Wisconsin's Democratic governor and
Republican legislative leaders
negotiate a big deal on tax
cuts and school funding.
And it blows up in the Wisconsin
Senate.
What just happened?
Let's talk about it.
This is Inside Wisconsin Politics.
I'm Sean Johnson, here with my
colleagues, Zach Schultz and Rich
Kramer in Eau Claire.
Hey guys. Hello.
So we are going to have plenty
of time here to unpack the motives
of all the players in this drama
that unfolded at the Capitol.
But first, let's start with
kind of what led to this for people
who haven't paid attention to every
twist and turn of this big
deal we've been calling it at the
capital.
Zach, what was in this thing that
was negotiated by Democratic
Governor Tony Evers and the
Republican legislative leaders?
Well, the top line picture is it's
$1.8 billion in spending, most
of it one time only, looking at
the projected surplus that would be
available for next year.
Of that, $300 million for
special education funding for public
schools. That's been a Democratic
priority for a long time.
$350 million in
rebates or tax buy downs
for property taxes that would go
money going to the schools, but that
they would only use to reduce
property taxes, not new spending.
And then there were going to be
individual rebates for tax
filers, 300 per person or 600
for a married couple.
And then we see a
match to the federal plan for no
taxes on tips and overtime.
And Sean, a month ago, we asked,
what's the possibility that this
could actually happen?
And my answer at the time was, well,
this is the only time it could
happen because we have three leaders
that are all leaving the stage.
It's legacy time.
Well, what we didn't account for is
everyone else who's still running
for reelection or election in
Wisconsin.
Sinking this deal.
Three legacy leaders getting the
compromise wasn't enough and to me
this is a political Rorschach test.
How you view this particular deal
kind of matches your view on
politics. For some people and for a
lot of ordinary people around the
state this was the an epitome of a
compromise.
You get a little bit for one side,
you get a little bit from the other
side, everyone can come away maybe
a little dissatisfied, maybe a
little happy.
And money goes back to taxpayers at
a time when you're seeing the price
of gas go through the roof just to
fill your tank up.
And as they're about to run for your
election, those are things that
normally you'd want to see
politicians pass.
The other side of that test is
political purity.
And there are a lot of people
looking at this deal saying, this
isn't as good as I would like it to
be. And I think we can do better
when we have more power next year.
So it started out,
the day, though, looked like
your average special session day,
like a bill that might pass.
You have this big agreement by the
leaders, by Governor Tony Evers,
the big Democrat and the big
Republicans.
You had speeches to start this day,
including by Assembly Speaker Robyn
Boss.
We can show people that we listen
and that we are willing to act.
And most importantly, that
compromise in Wisconsin is not
a dead word.
Compromise is defined as getting
something that you want by giving
up something that your partner
or your opponent wants.
That is really what we did here.
So that's when the waiting game kind
of began.
Rich, we were both watching the
Senate for a long
time on Wednesday.
What was it like as
the day sort of played out?
It was a lot of hurry up and wait.
So it's not unusual for the
Senate to set a start time
for their floor sessions, whether
it be in a special session or a
regular session, and then
blow past that.
That's kind of unsurprising.
But this time, we kept
getting these notices that, oh,
it's going to be at 3 o'clock.
Well, it's actually 5, 545.
And then we just went with
half hour increments.
You know, six, six-thirty, seven,
eight, eight. You know, and on and
on, and they were,
I wanna say it was four hours
that they,
it took for them to go from the
first notice, you know when the plan
was to meet at 3 p.m.
And when they actually met.
And then once they got on the floor,
you heard some of the same
complaints from Democrats and
Republicans about this bill that
you heard in the assembly.
The opponents said that they
didn't like the process of how it
was. Thrown together,
Senate Democrats were out of the
picture, et cetera, and
then there were concerns about costs
and this being a projected budget
surplus, et cetera, and how this
could plunge us into a deficit in
the coming budget cycle.
Yeah, so that night we
had a very unusual scene kind of
play out. The assembly met after
waiting all day to see what the
Senate was going to do.
They passed this bill in short
order.
The Senate is meeting at the same
time and it's clear that
things are not going well there.
You hear a speech from Senate
Democratic minority leader Diane
Hesselmein, who made it clear she
was not happy with this bill.
This is a completely reckless
proposal, stitched together
in a backroom deal by
three people who will not be running
around and won't be here
when the consequences of a
multi-billion dollar deficit comes
home to roost.
It's simply something I
can't support.
And this bill actually fails
on a vote of 15 to 18.
And I know people probably
think, big deal.
Things pass, things fail.
Bills don't actually get to the
point of failure hardly ever
in the state legislature.
If it doesn't have the votes, it
does not come to the floor,
especially something as big and
dramatic as this.
And for the governor to
negotiate this and his Senate
Democrats stand unified
against it to help kill it
with a few Republicans.
Is something we do not see every
day.
Zach, what do you think was
motivating Senate Democrats here?
There's two factors.
I think first is they were insulted,
they were left out of the loop.
That is huge, actually.
Every single time over the past
few years that they've needed to
pass a big budget bill especially
with Republicans having a
smaller majority in the state
Senate. They've had two members that
have voted against every bill.
That's Senators Nass and Capenga.
They've consistently said, we can't
support this extra spending, we're
voting no. That means in practice,
Republicans don't have a working
majority when it comes to passing
that kind of legislation.
They need Democratic votes.
Governor Evers knows that.
Senate Majority Lemahue knows that
everyone knows they need at least a
couple of Democratic votes and
probably more.
So the fact that they were not
consulted, did not have any input on
this bill and made it clear from the
very first time it was announced
that they were unhappy with it
showed. And I think that showed up
in that long pause in the assembly.
The assembly had the vote.
It was they were going to wait and
see if they had the votes in the
Senate.
And the second part of why Senate
Democrats were not in line with
this comes next fall.
And that's with the re-election.
They're, they are...
Not quite certain but very confident
that they're going to flip the
majority in that chamber and that
when they come to power in the next
session they will not only have
a say they will be the deciding
factors and how any bills are
passed and how budgets are passed.
And so they can direct where that
money goes and if they think they
get lucky and there's a democratic
governor and a democratic assembly
then they're gonna say all this
money will be available for for us
to spend. In ways that we prefer
instead of having to compromise,
which is what has sunk every
possibility of all these budget
surplus deals since Tony Evers
has been governor, the fact that the
next election might bring better
outlook for each of the sides, and
so they've decided not to
compromise.
And I think this was a clear cut
case where circumstances
matter completely.
If Tony Evers were running for
election in November, and he said,
this is my big bill, Democrats,
this is what I want to run on,
I mean, they would have voted yes.
No, Republicans probably wouldn't
have brought it up in that case, so
it's a theoretical exercise.
But Senate Democrats, I'm confident
would have been with him.
He is not on the ballot, though,
this November, as Diane Hesselbein
noted.
And Senate Democrats are poised
to, they think, take
that majority.
She has essentially been a
co-majority leader on some of the
big bills that have come through the
Senate this year, from the budget to
gambling.
And so to freeze them out
of talks like this, which is the way
they viewed it, certainly,
and to end up with a bill that was
pretty Republican in nature, and
it's about a billion and a half in
tax cuts was.
Not something that they
enjoyed, you know?
Well, and don't forget there is
another factor when it comes to
everyone looking at the next budget
the next year And that is there's a
lot of people who think we may be
looking into a recession Yeah So
most of this surplus is a
projection of what the economy is
going to bring in for tax revenues
If there's an economic downturn in
the next six months that money
disappears all by itself without
having been sent out So you send it
out even though most of these is
one-time spending it may not be
there next year Now they
say even in the worst of
circumstances, at least the state
will have a little bit money to
start the next year with.
So that is a legitimate concern
considering where gas prices and
grocery prices are right now and
with no end to a war in Iran,
that the economy could shift and go
down and these tax revenues may not
materialize.
The Senate Democrats don't have this
power if Republicans just stick
together and all their members vote
for the bill negotiated by
their leader, Devin Lemmy-Hugh, and
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.
In fact, in the assembly, all the
Republicans did stick together, and
they voted for that bill.
So what's going on in the Senate
with a few Republicans there who
decided, yeah, we're just not going
to do this?
Well, what was surprising is that
two of the three Republicans that
voted against this proposal,
they're not running for reelection.
So maybe that made them feel freer
to speak their mind.
But as Zach mentioned,
you've also got Senator Steve Noss
is one of them and he's pretty Well
known for voting against especially
spending in a large spending
packages
It seems like Devin Lemahue
didn't have the sort of control over
his caucus that Robin Voss
did in the assembly.
That's been pretty obvious given
the past bills where you needed
Democratic support
to get them over the finish line.
But what's also been really
interesting is seeing
Republicans attacking Republicans
after the fact.
So in particular, Senator Van
Wengard, who
is retiring, He went
on social media afterwards.
After the bill failed and said it
was a good deal for Wisconsin, but,
you know, every Dem and Nass
and Kappinga and Rob
Hutton wanted to spend more
and keep more of your money.
So you've got a Republican saying
that Steve Nass wants
to keep your tax dollars from
you, which is pretty
interesting in the grand
scheme of things.
But you also had Democrats
kind of good
riddance Tony Evers.
I mean it's just really
fascinating to see
this breakdown.
It's just unlike anything I've ever
seen. And I wanted to ask both of
you, Sean, how
many times in your careers have you
seen a bill pass,
you know, this kind of bill with
this kind of buildup where you would
expect the votes have to be there
before it gets to the floor to avoid
embarrassment.
How many times have you see it clear
one chamber and then die in the
Senate?
Rare. I thought of a couple.
One, the vote
on state employee contracts
ahead of when
Scott Walker took office.
Another one that featured lame
ducks. It did.
I mean, this weird stuff happens at
the end here when everybody's
position has changed.
Circumstances matter.
But you had the
assembly Democrats passed new
contracts for state employees.
The thought was that that would
protect them when Scott Walker took
office And Senate Democrats,
led by Russ Decker and
Senator Jeff Plaley at the time,
voted no, and they failed.
So it has happened.
Another one on ethanol mandate way
back in like 2006,
I think, but it is
pretty sparse the way
this stuff happens.
But it does point out exactly what
we're talking about.
Once a politician is no longer
running for reelection and they
become a lame duck, they lose a lot
of control.
What's most impressive about all
this is Robin Voss holding his
entire caucus together.
Even though he's going to be exiting
stage right, he still
has enough to keep his chamber
together.
Senator Lemahue really never had
firm control over Republicans in the
Senate. That's always been called
herding cats over there, so that's
not terribly surprised.
Kaepenga and Noss have made it quite
clear.
All of these people leaving office
really gives people a lot of freedom
to think about their own interests
next year, completely aside
from what you would expect in the
typical bill process.
Yeah, Steve Noss, I mean, has been
a thorn in the side to leadership
for his entire career, basically,
or at least the part that
I've observed anyway.
And can you imagine him on his last
vote ever in the legislature saying,
you know, I'll take one for
the team for Robin Voss.
I mean I think it's pretty
predictable that he was gonna be a
no vote, but let's kind of unpack
where assembly Republicans were
on this and why they decided we're
gonna take this vote because I think
By the time that both
chambers got to voting at night,
I bet you assembly Republicans knew
darn well that this thing was gonna
fail in the state Senate
and they wanted to take this vote
anyway.
Because they're all up for
re-election this fall.
Everyone that's not retiring has
an absolute desire to go back to
their constituents and say, I was
willing to put $300 in your pocket.
I was to give more to the schools.
I was will to lower your property
taxes. It's not my fault this
failed. That does bring us around to
some of the interesting calculations
that we're looking at, especially on
the Democratic side.
So one of the people I was watching
is Jeff Smith, who's a Democratic
Senator. He's the assistant majority
leader, so he's pretty high ranking
in his caucus.
He's gonna move up if they control
the chamber.
He voted no on this.
His staffers tell me he was no the
entire time, mainly for the
structural deficit concerns.
But within his district, one of
the assembly Democrats, Jody
Emerson, voted yes.
You go south from there into the
cross.
Brad Paff in the Senate voted no.
Within his district Joe Billings and
Steve Doyle, two assembly Democrats
in competitive districts, both voted
yes in the assembly.
They understand what it's like to go
back to the voters and have to say,
oh no, I voted against this because
Well, we'll spend it better next
year when people are feeling the
pinch right now.
There's a lot of political
calculations that go into some of
these moves and looking unified as a
team does help.
We also saw another state Senate
race. Howard Marklein voted yes.
He's in a competitive district.
Jenna Jacobson, the assembly Dem
who's running against him also voted
yes, it would put her in a terrible
position.
Easy marketing for Markleine if she
voted no on this deal.
So some of this has to be political
maneuver.
And, you know, I think you could
look at this bill and say,
potentially, it's a little
gimmicky, right? You're going to,
like, spend almost $900
million just on these $300 checks,
and it's going to be gone.
And you have lawmakers on the record
from both parties for bills
like this in the past saying, oh,
that's a gimmick, we can't do that.
But do you want to be, which side of
that gimmick do you wanna be on when
you're doing doors in November and
people are struggling with costs?
It's a popular
kind of bill, giving people money
and seeing that you work together
with the other side.
So Sean, let's look at the outside
players in this, because Tom Tiffany
was a big factor in this.
I've seen some Republicans online
saying he would have been better off
being quiet, given how it played
out. Instead, he did come out
against this bill, and he was
on the record talking to at least
one state senator who did vote for
it, but weighing in on his
concerns about this bill.
What do you make of that?
Yeah, from a practical
perspective, I get it.
From a political perspective, I do
not, I don't understand what he was
doing. What I mean is from a
practice perspective, if Tom Tiffany
thinks he's gonna be governor, then
I bet he wants to either have
that money in there so that he
doesn't take office with the
deficit.
Or if the economy does okay,
maybe he wants come in as governor
and throw a special session
for a Tom Tiffany tax
cut. Not a Tony Evers tax
cut, you know, get things started
off right.
From a political perspective, I
don't know why you come out against
this.
I just don't, it's like a
theoretical exercise
because you're not in there voting,
but like why come out and against
a big tax cut?
And why attack Tony
Ebers? Like he's not on the ballot.
All these Democrats who are also
against this bill might be running
against you in November.
So how do you differentiate?
You differentiate yourself here by
agreeing with them.
I'm not sure.
No, Rich, one question I had for you
that we kind of traded notes on
throughout the night was,
will voters actually remember this?
Like will anybody be rewarded
or punished?
You know, that's a huge question.
All of what you're saying makes
sense to me,
someone who's been really following
this.
But I also remember being at
a Supreme Court election night event
and a fellow at the hotel not
knowing there was an election that
day. So there's a part of me,
I'm always skeptical that this sort
of thing will stick in a voter's
mind. It's different, I guess, if
you're getting your door knocked
consistently and people are
reminding you of that or if you see
a lot of commercials, but.
You know, in the grand scheme of
things, a $300, $600
check, that's a big deal,
but you know, all the political
infighting and everything like that,
I just, I'm not sure if people will
carry that all the way to November.
There's a lot going out there
right now in national
and world politics.
That's for sure.
That's all the time we have for
today. Thanks for joining us.
This has been Inside Wisconsin
Politics.
Our colleague Anya Van Weggtendonk
will be back next week.
Be sure to follow us on wpr.org,
pbswisconsin.org YouTube,
or wherever you get your podcasts.