Imagine finding six hungry children seated around the McCallum family dinner table and food enough for only five. Would you make sure all six got something to eat, although doing so guarantees that none will be completely satisfied? Or would you feed just five, and leave the sixth to fend for himself?
Gov. Scott McCallum faced just this sort of dilemma when he discovered the state would be $1.1 billion short of funds in the current biennial budget. At the time, his response was to scold the sixth, hungry child'Wisconsin's county and municipal governments'for being gluttonous and greedy. He has been justly criticized for that tactic in the weeks since. We maintain our previously iterated position that eliminating shared revenue will have deleterious effects on public services and the standard of living of the people of Wisconsin.
In his first State of the State address Tuesday, however, McCallum struck a more conciliatory chord toward local governments as he sought \a new spirit of partnership between state and local government.""
This new tone is indeed welcome. McCallum appeared to leave himself open to suggestions on alternative methods to achieve fiscal solvency that would not necessarily mean an end to shared revenues.
Instead of explicitly calling for the elimination of shared revenues, McCallum voiced support for ""bold reform of the state and local partnership."" He also called for a new dialogue between state and local governments in order to increase efficiency, accountability and to discuss how to consolidate services between levels of government. This is a favorable shift because it acknowledges that the governor must interact with other divisions of government'not simply pull the rug out from under them.
In a post-speech interview with Wisconsin Public Television's Jerry Huffman, McCallum stated that his negative remarks regarding shared revenues and local government officials in his initial emergency budget message were meant to stir the waters. He contended that consensus could be reached, but only if other plans were submitted so that he was not relegated to debating himself. McCallum has succeeded in stirring the waters and changing the debate from what to cut to what to save.
McCallum is also right to insist that other budget plans must be submitted so that there can be a starting point for deliberations. However, his standards for alternate budget plans are too stringent. While he insists that local municipalities adjust to maintain lower taxes, he maintains that the state cannot touch education, taxes or health-care plans. It is easy to agree that such things should not be touched, but, considering the state's $1.1 billion deficit and the calamity local governments could face, everything should be on the table.
McCallum's vague usage of the word ""reform"" Tuesday indicated that he is willing to work with local governments. We hope this to be the case, so that McCallum's ""hard-working men and women of Wisconsin"" can receive what they deserve'not just as taxpayers, but as citizens.
