Cutting proposed jobs does not equal an actual, real reduction in the number of state government workers in Wisconsin. In his first budget, Walker pushed for a bigger reduction in state government jobs than the legislature was willing to give him. At the end of the 2011-2013 budget, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau reports there were 67,466 full-time equivalent state employee positions.

The LFB report prepared before full Assembly and Senate deliberations on the new state budget asserts that the 2013-2015 budget contains authorizations for 69,243 full-time equivalent (FTE) state government jobs. The baseline used for the budget was 69,263, meaning lawmakers can boast that they reduced state government jobs compared to the baseline.

The state government jobs that are directly funded by taxpayer money, and not federal aid money to the state, program revenue or other funding, are listed as GPR FTE, or general program revenue full-time equivalent jobs. The Joint Finance Committee increased these jobs by 140 positions. It was these GPR-funded positions in particular that drew the ire of state Rep. Steve Nass, a Republican who voted against the budget today after blasting a number of flaws in the budget.

A major talking point that Republicans are touting about the budget is that in general it cuts 450 positions from across state government. But just what those positions might be and who is currently paying for them is not specified. In essence, Republicans have said they want to cut 450 positions, but they have not specified which ones and they have delayed that cut until the start of January of 2015, as the state is nearing the end of the biannual budget.

Sources inside the Capitol note that roughly 3,300 state jobs are sitting vacant, and it could be 450 of these open, vacant jobs that are targeted for removal. But if that is the case, then that would mean the reduction of 450 already-unused job openings does nothing to reduce the current size and scope of state government and its sprawling workforce of public employees.

The post Previous Budget Had 1,777 Fewer Government Workers Than Current Budget appeared first on Media Trackers.

The post Fox News Interviews Media Trackers President Drew Ryun appeared first on Media Trackers.

“Together we tried to run Montana like a business,” claimed Republican Sen. Taylor Brown of Huntley in a post-legislative session press conference. “That means you look to reward your hardworking employees with better compensation, and you responsibly pay off your state’s debts and financial obligations, and, while your doing that, you invest in your future and your students and your infrastructure.”

The group calling themselves “Responsible Republicans” hold a post legislative session press conference. (photo courtesy of Montana BASE)

Since 2000, the growth of the biennial budget passed by the legislature and governor has consistently been in the range of 7 percent to almost 20 percent.  The final budget signed by Gov. Steve Bullock in May will raise total state spending by 13 percent and includes spending increases for liberal constituencies such as public employees and government-run education.

“It is far in excess of the growth in our economy and our population,” Senate President Jeff Essmann (R-Billings) told the Associated Press after the budget was finalized. “At some point the horse is going to get tired of pulling the wagon.”

Montana’s general fund spending in the 2001 biennium was $2.18 billion.  The 2015 biennium total will be almost double that at $4.3 billion.  During that time, while the state’s population has grown by just over ten percent, state spending has nearly doubled.

Liberal Democrats saw many of the their constituencies rewarded again during this legislative session, as most of the increases came from pay increases for state employees, fixes to the state pension system, funding for buildings at the state’s colleges and increased funding to government-run K-12 education.

One of the largest areas of spending for the state has been education.  The Office of Public Instruction, which oversees most of the K-12 spending in the state, received $477 million by the state in 2000.  In 2014 and 2015, according to recent budget documents, it will receive $701 million and $720 million, respectively, from the state.

This represents a 50 percent increase during a time when both enrollment of students and population of school age children have gone down.  The latest U.S. Census reports show the population aged 5 to 17 years decreased by over 14,000 during the 10-year time period from 2000 to 2010.  Enrollment figures from the Office of Public Instruction show that enrollment in Montana schools peaked during the 1995-96 school year and have been decreasing ever since.  Latest enrollment figures of around 142,000 are almost 10,000 below what they were at the end of the 1980′s.

Senate Minority leader Jon Sesso (D-Butte) defended the spending increases, saying, “The spending is well in line with the revenues that are coming in.”

Spending increases, Medicaid expansion, and other issues such as “dark money” spending highlighted divisions within the Republican caucus this session.  Even before the session, leaked emails showed Essmann rallying support to take back leadership positions from moderate members of the party. Essmann succeeded in winning his election by one vote in a narrow, secret ballot vote. Essmann later became one of the chief critics of his Republican colleagues working with Democrats to increase state spending.

Some Republicans also joined with Democrats during the legislative session to advocate for Medicaid expansion in Montana.  While supporters argue that Medicaid expansion would have covered an additional 70,000 Montanans with government-provided or subsidized health care, most Republicans balked at the costs and claimed it was fiscally irresponsible.  Montana currently covers $350 million of the $1 billion spent in the state on Medicaid and already pays $9,600 per resident for current Medicaid users. While federal money would cover the initial cost of new patients, the costs would slowly shift back to the state over time.

As Democrats have held the governor’s mansion for the third straight term, Republicans have seen record numbers of their bills vetoed and have been forced to either compromise on spending issues with the governor or send a handful of bills directly to the voters.

With Bullock remaining in office for the next legislative session and no obvious end to the Republican dominance of the state legislature, Montana may be in for more of the same spending policies when the legislature reconvenes in Helena in 2015.

The post Montana Republicans Help Democrats Deliver Another State Spending Increase appeared first on Media Trackers.

The program is currently capped at $60 million. Pileggi’s proposal supports uncapping the film tax credit as well as adding tax credits for video game production. Pileggi pointed to a report on the program released by the Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) on June 6.

In a press release, Pileggi claims that the tax credit “has created an industry in Pennsylvania.” He also claims that the tax credit “is a strong tool for job creation generally, and it’s proven to be a tremendous way for Pennsylvania to fight ‘brain drain’ in particular.”

Pileggi pointed out that the uncapping of the tax credit “would have a significant positive impact on Pennsylvania’s economy with a minimal cost in the coming fiscal year” and that “in 2011, film-related wages in Pennsylvania totaled $248 million,” according to the report.

Even the Philadelphia Business Journal mused, “Perhaps The Dark Knight Rises  is just the beginning of major motion pictures being filmed in the state of Pennsylvania.”

But it might be a surprise to most Pennsylvanians that the popular Batman movie did not even receive the tax credit when it filmed in Pittsburgh in 2012.

In fact, there’s a vastly different summary of the Peloggi-cited IFO report in The Tribune Review by Duquesne professor Antony Davies and James R. Harrigan, a fellow of the Institute of Political Economy at Utah State University. “The tax credit will cost us money and the tax credit will be good for the film industry,” they wrote.

The tax credit doesn’t technically cost the government anything, but it does give up the tax revenue that would have been collected without it. Davies and Harrigan pointed out in May that the film industry still “will be using state services: police and fire protection, public schools, roads and — notably — unemployment benefits when their movies wrap up. We taxpayers will be footing the bill for these services.”

Pileggi also forgot to mention the IFO report also found that Pennsylvania makes only 14 cents on every dollar of the tax credit. This is similar to findings in several other states. The Tax Foundation found that, with only one exception, every independent study has found film tax credits generate less than 30 cents for every one dollar of credit.

Dawn Keezer, the executive director of the Pittsburgh Film Office, said that the tax credit has added around 18,000 jobs in the film industry. She added that the $60 million tax credit is still not enough to cover all of the interest there is for filming in Pennsylvania.

“We have more applications than that,” Keezer told Media Trackers. “We have more desire than that.”

Keezer pointed out that the state provides tax credits to other industries such as the oil and gas companies and that the film industry is simply seeking to be treated equally.

“The film industry is like any business,” she said.

Scott Drenkard, an economist at the Tax Foundation, acknowledged the existence of other tax credits and said picking and choosing any industry to get tax breaks comes with a cost.

“The trade-off is that you’re either cutting taxes for one industry or cutting rates for everybody,” he told Media Trackers. “If you have a flat rate then you’re not making decisions about what the most important industry is in the market.”

Davies and Harrigan wrote about that same opportunity cost.

“When people are taxed to subsidize one industry, they have less money to spend the way they want,” Davies and Harrigan wrote. “Some people win, but a lot of others lose. Politicians are simply picking the winners and losers.”

Nathan Benefield, director of policy analysis at the Commonwealth Foundation, pointed to Frederic Bastiat’s economic principle of that which is seen and that which is unseen. What is seen, he told Media Trackers, is the jobs that the film industry creates with the film tax credit. What’s unseen, he said, is that “you also have the jobs that would be created if you would use that money to cut taxes for other businesses.”

Benefield also pointed out that with the state budget debate’s emphasis on corporate tax reform, that energy should be focused on getting rid of the film tax credit and using the money that becomes availableto cut corporate taxes, which would also create jobs — and perhaps even more jobs and more permanent jobs than the film industry.

Drenkard, the Tax Foundation economist, added that even though the film production tax credit does add many jobs, they are often temporary and affect a smaller group of specialized workers.

But the film industry is “sexy,” Drenkard said, which is one reason the film tax credit is so popular.

“People like the idea of Hollywood walking around their town or filming in their state,” he said.

He added that there’s even an incentive for the lawmakers who push these tax credits.

“All incentive programs are politically expedient because they come with a ribbon cutting ceremony.”

The post While Other States Freeze Hollywood Tax Credits, One Pennsylvania Lawmaker Pushes for Expansion appeared first on Media Trackers.

But questions remain as to why the measure was included in the budget in the first place, and who wanted it in there. State Senator Mike Ellis (R) represents a district that has seen some recent economic growth thanks to the aviation industry. When Media Trackers contacted his office to see if he was the legislator behind the idea, a top aide said that Ellis was opposed to the provision.

Gulfstream Aerospace, a subsidiary of General Dynamics, a massive aviation, space and defense company, has a sizable maintenance and repair facility in Appleton, which is in Ellis’ senate district. A builder of corporate, small and luxury jets, Gulfstream’s Appleton complex has started to draw international business to the state.

A report in New North B2B, a business interest publication, says that Gulfstream employs 840 workers in Appleton and will be seeking to add nearly 100 more throughout 2013.

Some of that growth is already taking place at Gulfstream Aerospace facilities located at the Outagamie County Regional Airport near Appleton. The company recently expanded and is employing 840 fulltime workers in the Fox Cities plus 50 contractors, with more to come this year.

With the aviation industry in Ellis’ district already going strong, why a subsidy or grant from WEDC would be necessary is not clear. Tom Thieding, a spokesman for WEDC, told Media Trackers that Gulfstream has not gotten any funds or grants from WEDC since January 1, 2011. In 2011, Governor Scott Walker established WEDC as a replacement for the old Department of Commerce.

When pressed to explain what they might have wanted in the budget, Ellis’ office said that the veteran lawmaker had asked for a sales tax exemption for sales, manufacturing and repairs on passenger transportation aircraft. According to their research, states that surround Wisconsin, like Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Minnesota, already have such a sales tax exemption. What these other states have done has put Wisconsin aviation companies at a competitive disadvantage, and that includes Gulfstream.

Never did Ellis request a $2 million grant system for aviation companies to be administered through the WEDC. What Ellis did want, a sales tax exemption was not included in the budget that emerged from negotiations.

Just who would have changed Ellis’ proposal is not clear. Final budget negotiations seem to have involved Speaker Robin Vos, Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, and Sen. Alberta Darling and Rep. John Nygren, the Republican co-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee.

Fitzgerald, already struggling to muster up GOP support for the budget, was not likely the one who wanted to frustrate Ellis. Darling, as a fellow senator, would also seem an unlikely source for the change.

Repeated inquiries to Speaker Robin Vos’ office about the matter went unanswered. It is no secret, however, that Vos and Ellis do not have a good relationship right now in the wake of the fight over tax cuts. Vos was notably absent during the initial rollout of state Rep. Dale Kooyenga’s tax cut plan, much of which is now included in the state budget. Ellis, a notorious hawk for a balanced budget, immediately backed Kooyenga’s plan even as Vos publicly wavered on the idea. Days after the plan came out, Vos finally came on board and spent time blasting Ellis for supposedly opposing the plan – something that never seems to have happened – at least publicly.

The post Aviation Funding in Wisconsin Budget Raises Questions appeared first on Media Trackers.

“During the next several years,” the study found, “the unemployment rate would be slightly higher than it otherwise would be and average wages would be slightly lower.”

Specifically, CBO estimates that the bill would decrease average wages through 2024 and would increase the unemployment rate through 2020. According to the CBO study, one major reason for the lower average wages would be “because the amount of capital available to workers would not increase as rapidly as the number of workers[.]” The introduction of primarily low-wage workers into the U.S. workforce would also tend to drive average wages down.

Although the congressional scoring agency estimates that average wages would eventually increase by approximately 0.5 percent in 2033, the bill’s provisions are not expected to ever decrease the unemployment rate. “S. 744 would cause the unemployment rate to increase slightly between 2014 and 2020, relative to the rate projected under current law, but to have no effect on the unemployment rate after 2020,” CBO reported. “[T]he rate would remain slightly elevated through 2020.”

While supporters of the immigration plan point to the higher overall economic growth that would be generated by the legislation, CBO found that it may take several decades before higher per capita economic growth — the average amount of economic output generated by each worker in the U.S. –  is realized.

“Per capita GNP would be less than 1 percent lower than under current law through 2031 because the increase in the population would be greater, proportionately, than the increase in output,” the study found. “[A]fter 2031, however, the opposite would be true.”

The U.S. Senate is currently considering the immigration plan and has already rejected several amendments to strengthen border security provisions within the bill.

The post CBO: Senate Immigration Bill Would Increase Unemployment Rate, Decrease Wages appeared first on Media Trackers.

Think Progress, an arm of the Center for American Progress, published an article on Tuesday titled “Florida’s Governor Signs Business-Backed Bill Banning Paid Sick Leave.” The bill, however, does not ban paid sick leave. Many Florida employers offer their employees paid sick leave and the bill does nothing to block employers from offering such a job benefit. The bill merely ensures that Florida employers are not required by law to pay workers for days they don’t show up for work claiming to be sick.

Liberal activist groups such as the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress pushed hard for liberal-leaning Florida counties to enact laws requiring employers to pay workers for days they don’t show up for work and claim to be sick. State legislators feared such laws would raise costs for entrepreneurs, torpedo job creation in the state, and create a confusing patchwork of paid sick leave laws for employers doing business in multiple Florida counties.

The Florida legislature passed the legislation with overwhelming support. The Florida House passed the bill by a vote of 75-43. The Florida Senate passed the bill by a vote of 25-13. Scott did not publicly take a position on the bill as it worked its way through the legislature. On Monday Scott signed the bill into law.

Immediately after Scott signed the bill, liberal media and activist groups pounded Scott with factually inaccurate claims about the bill.

Several media outlets joined the Center for American Progress distorting the issue. America Online (AOL), for example, published an article and an accompanying news video titled “Florida Bans Paid Sick Leave Statewide.” The bill does not ban paid sick leave.

In-state Florida media similarly distorted the facts on the issue. The Orlando Sentinel similarly distorted the facts, publishing an article titled “Another Florida newspaper urges Scott: Veto bill blocking paid sick leave.”

Liberal activist groups also tried to smear the bill and the bill’s legislative supporters by linking it to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a voluntary association of state legislators from around the country who share the core conservative principles of limited government and free markets. ALEC sponsors meetings each year where conservative legislators from the 50 states can gather and share ideas, experiences and best practices from their various states. Soros, the Center for American Progress, and other liberal activists frequently smear ALEC in an attempt to thwart ALEC’s conservative core principles.

The Center for American Progress, Salon.com, the Huffington Post, and other liberal media outlets and activist groups highlighted ALEC’s endorsement of legislation similar to the Florida paid sick leave bill. Rather than sully the bill’s prospects, however, the liberal activists’ attempts to link the bill to ALEC merely strengthened the prospects for the bill as one that has support from conservative legislators statewide and nationwide.

The post No, Rick Scott Did Not Just Sign a Bill to Ban Paid Sick Leave appeared first on Media Trackers.

At a press conference Tuesday, Republican state Senator Charles McIlhinney unveiled his plan that would keep the state’s 600 wine and liquor stores in place, while expanding the sale of wine, liquor and beer to all beer distributorships, restaurants and taverns. Currently, wine and liquor sales are limited to state stores, along with a few grocery outlets. Beer must be purchased by the case at beer distributors or a limit of two (highly marked up) six packs at restaurants.

But, McIlhinney’s plan seemed to appease neither divestiture opponents or advocates.

Opponents, Wendell Young IV, head of the United Food and Commercial Workers union and state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Allegheny, both complained the measure would eventually bankrupt the state stores because other commercial outlets would also be selling liquor and wine.

The Commonwealth Foundation, a divestiture supporter, turned thumbs down on the plan because “…it maintains the state-owned and operated liquor stores as well as the government-run wholesale monopoly of wine and spirits,” said foundation President and CEO Matthew Brouillette.

McIlhinney’s “modernization plan” has thrown the state Senate’s 27-member majority into a quandry, with President Pro Tem Joe Scarnati, R-Armstrong and Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, admitting they are unsure they can muster 26 votes to get the governor’s  bill out of the Senate before the June 30 budget deadline. Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny, says his 23 members are solidly against privatization.

Capitol sources say the McIlhinney proposal has only 10-15 GOP supporters.

“We have the votes to get the bill out of (McIlhinney’s Law and Justice) committee. We do not have 26 votes yet, but we expect to be able to get them in the next few days,” Pileggi said at the press conference.

Corbett, apparently trying to keep Republican peace in the Capitol, issued a statement thanking McIlhinney. “Senator McIlhinney’s legislation is another important step in giving Pennsylvanians what they want – choice and convenience. I am committed to this effort and remain optimistic that working with the legislature, I’ll have a bill on my desk by June 30 that will bring Pennsylvania into the 21st Century,” Corbett said.

House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, who did most the heavy lifting in getting Corbett’s plan through the House, could not be reached for comment. Pileggi said recent conversations convinced him Turzai “is willing to discuss a timetable for divestiture.”

Corbett’s bill would get the state out of the alcohol business and turn the state stores to private bidders. McIlhinney’s bill would continue the state store system and the state’s wholesale liquor and wine monopoly.

The McIlhinney plan also calls for a review of his plan, if it becomes law, in two years. By that time the governor, the entire state House and half the state Senate will have had to stand for reelection.  His proposal would also eliminate the 1936 Johnstown Flood tax of 18 percent on alcohol and establish a fund to assist senior citizens if revenue in excess of $500 million annually is produced.

Corbett’s plan would also add additional retail stores and broaden retail alcohol sales to grocery stores and convenience stores.  Corbett said he would use the sell off  windfall to supplement state educational programs.

Some Senate Republicans only want the privatization plan, not modernization. Others might vote for the McIlhinney plan in order to simply “get something done.” Others are focused on protecting the beer distributorships in their districts.

McIlhinney plans to introduce the bill next week, but even if it passes it will likely be rejected by the Republican-controlled House that passed Corbett’s plan in May. House Republicans have said the may keep  Senate-passed $2.5 billion transportation improvement bill hostage, if Corbett’s plan is not passed by the Senate.

Corbett, whose poll numbers have continued to sag, is hoping for a few significant victories in transportation, liquor privatization and public employee pension reform before the General Assembly goes on summer break. The governor is up for reelection next year.

The post PA alcohol divestiture plan “on the rocks”, Senate GOP uncertain appeared first on Media Trackers.

Colorado Springs activists who were concerned with Morse’s leadership and votes in the 2013 session gathered over 16,000 signatures to initiate a recall, after a verification process conducted by the Secretary of State the total number of valid signatures was 10,137, nearly 3,000 signatures more than required.

According to state statute, there is a 15 day protest period to challenge the authenticity of the verified signatures. Morse also has just five day to decide whether he will stay in the race and fight, as he has claimed he would, or resign.

Those who seek to recall Morse have said that the Senator has “broke his oath to protect and uphold the Constitution”, has “disallow[ed] citizen input on legislation” while elevating the voices of “out of state celebrities like Mark Kelly” according to the “Why Recall John Morse” page on the Basic Freedom Defense Fund (BFDF) site. BFDF also implies that Morse broke his promise to focus on jobs with his vote for “the magazine ban that cost the state millions in tax revenue and hundreds of jobs as manufacturers left the state.”

“A Whole Lot of People For John Morse”, an issue committee set up to defend against the effort to recall Morse has attempted to paint BFDF and its supporters as criminals funded by shady outside interests. At the same time the issue committee had received nearly 77 percent of their donations from outside interest groups.

As reported by Colorado Peak Politics, Morse and his defenders have received large donations from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and groups which he backed financially. Mayor Bloomberg is the founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a group which has taken the lead in advancing gun control legislation since the tragedy in Sandy Hook.

If Morse decides to resign in the face of the recall, then Michael Merrifield, who has a past history with MAIG, is rumored to be the obvious choice of an appointment board.

Morse was last elected in 2010 with 13,451 votes, just over 3,000 more than those who signed the recall petition.

*** Update ***

According to Kristen Wyatt of the Associate Press, the Morse campaign intends to challenge the legality of the recall petition in whole, rather than challenging individual signatures. The lawyers for Morse point to a requirement that a petition for recall not only ask for a recall, but also demand a successor be elected.

“A Whole Lot of People For John Morse” unleashed a series of tweets that openly mocked the grassroots recall efforts. “Rob Harris is constitutionally challenged” the campaign asserted. Additionally the issue committee leveled claims that recall workers misrepresented Morse’s stance on gun control, and that recall volunteers and intimidated voters.

A challenger has also announced their intention to face off against Morse in the recall. Jaxine Bubis has launched a campaign site which lists endorsements from Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and ten Republicans legislators, including Colorado Springs Senator Owen Hill, who narrowly lost his race against Morse in 2010.

The post Morse Recall Supporters Clear Major Hurdle appeared first on Media Trackers.

In April, Rep. Kristina Roegner (R-Hudson) and 26 other House Republicans voiced their support for Budget Amendment 0688, which would prioritize women’s health clinics that do not perform abortions for funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant Program.

The amendment would not directly block funding for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, but would put them at the bottom of the list for grants from HHS. Nationally, Planned Parenthood’s annual budget exceeds $1 billion – of which nearly 46 percent is derived from taxpayer subsidies.

A similar amendment to the 2012 “Mid-Biennium Review” bill was introduced by Rep. Roegner, but Rep. Ron Amstutz (R-Wooster) caved to demands from pro-abortion lobbyists and removed it. Another attempt in late 2012 went nowhere, as it was assumed the proposal could not pass the Senate.

A separate amendment to the FY 2014-15 state budget would ban transfer agreements between abortion clinics and publicly-funded hospitals. Transfer agreements are mandatory for abortion providers in the state, as they represent a contract for services a clinic cannot itself provide in the case of an emergency.

Ohio Revised Code 9.04 dictates that “funds of the state or any political subdivision thereof shall not be expended directly or indirectly to pay the costs, premiums, or charges associated with a policy, contract, or plan if the policy, contract, or plan provides coverage, benefits, or services related to a non-therapeutic abortion,” but earlier this year lawmakers determined this did not address whether abortion clinics could be indirectly supported by signing agreements for emergency treatment with publicly-funded care providers.

As both amendments were included in the House and Senate versions of the budget, the provisions seem likely to survive the conference committee process. Progress for the measures has has pro-life groups cheering and pro-abortion legislators crying foul.

In an interview with Media Trackers, Roenger said she was “really pleased with my colleagues in the House — and, of course, the Senate — who, I think, the vast majority of them, do believe in life and the sanctity of life, and passed legislation accordingly.”

Sen. Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) was not as thrilled with the two amendments that will reduce both direct and indirect taxpayer support for abortion. In an email to Media Trackers, Turner issued a statement which explained that the legislature’s “desire to ‘reprioritize’ federal family planning dollars away from family planning clinics is pretty unbelievable.”

Sen. Turner wrote that “first, the state legislature mandated transfer agreements, and now it is trying to make them next to impossible to obtain. It is obvious that these measures are a calculated effort to sidestep Roe v. Wade.”

The post Pro-Life Measures Likely to Pass in Ohio’s Biennial Budget appeared first on Media Trackers.