Taxes

[usmc4669]

Would you agree to pay more taxes to get us out of dept, if it wasn't used for PORK?

[greybeard]

Sure, IF it were flat % 'across the board' tax increase, with no exemptions or exceptions. In other words, if I had to pay a 5% tax increase in my 5 figure annual salary, those with a 3 figure or a 7-8 figure income would have to do likewise. No free rides!!! I don't care how little or how much ya make-it has to apply to all.

[greensideout]

No, and it WOULD be used for pork. The way it is.

We, the American people send too much money to Washington now. If they would get their act together and use it wisely, they would not need more tax dollars. In fact, they could ask for less.

[ivalis]

Pork is money spent in somebody else's district.

[greensideout]

Porker's rule! lol

[GySgtRet]

YES....!!!! But I owe every year with few exceptions now and then...!!! A straight across the board would be good if it were managed correctly. I don't mind doing my part but I don't think that everybody does their part.

[namgrunt]

Well hush my mouth!
I actually have to agree with Ivalis on this one.

[J Shamp]

No..... 2.2 trillion collected this year, and it still not enough?

[greybeard]

Well, the pork issue could be resolved easily enough. The irs knows how much tax is collected from each state. That should be the max amt spent in that state, after the needs for the federal usage is deducted.

[david43844]

All I know is if we spent money like the govt. we'd all be in jail

[ivalis]

Grey, that's a good answer. We could use that Texas money up here in Wisconsin.

[greybeard]

You mis read it Ivalis. Outside the money spent on defense, federal highways/bridges, and other essential federal programs, such as air traffic control, Veteran's benefits, drug control, and immigration etc, I want none of my state's money spent anywhere else. I don't care if the everglades are going dry, the snail darter is going extinct, the homosexuals in San Franisco are getting aids, (yes, I'm well aware that aids is also a concern to all of us), the druggies in Miami can't get clean needles, the schools in Miss are falling down, or any of 10,000 other things the individual states should be addressing themselves. After all--it is MY money. For instance- do you really care whether or not the U.S. bureau of land management can afford to put in a new boat ramp at Twin Buttes reservoir here in San Angelo, Texas? I doubt it. A portion of your tax dollars is paying for it--I think the local/state govt should foot the bill for such things, or at least, out of federal funds payed in by this state's taxpayers. If a state is 'living beyond it's means', it's time to cut back, not ask out-of state taxpayers to give more to the general fund.
The IRS knows how much each state pays in each year. Instead of quoting a bunch of stats and figures, Let's just make up some #'s, andI'll use my state as an example. Let's say, that Texans pay in $10,000,000 , Let's say the federal expected expenditures for budget areas I outlined above total $50,000,000-nationwide. There are 50 states. Each state should only have to contribute 1 million dollars, leaving the rest to be spent on federal projects within that particular state. In this case, that would mean 1 million Texas $$ spent in the general fund, as the federal govt sees fit, and the remaining $9 million would have to be spent here. Now, I have no idea how much federal Tax dollars are collected from Texans, or how much they get back, but you get the idea. If it turns out we Texans are a 'debtor state' (recieve more bennies than we pay for), I still say the same thing. I don't expect you in Wis to foot the bill for 'pork' here in Texas, and vice versa. In other words-screw federal revenue sharing. It's MY money, and I want it spent where I can get the most usage from it. If we aren't paying enough to recieve very much in return-tuff on us. Time to tighten up here. I am not proud of some of the federal $$ spent in Texas, annd have written both my senatorial and house representatives asking that such programs in Texas be shut down. The Osprey is one of them (Textron-Ft Worth/Amarillo), as is the nuke facility at PANTEX. They are a waste of MY money (and yours). The federal $$ spent on the 'loop around San Angelo for the last 15 yrs is a joke. We never needed a loop, and won't need one in the forseeable future, but there's the sign out there "Your Federal Tax dollars at work".

[greybeard]

Now, let's talk about your state Ivalis, since it happened to show up on a qucik search. It's for 1998, but illustrates my point.
Wisconsin has long been on the short end of the federal entitlement scale. The Journal Sentinel, citing two recent studies, reported that Wisconsin ranked 46th and 49th in per capita federal spending in 1998. Had Wisconsin gotten a full return on its federal taxes paid in 1998, the state would have received another $4.2 billion.

Those funds can help rebuild hospitals, repair roads, clean the water, improve education, enhance public safety, expand airports, create jobs and improve the quality of life in our state.

I'm guessing that some of that $4.2 billion was spent on things such I listed at the beginning of my post above. But, obviously, your state is getting shortchanged. I expect states to share in the costs of the federally funded interstate highway system, since most of us make at least occassional out of state trips. The same holds true for FAA, FDA etc, but this crap of a portion of my federal $ (or yours) being spent to develop wind powered elec generators in Calif, or a new hybrid sugar cane stalk in Louisiana (just an example) is a crock of dung..
Yeah, I'm a selfish old faht. :D

[ivalis]

not to nit-pick, although you theory is accurate, the highway systems happen to be a kind of bad example. they are funded through gas taxes.

while the disparity (wisconsin does get the short end of the stick) does exist, there are reasonable reasons for a lot of it. military bases, arms contractors, and retirees are responsible for most of it.

it's interesting that when ya look at what states voted for bush v gore. the ones that voted for bush mostly enjoyed a federal spending surplus, the ones that voted for gore a deficit. there are some notable and large exceptions of course, California comes to mind.

the one that leads the pack in fed bucks is Alaska. what p!sses me off most about that is how the residents get a check for Alaska oil that our tax dollars defend w/ everybody's military.

[greybeard]

The interstate system my be funded by gas taxes, but it's still allocated by the feds. You have local-state-and federal gasoline tax. At least we do here in Texas-it says so on the pumps. When I speak of taxes, I mean all taxes paid into the federal heirarchy.
I didn't look very hard, not wanting to bog the thread down with loads of statistics, but do you have a link for all the states?
Yes, I did see the multitude of links related to the 2000 election, but I'm not really interested in how much is spent under which administration. Like I say, I have no idea if Texas, or any other state is 'in the federal red or black' so to speak. I would rather the fed stay out of state budgets entirely. They use both education and highway funds to force changes on individual states. Legalized federal blackmail.

[greybeard]

the one that leads the pack in fed bucks is Alaska. what p!sses me off most about that is how the residents get a check for Alaska oil that our tax dollars defend w/ everybody's military.
That's true, but the same can be said of almost everything, in each state. In Alaska's case, it IS their oil. They have(or should have) that perogative. They produce more than they use, and are an exporting state. A state should be able to take advantage of it's own resources. Remember I siad AFTER thee funding for national defense. We all have to pay in on that and rightfully so. But the good people of Miss shouldn't have to have a portion of their tax $ spent on a historical site in W Virginia or bumchuck Texas.

[ivalis]

texas has been big time in the black since the days that LBJ was a congressman.

its ironic how so many republican states are the benificiaries of federal largess.

[usmc4669]

ivalis I would like to apologize for my PM to you, sometimes I fly off the handle with my remarks.

[GreenSB]

Taxes.....leave them how they are..........it's like getting a re-enlistment bonus every year...........if you're getting screwed on taxes........just have another kid.......

[greybeard]

its ironic how so many republican states are the benificiaries of federal largess
is it? Since I haven't found a breakdown by state, I can't say one way or another. A more appropriate question might be:
Are they getting the benefits of federal expenditures in their states because they are conservative states?
or
Are they conservative because of the benefits?

[ivalis]

grey, i've pondered that same question. might be a chicken-egg thing. one things for sure, they ain't giving the money back.

[usmc4669]

The Wisconsin Coastal Management Program (WCMP) will convene a meeting of its project selection committee on Thursday, January 29, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Quality Inn South, 4915 East Broadway in Madison to review applications for the next round of WCMP grants. The federally-funded grants will go to local and tribal governments and non-profit organizations to assist local efforts to protect the unique environments of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes coasts and to enhance public access to coastal resources.

Applicants will have an opportunity to summarize their written grant applications submitted in November 2003. A total of 67 applications requested $3.1 million to be matched by $5.8 million in other funds. Available federal funds to be awarded to local projects total $1.5 million. The project selection committee will make its recommendations to the Wisconsin Coastal Management Council, which is appointed by the Governor.

The WCMP is dedicated to preserving and improving accessibility to the natural and historic resources of Wisconsin’s Great Lakes Coasts. The program works cooperatively with state, local and tribal government agencies and with non-profit organizations to manage the ecological, economic and aesthetic assets of the Great Lakes and their coastal areas. Additional program information can be found on the WCMP website at http://coastal.wisconsin.gov.

[usmc4669]

Governor Jim Doyle announced today that the state will use $3,755,853 in emergency federal energy assistance funds to help Wisconsin families with limited incomes address life-threatening situations and meet dramatic increases in heating costs. Wisconsin’s Home Energy Assistance Program has already served 95,664 households this year and the new funds are expected to help another 17,000 households.

"With the extremely cold weather we've been experiencing this winter and price increases in natural gas, heating oil and propane, I am very concerned about families with limited incomes," Governor Doyle stated. "I am directing the Wisconsin Energy Division to immediately release $3,755,853 of federal emergency funds to be used by local, county and tribal energy assistance program operators. These funds will help the most vulnerable households pay for increases in their heating fuel costs."

Governor Doyle also said he has asked the Wisconsin Energy Division to allocate $500,000 of the federal emergency funds as matching funds to the Keep Wisconsin Warm Fund (KWWF). KWWF is a statewide fuel fund that raises money from private sources to provide a dollar-for-dollar match to state funds. These funds are used to provide emergency assistance to low income households and also to households that are just above the eligibility levels to qualify for the state energy assistance program.


Governor Doyle noted that the state has significantly increased efforts to improve the energy efficiency of low-income households in the state. He said that the Energy Division plans to weatherize nearly 7,500 homes this year. Last year, more than 6,700 homes were weatherized and the year before that, nearly 6,000.

For further program information, including where to apply in your area, please call the Home Energy Plus toll free number: 866-HEATWIS (866-432-8947). Information is also available on the web at: homeenergyplus.wi.gov.

[usmc4669]

Wisconsin announces receipt of $10.3 Million in Federal Funds for Leadership in "Welfare to Work" Program
Department of Workforce Development (DWD) Receives Bonus for Achievements in Helping Low Income Working Families
Governor Jim Doyle and Department of Workforce Development (DWD) Secretary Roberta Gassman today announced the receipt of $10 million in federal dollars for demonstrated leadership in the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program. Wisconsin was granted one of the largest awards that was given to 41 states and the District of Columbia. Only five (5) states received more than Wisconsin’s $10.3 million.

“Wisconsin has always been a leader in employment programs. We are delighted that Wisconsin has been recognized with this bonus so that we can continue providing employment services and other resources to Wisconsin’s low income people,” said Governor Doyle. “These funds will allow us to help even more people reach self sufficiency,” added Doyle.

Said Secretary Gassman, “We are especially pleased to receive this funding during such tight fiscal times. This is a great opportunity to increase our capacity to meet the needs of Wisconsin’s children and families.”

The welfare reform legislation of 1996 authorized funding for annual performance achievement bonuses within the TANF program, called the High Performance Bonus. States can choose to compete in any or all of the performance bonus categories, but must supply data to federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in order to be considered for the award.

About 70 percent of the bonuses were awarded for employment achievement among TANF recipient adults -- including job entry, job retention and increased earnings. Bonuses also were awarded for program achievements in helping low-income working families take advantage of available Food Stamps and Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program coverage; in providing child care; and in increasing the proportion of children living in married couple families. Most of these awards are made for relative performance in the given year and for greatest improvement from the previous year.

Award amounts for each state depend upon the size of each state's TANF block grant. Under the law, states are limited to receiving bonuses in a given year of no more than five percent of their annual TANF block grant. Nine of the 41 states received their maximum possible bonus.

In addition to administering the state’s W-2 program, DWD provides training and employment assistance to people looking for work; works with employers to fill job openings; helps the disabled secure employment; links youth with jobs; protects and enforces worker’s rights; administers Wisconsin’s apprenticeship program; pays Unemployment Insurance claims; and, administers Workers Compensation.

[usmc4669]

We have completed a financial and compliance audit of the State of Wisconsin, as requested by state agencies to meet the audit requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the provisions of federal Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133. In addition, the audit assists us in meeting state audit requirements under s. 13.94, Wis. Stats. The audit covers the period from July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000. During this period, state agencies, including the University of Wisconsin System, administered $6.3 billion in cash and non-cash federal assistance.

While, overall, we found that state agencies complied with federal grant requirements, we question $1,027,571 in costs the State charged to federal grants and in lost interest earnings to the federal government because of various delays. The amount the State may be required to repay the federal government is likely to be less than the amount questioned because the federal government may allow the State to substitute qualified expenditures for the expenditures that we question. However, the amount questioned is significantly greater than the $688,051 we questioned in our fiscal year (FY) 1998-99 audit and the $293,474 we questioned in our FY 1997-98 audit.

We continue to have concerns at the Department of Workforce Development (DWD), which administers some of the larger and more complex federal programs. In total, we question $934,137 that DWD charged to federal grant programs or that was lost interest earnings to the federal government because of various delays. Two of the more significant concerns relate to contracts and direct payments to clients for the Vocational Rehabilitation program.

DWD contracted with the Department of Commerce to provide funds to businesses that agreed to expand their operations and reserve newly created jobs for Vocational Rehabilitation clients. In a highly questionable practice, on September 29, 1999, the day before the grant period expired, DWD amended its contract and prepaid Commerce for services. We found the manipulation of contracts and payment procedures was done to avoid the lapsing of federal funds. We consider this issue to be a material violation of federal regulations and, therefore, qualified our opinion on compliance with federal regulations and questioned $248,732.

We also continue to have concerns with unsupported payments to Vocational Rehabilitation clients, which were previously discussed in other financial and program evaluation reports. During FY 1999-2000, DWD made over 17,000 payments, totaling over $5 million, directly to Vocational Rehabilitation clients. We tested 56 payments made during FY 1999-2000 and found payments totaling $12,137 were not supported by receipts or other documentation. To assess remedial action taken by DWD in August 2000, we tested an additional 22 direct payments made in October and November 2000 and found payments totaling $8,583 were not supported. Because of the large number of direct payments made during our audit period, and the likelihood of additional unsupported payments, we believe this area to be a material weakness in DWD’s internal controls.

We question a variety of other costs charged to grant programs by DWD and other state agencies. For example, we question:

$329,107 because non-federal matching expenditures may have been applied to incorrect Vocational Rehabilitation award years by DWD;
$200,896 in costs DWD inappropriately charged to prior-year awards under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and an additional $98,964 because of errors it made in calculating the amount of TANF funds to transfer to the Social Services Block Grant;
$35,718 in questioned costs for other federal programs administered by DWD;
$57,750 in program income that a nonprofit corporation under contract with the Department of Administration collected but did not report to the Department;
$22,791 in salary and fringe benefit costs the Department of Military Affairs charged to a federal grant for two employees who did not document their work effort in accordance with federal regulations; and
$12,640 in costs incurred by the University of Wisconsin, and $253 by the Department of Health and Family Services.
We also reviewed cash management at the Department of Transportation (DOT). We determined that DOT did not review and liquidate encumbrances related to highway construction projects in a timely manner, resulting in up to $811,000 in state funds being used to subsidize federal funds during FY 1999-2000, and up to $40,000 in lost interest earnings to the State. We also note that during FY 1999-2000, DOT did not perform all of the federally required tests to verify that the materials used in highway projects meet minimum quality standards.

[usmc4669]

Brownfields:
Redeveloping Contaminated Property
NEW! "Ready for Reuse" Initiative
Wisconsin’s “Ready for Reuse” initiative would leave no brownfields behind. DNR is providing its draft application to request $4 million in federal funds (U.S. EPA) for loans and grants to clean up Wisconsin brownfields.

[usmc4669]

The Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program (WETAP) (9 KB) represents an effort to connect low-income workers with jobs through enhanced local transportation services. WETAP integrates local, state and federal funding into a single program and award process administered jointly by WisDOT and the state Department of Workforce Development. Since WETAP’s implementation on July 1, 2000, over 4.2 million miles in enhanced transit services have been added throughout the state benefiting over 1.6 million riders.

Over $25 million in federal, state and local funds have been committed to WETAP, providing many workers throughout the state a crucial transportation link that allows them to enter and remain in the workforce.


Contact: Don Chatfield, donald.chatfield@dot.state.wi.us, or (608)267-7345

[usmc4669]

ivalis:Texas money up here in Wisconsin.
who should get the most federal aid.
Texas population is almost 75% more than Wiscocsin.
Texas size is almost 80% larger larger than Wiscocsin.

Wisconsin:
Population, 2000 5,363,675

Texas:
Population, 2000 20,851,820

Wisconsin;
The state's estimated population for 2001,1,906
Texas:
The state's estimated population for 2001, 21,325,018
Wisconsin:
White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 88.9%

Texas:
White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 71.0%

Wisconsin:
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 5.7%

Texas:
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 11.5%

Wisconsin:
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.9%

Texas:
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.6%

Wisconsin:
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 1.7%

Texas:
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 2.7%

Wisconsin:
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 3.6%

Texas:
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 32.0%

Wisconsin:
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 3.6%

Texas:
Foreign born persons, percent, 2000 13.9%

Wisconsin:
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 85.1%

Texas:
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 2000 75.7%

Wisconsin:
Median household money income, 1999 $43,791

Texas:
Median household money income, 1999 $39,927

Wisconsin:
Per capita money income, 1999 $21,271

Texas:
Per capita money income, 1999 $19,617

Wisconsin:
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 8.7%

Texas:
Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 15.4%

Wiscocsin:
Land area, 2000 (square miles) 54,310

Texas:
Land area, 2000 (square miles) 261,797

Wisconsin:
Persons per square mile, 2000 98.8


Texas:
Persons per square mile, 2000 79.6
[/b]