1984 STATE PLATFORM: LABOR AND FARM              PARTY
                       855


some types of social services which they disagree with in principle, such
as family planning and day care
services. In such cases, the state should take responsibility for providing
direct services to eligible recipients, by
circumventing county governments.
  In recent years, the state has stopped providing some types of services,
such as healthy infant adoptions,
leaving the field to private agencies, and even subsidizing private agencies
with state resources. In the case of
adoption services, for example, all but one of the private agencies in the
state requires applicants to be mem-
bers of one or another religious sect. The only nonsectarian agency does
not cover most areas of the state.
Furthermore, the state Division of Community Services is actively subsidizing
these private agencies. While
the state should allow private agencies to compete with state-provided services,
the state should provide direct
services where it is clear that leaving the task to the private sector would
limit service access or subsidize private
agencies with public resources.
                                    Developmentally Disabled Services
  We support continued programs for deinstitutionalization of developmentally
disabled persons, and ex-
panded access for the physically handicapped.
                                          Deinstitutionalization
  We recognize the benefits of deinstitutionalization and a "normalized"
and least restrictive environment.
We support measures to provide safe and adequate community-based alternatives
to institutionalization for
the frail elderly, mentally ill and the developmentally disabled.
  Unfortunately, in too many cases deinstitutionalization has come to mean
"dumping" people with severe
care needs to cheaper "community placements," often lower cost
nursing homes, where they receive inade-
quate care and treatment. Deinstitutionalization has also become synonymous
with attempts to lay off and
drive down the wages and working conditions of care givers.
  While supporting the concept of deinstitutionalization, the LFP also recognizes
that, in the near future,
there is a proper role for institutional care in the continuum of care, and
that there is a need for adequate
resources to make institutions as effective and humane as possible.
  We support expansion of programs such as the Community Integration Program
and Community Options
Program. However, these programs must ensure adequate state oversight, to
require local agencies to provide
and document that client service needs are being met. Furthermore, we demand
that wages and working
conditions of care givers be protected, and that the livelihood of institution
employees laid off as a result of
deinstitutionalization be guaranteed.
15. Taxation
  The biggest chunk of property tax now goes to support education and welfare,
which distorts the original
intent of the tax - supporting basic services which give value to property.
Statewide uniformity in education
and welfare is desirable. But it isn't possible when property values vary
so widely. Uniformity can be achieved
through statewide collection (and distribution) of an ability to pay tax
the income tax. Shifting education
and welfare to the state would ease local property taxes, which can become
confiscatory because of the school
and welfare load.
   We therefore call for the following policies:
   (a.) State income tax  Create higher tax percentages for incomes over
$50,000.
   (b.) Corporate tax   At minimum, adoption of the unitary method of taxation
for multinational energy
corporations, with possible extension to all multinational corporations.
   (c.) Sales tax Oppose further increases in the percentage but extend taxation
to professional fees, consult-
ing fees, and advertising fees.
   (d.) Inheritance tax - Oppose any attempts to give breaks to the wealthy.
Support increases in the rate of
taxation of large estates.
   (e.) Wisconsin tax forms should prominently feature information which
graphically depicts the amount of
federal tax monies from Wisconsin which are consumed by military spending.
   (f.) Until such time as the spending priorities of the federal government
shift away from militarism, the State
of Wisconsin should provide all possible assistance to every resident taxpayer
in order to assure that they pay
as little federal tax as possible.
   (g.) Workers and their representing organizations must be given access
to the completed state and federal
tax forms of their employing corporations.
16. Families and Alternative Households
   We believe that all individuals are entitled to a nurturing, supportive
environment. This requires that the
human services we advocate be extended in ways that promote and assist the
nurturing relationships formed
between people.
   We believe that support and assistance should go beyond the confines of
traditionally sanctioned relation-
ships. We recognize the creative capacity of individuals to mold new forms
of families and new types of
relationships. We also recognize that social and economic pressures have
caused the formation of alternative
household structures.
   Governmental and financial institutions have sought to deny benefits to
nontraditional families and/or to
alternative households. In many cases business and government have taken
a punitive stance toward such
relationships. Such discrimination must cease. The State of Wisconsin must
take, at minimum, the following
steps:
   (a.) Create mechanisms by which nontraditional families and alternative
households could apply for "fam-
ily" benefits at "family" rates.
   (b.) Apply the standard of "family equivalency" to applications
for housing, credit, health care benefits,
social service entitlements, retirement benefits, and to the tax and inheritance
laws of the State of Wisconsin,
and to other areas relating to services and benefits.
   (c.) Develop a certification process which legitimizes alternative households
by the filing of a noncompli-
cated and inexpensive "declaration of commitment".
   (d.) Develop fair standards by which to evaluate noncertified households
in case-by-case applications for
benefits (standards might include, but not be limited to, factors such as
financial interdependence, duration of
relationship, joint ownership of property, etc.).