Wisconsin State Journal, Dec. 6
Predictions of higher federal debt are no joke
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, told a group in Madison this fall he would support a tax overhaul bill “as long as it’s pro-growth and doesn’t increase the national debt.”
Well, so much for that.
Johnson voted for the Senate’s version of a sweeping tax bill last week that, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, will add $1 trillion to the federal debt over the next decade - even when projected economic growth from the bill’s tax cuts is factored in.
The Joint Committee on Taxation is the nonpartisan arm of Congress that analyzes tax policies and proposals. Its economists, lawyers and accountants have earned respect from both sides of the partisan divide over the years. In fact, Republicans changed the budget rules three years ago to require the agency to consider the economic impact of major legislation when predicting future revenue.
So that’s what this official scorekeeper of congressional tax proposals did. It estimated that lower rates and other tax benefits the bill delivers over the next decade would cost the Treasury about $1.4 trillion, plus higher interest payments for additional borrowing. The committee also calculated that those lower rates would generate greater economic growth, offsetting lost revenue by $458 billion.
After combining those figures, the economic analysts at the Joint Committee on Taxation arrived at their projection of about $1 trillion in additional debt overall.
Keep in mind that this extra borrowing would be on top of an additional $10 trillion that’s already expected to pile up under current law over the next decade. And all of that would be on top of current total federal debt of about $20 trillion.
But Johnson doesn’t want to hear the nonpartisan agency’s numbers, now that he’s voted for the Senate tax overhaul, contradicting his earlier bottom line. Johnson dismissed the committee’s careful estimate as “a joke” last week. He even insulted the committee’s experts as living in a “fantasy world.”
That’s disappointing.
Johnson prides himself as a conservative. But betting on lower tax rates to bring in more money is risky, not fiscally conservative. Johnson should have followed the strong example of U.S. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., a deficit hawk who supported a lot of the good things in the tax bill but wisely voted “no” because of needless debt.
___
The Capital Times, Dec. 5
Ron Johnson looks out for himself
If anyone had any questions about how sincere U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson is in representing ordinary Wisconsin citizens, those questions were answered during the debacle that was supposed to be a serious reform of the nation’s tax structure.
Johnson, just like he did during the health care debate earlier this year, grandstanded that he couldn’t support the Republican bills and strutted around the Capitol “like a peacock,” according to fellow Wisconsin Republican James Sensenbrenner.
But, not surprisingly, his beef with the tax bill had nothing to do with how it adversely impacted his Wisconsin constituents, but rather how it didn’t do enough to help small businesses like his own.
His concern wasn’t for Wisconsin’s middle class taxpayers, who stand to lose their deductions for the state’s relatively high income taxes, but for “pass-through” companies like his plastics plant in Oshkosh. Both the House and Senate bills had provided healthy tax cuts for the “pass-throughs,” but they weren’t as large as Johnson coveted.
In the end, he got what he wanted as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell jumped through hoops for Johnson and the handful of others who threatened to withhold their vote if their demands went unanswered - a clever use of blackmail to get your way and, in Johnson’s case, more profit.
Meanwhile, unless the conference committee elects to make major changes between now and Christmas, Wisconsin taxpayers will have to pay their state income taxes and also pay federal taxes on the same money.
Additionally, thanks to GOP partisans like Johnson, the minimal tax reductions that Wisconsin’s middle class might see will completely disappear in 10 years, actually resulting in a tax increase. Meanwhile, Johnson’s plastics company and other business and corporate interests will enjoy permanent tax cuts.
Thanks, Ron Johnson, for your deep concern for the rest of us.
___
The Journal Times of Racine, Dec. 7
Public must be looped in on bad conduct probes
With the raft of sexual harassment, assault and misconduct complaints by powerful men roiling across Hollywood, the TV news industry and government in recent weeks, we were ready to applaud Assembly Speaker Robin Vos’ call for a mandatory meeting for Wisconsin legislative staff to discuss the process for reporting inappropriate behavior.
But in short order we were left with one hand clapping - a whiff - when Republican leaders in both the Senate and Assembly agreed that such complaints against lawmakers and their staff members and the results of any investigations into them will remain secret.
“The goal of an internal process is to make sure that every single person who feels that they were a victim of some kind of harassment or sexual harassment has a way to go to be able to report it to somebody, have some confidentiality, have it investigated, because frankly, if the allegations are untrue, we want to ensure people have the right to their own privacy with a false accusation, but also if they are true, we want to make sure that the victim is protected,” Vos told a Madison newspaper.
We understand that protecting the reputation of a lawmaker who might be falsely accused is something that the Legislature is concerned with. But they should also be concerned with the working climate at the Capitol and their responsibility to let the public know when such charges are substantiated and what actions have been taken.
“I understand sometimes in the zeal of the press you don’t really worry about naming the victims and all those kinds of things,” Vos said. “Our job is to ensure that people who want to come forward feel safe and that they are confident that we will treat it with the respect and due diligence they deserve.”
That ranks up there in the “pants on fire” scale on the fib-o-meter. The fact is that across the state newspapers and other media take great pains to protect the identity of sexual assault victims day in and day out. Most, if not all, have strict policies against naming victims - unless the victim comes forth publicly.
The Legislature could have - and should have - adopted a policy of redacting names of sexual assault victims and legislators when complaints are made.
But identifying lawmakers when the results of investigations are complete and actions are taken - or no actions result- are an absolute responsibility of the Legislature and its leaders.
If Vos needs other reasons for the Legislature to be more transparent in reporting such abuses, we can give him 75,000 of them. That’s the number - in dollars - that state taxpayers paid out two years ago to a former lawmaker’s aide who complained of sexual harassment and discrimination by former state Sen. Spencer Coggs, D-Milwaukee, and was later fired during an office downsizing.
That settlement only became public this week after an inquiry from the Wisconsin State Journal because although the initial complaint was filed with the Senate chief clerk, the agreement was reached after an investigation by the Department of Workforce Development.
According to accounts in the settlement, in one instance, Coggs asked the aide if she was “showing a little more cleavage lately” and said her breasts were a “distraction in the office.” In another instance, according to the Wisconsin State Journal report, Coggs asked the aide if she had “a taste for white meat” when she and a white co-worker both asked for the same day off.
When Coggs’ office was downsized after Republicans took control of the Legislature, the aide told Coggs how important her job was to her and he responded, “You can’t create an adversarial situation and then come back and ask me for something.”
Coggs, who has since left the Senate and is now Milwaukee city treasurer, told the Legislature’s Human Resources Office in 2009 - before the state agency investigation - that the aide should have kept her concerns “in-house.”
That screams for more public accountability when state lawmakers have committed improprieties or harassed legislative staff - or others. The names can be shielded at the outset, but the public has a right to know when the results of investigations are complete, what actions have been taken and any costs to Wisconsin taxpayers.
Openness, not secrecy, is the disinfectant that will cure bad behavior and encourage Capitol staffers to come forward with complaints when they are warranted.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.