The fallout from Wisconsin’s failed budget surplus deal

The fallout from Wisconsin’s failed budget surplus deal

Shawn Johnson:

It’s been a week since the budget surplus deal fell apart at the Capitol, and we’re still making sense of the fallout. Today, we talk about how it’s playing out in the governor’s race, more insight on the talks that failed, and more information about what it would mean for the state’s bottom line. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I’m Shawn Johnson, here with my colleagues Anya van Wagtendonk and Zac Schultz. Hey, you two.

Zac Schultz:

Hello.

Anya van Wagtendonk:

Hey.

Shawn Johnson:

So, Zac, we pretty much ran out of time last week talking about this deal because there are so many facets to it and so many players, so many motivations to discuss. We barely touched on part of it, which is how it’s being received in the Democratic primary for governor, which is just as well, because we had more reactions since that show and since the deal fell apart. I guess if you had to sum it up this big Democratic primary how are the candidates dealing with this big deal that they weren’t really expecting to come along?

Zac Schultz:

Well, it was interesting to watch the reactions as it was unfolding, when I think most people probably thought this was going to pass. In the days leading up to it, we saw kind of I saw three different responses. There were two very clear nos from Francesca Hong and from Kelda Roys, both running in a more progressive stance The two only that actually got to vote on this because they’re still in the Legislature. Then we saw Missy Hughes come out absolutely all for it, one of the only ones to say this is a good deal and it makes sense to try and get this done perhaps a way to try and give herself a little attention in a crowded race where everyone is trying to struggle for oxygen. And then we saw kind of a muddled middle, of a lot of candidates that really were like, “I really don’t like the process, and this may not be the best deal,” but it was clear they were not ready to come out against it. And then it failed. And then the knives started coming out afterwards. What we’ve seen since then has been different, but it felt like those lanes were kind of decided in the lead-up to it. And then afterwards, they exposed a little more of how they were feeling about it and who they were ready to blame, more specifically, for how it went apart.

Shawn Johnson:

Anya, how are you processing this, I guess a variety of reactions all coming from these candidates at once?

Anya van Wagtendonk:

Yeah. Well, in some ways, I think the bill was an election year messaging tool anyways, right for the people who negotiated it. And so all of a sudden it presented an opportunity for people in this crowded primary who are not really all that distinguished. I still run into people who do not know that there is a governor’s race this year, right? So this is a way

Shawn Johnson:

It’s May, it’s May

Anya van Wagtendonk:

And most people are not watching our show apparently.

Shawn Johnson:

They will yeah, give them time.

Anya van Wagtendonk:

But they’ll start. Yeah, so this is an opportunity for those Democrats to try to message around school funding, property taxes, these really big election year issues, and to try to stand out a little bit.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah, talk about trying to stand out. There are sort of degrees of no and degrees of yes. On degrees of no, Kelda Roys I think we were just checking our emails and she came out against this deal in less than two hours after it was made public. So there’s somebody who’s trying to let people know, “I’m definitely against this,” and she’s got to vote on it one way or another, so might as well take a position. Francesca Hong, the same day. And then you’ve got the candidates, as you alluded to Joel Brennan, who worked for Tony Evers, saying “I didn’t like the process.” And then some I don’t know exactly where they stand on the deal, where they’re just basically saying “It failed, we got to move on.” Why would they give such a muddled answer, as you called it? Why not take a position on this thing?

Zac Schultz:

I think because there was a lot to lose, not knowing how it was going to come out. Most of these people were not involved in any of the discussions. They probably did not know that they were even happening at this time. I think it probably was true that Kelda may not have known they were happening, given how quickly she responded it may have known that, hey, Senate Dems were not in the loop, which is ultimately what killed this. And she had the most distinct opportunity to put her stamp on this entire process, because no matter what, she was the only one that was in the chamber where it could have passed that said no. That was not the deciding vote, but deciding-vote-adjacent, in terms of being able to say this is going down, I will not vote for it, and I stand with the rest of my colleagues. So there are definitely a lot of things to be gained for some of those people in being very clear, and there’s a lot to lose. And so some of that is just the approach that some of these candidates have taken in this primary is, cautious front-runner, or assumed front-runner. And how close are they to Gov. Evers to begin with? We’ve got multiple people who’ve worked in his staff, two lieutenant governors, and then other people that are not close to the Evers administration at all, so they can be a little more freewheeling. They’re not hoping for, if they win a primary or come close, of Evers bestowing any blessings upon them at the last minute they can be farther apart.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah, he has said repeatedly he’s not going to endorse in this campaign. And he seems, like, unhappy with the candidates increasingly, especially as they kind of trash his deal, as they did this time around. Anya, I think what strikes me is that these candidates set out this campaign and they had a plan. They want to talk about certain messages. They want to talk about Donald Trump. They want to define themselves on their terms. And when the governor negotiates an agreement with Republican leaders, it kind of throws a wrench in those plans, doesn’t it?

Anya van Wagtendonk:

Well right, there’s sort of policy and issues, and then there’s politics, and this was a political week, right? This was all about these negotiations and kind of the powerful, the negotiations of power that were taking place. And so that’s really different than the issue of property taxes, which nobody is going to go on record supporting high property taxes. Nobody, especially in the Democratic Party, is going to go on record not wanting to fully fund public schools. And so how do you kind of take a stance that allows you to be on sort of the right side of that politically, while also taking part in the political maneuverings in the Capitol, which again, like, normal people don’t follow, don’t really understand. They’re just going to see what’s on their mailers in a couple of months saying, voted for or against money in your pocket or money for your schools. And so that’s a really kind of complicated dance to be doing right now.

Shawn Johnson:

And do you think that coming out in favor of the deal, as Missy Hughes did for example, is going to help you stand out in this crowded primary at a time when people are not necessarily paying attention to this race?

Zac Schultz:

Well, I will say this is probably the only time that we’ve talked about Missy Hughes and said her name more than once in a podcast, and for someone who has been polling in the low single digits, that matters. Not that we’re going to sway the voting public, but getting your name out and taking a stance, I think was a move for her to say, “No, I will stand up for something.” As opposed to, like, David Crowley, whose name we haven’t mentioned yet he’s running right in the middle of that primary. We saw the releases he put out about this bill before and after, and I still don’t know 100% whether he liked it or didn’t like it or was just kind of sitting in the middle on it. But, Shawn, I want to ask you about the money thing, because we’ve seen the Legislative Fiscal Bureau numbers. That was something that the Democrats put out there right away, saying this was unsustainable, it wasn’t real money, it would have set us up for a really bad budget. How much do you think that worked at the time for them, versus how much was it a convenient excuse for them afterwards when they really voted it down because of power maneuvers?

Shawn Johnson:

Oh, it could be a mix of both. I mean, if you look at the Fiscal Bureau numbers, which Anya did a great story on yesterday, that’s a pretty real concern. Whether or not that was their primary concern for voting this thing down, or what political calculations they made I think when you’re looking at a $2.95 billion projected budget deficit at the end of the next two-year budget, not the one we’re in now but the one after, that feels real to me, Anya, I mean, just looking through those numbers.

Anya van Wagtendonk:

Right, and the sort of important caveat is that that number from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau doesn’t take into account the fact that we are in a period of sort of remarkable economic uncertainty right now. And so it says that we would have that deficit that sort of almost $3 billion deficit were this to have passed, and that’s not accounting for potential changes to tax revenue, to the fact that there’s a war going on right now that is affecting oil and gas prices, all these different things. And so from all of the Democrats who voted against it, and then also from the Republicans who voted against it, there was this concern about the cost of this thing, which was kind of nebulous. And so even with those kind of firmer numbers, it justifies, I think, what some of those lawmakers were saying on the floor. But it also kind of points to this, again, political gamesmanship that we often see when it comes to appropriations, which is what is our money for? What is our state surplus for? Is it for things like this? Is it to have, kind of, in our back pockets? And so that was really the contours of the fight.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah, I think candidates come into office and they want to do things, and they can just imagine how nice it would be to do things if everything goes their way in 2027 and their party was in control of the Senate and who knows what else. And so, probably, they would like that money to spend on their priorities and don’t want to come into that situation running a deficit. So people become more budget hawks kind of depending on the circumstances, I think, from time to time. I will say one thing that stood out to me this week is Tony Evers did an interview with WISN-TV where and we alluded to this a bit last week in terms of the way that the governor kind of pursued these negotiations but he was straight-up asked if he sought out Democratic votes on this bill, and he said no. Zac, how do you do that in the Senate, given the political breakdown there?

Zac Schultz:

I mean, I would call it political malpractice, in the sense that anyone who looks at that apparently he was told that he had the Republican votes alone to pass it in that chamber. One, it’s surprising that he would count just on those, but especially given the two senators that we’ve talked about repeatedly in that chamber that have voted against every one of these proposals, including the last three budgets Senators Nass and Kapenga. Nass is leaving. We talked about him last week there’s no way he’s going to be a yes vote on this, no one would ever believe that. I don’t care who you’re talking to. But then that assumes that you’re going to get Kapenga as well. And not to count Senator Hutton who’s also leaving the chamber who voted no in the end. I think they thought maybe more likely they could have gotten him, but Kapenga’s been a no in the last couple of budgets. So those are really big assumptions at a time when you have Democrats over there. Why not reach out and say, “Hey, if we need you, will you be there?” Because we mentioned a couple of names for Democrats vulnerable Democrats that are up for election this session. Jeff Smith. Why would you not reach out and say, “Hey, can we count on you if we need to?” You don’t even have to necessarily offer them anything, but clue them in and make them feel like they’re part of the team. So the fact that he said he didn’t, it seems really strange.

Shawn Johnson:

Very shaky ground going into negotiations, counting on one of those two lawmakers you just mentioned, to vote for your deal. We did get a question from someone in our audience that feels timely right now. This came from a student at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse, where they watch our show in their legislative process class. Here’s her question about special sessions.

Katie:

My name is Katie Waukau, and I’m studying political science at UW-La Crosse. My question is, why have there been so many special sessions called by Gov. Evers? And does this trend signal breakdown in normal legislative compromise, or is it simply a strategic political tool?

Shawn Johnson:

All right, well, we have all covered our share of special sessions now. So let’s all just chime in on this. But Anya, you first how would you answer this question about special sessions?

Anya van Wagtendonk:

I mean, again, I think that they are often a messaging tool, and especially in divided government, right, where Democrats are never going to get their bills on the floor while Republicans control it, or at least their values-first, their top priorities on the floor. This is a way for the Democratic governor to signal what is most important to him by calling these special sessions. And then also, if he does it on things that again, are kind of widely popular no matter how you vote, he can force votes on certain issues. So, he can for example, he called a special session a few years ago on child care, trying to force Republicans to vote in a way that could then get messaged as, “Republicans don’t care whether you get child care.” And so that’s one use of it. But I will say I have only ever covered special sessions under divided government. I have only ever covered Evers special sessions. So I’m curious for you guys who have covered when Republicans controlled the Legislature and the governor’s office, when they worked in tandem the Walker years what did special sessions look like then?

Shawn Johnson:

Zac, I seem to remember a pretty big special session when Gov. Scott Walker was sworn in, actually the day of his inauguration. He declared a special session on jobs, I think he called it.

Zac Schultz:

Yeah, that seemed to be pretty, pretty big. Some acts came out of that that still resonate with a lot of the public and may bring up some traumatic memories for a lot of people who marched around the Capitol during those Act 10 protests. Yeah, in that era I mean, we have to look back, in 25 years of my time covering this Legislature, there has been one session in which there was truly divided government in the Legislature, in which Republicans held a chamber and the Democrats held a chamber. So most of the time, the past two-and-a-half decades, we’ve looked at this, there hasn’t been compromise necessary in the Legislature. It’s come between the executive and the legislative branches. So special sessions are one way for a governor to draw attention to what they need to. And I asked Gov. Evers about this a couple of years ago when he was calling them left and right, and he only has a couple opportunities to actually bring attention to what he wants. He can write a budget, which he knows will get immediately trashed, but at least he can write it and introduce his values, his principles, and say, “This is what I would like to see happen.” And then he can call special sessions. Other than that, that is his only legal power to do something in the Capitol. The rest of the time, it’s the bully pulpit and going around and talking to the media.

Shawn Johnson:

I would have answered Katie’s question differently a few weeks ago than I would now. And that is to say that a few weeks ago, I would have said that special sessions from this governor are basically all about messaging, that they are all about forcing Republicans to take a position against his priorities or to get his priorities on the record. I would say this last special session that he called, where he brought Republicans in to pass a deal he thought that they negotiated, that’s kind of a special session as the founders intended, or the framers of the state constitution would have intended, where look, the regular session’s done, our calendar days are done, we have this big issue we want to deal with and we just ran out of time, let’s agree to come back in for a special session of the Legislature. And it’s more ceremonial you had everybody actually in the building, versus most special sessions like the one on gerrymandering, for example. That was for show. And by the way, they gaveled that out last Thursday, kind of when nobody was paying attention. That one’s done. That was one where the governor wanted to highlight an issue, said let’s end partisan gerrymandering, and Republicans said we’ll consider it and not anymore, it’s gaveled out.

Zac Schultz:

Yeah, and the way that Republicans can respond to the governor trying to call attention to something is what’s called a skeletal session, in which two of them come in, they gavel it in, they gavel it out. They don’t even have to bring everyone to do the thing. So that’s the response to, we want attention on this. You want attention? We’ll give you an empty dark chamber we literally won’t turn the lights on, that’s how little attention we’ll pay to it. But it is all about politics, it is entirely about optics. This last one was a little different. And the thing that’s probably deceiving to most people, is they’re legally called special sessions, or extraordinary sessions as the Legislature calls them those are just names. All it means is it happens outside the regular calendar. Republicans two years ago declared the calendar was going to be done in March, so nine months to campaign. That’s the only reason it’s not regular session, it’s special. But it was a special time in the Capitol that people will remember.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah, yes they will. If you want to ask us a question about state government or politics, send us an email at [email protected]. Before we wrap up here, I did want to talk about the campaign for governor on the Republican side. We had a state GOP convention over this past weekend. Tom Tiffany is now the endorsed candidate. He doesn’t have to worry about a primary the way that the candidates had to in 2022, so he can focus on the general election now. And yet, Zac, we’re talking about the 2020 election here. What is Tom Tiffany talking about?

Zac Schultz:

He cannot get away from Trump’s main grievance, which is the fact that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020. And because he still has such a powerful grip over the Republican Party nationally which we just saw in Republican primaries in Kentucky and in Louisiana Senate races that his people have to fall in line on his beliefs, or his incorrect beliefs, that the 2020 election was stolen. So Tom Tiffany is still answering questions about election fraud investigations and whether Joe Biden won the election with, you know, kind of diffusing or deferring and trying to get away from it, because he can’t come out and honestly say, no, of course Trump lost. That’s been warranted over and over. Every Republican group out there, from Vos to the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, has already said so. And that is something that Democrats love to hear, because they will continue to hang that around his neck all the way to November as much as they possibly can. The closer they tie him to Donald Trump and these grievances from four years, six years ago now, the better off it is for them.

Shawn Johnson:

And Anya, just real quick, it seems like this is an issue where, as much as he wants to go for those handful of voters who are in the middle, this is a line that he can’t cross as far as Republicans are concerned.

Anya van Wagtendonk:

One of the lessons from this week is that in state politics, it’s not the time if you are a Republican to be bucking Trump. And so we are seeing him sort of tie himself again to this issue. And it’ll be interesting to see how much does that motivate his Republican voters, and how much does that turn off those moderate voters and energize Democratic voters.

Shawn Johnson:

Absolutely. That’s all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us. This has been Inside Wisconsin Politics. Our colleague Rich Kremer will be back next week. Be sure to follow us on pbswisconsin.org, wpr.org, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.