The following documents were taken from the National Priorities Project. www.nationalpriorities.org
You can download the original documents from that site (“Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?”, and “President’s Budget FY 2009 and Iraq War: State Impact”).

You can also get more specific details for how much your Congressional District or Municipality will be paying, by drilling down from their webpage at:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/local_cost_of_the_iraq_war_through_fy2008

Actual debt accrued for Wisconsin’s share of the Iraq War costs through 2007 can be found at: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cms/publications/local_cost_of_the_iraq_war_through_fy2007

Wisconsin’s share of the debt is already at $8.3 Billion (through the end of 2007) and is expected to increase by $1.3 Billion for 2008 and an additional $2.2 Billion for 2009 for a total of $11.9 Billion by the end of 2009. That’s more than four times the debt that Wisconsinites were saddled with after 16 years of Republican governance in the State; after Tommy Thompson and Scott McCallum left office. (Tommy Thompson was Governor for four terms, with Scott McCallum the Lieutenant Governor from 1986-2001. In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Thompson to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services, making McCallum Governor of Wisconsin. McCallum was defeated in the 2002 election by Democrat Jim Doyle.)

The Federal Government’s debt, approved by Congress, is responsible for this unchecked spending, which has been largely unaccounted for under the Bush Administration, (primarily under Republican control, during Bush’s first six years in office). It has continued since then because of the inability of the Democratic simple majority in Congress to override Bush’s veto.

The 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin's share of the Iraq War Debt is $1.4 Billion approved as of 2007.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to these excessive costs, in spite of claims that jobs have been created as a result of the war, a new report based on government data released at the end of 2007 for 2005 expenditures, shows that much of the spending never makes it back to the states. 

 

In terms of tax dollars returned to the states, Wisconsin ranked 41st, only getting $0.44 back for every dollar that was paid to the Federal Government.  (In the form of military procurement contracts, salaries and wages, and grants.).

 

That report, intitled "Federal Dollars: What Came to and Left Your State in 2005" is also available from the NPP.org website at: http://www.nationalpriorities.org/publications/what_came_to_and_left_your_state_in_2005

 

It showed that at least 9% of the $495.3 Billion spent in military outlays for 2005 left the U.S.

 

In addition to the significant portion of military spending leaving the U.S., the economic impact of military spending that goes to local areas is not as effective at creating jobs as other types of spending. A new report by the Political Economy Research Institute shows that public spending on education creates more jobs that are higher paying than the same amount of money spent on the military. Public spending on other areas such as health care and energy efficiency also create more jobs than the equivalent amount spent on the military, though the jobs have lower pay and benefits. Nevertheless, the overall economic impact in terms of wages and benefits is much higher. Moreoever, investing in renewable energy and conservation, health care and education can have considerable impact on technological developments, workforce skills and infrastructure, all of which will support further economic growth and development.

 

 

 

 

Tax Avoidance by Mega Corporations Means Higher Taxes for Wisconsin Citizens

The Best Research in Wisconsin: Institute for Wisconsin's Future

The Institute for Wisconsin's Future says this about itself:

The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future (IWF) was established in1994 to help citizens fight for state laws that maximize every individual’s opportunity to achieve educational, economic and personal success.

The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future is a non-profit organization working for:

■ Excellent schools. Schools need adequate funding so all children have qualified teachers, small classes, up-to-date books and technology, safe buildings and necessary resources for children who live in poverty, have disabilities or do not speak English.

■ Quality public services paid for by a tax system that is fair to working families. Wisconsin needs sufficient revenue to preserve a public sector capable of meeting diverse needs. The tax responsibility of this should be shared equitably by all individuals and businesses. IWF plays a vital role in strengthening citizen power with information, training and public action.

■ Accurate information: Reports are available online at: http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/.

■ Getting the word out: IWF brings the facts to thousands of people each

year in communities across the state through presentations, newsletters and the media.

■ Organizing for change: IWF brings citizens and organizations together to press for effective and compassionate policies. Alliances include:

 The Wisconsin Alliance for Excellent Schools (WAES): Over 150 and growing school districts and organizations united around school funding reform.

 The Alliance to Protect the Public Good: A network of organizations, congregations, labor unions and individuals working to protect public structures and services in local communities and at the state level.

They are all of this, but they do so much more! As a groundbreaking research organization, they have released the results of their excellent work and the results are stunning!

Consider this from their newsletter:

 

April 15: Wisconsinites pay their state income tax and the corporations' too. You paid your state income tax. Wouldn't it be nice if corporate Wisconsin did too? Chances are you paid more than Microsoft, McDonald's, Pepsi, Sears, Budget Rent-Car, Kimberly Clark (the company to which Wisconsin's 5th CD Representative, F. James Sensenbrenner is an heir to the fortune of), Boston Market, Frito-Lay, K mart, Victoria's Secret and Stokely-Van Camp. In fact, you paid more than all of them put together. For the last year of information available (2005), they paid zero (0) income tax. Big corporations avoid over $500 million in state income tax every year. They skip taxes by using loopholes that allow them to move their profits to non-tax states. That means our families and small businesses cover the cost of the roads, police, fire protection and other services these mega-corporations rely on. Do you think it's about time to close the loopholes or should we just keep paying their public service bills?

See Revenue Gap: An analysis of corporate tax avoidance at http://www.wisconsinsfuture.org/

Check out this video and this report from one year ago. It doesn't get any clearer than this. The legislature and the governor have some work to do.

 

If the mega corporations in Wisconsin were just paying the national average for their share of their taxes, (Wisconsin would collect another $1.3 Billion in taxes, part of which would be collected on the combined earnings of $21.873 Billion by only seven of these mega corporations who are currently paying $0 in taxes.  As a result, of their not paying their share of the taxes, the poor and the middle tax income earners pay a higher percentage of taxes on their income than any other group in Wisconsin.)

 

Enough of tax cuts for the rich and then blaming the service providers (teachers, police and fire, transportation, etc) for not having the resources to do their jobs!

Our corporate environment is basically stealing from us and our children and enough is enough!

 

A friend of mine calls this the "starving the beast" philosophy of government. Cut all the funding out and make the service providers, the poor and the needy fight for the scraps that are left.

 

There are a few “good” citizens, NML, Coca Cola, Kraft Foods even Exxon Mobil all paid some taxes, although as a portion of their income it was minimal.

 

We can fix this. A few bills in the legislature and property taxes would plummet and corporations would pay their fair share. They do business here, they take our money, they own property in Wisconsin, they employ hundreds of thousands between them all and yet use shady loopholes and lack of accountability to hide their income and avoid paying taxes.

 

Other states have closed those loopholes and these companies do business in those states as well. It's time Wisconsinites take a closer look at WHY there's no money for schools and services and WHY our property and income tax burden is so high on us as individuals instead of falling into the false choices of raising taxes or cutting services.

 

The bottom line is: we don't lose companies in Wisconsin because the companies have to pay taxes. We lose companies because the executives can't find a good enough school system for their children, their property taxes are too high and the workforce is so poorly educated.

 

We could lower taxes and increase and/or fully fund services if the legislature had the will and the mandate from the people to do so...

 

For all those conservatives out there, really comb this website. Take a serious look at the facts and while you're doing so don't tell me all the businesses will leave Wisconsin if we force them to pay the taxes they rightfully owe the state.

 

I cannot for the life of me believe that Wal Mart, Exxon Mobil or Kohl's Dept Stores will close their stores in Wisconsin and stop doing business here because they have to pay their taxes. Taxes don't stop them from opening stores in other states, and the bottom line is that the small percentage they would pay of their income to be good citizens is Wisconsin is well worth the gross profits they make here.

 

In other words the false notion that WE need to pay the burden of all the services instead of strengthening and enforcing our tax laws is just that... a false notion.

Thanks to IWF for the work they are doing, we now know the facts and the results of conservative "starving the beast" legislation in the 1980's and 1990's.

 

Now it's time to rebalance the system so everyone pays their fair share.

 

(Thanks to Renee Crawford, Associate Director of the ACLU of Wisconsin, for this article.)

 

 

 

On a Related Issue

Healthcare is obviously a big issue these days, with the cost of healthcare and health insurance skyrocketing out of control. Democrats and Republicans have different plans to deal with them. Democrats favor a universal, single payer healthcare plan which the Federal Government pays for from the taxes they collect from you. The idea is that with the leverage they get from the large volume of citizens represented, they can drive the prices down and provide healthcare to everyone. Larger sums of money equal larger contracts with the healthcare insurance companies, so they can offer bigger discounts. They can then also require the same high level of coverage for everyone under the plan.

The concept works, anyone with healthcare coverage should be aware of the difference in coverage they get if they work for a small company versus a large company with much more influence in negotiating better coverage from the companies attempting to sell them a policy.

It is a very much similar concept to a buying club, which buys high volumes of products at a huge discount and then passes those savings along to the club members. That concept made Wal-mart / Sam’s Club one of the wealthiest corporations on the planet, and Sam Walton’s heirs some of the wealthiest people in the United States and the world, even after providing low prices (sometimes) to their customers. (But not proper healthcare to their employees.)

Federal Government employees enjoy 100% Healthcare coverage, paid for by you the taxpayer. Those covered under this policy, including all of our Federal elected politicians, except those few who opt out of the coverage, have their healthcare expenses paid for at 100%, with no payments out of pocket. Many of the Republican politicians, who benefit from this system, call this socialist and welfare, but they still willingly accept this as part of their benefits package, while at the same time denying you the taxpayer, the opportunity to benefit from the exact same program.

Representative Sensenbrenner touts the HSA or Health Savings Account as the answer to high insurance costs. The Health Savings Accounts require individuals to save money into these accounts and save up for your healthcare costs, like you would for an education fund, but if you don’t have much of an income to begin with, or you haven’t worked for very long to put much into the account, or if you or someone in your family is struck with a devastating illness or injury, once your account is depleted, you are out of luck.

Senator McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, has offered a market-based reform which would eliminate the tax exemption for employees receiving health care from their employers and substitute a tax credit for them to purchase individual health insurance. This would make them choose to either take themselves out of a group plan and any benefits from group purchasing, in order to avoid additional taxes; or stay in the group plan and pay more taxes.

John Torinus, Chairman of Serigraph, Inc. of West Bend recently wrote a column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Sunday May 11, 2008 page 3D in the Business section), where he complained about both the Democratic and Republican candidates approaches, while himself leaning toward a market based solution that depends upon consumer choices versus government fixes.

That might make sense if people actually had any real choices for healthcare rather than being forced into the few choices available to them based on where and for whom they work. It would make even better sense if people actually understood the legalese that camouflages what they actually receive under their policies.

But for most people, they don’t have the finances available to them to get the best coverage, or don’t work for a company that provides them that either. Most employees try to get the most coverage for the least out of pocket expenses, and least payments out of their paycheck, with little thought to the consequences if they are young and healthy and suddenly take sick. While many corporate health plans are consumer driven, they often don’t provide employees with the healthcare they need when disaster strikes. And most company provided health insurance policies for employees have included in them, a clause which allows them to recover any money that they spent to provide healthcare to them if the recipient is successful in suing and collecting damages from another party.

That is why the combined bargaining of many citizens offers the best healthcare coverage at the lowest cost; with the least chance of a healthcare insurer, or employer denying you coverage, refusing you service, or taking away damages you have collected from a third party.

But Torinus goes on to claim that the three candidates are not talking values. He claims that they only talk about who pays for the service. He claims that the current pricing system which bills for procedure-by-procedure and line item-by-line item is flawed and that this “fragmented approach leads to over-utilization as doctors order multiple procedures, each of which elicits a separate payment, and to poor quality.”

While it is true that billing by procedure and by line item has demonstrated duplication and excessive costs, it is also true that doctors and hospitals often use excessive pricing in procedures and line items to make up for the fact that insurance companies have negotiated down payments for procedures and line-items so that they only pay a set limit or certain percentage of what is billed.

He cites the fact that the same procedure can be priced two to three times higher from the lowest to the highest. But the reason for the pricing difference has to do more with whether or not you have health insurance, or whether or not you have a premium policy, versus a standard one. Recent investigations in this area have shown that if you have no insurance or have a policy which does not cover as much, that you will pay two to three times as much as someone with a premium policy, and not get as much or at as high a level of care.

If you want to eliminate the disparity in what is being paid for the same procedure by different people, you need to eliminate the ability of insurance companies to negotiate pricing for different groups based on different policies or coverage, and put them all under the same program to keep the pricing uniform.

The bottom line is that most corporations don’t want to have employer funded healthcare because they have to cover the costs of it, and the costs are out of control. But the costs of healthcare are going up, just like education is going up, because fewer Americans are able to use facilities which have set expenses. If more people used the facilities that were available to them, the costs would be spread out and each individual would be paying less, while the facilities would be taking in substantially more in total. If you don’t believe that, try going to a hospital or school where the economy has hit people the hardest, you’ll see that either the facilities are showing excessive wear and tear, or that they aren’t being used to their best advantage.

But the biggest reason that health and education costs are skyrocketing for individuals, is because the Federal Government is spending far less on those items and spending far more on the War in Iraq, or in providing wealthy individuals and corporations huge tax breaks. State Governments have also spent a great deal of money in wooing corporations to locate in their communities and offered them tax advantages which are unavailable to the average citizen. In Wisconsin, corporate income tax as a share of general fund revenue had declined from a high of around 11% in 1979, to a low of around 5.0% in 2002, with the decreases primarily occurring between 1987 and 2002. And as a result, the state has had less available in its budget to subsidize schools and hospitals, which in turn force the schools and hospitals to bill more to the paying customers. The share from corporate income tax has risen since 2002 to about 7.1%, but is still far below what it was almost three decades ago.

In Wisconsin from 1996 to 2006, total personal income tax rose 47%, sales taxes rose 52% and homeowner property tax grew 62%. In contrast, corporate income taxes grew only 23%. Keep in mind that the first three taxes are borne primarily by individuals. In addition, between 1978 and 2007 corporate income taxes, based in 2007 dollars dropped, even though national corporate profits more than doubled during that same time period. Personal income on the other hand, during that same time period, in 2007 dollars, has actually stayed about the same or dropped.

In a recent article in State Tax Notes titled “”State Corporate Tax Leakage: $14.5 Billion in 2006” by Martin A. Sullivan in the November 26, 2007 edition, he estimates “state corporate income tax losses due to loop holes and other legal tax avoidance mechanisms on a state-by-state basis…in Wisconsin...in 2006 was $643 million. For the period 1999-2006, it is estimated that Wisconsin’s total corporate tax leakage was $1.828 billion.”

And in a recent study based on information available and gathered up to the end of 2007, “Wisconsin’s Revenue Gap – An Analysis of Corporate Tax Avoidance” put out by the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future at www.wisconsinsfuture.org , they noted that two thirds of Wisconsin Corporations pay ZERO in Corporate Income Taxes. (Their source was the Wisconsin Department of Revenue.)

And listed on Table 3, page 12, they show that Serigraph paid NOTHING in Wisconsin Corporate Income Taxes for 2003 and 2004.

If we’re talking values here, the real value should be that everyone should be paying their fair share of the taxes, so that some aren’t paying any taxes while others are paying a higher share than they should be. When that happens, programs that need government funding won’t be going begging or having to raise their prices to levels that few can afford.

Don’t you think that that should be the first step?

 

 

SENATOR JAUCH: MCCAIN RECORD DOESN’T BACK UP RHETORIC ON GREAT LAKES COMPACT -- UNLIKE MCCAIN, OBAMA HAS VOTED CONSISTENTLY TO PRESERVE THE GREAT LAKES - 7/30/2008

MADISON – With Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle testifying today at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Great Lakes Compact, Wisconsin State Senator Bob Jauch – who represents the entire Wisconsin shoreline of Lake Superior and helped craft the legislation – praised Governor Doyle’s work on the issue, but said Wisconsin also needs a President who will fight to preserve the Great Lakes. While both candidates have vocalized support for the bill, only U.S. Senator Barack Obama has backed up his words with a consistent record of support for Great Lakes preservation.

“Governor Doyle, Senator Feingold, and so many of our dedicated public servants have worked tirelessly to preserve the Great Lakes, and for that, the people of Wisconsin owe them our thanks,” Senator Jauch said. “But to truly ensure the preservation of the Great Lakes, we also need a steadfast ally in the White House. Barack Obama will be that ally.”

U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) presided over today’s hearing on the interstate compact. If passed by Congress, the bill would promote water conservation and prevent waters from being diverted to different regions – threats that have already caused damage to the Great Lakes.

Barack Obama has been a consistent advocate for preservation of the Great Lakes region, including co-sponsoring two bills to help prevent the spread of invasive species. In contrast, Senator John McCain has repeatedly opposed measures to preserve the Great Lakes, including cleanup initiatives and projects to prevent sediment pollution. In addition, McCain’s newfound support of offshore drilling for natural gas raises questions about whether the Great Lakes would be exposed to irreparable damage.

“It’s not enough for Senator McCain to say he supports the Great Lakes as a candidate, when his public record doesn’t match those words,” Senator Jauch said. “Time and again, John McCain’s record has been harmful to the Great Lakes, rather than voting to prevent pollution and ecological damage. His record certainly suggests that he was not looking out for the good of the region until he was a candidate and that the Great Lakes would not be a priority for him as President.”

-30-

BACKGROUND ON SENATOR MCCAIN’S INCONSISTENT RECORD OF SUPPORT FOR GREAT LAKES PRESERVATION:

MCCAIN OPPOSED IMPORTANT GREAT LAKES PROJECTS

 

A press release from Sen. Dick Durbin stated: “In June 2006, Durbin and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) worked to successfully secure $400,000 to operate the barriers that prevent invasive species from entering the Great Lakes. Twenty-eight other Great Lakes House Members joined Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-IL) in sending a letter to House appropriators in support of this effort. The funding was included to pay for the operation of Barrier I, a temporary barrier that keeps the invasive species out of the Illinois River and Lake Michigan by emitting an ele ctric current that deters the carp from passing through.” [Sen. Dick Durbin Press Release, 5/16/07]

Obama Cosponsored Two Bills That Would Have Made The Invasive Species Barrier In the Great Lakes Permanent.

 

Requires the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) to upgrade and make permanent the existing Chicago sanitary and ship canal dispersal barrier in Chicago, Illinois, constructed as a demonstration project to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species in U.S. waterways. Directs the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating to construct, at full Federal expense, the Chicago sanitary and ship canal dispersal barrier authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. [109th S. 770, introduced 4/13/05; 110th S. 791, introduced 3/7/2007]


McCain Opposed Great Lakes Cleanup

McCain Voted Against Great Lakes Cleanup Initiatives. In 1995, McCain voted for the GOP’s Regulatory Reform bill (S 343), which would have delayed efforts to clean up the Great Lakes by requiring rigid risk assessment and cost benefit analysis, and by giving the polluting industries unlimited opportunities to delay the implementation of rules that meet those tests through petitions for review and litigation. Polluting industries would also have been able to have their own scientists on the peer review panels that must approve the regulations. [S 343, Vote 311, 7/18/95; S 343, Vote 315, 7/20/95]

Obama Cosponsored A Bill To Clean Up Contaminated Expanses And Aid Habitat Restoration In The Great Lakes.

 

A press release from Sen. Levin reported: “Senator Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Senator George Voinovich, R-Ohio, co-chairmen of the Senate Great Lakes Task Force, today introduced the bipartisan Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008 to expand on legislation passed six years ago. The bill aims to clean up contaminated expanses in the Great Lakes known as “Areas of Concern” within 10 years…The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008 focuses on Areas of Concern in the Gre at Lakes. Forty-three Areas of Concern have been identified in the Great Lakes, 13 of which are in Michigan and four in Ohio. These sites do not meet the water quality goals established by the United States and Canada in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, mainly because of contaminated sediments from historic industrial activity. This contamination results in several detrimental consequences including fish advisories, degradation of fish and wildlife populations, taste and odor problems with drinking water, beach closures, and bird and animal deformities or reproductive problems. The Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008 would authorize $150 million annually for clean up of the Areas of Concern within 10 years. The legislation gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greater flexibility to manage funds by allowing the EPA to distribute funds directly to contractors and would provide relief to states from burdensome requirements. Under this bill, eligible projects would be expanded to include habitat restoration.” [110th S. 2994, introduced 5/8/08; Sen. Levin Press Release, 5/8/08]


McCain Opposed Prevention Of Sediment Pollution In The Great Lakes

McCain Opposed, Obama Supported Projects To Prevent Sediment Pollution In The Great Lakes Which Threatens Vegetation, Wildlife And Makes Water Treatment More Expensive. A press release from the Great Lakes Commission stated: “The Great Lakes Basin Program – which gained renewed support in the Farm Bill – is administered by the Great Lakes Commission, with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Basin Program supports improved erosion and sediment control and sound landuse practices through demonstration grants, technical assistance and information/education projects. Grant recipients include conservation districts and other nonfederal units of government, nonprofit organizations and academic institutions in all eight states of the Great Lakes basin. Over the past 17 years, the Basin Program has supported nearly 400 projects and invested almost $12 million in water quality improvement efforts. These projects have prevented an estimated 250,000 tons of sediment and 900,000 pounds of phosphorus from entering the Great Lakes and tributaries. Sediment pollution covers spawning beds, suffocates aquatic vegetation habitat, and increases the cost of treating potable water and maintaining drainage infrastructure. Phosphorus pollution can lead to excess growth of plants and algae and rob lakes and river s of oxygen.” [Great Lakes Commission Press Release, 5/28/08; 110th HR 2419, Passed 79-14: R 37-11; D 40-3 (ND 36-3, SD 4-0); I 2-0]


McCain Opposed Projects To Support Great Lakes Commerce

McCain Opposed Important Projects To Relieve The Dredging Backlog In The Great Lakes Waterway Which Is Necessary For Hundreds Of Millions Of Transported Goods. A press release regarding the Water Resources Development Act of 2008 from Sen. Levin stated: “Great Lakes Navigation and Protection Directs the Army Corps to expedite the operation and maintenance, including dredging, of the Great Lakes commercial navigation channels and infrastructure. This provision aims to address the very serious dredging backlog in the Great Lakes, which has been exacerbated by historic low water levels. The backlog has resulted in ships having to carry reduced loads, freighters getting stuck in channels, and some shipments that have ceased altogether. Every year, hundreds of millions of tons of goods are transported through the Great Lakes waterways, and communities throughout the Great Lakes are economically ti ed to waterborne commerce. Dredging to the needed depths and maintaining other navigational features of the system are critical. Also directs the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, in coordination with the Corps and other federal agencies, to carry out a pilot project to control and prevent further spreading of viral hemorrhagic septicemia in the Great Lakes.” [HR 1495, PL 110-114, Vote 406, Passed 79-14,11/8/07; Sen. Levin Press Release, 11/08/07]