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 Sean Johnson here with my
colleagues, Anya Ben-Wagtendonk and
Zach Schultz. Hey, you two.
Hello.
So Zach, 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've 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 Kaldivroys, 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 to give herself
a little attention in a crowded race
where everyone's 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 that 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 weighed
apart.
Anya, 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 the way.
It's May.
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 degrees of, no.
Kelda Royce, 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 a 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,
if it failed, we gotta move on.
Why would they give such a
muddled answer, as you call 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 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 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 were 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 Governor 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, come
close, if Evers bestowing 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 they did this time around.
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 talk about
Donald Trump. They wanted to find
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?
Well, Ray, I mean, 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 in 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 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.
Do you think that coming
out in favor of the deal, as Missy
Hughes did, for example, is
gonna 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
voting public, but getting your name
out and taking a stance, I think,
was a move for her to say, no, I'll
stand up for something, as opposed
to 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 Sean, 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 played 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 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.
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 uncertainty
right now. And so it says that we
would have that deficit, that sort
of almost three billion dollar
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 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 games and ship 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.
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.
Zach, 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.
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 and
Senators Nass and Capega.
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 I would never believe
that. I don't care who you're
talking to, but then that assumes
that you're going to get Kappenka 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 Kappnka's been a no in 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 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.
Very shaky ground to go 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 Lacrosse
where they watch our show in their
legislative process class.
Here's her question about special
sessions.
My name is Katie Walke, and I'm
studying political science at
UW-Lacoste.
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 session?
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 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 called a special session
a few years ago on childcare.
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 ever
covered either 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?
Zach, I seem to remember a pretty
big special session when Governor
Scott Walker was sworn in,
actually the day of his
inauguration, he declared
a special session on jobs,
I think he called it.
Yeah, that seemed to be 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, 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 We've looked at this
there's 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
Governor Evers about this a couple
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 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
and 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.
You know, I think I 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 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 or
our calendar days are done.
We have this big issue we wanna deal
with that we just ran out of time
with. Let's agree to come back
in for a special threshing
of the legislature.
And it's more ceremonial too.
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. He said, let's end partisan
gerrymandering.
And Republicans said, we'll consider
it.
And not anymore.
It's gavel out.
And the way that Republicans can
respond to the governor trying
to call attention to something
through a special session is what's
called a skeletal session, in which
two of them come in, they gavel it
in, they gaver 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 will pay to it.
But it is all about politics at all.
It is entirely about optics.
This last one was a little
different. And the thing that's
probably deceiving to most people is
when They're legally called special.
Sessions when the governor calls
them are extraordinary sessions and
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 capital that
people will remember
Yes, they will.
If you want to ask us a question
about state government or politics,
send us an email at insidewisconsin
politics at wpr.org.
Before we wrap up here, I
didn't 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,
Zach, 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 Voss 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 six
years ago now, that the better off
it is for them.
And Anya, 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.
Yeah, I mean, I think 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.
Absolutely.
That's all the time we have for
today. Thanks for joining us.
This has been Inside Wisconsin
Politics.
Our colleague, Rich Kramer, will be
back next week.
Be sure to follow us on
PBSWisconsin.org, WPR.org
YouTube or wherever you get
your podcasts.
A different verb in the book, but
I'd.