A letter opposing the proposed Taxpayer Protection Amendment is now gaining support at the county level, as dozens of county board supervisors statewide are advising state lawmakers to reject the controversial tax cut resolution.
Thursday's letter is the second installment of a nearly identical letter sent to legislative members Wednesday urging opposition to TPA.
"I represent 54,000 people and they were able to find [a few] people saying not to give us tax protection and all four of those people work for the government," TPA author Rep. Jeff Wood, R-Chippewa Falls, said, adding only four of the letter's senders represent his district. "It's very telling about who's opposed to this and who's in favor of it."
The proposed measure would amend Wisconsin's Constitution, creating legal limits on revenue in an effort to cut government spending and lower taxes.
According to county officials behind the letter — whose names were collected by the American Federation of Teachers-Wisconsin — TPA would strip communities of the local control they need.
"[O]ne of the big issues is whether or not the state government is going to try to control local government," Dane County Board Vice Chair Rob Fyrst, one of the letter's more than 40 senders, said, adding communities know best their own priorities and needs.
But Wood argued the resolution would not dictate local spending but would rather allow the people to dictate. Under TPA, revenue limits cannot be exceeded unless approved by the public.
"It's a limit on revenue. It doesn't tell you what you can do with your money," Wood said. "It just sets a maximum amount you can take without asking the people."
Not only would this additional spending rest on public approval, Wood added, but also civic control would play the key role in determining the future of the amendment itself. Under state law, an amendment proposal must be approved by two consecutive legislatures before it goes to the people in a public referendum.
"In order for [TPA] to become part of the Constitution, the Legislature does not have the power to change the Constitution," he said. "If the people vote in favor of this, then it will be the people setting a limit, not the government."
Fyrst, however, countered TPA would also force local governments to cut vital social programs — like public health and education — without allowing them the flexibility needed to best serve residents.
"[B]y putting these caps on … we're putting ourselves in this little box that it's going to be very difficult to get out of," he said. "We always have a chance to fix whatever's going wrong but when we put systems like [TPA] in place … we have a problem."
But Wood called these arguments completely unsupported, reiterating TPA would allow the people to control their own incomes.
"Quite frankly, I'm surprised they don't have any legitimate arguments about it because there are a couple," he said.
TPA is currently undergoing review by the Assembly Committee on Ways and Means.
