To the editor,
There is a considerable amount of information available regarding the two constitutional amendments that will be on the August ballot. For matters regarding …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
To the editor,
There is a considerable amount of information available regarding the two constitutional amendments that will be on the August ballot. For matters regarding constitutional issues a reliable place to look for a nonpartisan interpretation is the League of Women Voters. They succinctly state their analysis as follows: Question 1 refers to the delegation of appropriation power and question two the allocation of federal money. "A 'yes' vote supports amending the constitution to require legislative approval via a joint resolution before the governor can expend federal money appropriated to the state. A 'no' vote opposes the amendments, thereby, allowing the governor to accept and allocate funds without seeking legislative approval."
This refers only to federal income tax dollars allocated to help states cope with emergency situations and needs. Due to the inappropriate use of federal legislation as it is related to the non codified $256B Tobacco Settlement of 1998, federal legislation is becoming increasingly codified. Passage of the proposed amendments could mean that in some instances (as in recent pandemic relief funds) Wisconsin wouldn't even be eligible to receive federal funds. Case in point, in the tobacco settlement of 1998, Wisconsin was destined to get $5.9 billion over 25 years for tobacco health-related issues. However, the Wisconsin legislature sold our settlement for an up-front $1.3 billion of which they used all but $450 million to balance the budget and provide tax relief for corporations and upper income earners. Thus less than 10% was spent as intended.
Congress got the message and federal programs are becoming increasingly codified to keep them out of reach of political insiders at the state regional levels. Would this legislature or a future one be any different? That is not likely. The legislative branch has demonstrated contrary behavior repeatedly. In 2018, they held a lame duck session to rescind powers they had given to Gov. Walker in 2010. They have rejected most of Gov. Evers’ appointments including secrataries of agriculture, DNR, NRB members and the like, all with the intent to limit the power of the one statewide elected office. When emergency special sessions are called, they meet, take a role call and dismiss and do nothing.
Wisconsin will do better to leave the constitutional authority on matters of spending federal emergency relief funding in the hands of the governor who represents the electorate of the whole state, has the ability to move quickly on matters of relief and access to the government agencies and bureaucracies to get funding where it needs to go without the acrimony of petty partisan wrangling. That's why a "NO" vote on each amendment will serve us best. Incidentally, though nonpartisan, the LWV does take a position on constitutional matters and they also encourage us to vote "NO" on both question 1 and question 2.
Ron Ginsbach
Elmwood