54th Assembly District

Includes most of the city of Oshkosh

Gordon Hintz - Democrat
Mark Reiff - Republican

Question 1: Economic development professional have long identified regulatory burdens as one of the challenges to attracting and retaining businesses in Wisconsin. In just the past few years, several thousand paper and other manufacturing jobs have left northeast Wisconsin for other states and other countries. What can the legislature do to make Wisconsin a more attractive place to do business, create jobs, and generate tax revenue for local government?

Hintz: There many reasons why businesses decide to locate and expand in Wisconsin and to leave Wisconsin, reasons that often have nothing to do with government.  The Legislature over several sessions has reduced the corporate income tax rate, established targeted business tax credit programs, provided training and retraining grants to businesses, built new roads, and supported venture capital initiatives.  It has sought to maintain an educated and skilled supply of workers for our businesses.  I strongly support the continuation of these initiatives.  I believe targeted initiatives for investment and training are a better use of tax dollars for economic development than general programs.  I support Commerce Department programs that actively encourage regional economic initiatives.  With regard to regulation, I believe that periodic reviews of existing regulations should be conducted and streamlined whenever possible without sacrificing protections of our natural resources, a significant quality of life asset. Major road projects should be evaluated not only in terms of safety, but economic impact as well.

Reiff: The state legislature needs to start by reigning in some of our regulatory agencies. Here in Oshkosh, we see the results of DNR intrusion every time we look at what remains of the Pioneer Inn. The next thing that our legislature should do is pass the Capital Gains Reinvestment act, which would have allowed for tax deductions on capital gains invested back into Wisconsin startups. This would result in a cycle of investment and re-investment in the state that would create jobs and help in new creation of wealth. Next, our state needs to remember that the basics work well in attracting business. The top three reasons for business to relocate, according to a 2007 study, was highway access, cost of labor, and energy availability and cost. To me this translates to stopping Doyle's raids on the transportation fund, making sure that health care costs stay within national free market norms, and that Wisconsin must drop it's minimum markup law, (particularly on gasoline), while developing a more modern system of generating and distributing electricity. I propose ending the nuclear moratorium in Wisconsin and aggressively courting the Department of Energy in order to become the world leader in both generation of nuclear energy and exporters of the reactors. Lastly, we need to stop looking at our businesses primarily as sources of tax revenue. Who wants to move where they will be exploited? Until we end this culture of taxation, selling Wisconsin will be a difficult matter.

Hintz: The Legislature has not lived up to the initial promise of the shared revenue program which was established to collect and reallocate locally generated revenue.  Municipalities gave up taxing authority on such items as machinery and equipment and the state pledged to make it up with shared revenue.  Municipalities have been forced to rely more heavily on the property tax.  Most of the increases in local spending are due to escalating health care, fuel, and utility costs, costs that the private sector faces as well.  There are no easy answers.  At the state level, I would support tying shared revenue to a portion of the sales tax collected by region, thus linking municipal revenue growth with the commercial success of a region.  We also need to continue efforts to get health care costs under control in the short and long-term.  We need to provide an alternative funding source to the property tax.  Efforts to reduce the property tax burden without increasing state aid or proposing offsetting alternative revenue are disingenuous.  Legislators who possess any leadership should avoid lame, sound-bite constitutional spending limits that allow legislators to hide behind formulas instead of making tough decisions on which state services to provide and fund.

Reiff: In Wisconsin, we have a tradition  of local government control. This is at odds with the centralized  control that too many politicians of both parties always seem to  advocate for in Madison. I believe that the first step to assisting  local governments in meeting their financial obligations is to end  the practice of unfunded mandates. If the state legislature truly  wants to enable localities to thrive, there needs to be modification  to the funding formula for aid to municipalities. We should free  dollars currently tied to specific programs in order to allow town  boards and mayors to exercise their own discretion as to what best  benefits their community, and stop micro managing our cities and counties. By minimizing control over expenditures, the state could  demonstrate to municipalities that their destiny is largely in their  own hands. With property tax levy caps in place, I feel that local  governments should continue to have the right to levy their own  sales tax on top of the state mandated 5%, and other fees as they  deem appropriate. State government is not the be all and end all of  responsibility for taxes and spending in our state, and local  government must make the same hard choices on raising taxes or  cutting spending that the state must make, albeit on a smaller  scale. For their decisions, local representatives face re-election  just as state representatives do. In short, the formula for success  should be mandate less, allow more freedom, and let the people hold  politicians at all levels accountable.

Hintz: I believe that the Legislature does have a role in making health care more affordable and accessible to Wisconsin residents.  Our goal should be 100 percent coverage.  At this time, compared to other states Wisconsin is fortunate to have a very high percentage of its residents--through employer and government provided programs with some health insurance coverage.  However, moving ahead with serious comprehensive health care reform proposals such as Healthy Wisconsin at the state level would be extremely hard in an environment where we are required to have a balanced budget and face a $1.8 billion deficit in a struggling economy.  I supported the efforts to expand BadgerCare Plus access to all children and low income childless adults, but I did not support the budget agreement partly because it did not include a dedicated revenue source such as the hospital assessment which would have brought in federal dollars, increased reimbursement rates, reduced cost shifting to private insurance, and provided an ongoing source of revenue for Medical Assistance programs. These initiatives would build upon our current programs rather than make drastic changes.  We need to continue to encourage healthy lifestyles to prevent chronic illnesses. Utilizing cost effective community health clinics that offer basic services for shots and check-ups instead of using emergency rooms would be another way to save money.

Reiff: I will begin by noting that I am a  strong opponent of Healthy Wisconsin. I do not believe that  government run health care is a good idea, and the complete  co-opting of individual rights these programs produce is  unacceptable. The system I would bring to the legislature for  making health care more affordable is in allowing for a better, more open market within the system. Currently, Wisconsin remains one of  only four states that hasn't extended the federal tax write off for  Health Savings Accounts to the state level. Allowing this deduction  would give incentive towards citizens saving for health care costs,  and make them more price conscious. By making health care cost  sensitive, people will take time with non-emergency issues to  comparison shop, as they do for most other products. I would allow  an optional state wide insurance pool for small business and the  self-employed. This creates a larger risk pool, thereby creating  lower premiums for those who participate. By allowing companies to  take care of their employees, we reduce taxpayer costs and help  retain an incentive for able bodied adults to remain in the  workforce. This is far preferable to creating a system that uses massive tax hikes to give health care for those who choose not to  work. Lastly, we should consider tax deductions for medical  expenses, whether insurance premiums or out of pocket. This would  help to complete a system where individuals, not the government, are  empowered in making health care decisions.

Hintz: The energy crisis provides a tremendous challenge and opportunity. The 2007-2009 Budget dedicated nearly $40 million to the Office of Energy Independence, designed to coordinate the state’s efforts to grow Wisconsin’s bio and renewable energy sources. Wisconsin utilities are now required to contribute 1.25 percent of their annual operating revenue for efficiency and renewable energy programs.  This generates $94 million in revenue over 18 months for investment in energy projects that improve the competitiveness of Wisconsin business and industries and help consumers control their energy expenditures. In 2007, the Focus on Energy program helped over 12,800 Wisconsin businesses reduce their energy consumption generating over $22.6 million in annual energy savings. 

Reiff: I am a great advocate of nuclear  energy, both for powering Wisconsin, and for the manufacturing jobs  that would be created by building reactors and components here in the Fox Valley. Our state's skilled workforce would be well suited  to the standardized production envisioned within the Department of  Energy's fourth generation nuclear program. Combined with the era  of electric or hydrogen powered vehicles we will soon be entering,  there is an opportunity for Wisconsin to become a world leader in an emerging industry, if we have the vision. However, this is only a  partial fix. Our transportation remains basically fossil fueled, and  ignoring this truth isn't productive. I believe all state owned  fleet vehicles should have their engines governed at just above 65  miles per hour. It isn't unreasonable to say that the state should  lead the way in conserving gas, particularly when fuel prices are  near or over four dollars a gallon. Our state should also begin  looking (as funds become available) at more modern diesel powered  vehicles. The newest generation of diesel powered car is capable of  50+ miles to the gallon, beating out most hybrids. Even at the  increased cost of clean diesel compared to unleaded, our state would  soon realize savings. This would give an opportunity for these  technologies to gain traction in the state, allowing for more  private purchasers to gain access to these fuel efficient cars.  Further, state taxes on diesel fuel should be lowered, encouraging  clean diesel technologies and cutting transportation costs.