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. >> Hello.
>> 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? >> 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
no's from Francesca and 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 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 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. And 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.
>> Anna, how are you processing this? You know,
I guess variety of reactions all coming from
these candidates at once. >> 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 and most people are not
watching our show. Apparently they will, but
they'll start. Yeah, but 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.
>> Yeah. Talk about trying to stand out. There are
sort of degrees of no and degrees of yes, like on on
degrees of no. Kelda Roys. I think we were just
checking out 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, you know, they're
just basically saying it failed. We got to move on.
You know, why is why would they give such a a muddled
answer, as you called it? Why not take a position on
this thing? >> 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. And
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 a
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 and 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 frontrunner. And
how close are they to Governor Evers to begin
with? We've got multiple people who've worked in his
staff, two lieutenant people that are not close
to the Evers administration at all. So they can be a
little more freewheeling there. They're not hoping
for, you know, the if they win a primary or come close,
if Evers bestowing, you know, any blessings upon
them at the last minute, they can be farther apart.
>> 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 as they did this time
around. Ana. 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? 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?
Well, then also taking part in the political
maneuverings in the capital, 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.
>> And do you think that, you know, coming out in
favor of the deal is Missy Hughes did, for example, is
going to help you stand out in this crowded primary in
a time when people are not necessarily paying
attention to this race. >> 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 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 I. 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? >> Oh, it could be a mix of
both. I mean, if you look at the fiscal Bureau
numbers, which Oneida did a great story on yesterday,
that's a pretty real concern. You know, 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 on you. I mean, just
looking through those numbers, right.
>> And, you know, 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
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 like
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
concern about the cost of this thing, which was kind
of nebulous. And so even with those kind of firmer
numbers, it, you know, justifies, I think, what
some of those lawmakers were saying on the floor.
But it also kind of points to this place, again,
political gamesmanship that we often see when it comes
to appropriations, which is what 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 there was that was really the
contours of the fight. >> You know, 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, you know, 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,
you know, political breakdown there?
>> 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. 1 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 Senators Soros and Kapenga
Nosse is leaving. We talked about it last week. There's
no way he's going to be a yes vote on this. No one
would ever believe that I. 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 not to count Senator
Hutten, 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. CapEx Bongino 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 and
Jeff Smith, and 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. 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.
>> My name is Katie and I'm studying political science
at UW-La Crosse. My question is, why have there
been so many special sessions called by Governor
Evers? And does this trend signal breakdown in normal
legislative compromise, or is it simply a strategic
political tool? >> All right. Well, we have
all covered our share of special sessions now. And
so let's all just chime in on this. But Anya, you
first, how would you answer this question about special
sessions? >> I mean, again, I think
that they are often a messaging tool and
especially in divided Democrats are never going
to get their bills on the floor while Republicans
control it, or at least they're sort of 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 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? >> Derrick. I seem to
remember a pretty big special session when
Governor Scott Walker was sworn in, actually, the day
of his inauguration. He. He declared a special session
on jobs. I think he called it.
>> 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 ten 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 compromised 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 Governor Evers about this a couple
of years ago when he was calling him 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,
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.
would have answered Katie's question differently a few
weeks ago than I would now. And 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 sessions done or
are calendar days are done. We have this big issue we
want to deal with, and we just ran out of time with,
let's let's agree to come back in for a special
session of the legislature. And it's more ceremonial. 2
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 was 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. >> Yeah. And the way that
Republicans can respond to the governor trying to call
attention to something is what's called a skeletal
session. 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 all. It
is entirely about optics. This last one was a little
different, and the thing that's probably deceiving
legally called special calls them, or
extraordinary sessions in 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 time in the Capitol that people will remember.
>> Yeah. Yes they will. If you want to ask us a
question about state government or politics,
send us an email at Inside Wisconsin Politics at wpri
dot 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?
>> 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 and 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 that the better off
it is for them. >> And Ana just real quick,
I mean, 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.
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
that turn off those moderate voters and
>> 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 PBS
wisconsin.org. WPR.org, YouTube, or wherever you
get your podcasts.