Add them to the list

The testimony offered by WEAC Wednesday at the hearing on the so-called Taxpayer Protection Amendment highlighted a couple more problems the amendment could create.

One could be a serious problem for our state when a plant closes and workers who have lost their jobs need training for new jobs.

When a major plant closes or local training needs change rapidly, should a technical college really divert its efforts to preparing and running a referendum campaign on its need for special resources?Furthermore, the proposed revenue growth formula is not based on or related to the types of economic forces that drive demand for WTCS services. A formula based on past inflation and district population increases does not address that WTCS enrollment often spikes in times of economic downturn.

This is one of the biggest problems with this amendment - our state will not be able to respond to problems quickly enough. Supporters of the amendment always say not to worry because spending can be added if taxpayers want to add it. But how long will that take and should workers who have lost their job be forced to wait for months and months to get a spot in a worker training program when they need it? How will it help our economy to have people that want to work sitting on the sidelines hoping more spending will be added so they can go to school?

The other issue raised by WEAC involves school funding.

The so-called Taxpayer Protection Amendment also raises constitutional red flags. Article X, Section 3, of the Wisconsin Constitution requires that the legislature provide for the establishment of district schools that are as nearly uniform as practicable. However, the proposed constitutional amendment would have a disequalizing effect on per student spending in Wisconsin. School districts where state aid represents a smaller share of their budget would be allowed to grow at a faster rate than school districts where state aid represents a larger share of their budget.

That's right. This constitutional amendment might be a tad unconstitutional. Just how little thought did the sponsors of the TPA put into this 2500 word amendment?

These problems combined with all of the other ones we've seen so far add up to one question - Did the cosponsors of the amendment know of all the problems with it and if they didn't, why did they sign their names onto it? Amending the constitution is a pretty serious step for our state. Shouldn't the sponsors of the amendment have fully understood what it does before issuing press releases congratulating themselves?