the legislature, along with recommendations for improvements in agency operations. The Legislative Audit Bureau was created by Chapter 659, Laws of Wisconsin 1965. Prior to the creation of the Bureau, financial audits were performed by the Department of State Audit, an executive branch department created in 1947. The Legislative Audit Bureau is organized into four sections: Financial Audit, Program Evaluation, Information Systems Support, and Administrative Services.<ref>[http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/ ''The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Website'', accessed November 18, 2009]</ref>
  
The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau is a nonpartisan legislative service agency created to assist the Legislature in maintaining oversight of state operations. The Bureau conducts objective audits and evaluations of state agency operations to ensure financial transactions have been made in a legal and proper manner and to determine whether programs are administered effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with the policies of the Legislature and the Governor. The results of these evaluations are provided to the Legislature, along with recommendations for improvements in agency operations. The Legislative Audit Bureau was created by Chapter 659, Laws of Wisconsin 1965. Prior to the creation of the Bureau, financial audits were performed by the Department of State Audit, an executive branch department created in 1947. The Legislative Audit Bureau is organized into four sections: Financial Audit, Program Evaluation, Information Systems Support, and Administrative Services.<ref>[http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lab/ ''The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Web site'', retrieved November 18, 2009]</ref>
+
The Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA) rates Wisconsin “timely” in filing the state’s [[Comprehensive Annual Financial Report]] (CAFR) – the annual report of state and local governmental entities. IFTA rated 22 states timely, 22 states tardy, and six states as worst. IFTA does not consider Wisconsin's CAFRs, and those of the other states, to be accurate representations of the state’s financial condition because the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis does not include significant liabilities for the pension plans and for other post employment benefits, such as health care. Wisconsin's CAFRs are publications of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Executive Budget and Finance, State Controller's Office.<ref>[http://www.statedatalab.org/state_data_and_comparisons/detail/wisconsin IFTA ''State Data Lab'', "Wisconsin," accessed September 17, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://www.statedatalab.org/library/doclib/50_State_Final_2008.pdf ''Institute for Truth in Accounting'', “The Truth About Balanced Budgets—A Fifty State Study,” Page 35]</ref><ref>[http://www.doa.state.wi.us/ ''Wisconsin Department of Administration Website'', accessed November 18, 2009]</ref>
  
The Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA) rates Wisconsin “Timely” in filing the state’s [[Comprehensive Annual Financial Report]] (CAFR) – The annual report of state and local governmental entities. IFTA rated 22 states timely, 22 states tardy, and 6 states as worst. IFTA does not consider Wisconsin's CAFRs, and those of the other states, to be accurate representations of the state’s financial condition because the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis does not include significant liabilities for the pension plans and for other post employment benefits, such as health care. Wisconsin's CAFRs are publications of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Executive Budget and Finance, State Controller's Office.<ref>[http://www.statedatalab.org/state_data_and_comparisons/detail/wisconsin IFTA State Data Lab: Wisconsin. Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref><ref>[http://truthinaccounting.org/news/listing_article.asp?section=451&section2=451&CatID=3&ArticleSource=567 ''Institute for Truth in Accounting'', “The Truth About Balanced Budgets—A Fifty State Study,” Page 35]</ref><ref>[http://www.doa.state.wi.us/ ''Wisconsin Department of Administration Web site'', retrieved November 18, 2009]</ref>
+
===Issues===
 
+
In January 2012, an issue arose regarding the state's accounting principles. Under cash basis accounting, which the state uses, [[Governor of Wisconsin|Governor]] [[Scott Walker]] announced that the state budget was balanced. In January 2012, however, state officials certified to federal government officials that under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the state would have a deficit. Under GAAP, the state's promises to pay money in the future are taken into account, whereas they are not in cash basis accounting. This so-called GAAP deficit has occurred for years in state government. Former governor [[Jim Doyle]] also said they balanced the budget on a cash basis while the GAAP deficit remained.<ref>[http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/does-wisconsin-have-a-budget-deficit-4o3s9ro-137863973.html ''The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel'', "Does Wisconsin have a budget deficit?" January 22, 2012]</ref>
===Credit Rating===
+
{| {{table}}
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Credit Rating'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Fitch'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Moody's'''
+
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''S&P'''
+
|-
+
| Wisconsin  ||AA<ref>[http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0445.pdf United States Census Bond Ratings for State Governments by State: 2010. Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>||Aa2<ref>[https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Assigns-Aa2-Rating-to-the-State-of-Wisconsins-2128--PR_246488 Moody's Assigns Aa2 Rating to the State of Wisconsin's $212.8 Million General Obligation 2012 Series A, Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>||AA<ref>[http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/infographic-sp-state-credit-ratings-20012012-85899404785 Pew Stateline S&P State Credit Ratings, 2001–2012, Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>
+
|-
+
|
+
|}
+
  
==Stimulus==
+
==Contact information==
Wisconsin received $3.63 billion in federal funding between February 2009 and June 2013.<ref>[http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/default.aspx ''Recovery'', "Stimulus Spending by State" Accessed September 17, 2013]</ref>
+
State Budget Office<br>
 +
101 E Wilson Street, 10th Floor<br>
 +
Madison, WI  53703<br>
 +
Phone: 608-266-1353<br>
 +
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Divisions/Budget-And-Finance/State-Budget-Office
  
==Public Employees==
+
==See also==
::''See Also: [[Wisconsin public employee salaries]]''
+
* [[Wisconsin government sector lobbying]]
::''See Also: [[Wisconsin public pensions]]
+
* [[Wisconsin public pensions]]
According to 2011 Census data, the state of Wisconsin employed a total of 103,489 people. Of those employees, 56,068 were full-time employees receiving a net pay of $280.5 millio per month and 47,421 were part-time employees paid $48.2 million per month.<ref name=census/>  More than 57% of those employees, or 218,585 employees, were in education or higher education.<ref name=census>[http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/11stlwi.txt 2008 Wisconsin Public Employment U.S. Census Data]</ref>
+
* [[Governor of Wisconsin]]
 +
* [[Wisconsin State Legislature]]
 +
* [[Wisconsin State Senate]]
 +
* [[Wisconsin State Assembly]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
{{colbegin|3}}
 
 
*[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/state/detail/Wisconsin State Budget Solutions, Wisconsin]
 
*[http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/state/detail/Wisconsin State Budget Solutions, Wisconsin]
*Model transparency legislation from the [[American Legislative Exchange Council]] is available [http://www.showmethespending.org/uploads/Taxpayer_Transparency_Act.pdf at this link.]
+
*[http://www.showmethespending.org/uploads/Taxpayer_Transparency_Act.pdf American Legislative Exchange Council]
 
*[http://www.wpri.org/ Wisconsin Policy Research Institute]
 
*[http://www.wpri.org/ Wisconsin Policy Research Institute]
 
*[http://lburnsinstitute.org/ Lucy Burns Institute]
 
*[http://lburnsinstitute.org/ Lucy Burns Institute]
Line 269: Line 424:
 
*[http://crgnetwork.com/ Citizens for Responsible Government Network]
 
*[http://crgnetwork.com/ Citizens for Responsible Government Network]
 
*[http://milwaukeecounty.headquarters.com/ Government Accountability in Spending Project]
 
*[http://milwaukeecounty.headquarters.com/ Government Accountability in Spending Project]
*[http://mps.spendingreports.com/search.aspx Citizens for Responsible Government Foundation's school spendingreports.com]
 
{{colend (Sunshine Review)}}
 
  
==Additional reading==
+
===Additional reading===
*[http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/journal_media_detail.asp?locid=19&prid=3922 ''State of Wisconsin'',"Governor Doyle’s State of the State Address," January 29,2009]
+
*[http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/following-money-2014 ''U.S. PIRG'', "Report: Transparent & Accountable Budgets," April 8, 2014]
* [http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/opinion/450494 ''Wisconsin State Journal'',"Plug new Wisconsin budget shortfall without tax hikes," May 8, 2009]
+
*[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/us/battles-loom-in-many-states-over-what-to-do-with-budget-surpluses.html?hp&_r=0 ''The New York Times'', "Battles loom in many states over what to do with budget surpluses," February 3, 2014]
 +
*[http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3067 ''Center on Budget and Policy Priorities'', "Policy Basics: The ABCs of State Budgets," February 7, 2013]
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 14:13, 4 August 2014


Wisconsin state budget

Flag of Wisconsin.png
Budget calendar:  Biennial
Fiscal year:  2014-2015
State credit rating:  AA (as of May 2012)
Current governor:  Scott Walker
Financial figures
GF expenses[1]:  $14 billion
All funds expenses:  $42.8 billion (FY 2013 estimate)
Spending % change:  Green Arrow Up Darker.svg4.71%[2]
% from federal funding:  28.19%
State debt:  $45,026,643,000
Per capita state debt:  $7,863
Other state budgets
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming
Policypedia Budget Policy-logo-no background.png
This page contains information about budget processes and policy issues in Wisconsin, including:
  • A summary of the budget drafting process
  • Trends in expenditures and revenues
  • Current and past fiscal year budget developments
  • Financial transparency measures

Between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2013, Wisconsin's total expenditures increased by approximately $2.7 billion, from $40.1 billion in 2009 to $42.8 billion in 2013. This represents a 6.31 percent increase, below the cumulative rate of inflation during the same period (9.06 percent, calculated using the Consumer Price Indices for January 2009 and January 2013).[3][4]

Budget process

Wisconsin operates on a biennial budget cycle. The sequence of key events in the budget process is as follows:[5][6]

  1. Budget instruction guidelines are sent to state agencies in June.
  2. State agencies submit budget requests in September.
  3. The governor submits his or her proposed budget to the Wisconsin State Legislature in January.
  4. The legislature adopts a budget in June or July. A simple majority is needed to pass a budget.
  5. The biennial budget cycle begins in July.

Wisconsin is one of 44 states in which the governor has line item veto authority.[6]

The governor is constitutionally required to submit a balanced budget. In addition, the legislature is constitutionally required to pass a balanced budget.[6]

Expenditures

Definitions

Although each state executes its budget process differently, the National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO) breaks down state expenditures into four general categories. This allows for comparisons among the 50 states. NASBO's categories are as follows:[7]

  • General fund: "The predominant fund for financing a state’s operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes. However, there are differences in how specific functions are financed from state to state."[7]
  • Other funds: "Expenditures from revenue sources that are restricted by law for particular governmental functions or activities. For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust fund would appear in the “Other funds” column. For Medicaid, other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments, and local funds."[7]
  • Federal funds: "Funds received directly from the federal government."[7]
  • Bonds: "Expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital projects."[7]

2013 expenditures

Breakdown of expenditures in FY 2013.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

The table below breaks down expenditures for fiscal year 2013 (comparable figures from surrounding states are provided to give additional context).[7] Figures for all columns except "Per capita expenditures" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita expenditures" have not been abbreviated.

Total state expenditures, FY 2013 ($ in millions)[7]
State General fund Federal funds Other funds Bonds Total Per capita expenditures**
Wisconsin $14,042 $10,815 $17,912 $0 $42,769 $7,447.53
Illinois $29,260 $15,407 $19,825 $1,955 $66,447 $5,158.07
Iowa $6,231 $5,682 $7,539 $157 $19,609 $6,345.10
Michigan $9,164 $19,295 $20,107 $182 $48,748 $4,926.22
Minnesota $20,056 $8,637 $6,263 $810 $35,766 $6,598.43
**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total expenditures and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates.[8]
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

Expenditures by function

Breakdown of expenditures by function in FY 2012.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

State expenditures in Wisconsin can be further broken down by function (elementary and secondary education, public assistance, etc.). Fiscal year 2012 data is included in the table below (information from neighboring states is provided for additional context). Figures are rendered as percents, indicating the share of the total budget spent per category.

Expenditures by function, FY 2012 (as percents)[7]
State Elementary and secondary ed. Higher ed. Public assistance Medicaid Corrections Transportation Other**
Wisconsin 16.7% 14.1% 0.4% 16.5% 2.9% 6.9% 42.5%
Illinois 15.8% 5.5% 0.1% 19.7% 2.2% 8.5% 48.1%
Iowa 16.8% 25.0% 0.6% 19.6% 2.7% 7.5% 27.8%
Michigan 27.2% 4.1% 0.9% 26.1% 4.7% 6.9% 30.2%
Minnesota 23.8% 9.7% 1.4% 27.6% 1.5% 8.3% 27.7%
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers
Note**: "Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments."[7]

Expenditure trends

From 2008 to 2012, Medicaid spending rose three percentage points, or 22 percent, as a share of the budget; higher education increased by 3 percentage points, or 7.6 percent, as a share of the budget, and elementary and secondary education went down 2.4 percentage points, for a 12.5 percent decrease as a share of the budget. The table below details changes in expenditures from 2008 to 2012.[7][9][10][11][12] Figures are rendered as percents, indicating the share of the total budget spent per category.

Expenditures from 2008 to 2012 (as percents)
Year Elementary and secondary ed. Higher ed. Public assistance Medicaid Corrections Transportation Other**
2012 16.7% 14.1% 0.4% 16.5% 2.9% 6.9% 42.5%
2011 17.3% 13.7% 0.3% 17.0% 3.0% 6.4% 42.2%
2010 18.1% 12.3% 0.3% 17.1% 3.1% 7.1% 41.9%
2009 18.6% 12.5% 0.2% 15.4% 3.3% 7.5% 42.4%
2008 19.1% 13.1% 0.3% 13.5% 3.4% 7.0% 43.6%
Change in % -2.40% 1.00% 0.10% 3.00% -0.50% -0.10% -1.10%
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers
Note**: "Other" expenditures include "Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), institutional and community care for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled, public health programs, employer contributions to pensions and health benefits, economic development, environmental projects, state police, parks and recreation, housing and general aid to local governments."[7]

Revenues

2013 revenues

Breakdown of general fund revenue sources in FY 2013.
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

The table below breaks down general fund revenues by source in fiscal year 2013 (comparable figures from surrounding states are also provided to give additional context).[7] Figures for all columns except "Per capita revenue" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita revenue" have not been abbreviated.

Revenue sources in the general fund, FY 2013 ($ in millions)[7]
State Sales tax Personal income tax Corporate income tax Gaming tax Other taxes and fees Total Per capita revenue**
Wisconsin $4,410 $7,497 $925 $0 $1,254 $14,086 $2,554.62
Illinois $7,335 $16,630 $3,086 $340 $8,899 $36,290 $2,817.08
Iowa $2,109 $3,315 $448 $120 $645 $6,637 $2,147.61
Michigan $1,832 $5,844 $438 $0 $1,075 $9,189 $928.59
Minnesota $4,817 $8,649 $1,165 $39 $2,786 $17,456 $3,220.44
**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total revenues and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates for 2013.[8]
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

Revenue trends

The table below details the change in revenue sources in the general fund from 2009 to 2013.[7][9] Figures for all columns except "Per capita revenue" are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000). Figures in the column labeled "Per capita revenue" have not been abbreviated.

Revenue sources in the general fund, Wisconsin ($ in millions)[7][9]
Year Sales tax Personal income tax Corporate income tax Gaming tax Other taxes and fees Total Per capita revenue**
2013 $4,410 $7,497 $925 $0 $1,254 $14,086 $2,554.62
2012 $4,289 $7,042 $907 $0 $1,278 $13,516 $2,361.06
2011 $4,109 $6,701 $853 $0 $1,249 $12,912 $2,261.78
2010 $3,944 $6,089 $835 $0 $1,264 $12,132 $2,132.51
2009 $4,084 $6,223 $630 $0 $1,177 $12,113 $2,142.08
Change in % 7.98% 20.47% 46.83% N/A 6.54% 16.29% 19.26%
**Per capita figures are calculated by taking the state's total revenues and dividing by the number of state residents according to United States Census estimates.[8][13]
Source: National Association of State Budget Officers

State budgets by year

DocumentIcon.jpg See budget bill: 2013 Wisconsin Act 20

Fiscal year 2014

Wisconsin state budget -- 2014
Wisconsin State Legislature
Text:Assembly Bill 40
Legislative history
Introduced:February 20, 2013
House:June 18, 2013
Vote (lower house):55-42
Senate:June 21, 2013
Vote (upper house):17-16
Governor:Scott Walker
Signed:June 30, 2013
Vetoed:Partial

On June 30, 2013, Governor Scott Walker signed Assembly Bill 40, the budget bill for the 2013-2015 biennium passed by the Wisconsin State Legislature, into law, making it Wisconsin Act 20.[14] The new biennium started with a $670 million surplus, which was the state's largest opening balance in over a decade. The Rainy Day Fund had also restored some of its depleted funds, bringing the balance to over $243 million, which was its highest balance on record.[15]

The governor made 57 vetoes to the budget bill before signing it into law. According to Gov. Walker, these vetoes removed unnecessary reports and requirements, clarified program intentions and timelines and promoted efficient administration. In total, the vetoes cut spending by $865,000.[15]

Fiscal year 2013

See also: Wisconsin state budget (2012-2013)

Fiscal year 2012

See also: Wisconsin state budget (2011-2012)

Fiscal year 2011

See also: Wisconsin state budget (2010-2011)

Fiscal year 2010

See also: Wisconsin state budget (2009-2010)

Historical spending

State budget historical spending below was compiled by the National Association of State Budget Officers. Figures reflect the reported "Total Expenditures" in Table 1. Figures for all columns are rendered in millions of dollars (for example, $2,448 translates to $2,448,000,000).[7][10]

Historical state budget spending in Wisconsin ($ in millions)
Fiscal year General Fund Other funds Federal funds Bonds Budget totals
Total % of Budget Total % of Budget Total % of Budget Total % of Budget
2011-2012 $13,381 32.4% $17,371 42% $10,572 25.6% $0 0% $41,324
2010-2011 $13,565 31.7% $17,043 39.8% $12,236 28.6% $0 0% $42,844
2009-2010 $12,824 32% $15,730 39.2% $11,531 28.8% $0 0% $40,085
Averages: $13,256.67 32% $16,714.67 40% $11,446.33 28% $0 0% $41,417.67
General Fund: The predominant fund for financing a state’s operations. Revenues are received from broad-based state taxes. However, there are differences in how specific functions are financed from state to state.
Other funds: Expenditures from revenue sources that are restricted by law for particular governmental functions or activities. For example, a gasoline tax dedicated to a highway trust fund would appear in the “Other funds” column. For Medicaid, other state funds include provider taxes, fees, donations, assessments, and local funds.
Federal funds: Funds received directly from the federal government.
Bonds: Expenditures from the sale of bonds, generally for capital projects.

State debt

According to a January 2014 report by the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions, Wisconsin had a state debt of over $45 billion. Its state debt per capita was $7,863. The report revealed that state governments faced a combined $5.1 trillion in debt, 33 percent of annual gross state product. The obligation amounts to $16,178 per capita in the nation. A bulk of the state debt -- 79 percent -- was linked to unfunded public pensions.[16][17]

Total state debt in Wisconsin[18]
Type Totals U.S. rank
Total state debt $45,026,643,000 31
Per capita debt $7,863 47
State and other fund expenditures $30,752,000,000 49

Public pensions

See also: Wisconsin public pensions and Wisconsin public employee salaries

A 2012 report from the Pew Center on the States noted that Wisconsin's pension system was fully funded at the close of fiscal year 2010. Consequently, Pew designated the state's pension system as a "solid performer."[19]

Taken together, the funding ratio for the state's pension system increased from 99.6 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 99.9 percent in fiscal year 2011, an increase of 0.3 percentage points, or approximately 0.3 percent. Likewise, unfunded liabilities decreased from $320.5 million in fiscal year 2006 to $99.3 million in fiscal year 2011.

Credit ratings

States sometimes sell general obligation bonds to investors in order to finance large-scale undertakings (e.g., road construction and other public works projects). Credit rating agencies, such as Standard and Poor's, assign grades to states, evaluating their ability to pay the principal and interest on such bonds. Standard and Poor's grades range from AAA, the highest available, to BBB, the lowest. Generally speaking, a higher credit rating indicates lower risk for an investor, which in turn lowers costs for taxpayers.[20]

The table below lists the Standard and Poor's credit rating for Wisconsin from 2001 to 2012 (grades from surrounding states are provided for additional context).[20]

S&P credit ratings from 2001 to 2012
Wisconsin Illinois Iowa Michigan Minnesota
2012 AA A+ AAA AA- AA+
2011 AA A+ AAA AA- AAA
2010 AA A+ AAA AA- AAA
2009 AA A+ AAA AA- AAA
2008 AA AA AAA AA- AAA
2007 AA- AA AA+ AA- AAA
2006 AA- AA AA+ AA AAA
2005 AA- AA AA+ AA AAA
2004 AA- AA AA+ AA+ AAA
2003 AA- AA AA+ AA+ AAA
2002 AA- AA AA+ AAA AAA
2001 AA AA AA+ AAA AAA

Federal aid to state budget

See also: Federal aid to budgets in the 50 states

The chart below notes how much of the state’s general revenues come from the federal government. Figures were calculated by dividing each state’s federal intergovernmental revenue into its general revenue. The number in the rightmost column indicates the state's ranking in relation to the rest of the nation (e.g., if "1," the state receives the highest percentage of federal funding in the nation). Figures from neighboring states are included to provide additional context.[21]

State governments receive aid from the federal government to fund a variety of joint programs, such as Medicaid. Federal aid varies considerably from state to state. For example, Mississippi received approximately $7.7 billion in federal aid in 2012, which accounted for more than 45 percent of the state's general revenues. By contrast, Alaska received roughly $2.9 billion in federal aid in 2012, just under 20 percent of the state's general revenues.[21]

Federal aid to state budgets in 2012
State Federal aid as % of general revenue Total federal aid National rank
Wisconsin 28.19% $8,855,079,000 38
Illinois 25.66% $15,646,844,000 43
Iowa 33.27% $6,073,376,000 25
Michigan 33.74% $17,849,942,000 24
Minnesota 28.13% $9,608,018,000 39

Stimulus

According to Recovery.gov, the official government website for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Wisconsin received $3.63 billion in federal funding between February 2009 and June 2013.[22]

Budget transparency

Transparency evaluation
Contract Sunshine
Searchability N
600px-Red x.png
Grants N
600px-Red x.png
Contracts Y
600px-Yes check.png
Line item expenditures N
600px-Red x.png
Dept./agency budgets N
600px-Red x.png
Public employee salaries N
600px-Red x.png
Last evaluated in 2011.
See also: Evaluation of Wisconsin state website and Constitutional provisions regarding reading of bills

Government tools

Wisconsin's Contract Sunshine Act called for the creation and maintenance of an Internet site so that anyone could access information about every state contract, purchase, and solicitation of bids or proposals that involved an annual expenditure of $10,000 or more. The site, Contract Sunshine, launched in 2007. In 2011, a state audit found the site to be of "limited value" and sometimes erroneous.[23]

The table to the right is helpful in evaluating the level of transparency provided by Contract Sunshine.

Multi-measure budget transparency profile

The Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois created a multi-measure transparency profile for Wisconsin, which measured state transparency as of September 2011 using indicators from a range of organizations. These indicators measured both website transparency and other recognized facets of governmental transparency. In addition, IGPA presented four unique indicators of non-transparency based on the observation that transfers or reassignments between general and special funds can obscure the true fiscal condition of a state.[24][25]

IGPA devised a budget transparency index based on information available from the National Association of State Budget Officers. Wisconsin tied for 33rd in the nation with 12 other states, earning four out of eight possible points.[25]

Wisconsin - IGPA score for budget process, contents and disclosure
Budget transparency indicator Yes or no?
Performance measures
{{{1}}}
"Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" budget N
600px-Red x.png
Multi-year forecasting
{{{1}}}
Annual cycle N
600px-Red x.png
Binding revenue forecast N
600px-Red x.png
Legislative revenue forecast
{{{1}}}
Non-partisan staff
{{{1}}}
Constitution or statutory tax/spend limitations N
600px-Red x.png
TOTAL 4

In addition to the individual state profile, IGPA offers a 50-state comparison and profiles for other states.[25]

U.S. PIRG "Following the Money" report

See also: Following the Money 2014 Report

The U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a consumer-focused nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., released its annual report on state transparency websites in April 2014. The report, entitled "Following the Money," measured how transparent and accountable state websites are with regard to state government spending.[26] According to the report, Wisconsin received a grade of A- and a numerical score of 90, indicating that Wisconsin was "leading" in terms of transparency regarding state spending.[26]

Accounting principles

See also: Wisconsin government accounting principles

The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau is a nonpartisan legislative service agency created to assist the Wisconsin State Legislature in maintaining oversight of state operations. The Bureau conducts objective audits and evaluations of state agency operations to ensure financial transactions have been made in a legal and proper manner and to determine whether programs are administered effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with the policies of the legislature and the governor. The results of these evaluations are provided to the legislature, along with recommendations for improvements in agency operations. The Legislative Audit Bureau was created by Chapter 659, Laws of Wisconsin 1965. Prior to the creation of the Bureau, financial audits were performed by the Department of State Audit, an executive branch department created in 1947. The Legislative Audit Bureau is organized into four sections: Financial Audit, Program Evaluation, Information Systems Support, and Administrative Services.[27]

The Institute for Truth in Accounting (IFTA) rates Wisconsin “timely” in filing the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) – the annual report of state and local governmental entities. IFTA rated 22 states timely, 22 states tardy, and six states as worst. IFTA does not consider Wisconsin's CAFRs, and those of the other states, to be accurate representations of the state’s financial condition because the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) basis does not include significant liabilities for the pension plans and for other post employment benefits, such as health care. Wisconsin's CAFRs are publications of the Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Executive Budget and Finance, State Controller's Office.[28][29][30]

Issues

In January 2012, an issue arose regarding the state's accounting principles. Under cash basis accounting, which the state uses, Governor Scott Walker announced that the state budget was balanced. In January 2012, however, state officials certified to federal government officials that under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), the state would have a deficit. Under GAAP, the state's promises to pay money in the future are taken into account, whereas they are not in cash basis accounting. This so-called GAAP deficit has occurred for years in state government. Former governor Jim Doyle also said they balanced the budget on a cash basis while the GAAP deficit remained.[31]

Contact information

State Budget Office
101 E Wilson Street, 10th Floor
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-266-1353
http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Divisions/Budget-And-Finance/State-Budget-Office

See also

External links

Additional reading

References

  1. Refers to General Fund spending. Typically in state budgets the General Fund is spending that is most directly controlled by state legislators.
  2. This figure is derived by calculating the percent difference between the prior two years' spending levels according to the National Association of State Budget Officers.
  3. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "CPI Detailed Report Data for February 2014," accessed April 9, 2014
  4. InflationData.com, "Cumulative Inflation Calculator," February 28, 2014
  5. National Conference of State Legislatures "State Experiences with Annual and Biennial Budgeting," updated April 2011
  6. 6.0 6.1 6.2 National Association of State Budget Officers "Budget Processes in the States, Summer 2008," accessed February 21, 2014
  7. 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 National Association of State Budget Officers "State Expenditure Report, 2011-2013," accessed February 21, 2014
  8. 8.0 8.1 8.2 United States Census Bureau, "Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013," accessed February 26, 2014
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report, 2009-2011," accessed February 24, 2014
  10. 10.0 10.1 National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditures Report, 2010-2012," accessed February 24, 2014
  11. National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report, 2009," accessed February 24, 2014
  12. National Association of State Budget Officers, "State Expenditure Report, 2008," accessed February 24, 2014
  13. United States Census Bureau, "Vintage 2009: Annual Population Estimates," accessed February 26, 2014
  14. Wisconsin State Legislature, "Assembly Bill 40," accessed May 7, 2014
  15. 15.0 15.1 Wisconsin State Legislature, "Governor's Veto Message," July 1, 2013
  16. State Budget Solutions, "State Budget Solutions' Fourth Annual State Debt Report," January 8, 2014
  17. Washington Examiner, "EXography: Unfunded public employee pensions drive state debts skyward," January 21, 2014
  18. State Budget Solutions "State Budget Solutions' Fourth Annual State Debt Report," January 8, 2014
  19. Pew Center on the States, "Widening Gap Update: Wisconsin," June 18, 2012
  20. 20.0 20.1 Stateline: The Daily News Service of The Pew Charitable Trusts, "Infographic: S&P State Credit Ratings, 2001-2012," July 13, 2012
  21. 21.0 21.1 United States Census Bureau, "State Government Finances: 2012," accessed February 24, 2014
  22. Recovery.gov, "Stimulus Spending by State," accessed February 21, 2014
  23. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Audit says state informational website is of limited value," August 31, 2011
  24. Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois, "Home page," accessed February 21, 2014
  25. 25.0 25.1 25.2 Institute of Government and Public Affairs at University of Illinois, "Budget Transparency Profiles - All 50 States," September 2011
  26. 26.0 26.1 U.S. Public Interest Research Group, "Following the Money 2014 Report," accessed April 15, 2014
  27. The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau Website, accessed November 18, 2009
  28. IFTA State Data Lab, "Wisconsin," accessed September 17, 2013
  29. Institute for Truth in Accounting, “The Truth About Balanced Budgets—A Fifty State Study,” Page 35
  30. Wisconsin Department of Administration Website, accessed November 18, 2009
  31. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "Does Wisconsin have a budget deficit?" January 22, 2012