1. So this clown is okay with the state interfering with local governments pensions when they positively affect them, just not when they negatively affect them. Positive effects = constitutional, negative effects = unconstitutional? Right.
2. The are state level negotiations the local governments have no control over.
3. The state can cut aid to local governments without their approval, it’s clearly constitutional.
4. Budget changes/negotiations at the state level are constitutional.
5. A city attorney says the state does not have the power to alter state budgets if they impact cities. Everything in the state budget can impact cities. Right.
6. This idiot thinks we live under the laws of the Medes and Persians, where once a law is on the books it can never be changed or taken away. He’s been pretty okay with all the changes - pro and con - under previous governors and legislatures. NOW he believes this? Right.
I don’t know about WI law but I do know that right now the WI legislature has the votes to change it if needed.
But moreover, doesn’t any change of state funding potentially impact home rule cities? Suppose a home rule city planned on re-paving Main St. which is also a state highway, and they pass an appropriation ordnance that includes funding for their share of the project, as is usually the case (matching funds). Then the state budget pressures require cuts, and the highway improvement projects gets the ax. So now the state has taken an action that limits the ability of the municipality to do what it’s ordinance says. (In fact it’s saved money, just like the impact of Budget Repair will have).
It just seems like a trumped-up argument from an obvious partisan that is meant as theater more than as a serious legal theory.