Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member American-ized's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Monroe County, New York
    Posts
    3,530

    WI-Prune the policy from Wisconsin's state budget plan

    CALL THE WISCONSIN LEGISLATURE TODAY AND DEMAND IN-STATE TUITION FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS AND DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS BE REMOVED FROM THE STATE BUDGET!!!

    Here is the ALIPAC link with the info: http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-150919.html

    Prune the policy from Wisconsin's state budget plan

    June 9, 2009
    A Wisconsin State Journal editorial

    You might be surprised to learn that Wisconsin drivers who carry minimum car insurance coverage would see their rates increase under the state budget proposal heading to the Assembly next week.

    Why would a budget, supposedly prescribing how the state spends money, tell car owners how they must spend money?

    Because lawmakers love to tuck into the state budget controversial policy items so the policy does not have to stand on its own merits in a separate bill.

    The car insurance provision is one of dozens of such proposals in the 2009-11 budget plan.

    In Wisconsin, drivers are not required to carry insurance. But if they do, they must purchase a minimum amount. A budget provision substantially raises that minimum, putting Wisconsin among the three states with the highest minimum requirements.

    As a result, it will cost more to get the minimum coverage.

    Other controversial, non-budget items looking to skate through on the coattails of the budget include:

    • A rollback of liability law reform adopted in 1995. The proposal would aid plaintiffs at the expense of businesses or individuals judged partially responsible for damages.

    • Permission for more criminal records, including drunken driving convictions, to be expunged.

    • Allow illegal aliens to receive driver's licenses.

    • Allow in-state tuition for illegal aliens.


    • Allowance for nonprofit groups to offer free beer or wine at fundraising events without getting a municipal license.

    • A domestic partner registry conferring some benefits on same-sex couples.

    • Permission to create regional transportation authorities with taxing power in Dane and Milwaukee counties.
    Any of these provisions may or may not be good policy. For example, the State Journal editorial board has long supported a domestic partner registry and permission to create regional transportation authorities.

    But the evidence for these policies should be openly debated, and the public should have the opportunity to hold lawmakers accountable for a specific vote. The policies should not slip through when a vote on the budget is taken.

    Policy in the budget was a common problem, inflicted on the state by both parties, in years past. But the two budgets previous to the current plan were relatively clean. The current proposal is a major setback.

    Lawmakers should return to good government practices and strip the policy from the budget.

    Not ready for prime time

    When policy items are slipped into the budget by the Legislature’s budget-writing committee, lawmakers often have insufficient time to consider the issues.

    For example, when majority Democrats in the Assembly met on Friday to discuss the budget, several lawmakers admitted they were mystified by a policy provision on liability law.

    Greg Bump, writing for the budget blog on Wispolitics.com, reported the following exchange:

    "Can you put it in layman’s terms?" Speaker Mike Sheridan asked.

    "I’m a non-lawyer and I’ve dumbed it down as far as I can," said a staffer from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

    "We need a book ‘Legislating for Dummies’," (Rep. Marlin) Schneider cracked.

    A fuller explanation of the provision was to be on its way Monday. But Rep. Rob Turner, D-Racine, noted that the proposal isn’t "ready for prime time" if lawmakers cannot understand it.

    Rep. Mark Radcliffe, D-Black River Falls, offered the right solution when he said the issue should be removed from the budget and taken up later as a separate bill.

    http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/opinion/453920

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    7,928
    Quote
    "• A domestic partner registry conferring some benefits on same-sex couples."

    which also might not be able to make it through a public referendum, but which has such a powerful lobby?
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •