Deficit? Balanced budget? Huh?
One of the many lies that Jim Doyle spouted during his campaign was that he balanced Wisconsin's budget.
That was THE accomplishment of his term. He balanced the budget.
Again and again and again, he cited balancing the budget as one of his shining achievements, a highpoint for him as governor.
In Doyle and Mark Green's first televised debate, Doyle had the audacity to blame Green, a single congressman, for the budget problems in Washington.
Doyle bragged about his skill and leadership in pulling Wisconsin out of a deficit and putting the state back in the black.
Of course, that's an absolute crock.
Read about the Doyle Method of "balancing" a budget.
Now that the votes have been cast and the election is over and Doyle is sitting pretty, we get the news that the next budget is anything but balanced.
Madison -- Gov. Jim Doyle and the Legislature will have to close a $1.6 billion deficit as they develop the next two-year budget, according to a new report released Monday.
Officials vowed that they would not raise taxes to close the gap between what state agencies say they need and what taxes are expected to generate.
That vow is worthless.
Doyle, the state's executive, is a liar. His flunkies will fall in line.
The $1.6 billion figure was the latest estimate of the so-called structural deficit facing the state. It is about 6% of the $26.4 billion that state government is on track to collect in taxes and fees over the next two years.
By comparison, $1.6 billion is how much more would be raised over two years if the 5% state sales tax were increased to 6% - a possible solution no one in the Capitol has dared to whisper. It is also the amount the state spent on Medicaid health care programs last year, not counting matching federal dollars.
State Administration Secretary Steve Bablitch said that Doyle will live up to his campaign promise and make whatever choices are necessary to control spending in a 2007-'09 budget. Doyle won't raise general sales, individual income or corporate income taxes, Bablitch said.
Parsing campaign promises is not a good idea.
But Doyle hasn't said how much of an increase he will recommend next year in fees, including the $55 annual vehicle registration fee. During his re-election campaign, Doyle had indicated he might support a $10 increase in the fee. But state Department of Transportation officials have asked that the fee be increased to $80.
In addition to raising fees and cutting costs, Doyle could also borrow more money, pushing the problem off into the future. Borrowing for transportation jumped 183% from 2002 to '06, for example, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
Fees. Taxes. What difference does it make?
Calling something a "fee" doesn't change what it means.
If it's money out of Wisconsinites' pockets and into government coffers, it's hurting the people.
...The new estimate came two weeks after Doyle was re-elected in a campaign in which the deficit was often debated.
How convenient!
Imagine. All of sudden a $1.6 billion deficit was discovered.
I bet no one saw that coming.
Riiiiiiiight.
Hey, Doyle supporters!
Do you feel duped, or are you apologists for the corrupt Doyle and busy towing the Doyle line?
The fact is Doyle lied.
He intentionally misled the voters.
I'd suggest an immediate recall effort, but there's time. I want to find out if there will be any revelations coming from Steve Biskupic that might be helpful in ousting Doyle.
Simply put, Doyle is a disgrace. The voters didn't get it right.
4 comments:
The folks who voted for Doyle knew the deal, they just didn't care. Look at the Journal Sentinel. They acted like Doyle was the second coming until about 10 minutes after he won and then they basically admitted he was full of crap.
I believe Doyle balanced his budget.
A paperclip on each side should have kept it equi-balanced in weight, height and length:)
Elliot,
I'm sure the JS staff knew that Doyle was a fraud.
I wonder about the swing voters and those less in the know.
Had the JS and other media outlets called Doyle on his myriad of deceptions maybe the election results would have been different.
That must be it, Pero.
Technically, the budget was "balanced." :)
Post a Comment