We’re back with the latest installment of You Be The Judge, where our team of independent fact-checkers looks at a claim, puts it in context, goes beyond the carefully worded claim to break down the issues, presents all the facts and then lets you be the judge on whether it holds water.
This week we’re going to compare two claims about Wisconsin’s projected budget shortfall that ended up with very different rulings.
Does Wisconsin Have a Deficit?
Earlier this month, the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) released new data that showed the state was projected to have a $396 million deficit in the current budget year—a deficit larger than the one Gov. Scott Walker used to justify the budget-repair bill that eliminated collective bargaining—and a staggering $1.8 billion structural deficit for the next budget.
To be sure, $1.8 billion is a big number to wrap your head around. What does it mean for the average Wisconsinite?
Senate Democratic Leader Chris Larson attempted to put the number in context, stating in a news release that over the next two years, this $1.8 billion deficit “will cost individual Wisconsinites $300 each, or $1,200 for families of four.”
As back-up for this claim, Larson cited the nonpartisan LFB, which is the gold standard when it comes to gauging the most accurate status of our state budget. Using the LFB’s Sept. 8 data, we can run the numbers on this claim using the state’s population per the most recent census to display the cost of the structural deficit per person in the state ($1.766 billion / 5,742,712 = $307.52 per person; $307.52 per person x 4 people = $1,230.08 per family of four.)
At first blush, the math seems right, but PolitiFact takes issue with it. First, they say, even though the cost per person is accurate, the cost of fixing the budget deficit isn’t passed on to the taxpayers on a per-person basis. A fair point, but Larson defends his claim as merely illustrative of the cost that will come to Wisconsinites. The deficit needs fixing and whether by increasing taxes, decreasing funding for critical services, or delaying investments, there will be a cost to every resident in the state. Larson is viewing cost the way a professional economist would use the term.
Second, PolitiFact argues, no decisions on what those spending cuts or increased revenues will look like have been made yet and tax collections could increase or decrease. So the deficit might go up or down. Of course, a budget like this is essentially a projection.
|
|
Based on those two items above, PolitiFact gave Larson’s claims a “False” rating.
And now to the second claim we’ll examine. Another state senator was talking about the deficit, this time Republican Sen. Alberta Darling. “Wisconsin does not have a deficit,” Darling says, and in fact, “Thanks to Republican reforms, the 2014 budget will begin with a $443 million surplus."
Now that claim stands in stark contrast to both Sen. Larson’s claim as well as the budget numbers from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau. So how does Darling do her math?
Breaking it down, PolitiFact notes one problem right off the bat. Wisconsin runs two-year budgets, so this biennial budget is 2013-2015. There is no 2014 budget. For the sake of argument, however, we’ll assume that Darling is referring to fiscal year 2014. State law requires that the budget is balanced each biennium, so to talk about fiscal year 2014 being balanced is rather irrelevant because it can be cooked by deciding, for example, when to project certain payments. But how we get to that balance is the combination of spending cuts and increased revenue that gets all the attention, and it’s also how we can end a biennium with a structural deficit like the one we are faced with now.
The second part of Darling’s claim is that the state doesn’t have a deficit, referencing the projected $1.8 billion deficit. Again, noted in the Larson claim, these numbers can change; the deficit could be higher or lower.
Sounds like another “False,” rating, right? Except PolitiFact says Darling is “Half-True.”
How can two claims about the same data merit such different rulings? It would seem consistency requires that if variables must be considered in examining Sen. Larson’s claim they must also be considered in examining Sen. Darling’s statement. And an honest accounting of the numbers also requires that we look at the budget picture as a whole: Based on the policies in place right now, policies that were passed by the Republican Legislature and signed by Walker, Wisconsin has gone from a projected surplus to a projected deficit in less than a year.
It’s true those numbers could change. But right now the best analysis of our state’s budget says we’re headed toward a staggering $1.8 billion deficit. Will that deficit impact Wisconsinites through spending cuts and decreased services or will it somehow just take care of itself? You be the judge.
