The State of the State under Walker: Where it came from; where it is now; and where it seems headed
All politicians have an agenda underlying their policies. That is not necessarily a bad thing. But sometimes it is. In any event, an understanding of what that agenda is and how it affects individuals can be instrumental in evaluating an administration's success or failure to govern. In light of Scott Walker's record and his bid for reelection, an evaluation of his administration is in order.
All states have not emerged equally well from the Great Recession, and a comparison of how Wisconsin has fared in comparison to other states should reveal something about the effectiveness of each state's plan and accomplishments in that regard. Where have we come from? Where are we now? Where are we headed? And are we proceeding as planned, on pace, and with observable documented accomplishments to show for our efforts?
Comparison of one state's success with that of another can be tricky, since many variables make up a state's population demographics, degree of urbanization, state income sources, etc. The most effective comparisons, obviously, are between states with the greatest similarity across many such demographics. Comparison of very different policy approaches between states with otherwise very similar demographics, can supply the best evidence for success or failure of those different policy approaches.
Performance can be measured not only in comparison to that of other similar states, it can also be compared to the performance of the preceding administration. But in this case, a comparison with the previous administration is grossly unfair, as the previous administration, that of Jim Doyle, governed during the national economic collapse of the Great Recession.
Agendas create policy. And policy affects a state's success as reflected in statistics and rankings in comparison to other states. So the most objective appraisal today should be seen in comparisons between highly similar states' post-recession growth. Those states recovering the fastest have good reason to tout the success of their policies. The proof is in the numbers.
However, as already noted, recovery can be driven by factors other than policy. It can be driven by the good fortune of having varied sources of revenue to support that growth, such as tourism or heavy fossil-fuel industry involvement. So, the fairest comparison of policy differences from one state to another, would be a comparison of states with the same degree of reliance on income from policy instead of tourism, fossil fuels, or other resources. Wisconsin and Minnesota are two such similarly funded states, with starkly differing approaches to policy.
Jobs and the Economy
Scott Walker has emphasized job creation and the economy as important factors in his plan for Wisconsin, calling them "top priorities." So, comparing job growth in this state with that of neighboring Minnesota should provide statistical evidence for the relative success or failure of the Walker administration's policy stance.
In comparing the two very similar states with widely differing policy approaches, Wisconsin has consistently done more poorly than Minnesota. Whether we are examining the number or the types of new jobs, the state's unemployment figures, or its gross domestic product, Wisconsin finishes second to Minnesota in every category. Sometimes, second place doesn't sound all that bad. But it's actually a lot worse than that.
In particular, job growth numbers are depressingly weak. Wisconsin is ranked 34th in nation for creating new jobs. But when confronted with these statistics the governor's reply is that he doesn't care about rankings. He claims that he is creating new jobs regardless of what any numbers say. To hear the governor tell it, his agenda for Wisconsin in "on course," and proceeding according to plan.
If Governor Walker's plan is unfolding on schedule, we may want to consult the time frame for that schedule's full implementation. Because another way to view 34th place is as 16th from the worst job growth in the nation. If this grand plan is unfolding on schedule, then how long, exactly, is this scheduled development going to take?
If this governor's plan is working--in other words, the plan endorsed by the right-wing ultra-conservative faction of the Republican Party--maybe it just needs a little more time to show progress. Maybe job growth is slow now, but will pick up steam as the intricacies of the Walker plan take root and grow. Maybe we are just being too impatient. (Have you heard any of this before?)
The biggest problem with that assumption is that the Walker agenda is not an isolated scenario. It is an agenda that has been tried before, and is currently in vogue in thirteen states. Some of those states have been "on course" with this agenda for longer than Wisconsin. So, let's look at the progress in those states. Maybe those states will show us how the Walker plan will spring into action when we give it a little more time. Maybe this agenda is just slow to develop.
Unfortunately, the results of this kind of government get demonstrably worse.
The only states employing this kind of agenda and showing any signs of success, are states like Texas and Florida, where fat revenue sources exist from tourism and fossil fuels. States such as Wisconsin have to rely almost exclusively on their policy direction for revenue streams. And in situations such as this, the news doesn't get better over time. In fact, it gets worse. States following this kind of agenda for considerably longer than Wisconsin include Virginia, Alabama, and Mississippi. These are states that follow similar prescriptions for government and--like Wisconsin--have no major funding sources from tourism or fossil fuels. Their past and present are WISCONSIN'S FUTURE under this agenda. And that isn't a pretty picture.
The Walker Tax Swap
The governor's sweeping tax law changes would trade the current income tax revenues for a higher sales tax rate. The idea is to cut taxes, which is a hallmark characteristic of this kind of governing agenda. It sounds good on paper, and people usually respond favorably to the notion of paying less in taxes. The problem is, that this notion has an inherent disconnect. And a state like Wisconsin, that relies on taxation in the absence of revenue streams from tourism or fossil fuels, must have sufficient tax revenue to fund the state's needs. Cutting taxes has become a "one size fits all" solution for those adopting agendas like that of Scott Walker. The real problem, unobserved by Mr. Walker's agenda, is that the money still has to come from somewhere.
Governor Walker says he will swap the sources, and fund the treasury with the highest sales tax in the nation. If you like paying less in taxes, this is not a very good solution for most people. In fact, it's worse than that. Most of us pay the majority of our taxes in sales taxes.
The Walker plan would actually increase the amount paid in taxes by almost everyone in the state. Eighty percent of Wisconsin's citizens, in fact. The notable exceptions are these: Those earning in the top 20 percent income bracket would be the only ones to pay less in taxes, as a percentage of income. The top one percent would benefit the most, paying the least in taxes. The bottom 20 percent would be punished the most, paying an increase of 5.4 percent more than they are currently paying in taxes.
The Walker Agenda: What It Really Means
Throughout this analysis we have referred to the Walker agenda. It is time to examine just what that agenda is. A group known as the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, has organized much of this agenda and proudly claims it as its own. With specifically scored tabulations they have evaluated the degree to which different states conform to their agenda.
ALEC's propagandistic intention is to confirm the legitimacy of its agenda by pointing to the successful economic picture found in the highest-ranking ALEC-conforming states. Unfortunately for ALEC, the so-called successful states conforming to ALEC guidelines--Texas, Florida, Nevada, North Dakota, and Arizona--are successful for reasons other than policy approach. They are successful financially not because they cut taxes according to the ALEC agenda, but because they have substantial revenue streams from tourism or natural resources that permit them the luxury of cutting taxes. Wisconsin is not that lucky. Like Alabama, Mississippi, and Virginia, there are no overwhelming revenue streams from sources other than taxation. Taxes fund their governments. Period. Cutting taxes in this atmosphere cuts government funding. Period.
According to the ALEC one-size-fits-all approach, cutting taxes is the order of the day, largely because it benefits the wealthiest portion of the population. But if you are not in that group and you think this is starting to look a little shady, well, it's worse than that. There also appears to be a heavy negative correlation between following the ALEC agenda and job creation as determined by relative state rankings. Those most closely following ALEC predominantly have the worst records for job creation. Ooops!
According to ALEC's own figures, as found in their publication, "Rich States, Poor States," states were ranked according to their projected economic outlook for 2013. In this agenda-driven ranking, Wisconsin fares favorably with a ranking of 15th, up from 30th. Even Mississippi is 10th. And Minnesota, with its more liberal agenda, lags in 46th place. Why? Well, that's a good question.
What's the clear alternative to the Walker agenda?
Unlike the cookie-cutter ALEC states, Minnesota raised taxes on the rich, investing in the public school system. They had one of the faster-growing state economies in 2012 and now have a higher median income and lower unemployment and poverty levels than states like Mississippi or Wisconsin. Yes, Wisconsin, you are BEING COMPARED TO MISSISSIPPI. The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics places Minnesota near the top compared to other Midwest states for private-sector job growth. Wisconsin is near the bottom.
According to ALEC and its followers like Scott Walker, this news of success in Minnesota is all BAD news, the kind of thing that detracts from a state's "ranking" or economic "outlook" or "performance." Minnesota, according to ALEC, is a train wreck. Meanwhile, Wisconsin is "on track with its business-friendly environment."
In part due to the length and depth of the recession, the nation has now experienced an unprecedented stretch of consecutive months of job growth, with some states faring better than others. According to the Bureau of labor Statistics for June, 2014, Wisconsin ranked 24th in unemployment rate while Minnesota surpassed it in 10th. As a frame of reference, Virginia stood at 17th while Alabama and Mississippi--the more "advanced" ALEC states--fell in at 40th and 50th, respectively.
One of the key ALEC provisions blocks minimum wage increases, but according to Goldman Sachs economists, as reported by the Center for Economic Policy Research, states that increased their minimum wage in 2014 have had greater job creation this year than states that did not increase it.
ALEC and Scott Walker have a very clear agenda. It is an agenda of corporate dominance. The question is whether Wisconsin residents really want more of that agenda or not. Do you want more Scott Walker "Big Business" focus at the expense of human and cultural needs? Do you really want that, Wisconsin? Can you see the difference? Yes, of course you can. Can you see what your neighbors are doing with a newer, better governmental agenda? Yes, of course you can.
But in case you somehow failed to notice, this is your election-year chance to do something about that. I think the real question is whether or not you want to be headed in the direction of states like Mississippi and Alabama. If an all-out race to the bottom is your goal, by golly, vote for Walker.