You're ready?
All right. I'll start our timer as
well. Mr. Speaker, thanks for your
time.
Thanks, Zach, appreciate you having me
on.
So it looks like the budget
negotiations are very fluid.
Bring us up to date on where we
stand between the Senate, the
Assembly, and the government.
Yep, so weeks ago we began
talking with Governor Evers because
our goal is to get a budget signed
into law that has guaranteed tax
relief for Wisconsin citizens.
We negotiated in earnest.
At some point, it felt like the
governor really wasn't being
flexible enough for us.
So we said, let's just start the
finance process and see where it
goes. So we began to go through the
process like we always do with the
goal of being done by July 1st.
And then several weeks ago, we
also decided, look, if there's a way
we can stay engaged with the
governor, I'm not opposed to
negotiating. I'd like to get
something we can all live with.
To begin talking again with the
Assembly and the Senate.
I feel like we have a very
broad, vague
general framework of where we could
get to.
So I'm optimistic that we could
actually conclude by the end of
July.
Now it's just up to all three parts
to continue negotiating.
And it sounds like as of
today, my Senate colleagues don't
wanna do that, which I think is a
real shame because if Governor Evers
vetoes the budget, no property
tax relief, no funding for schools,
and no one wins.
That is not our goal.
It's to find something that we could
all live with.
And I guess I'm still an optimist
that we can do that, but only time
will tell.
Obviously the math in the senate is
they can only lose one vote as a
republican majority before they need
to rely on democrats are is
there any point in which you would
ask the governor to put pressure
on the democrats in the senator
trying to include some of those
democrats to see if you can secure a
vote that way
Well, one of the things I learned a
long time ago is I love the
assembly, right?
That is where I get to work.
If I predicted what was gonna happen
in the state Senate, I would have
even less hair than I do right now,
right. So I have no idea what
they're gonna do over there.
Here, I feel very confident that
we have almost all,
if not all, assembly Republicans in
general agreement with our
framework. Again, the budget's gotta
work its way through. There are
still details left to work out.
But the idea that we're gonna make
investments in special education,
that's something that we support.
The idea that were gonna invest in
childcare, we agree with that too.
That we're going to have significant
tax relief, hopefully focusing on
retirees and the middle class,
that's a winner.
So I think you check a lot of boxes
that get Republicans to want to be a
yes. Now we just have to get a bill
to the governor so we can actually
be done with our part of the
process.
When you've been negotiating do you
have to wait for the Senate Majority
Leader to go back to his members and
involve his caucus?
Are you going to your caucus or can
you kind of speak for your caucus?
Yeah, I mean, I can only speak for
us. I keep them updated on a very
regular basis. We talk about what's
in there. I try to get a general
parameter where people are
comfortable with to say, OK, can we
live with that if we give this?
It's actually been pretty
productive. Our caucus has really
been engaged. They've done a great
job. Every single member has things
that they know are important for
their part of Wisconsin.
And then we all think there are
things that are important for the
whole state. So luckily, we're in
general agreement.
We want to make sure we have great
roads. We want make sure that we
have that tax relief that will
really flow to real people who need
it in a time when look prices are
still high.
So I think at the end of the day, we
have to focus on our goal, which is
to get something done that's better
than current law.
The thing that makes me most
optimistic is look in the last
budget. We had historic investments
in public schools and healthcare.
We tried to do tax relief.
That was vetoed by the governor.
Almost all the tax cuts were vetoed,
so that didn't work.
But even this time around, even with
a historic tax cut that will be in
our budget and some investments that
are really important, our spending
level will still be lower than it
was two years ago.
So it's not like we're on a spending
binge. We're trying to be
responsible, but at the same time,
get something Governor Evers can
hopefully support.
In December, you said
that you would have liked to see the
tax cuts pass before the
budget.
You went into negotiations.
Are what we seeing passed out of
joint finance similar to what the
governor's agreed to? Did you kind
of get his answer on where he was
willing to go?
And that's what's before.
I mean, I don't.
I mean, I don't want to speak for the governor,
but I do feel like we're trying not
to do things that would draw a veto
That is not our goal.
We want to do that I think he
hopefully could sign look there are
things that in a compromise I'm
gonna not love but the whole
is better than the parts that I
dislike and I'm sure he would
probably say the same Thing there
are parts that he wished were
different, but I hope in the end
he'll be able to look at it and say
in total.
It's a better deal than doing
nothing
When it comes to public education,
obviously the governor's veto from
the last budget created the
parameters where school districts
have the ability to raise
funds on a per-pupil basis that's
not funded into the Republican
budget.
Is this kind of a standoff of who
will take the blame and the public's
eyes for rising property taxes if
the state doesn't fund it?
Well, it's really, there's no
argument. Governor Evers issued a
veto for a 400-year property tax
increase. He did it, he has to
own it. I mean, literally it was his
own decision.
Of course, it was ratified by his
liberal allies in the state Supreme
Court. Of course they're gonna rubber
stamp whatever he does.
So, I mean that's not a surprise
what actually occurred.
But where we're focused is to say,
okay, that's decided.
We're not gonna change Governor
Ever's mind.
He's not gonna all of a sudden say,
we shouldn't raise property taxes.
He already accepted that we will
forever.
So we're focus on where we can
actually find that agreement.
I don't want property taxes to go
up. If it were up to me, it would
have been a different result.
But I didn't vote for the liberal
majority and I didn't vote for
Governor Eber. So I kind of have to
accept the reality of where we are.
Negotiations as Governor Evers asked
you to fund that per people increase
or is he rather see some of the
whatever money is available to go
into other pots?
Again, I don't want to speak for
Governor Evers, but our negotiations
have been mostly focused around the
cost of special education.
One of the things that assembly
Republicans brought to the table is
a proposal which would say for
kids who cost over $30,000
for high cost special ed kids,
state's going to pay 90% of that.
That's what really is bankrupting or
hurting an awful lot of school
districts. You get one or two kids
in a small district that have
intense special needs and they don't
have the ability to fund it so they
have to cut other programs to put a
together that satisfy that child.
So we want to, we think that's a
great way to do it.
Governor Evers wanted more money in
special ed. We always agreed with
that. It's just discussing how much
we're able to afford as a state.
We need to have, we have a lot of
priorities. Schools are an important
one. But look, I care about how much
we spend on healthcare.
I care how much spend on raises for
public employees. I care on how much
we're gonna spend on childcare.
There's a lot things that we have to
balance out all while keeping in
mind that we're overtaxing the
citizens of Wisconsin.
We gotta give some of that back.
When it comes to child care funding,
is there an agreement between the
Democrats and Republicans that
there's something needs to be done
from the state's point of view, and
it's just what is the best vehicle
to get money into the system?
Perhaps, I mean, I guess my
thought is, look, we need more
childcare providers.
We need more access for parents to
be able to find someone to take care
of their kids if they choose to
work.
That's where our focus is.
For the last couple of years,
Governor Evers has literally just
sent a check to every childcare
provider in the state hoping that
that would drop the prices for
childcare. That's like sending a
check to the owner of the grocery
store, hoping he drops the prices of
eggs. That doesn't usually happen.
So we didn't want to do it that way
anymore, but we're open to other
ideas, because certainly, look, I
want more childcare slots.
We look at states around us.
Minnesota has a different ratio for
how many kids can be watched by
every single person who works in a
childcare center.
I don't think Minnesota is some kind
of a right-wing bastion, so we could
copy what they do and say that
works. So we're trying to find some
areas where we can find consensus.
Again, not just dumping more money
into the system, but hopefully
creating more slots, making it more
acceptable, and at the same time,
doing it within a method that we can
afford long-term.
This recent news on the UW System
funding is an $87 million cut
potentially.
If that stands, would you expect to
see tuition to increase?
Would that lead to closures at some
of the two-year schools?
Well, first of all, our goal is
not just to slash the university,
just to slash the university that
doesn't want any good.
We have tried to say for a long time
that there have to be reforms into
how they operate. I mean, here's one
statistic that I hope everybody
thinks about that I just read a
study this week that shows from the
year 2025 today through 2029,
just four years from now, we're
gonna have 15% fewer Wisconsin
graduates going to college.
Now that's not because the
university is not accessible, it's
because people are having fewer kids
and there are lower numbers of high
school graduates.
So if you had one out of seven fewer
customers, the store couldn't
operate the same way.
It would go bankrupt.
Well, it's the same for the university
system. If we don't figure a
different way to operate, it's not
just dumping more money in there.
It's saying, wow, we have a lot less
kids going to college.
How are we gonna make sure that the
system is nimble, that we do it in a
way that actually makes people wanna
go there, and it's this woke mumbo
jumbo that people hate.
So we've asked for some simple
reforms. We need faculty members to
teach more. We need to make sure
that if you take a class at
Whitewater, it transfers to Superior
without a lot of bureaucracy in the
middle.
We're not trying to do things that
are radical, but we're trying to
things that will make it easier for
families to get out of school
quicker, and hopefully do it in a
way that's more meaningful to them
and their family.
Those sound like a lot of policy
issues. Do those belong in the
budget, or is that the only place
you can actually negotiate this with
the UW and with Governor
Unfortunately, we've tried to work
outside the budget.
It's super hard. They are not
real responsive.
They're not real nimble.
So if we're going to not reduce
funding for the university or
perhaps even give a small increase,
they have to be willing to change.
Doing everything like they did 20 or
30 years ago as enrollment
declines means they're going have
serious budgetary problems going
forward. And that's not because of
the legislature. That's just the
reality of demographics.
So they have be ready for that.
That might mean that some of the
two-year campuses have to close.
It might mean they have to operate
differently. It might means that
there isn't every major at every
campus anywhere in Wisconsin because
we can't afford it.
We are nowhere near as nimble
as people are in other states
dealing with the same kind of
demographics.
So we have to figure a way to do it
better and hopefully this could be a
step toward that.
Another big ticket item from the
governor's budget that Republicans
seem interested in its corrections.
What needs to happen?
And will that be the capital budget?
Is there going to be policy in the
regular budget?
We probably won't do a lot of
corrections before I'm inside the
budget. It's just a basic
philosophical difference.
Look, if somebody commits a serious
crime and they are scheduled to be
paroled, I want them to have some
kind of worker training.
I want him to have every opportunity
to never return back to prison and
turn their life around. That should
be bipartisan.
But I feel like under Governor
Eber's plan, it's simply dumping
a bunch of people outside the system
and closing prisons to say that
we just have too many people who are
behind bars. I don't believe that.
You go through a court process.
You are heard by a jury.
You're sentenced to 20 years in
prison, you serve 20 years, right?
That's the way it should be.
His plan just takes a bunch of
people and pushes them out of the
system because we're overcrowded.
Well, I don't want to just push them
out because we are overcrowding.
We should build a new prison.
We should find a way to reform what
we do. So that might take longer
than this budget process to find a
consensus, but now we're not going
to adapt to this policy.
There's quite a few high-profile
issues we've discussed.
Give me one thing that Republicans
have put in the budget that's under
the radar that you think deserves
more attention.
Boy, I feel like we're focusing on
so many areas that people care
about. I mean, one thing that I
wanna focus on is this retiree
tax cut. Look, we all have moms and
dads, we all people who we love that
made a decision once they retired to
go somewhere warmer, right?
I can't fault people for the
weather, I mean even though I like
the winter here, but a lot of people
don't, but they choose to live six
months in a day somewhere else so
they pay their taxes there.
When Florida, Tennessee, Texas, a
lot times you can live cheaper and
have no taxes so they choose the
domicile somewhere else.
Well that means They're charitable
donations, they're volunteer hours,
seeing their grandkids all goes
away. So we have a proposal that
would say that the first $35,000
of retirement income, tax exempt,
that means for the average couple,
two teachers, two firefighters, a
teacher and a firefighter, they'd
save about 1,500 bucks a year.
I think that's something that would
seriously make a dent in family
budgets to be able to help them, as
opposed to doing something that only
saves them a couple bucks, which
probably doesn't do very much.
So I think it's not gotten anywhere
near as much coverage as I hope it
would, and hopefully that'll be
something that could be signed into
law.
1500 is enough to balance someone's
decision or whether they go south or
move to Missouri or Arkansas.
I mean
I mean, I guess for us, we're trying
to do it. We prefer to make all
retirement tax exempt.
Our Senate colleagues wanted an
income tax cut instead.
All tax cuts are good, so not bad.
Governor Evers didn't really offer
either one of those.
So yes, we'd prefer all retirement
income, but in the spirit of
compromise, we're getting as much
done as we can.
Speaker Boss, thanks for your time.
Thanks, Zach. Appreciate your time.
All right. Thanks, sir.
Good to see you, as always. Thank
you. Good luck tonight. Yeah, thank
you. Hopefully, we'll read my speech
one last time.
Yeah.
Are there any cameras there?
No, I don't have to have that.
You can check it out.
All right, thank you.
We appreciate it. Thanks, sir.
You, too, sir!
Is everything recorded?
It looks and sounds good.