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. Hey Sean. 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 Capitol. Zach, what was in this thing
that was negotiated by Democratic governor Tony Ebers and the Republican legislative leaders?
Well, the top line picture is it's $1.8 billion and 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. What we didn't account for is everyone else who's
still running for re-election 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 epitome of a compromise. You get a little
bit for one side, you get a little bit for 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 Robin Voss. 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 three o'clock. Well, it's actually five, 545. And then we just went
with half our increments, you know, six, six, 37, eight, eight, you know, and on and on and on.
They were, I want to say, I want to say it was four hours that 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, you know, 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 Hesselmann, 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 roast. 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,
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 Senators Noss and Cappenga.
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 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 votes. It was they were going to wait and see if they had the votes in the Senate.
The second part of why Senate Democrats were not in line with this comes next fall.
And that's with the re-election. 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 going to
say all this money will be available 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. Now, Republicans probably
wouldn't have brought it up in that case. So, you know, it's a theoretical exercise. But
Senate Democrats, I'm confident it would have been with him. He is not on the ballot, though,
this November as Diane Hessel-Mein 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 so, 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. 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 this 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. Rich, 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 Lemahue, and Assembly Speaker Ivan Voss. In fact, in the Assembly, all the
Republicans did stick together, and they voted for that bill. So, what's gone 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 re-election. So, maybe that made them feel freer to
speak their mind. But, as Zach mentioned, you've also got Senator Steve Noss as one of them, and he's
pretty well known for voting against, especially spending, you know, large spending packages.
So, 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 need a
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 dim and noss and cappinga and Rob Hutton wanted to spend
more and keep more of your money. So, you've got a Republican saying that Steve Noss 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 saying, 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 seen it
clear one chamber and then die in the Senate? It is pretty 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 Playley 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 Lemmy, who 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. Cappenga and Nas have made it quite clear. But 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 Nas. 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 going to be a no vote. But let's kind of unpack
where Assembly Republicans were on this and why they decided we're going to take this vote. Because
I think by the time that both chambers got to voting at night, I bet Assembly Republicans knew
darn well that this thing was going to fail in the state Senate. And they wanted to take this
vote anyway. Why? Because they're all up for reelection 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 willing to give more to the schools. I was willing 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 going to 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 path 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 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 Markline
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 Markline if she
voted no on this deal. So some of this, it has to be political maneuvering.
And I think you could look at this bill and say, potentially, it's a little gimmicky, right?
You're going to spend almost $900 million just on these $300 checks and it's going to be gone.
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. Which side of that gimmick do you want to 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 saying 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 practical
perspective, if Tom Tiffany thinks he's going to 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 to come in as governor and throw a special session for a Tom Tiffany tax cut,
not a Tony Evers tax cut. Get things started off right. From a political perspective, I don't
know why you come out against this. It's like a theoretical exercise because you're not in
their voting, but why come out against a big tax cut? Why attack Tony Evers? 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 yourself here by agreeing with them? I'm not sure.
A rich one question I had for you that we kind of traded notes on throughout the night was,
will voters actually remember this? Will anybody be rewarded or punished?
You know, it'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 in a fella 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 reminding you of that,
or if you see a lot of commercials, but 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 Wechtenonk will be back next week. Be sure to follow us on
wpr.org, pbswisconsin.org, youtube, or wherever you get your podcasts.