WEBVTT 00:00.000 --> 00:29.800 Wisconsin's Democratic governor and Republican legislative leaders negotiate a big deal 00:29.800 --> 00:34.760 on tax cuts and school funding and it blows up in the Wisconsin Senate. What 00:34.760 --> 00:43.800 just happened? Let's talk about it. This is Inside Wisconsin Politics. I'm Sean 00:43.800 --> 00:47.960 Johnson here with my colleagues Zach Schultz and Rich Kramer in Eau Claire. Hey 00:47.960 --> 00:54.360 guys. Hello. Hey Sean. So we are going to have plenty of time here to unpack the 00:54.360 --> 00:59.320 motives of all the players in this drama that unfolded at the Capitol. But first 00:59.320 --> 01:04.040 let's start with kind of what led to this for people who haven't paid attention to every twist 01:04.040 --> 01:09.720 and turn of this big deal. We've been calling it at the Capitol. Zach, what was in this thing 01:09.720 --> 01:14.360 that was negotiated by Democratic governor Tony Ebers and the Republican legislative leaders? 01:14.360 --> 01:19.800 Well, the top line picture is it's $1.8 billion and spending most of it one time only looking 01:19.800 --> 01:26.360 at the projected surplus that would be available for next year of that $300 million for special 01:26.440 --> 01:30.920 education funding for public schools. That's been a democratic priority for a long time. 01:30.920 --> 01:37.800 $350 million in rebates or tax buy downs for property taxes that would go money going to the 01:37.800 --> 01:42.920 schools but that they would only use to reduce property taxes not new spending. And then there 01:42.920 --> 01:48.760 were going to be individual rebates for tax filers 300 per person or 600 for a married couple. 01:48.760 --> 01:55.480 And then we see a match to the federal plan for no taxes on tips and overtime. And Sean 01:55.480 --> 01:59.560 a month ago we asked, what's the possibility that this could actually happen? And my answer 01:59.560 --> 02:03.720 at the time was, well, this is the only time it could happen because we have three leaders that 02:03.720 --> 02:09.080 are all leaving the stage. It's legacy time. What we didn't account for is everyone else who's 02:09.080 --> 02:15.080 still running for re-election or election in Wisconsin sinking this deal. Three legacy leaders 02:15.080 --> 02:19.160 getting the compromise wasn't enough. And to me, this is a political Rorschach test. 02:19.160 --> 02:24.600 How you view this particular deal kind of matches your view on politics for some people and for 02:24.600 --> 02:29.000 a lot of ordinary people around the state, this was the epitome of a compromise. You get a little 02:29.000 --> 02:33.400 bit for one side, you get a little bit for the other side. Everyone can come away, maybe a little 02:33.400 --> 02:38.120 dissatisfied, maybe a little happy. And money goes back to taxpayers at a time when you're 02:38.120 --> 02:43.400 seeing the price of gas go through the roof just to fill your tank up. And as they're about to 02:43.400 --> 02:47.080 run for your election, those are things that normally you'd want to see politicians pass. 02:47.080 --> 02:51.480 The other side of that test is political purity. And there are a lot of people looking at this 02:51.480 --> 02:56.360 deal saying, this isn't as good as I would like it to be. And I think we can do better when we have 02:56.360 --> 03:04.200 more power next year. So it started out the day, though, looked like your average special session 03:04.200 --> 03:09.400 day, like a bill that might pass. You have this big agreement by the leaders, by Governor Tony 03:09.400 --> 03:16.120 Evers, the big Democrat and the big Republicans. You had speeches to start this day, including by 03:16.120 --> 03:24.120 Assembly Speaker Robin Voss. We can show people that we listen and that we are willing to act, 03:24.920 --> 03:29.480 and most importantly, that compromise in Wisconsin is not a dead word. 03:30.200 --> 03:36.520 Compromise is defined as getting something that you want by giving up something that your partner 03:36.520 --> 03:42.440 or your opponent wants. That is really what we did here. So that's when the waiting game kind of 03:42.520 --> 03:50.680 began, Rich. We were both watching the Senate for a long time on Wednesday. What was it like as the 03:50.680 --> 03:59.880 day sort of played out? It was a lot of hurry up and wait. So it's not unusual for the Senate to 03:59.880 --> 04:05.080 set a start time for their floor sessions, whether it be in a special session or a regular session, 04:05.960 --> 04:13.320 and then blow past that. That's kind of unsurprising. But this time, we kept getting these notices 04:13.320 --> 04:19.960 that, oh, it's going to be three o'clock. Well, it's actually five, 545. And then we just went 04:19.960 --> 04:25.400 with half our increments, you know, six, six, 37, eight, eight, you know, and on and on and on. 04:26.840 --> 04:33.480 They were, I want to say, I want to say it was four hours that it took for them to go from the 04:33.560 --> 04:38.520 first notice, you know, when the plan was to meet at 3 p.m. and when they actually met. 04:39.400 --> 04:44.200 And then once they got on the floor, you heard some of the same complaints from Democrats and 04:44.200 --> 04:50.200 Republicans about this bill that you heard in the assembly. The opponents said that they didn't 04:50.200 --> 04:55.160 like the process of how it was, you know, thrown together, Senate Democrats were out of the picture, 04:55.160 --> 05:01.160 et cetera. And then there were concerns about costs and this being a projected budget surplus, 05:01.240 --> 05:05.880 et cetera. And how this could plunge us into a deficit in the coming budget cycle. 05:05.880 --> 05:10.760 Yeah. So that night, we had a very unusual scene kind of play out the assembly met 05:10.760 --> 05:15.720 after waiting all day to see what the Senate was going to do. They passed this bill in short order. 05:16.360 --> 05:21.080 The Senate is meeting at the same time. And it's clear that things are not going well there. 05:21.080 --> 05:26.040 You hear a speech from Senate Democratic Minority Leader Diane Hesselmann, who made it clear she 05:26.040 --> 05:33.400 was not happy with this bill. This is a completely reckless proposal stitched together in a 05:33.400 --> 05:39.080 backroom deal by three people who will not be running around and won't be here when the 05:39.080 --> 05:46.200 consequences of a multi-billion dollar deficit comes home to roast. It's simply something I can't 05:46.200 --> 05:54.920 support. And this bill actually fails on a vote of 15 to 18. And I know people probably think big 05:54.920 --> 06:01.240 deal. Things pass, things fail. Bills don't actually get to the point of failure hardly ever 06:01.240 --> 06:04.760 in the state legislature. If it doesn't have the votes, it does not come to the floor, 06:04.760 --> 06:11.480 especially something as big and dramatic as this. And for the governor to negotiate this and his 06:11.480 --> 06:16.600 Senate Democrats stand unified against it to help kill it with a few Republicans, 06:17.400 --> 06:23.240 something we do not see every day. Zach, what do you think was motivating Senate Democrats here? 06:24.040 --> 06:28.280 There's two factors. I think first is they were insulted. They were left out of the loop. 06:28.840 --> 06:34.280 That is huge, actually. Every single time over the past few years that they've needed to pass a 06:34.280 --> 06:39.080 big budget bill, especially with Republicans having a smaller majority in the state Senate, 06:39.080 --> 06:44.120 they've had two members that have voted against every bill that Senators Noss and Cappenga. 06:44.120 --> 06:48.200 They've consistently said we can't support this extra spending we're voting no. 06:48.200 --> 06:52.360 That means in practice, Republicans don't have a working majority when it comes to 06:52.360 --> 06:55.640 passing that kind of legislation. They need Democratic votes. 06:55.640 --> 07:00.040 Governor Evers knows that. Senate Majority Lemahue knows that everyone knows they need at least 07:00.040 --> 07:05.000 a couple Democratic votes and probably more. So the fact that they were not consulted did not 07:05.000 --> 07:08.760 have any input on this bill and made it clear from the very first time it was announced that 07:08.760 --> 07:13.560 they were unhappy with it showed. And I think that showed up in that long pause in the assembly. 07:13.560 --> 07:18.520 The assembly had the votes. It was they were going to wait and see if they had the votes in the Senate. 07:19.000 --> 07:24.600 The second part of why Senate Democrats were not in line with this comes next fall. 07:24.600 --> 07:29.960 And that's with the re-election. They are not quite certain, but very confident that they're 07:29.960 --> 07:34.120 going to flip the majority in that chamber and that when they come to power in the next session, 07:34.120 --> 07:39.160 they will not only have a say, they will be the deciding factors and how any bills are passed 07:39.160 --> 07:43.480 and how budgets are passed. And so they can direct where that money goes. And if they think 07:43.480 --> 07:47.080 they get lucky and there's a Democratic governor and a Democratic assembly, then they're going to 07:47.160 --> 07:51.160 say all this money will be available for us to spend in ways that we prefer instead of having 07:51.160 --> 07:56.200 to compromise, which is what has sunk every possibility of all these budget surplus deals 07:56.200 --> 08:00.600 since Tony Evers has been governor. The fact that the next election might bring better outlook 08:00.600 --> 08:03.800 for each of the sides. And so they've decided not to compromise. 08:03.800 --> 08:09.400 And I think this was a clear cut case where circumstances matter completely. 08:11.080 --> 08:16.440 If Tony Evers were running for election in November and he said, this is my big bill, Democrats, 08:16.440 --> 08:22.520 this is what I want to run on. I mean, they would have voted yes. Now, Republicans probably 08:22.520 --> 08:27.080 wouldn't have brought it up in that case. So, you know, it's a theoretical exercise. But 08:27.080 --> 08:31.560 Senate Democrats, I'm confident it would have been with him. He is not on the ballot, though, 08:31.560 --> 08:39.080 this November as Diane Hessel-Mein noted. And Senate Democrats are poised to, they think, 08:39.080 --> 08:43.240 take that majority. She has essentially been a co-majority leader on some of the big bills that 08:43.320 --> 08:48.840 have come through the Senate this year from the budget to gambling. And so, to freeze them out 08:48.840 --> 08:53.960 of talks like this, which is the way they viewed it, certainly, and to end up with a bill that was 08:54.680 --> 09:00.280 pretty Republican in nature. And so, about a billion and a half in tax cuts was not something 09:00.280 --> 09:05.160 that they enjoyed, you know? Well, and don't forget, there is another factor when it comes to 09:05.160 --> 09:09.080 everyone looking at the next budget the next year. And that is, there's a lot of people who think 09:09.080 --> 09:14.920 we may be looking into a recession. So, most of this surplus is a projection of what the economy 09:14.920 --> 09:19.480 is going to bring in for tax revenues. If there's an economic downturn in the next six months, 09:19.480 --> 09:23.880 that money disappears all by itself without having been sent out. So, you send it out, 09:23.880 --> 09:29.240 even though most of this is one-time spending, it may not be there next year. Now, they say, 09:29.240 --> 09:33.000 even in the worst of circumstances, at least the state will have a little bit money to start 09:33.000 --> 09:37.320 the next year with. So, that is a legitimate concern, considering where gas prices and grocery 09:37.320 --> 09:42.760 prices are right now, and with no end to a war in Iran, that the economy could shift and go down, 09:42.760 --> 09:48.520 and these tax revenues may not materialize. Rich, Senate Democrats don't have this power if 09:48.520 --> 09:54.120 Republicans just stick together, and all their members vote for the bill negotiated by their 09:54.120 --> 09:58.600 leader, Devin Lemahue, and Assembly Speaker Ivan Voss. In fact, in the Assembly, all the 09:58.600 --> 10:03.880 Republicans did stick together, and they voted for that bill. So, what's gone on in the Senate with 10:03.960 --> 10:07.480 a few Republicans there who decided, yeah, we're just not going to do this. 10:09.880 --> 10:15.400 Well, what was surprising is that two of the three Republicans that voted against this proposal, 10:15.400 --> 10:19.400 they're not running for re-election. So, maybe that made them feel freer to 10:19.400 --> 10:25.320 speak their mind. But, as Zach mentioned, you've also got Senator Steve Noss as one of them, and he's 10:25.400 --> 10:31.160 pretty well known for voting against, especially spending, you know, large spending packages. 10:31.800 --> 10:38.520 So, it seems like Devin Lemahue didn't have the sort of control over his caucus that 10:38.520 --> 10:44.280 Robin Voss did in the Assembly. That's been pretty obvious given the past bills where you need a 10:44.280 --> 10:51.400 Democratic support to get them over the finish line. But what's also been really interesting is 10:51.400 --> 10:58.760 seeing Republicans attacking Republicans after the fact. So, in particular, Senator Van Wengard, 10:59.880 --> 11:06.200 who is retiring, he went on social media afterwards after the bill failed and said it was a good 11:06.200 --> 11:13.960 deal for Wisconsin. But, you know, every dim and noss and cappinga and Rob Hutton wanted to spend 11:13.960 --> 11:19.400 more and keep more of your money. So, you've got a Republican saying that Steve Noss wants to 11:19.400 --> 11:25.320 keep your tax dollars from you, which is pretty interesting in the grand scheme of things. 11:26.280 --> 11:32.360 But, you also had Democrats kind of saying, good riddance, Tony Evers. I mean, it's just 11:33.080 --> 11:39.560 really fascinating to see this breakdown. It's just unlike anything I've ever seen. And, 11:39.560 --> 11:45.240 I wanted to ask both of you, Sean, how many times in your careers have you seen a bill 11:46.120 --> 11:50.440 pass, you know, this kind of bill with this kind of buildup where you would expect the votes have 11:50.440 --> 11:55.240 to be there before it gets to the floor to avoid embarrassment? How many times have you seen it 11:55.240 --> 11:59.640 clear one chamber and then die in the Senate? It is pretty rare. I thought of a couple. 12:00.680 --> 12:08.120 One, the vote on state employee contracts ahead of when Scott Walker took office. Another one 12:08.120 --> 12:13.160 that featured lame ducks? It did. I mean, this weird stuff happens at the end here when everybody's 12:13.160 --> 12:20.760 position has changed. Circumstances matter. But you had the assembly Democrats passed new 12:20.760 --> 12:25.880 contracts for state employees. The thought was that that would protect them when Scott Walker took 12:25.880 --> 12:32.360 office. And Senate Democrats led by Russ Decker and Senator Jeff Playley at the time voted no, 12:32.360 --> 12:38.440 and they failed. So, it has happened. Another one on ethanol mandate way back in like 2006, I think. 12:38.440 --> 12:44.600 But it is pretty sparse the way this stuff happens. But it does point out exactly what 12:44.600 --> 12:49.800 we're talking about. Once a politician is no longer running for reelection and they become a lame 12:49.800 --> 12:54.520 duck, they lose a lot of control. What's most impressive about all this is Robin Voss holding 12:54.520 --> 13:00.600 his entire caucus together. Even though he's going to be exiting stage right, he still has 13:00.600 --> 13:05.880 enough to keep his chamber together. Senator Lemmy, who really never had firm control over 13:05.960 --> 13:09.000 Republicans in the Senate. That's always been called herding cats over there. So, 13:09.000 --> 13:14.760 that's not terribly surprised. Cappenga and Nas have made it quite clear. But all of these people 13:14.760 --> 13:18.920 leaving office really gives people a lot of freedom to think about their own interests 13:18.920 --> 13:23.800 next year, completely aside from what you would expect in the typical bill process. 13:23.800 --> 13:29.320 Yeah, Steve Nas. I mean, has been a thorn in the side to leadership for his entire career, 13:29.320 --> 13:35.480 basically, or at least the part that I've observed anyway. And can you imagine him on his last 13:35.960 --> 13:41.880 vote ever in the legislature saying, you know, I'll take one for the team for Robin Voss. I mean, 13:42.520 --> 13:45.800 I think it's pretty predictable that he was going to be a no vote. But let's kind of unpack 13:45.800 --> 13:50.920 where Assembly Republicans were on this and why they decided we're going to take this vote. Because 13:50.920 --> 13:58.200 I think by the time that both chambers got to voting at night, I bet Assembly Republicans knew 13:58.200 --> 14:02.680 darn well that this thing was going to fail in the state Senate. And they wanted to take this 14:02.680 --> 14:09.160 vote anyway. Why? Because they're all up for reelection this fall. Everyone that's not retiring 14:09.160 --> 14:14.520 has an absolute desire to go back to their constituents and say, I was willing to put $300 14:14.520 --> 14:18.680 in your pocket. I was willing to give more to the schools. I was willing to lower your property 14:18.680 --> 14:23.080 taxes. It's not my fault. This failed. That does bring us around to some of the interesting 14:23.080 --> 14:27.560 calculations that we're looking at, especially on the Democratic side. So one of the people I was 14:27.560 --> 14:31.080 watching is Jeff Smith, who's a Democratic senator. He's the assistant majority leader, 14:31.160 --> 14:35.160 so he's pretty high ranking in his caucus. He's going to move up if they control the chamber. 14:35.800 --> 14:40.440 He voted no on this. His staffers tell me he was no the entire time, mainly for the structural 14:40.440 --> 14:46.680 deficit concerns. But within his district, one of the Assembly Democrats, Jody Emerson, voted yes. 14:46.680 --> 14:51.800 You go south from there into the cross. Brad path in the Senate voted no within his district, 14:51.800 --> 14:55.960 Joe Billings and Steve Doyle, two Assembly Democrats in competitive districts both voted 14:55.960 --> 15:00.120 yes in the Assembly. They understand what it's like to go back to the voters and have to say, 15:00.120 --> 15:04.840 oh, no, I voted against this because we'll spend it better next year when people are feeling the 15:04.840 --> 15:08.680 pinch right now. There's a lot of political calculations that go into some of these moves 15:08.680 --> 15:13.720 and looking unified as a team does help. We also saw another state Senate race, Howard Markline 15:13.720 --> 15:18.520 voted yes. He's in a competitive district, Jenna Jacobson, the Assembly Dem, who's running against 15:18.520 --> 15:23.400 him, also voted yes. It would put her in a terrible position, easy marketing for Markline if she 15:23.400 --> 15:26.920 voted no on this deal. So some of this, it has to be political maneuvering. 15:27.720 --> 15:33.960 And I think you could look at this bill and say, potentially, it's a little gimmicky, right? 15:33.960 --> 15:39.240 You're going to spend almost $900 million just on these $300 checks and it's going to be gone. 15:40.440 --> 15:45.400 You have lawmakers on the record from both parties for bills like this in the past saying, 15:45.400 --> 15:51.480 oh, that's a gimmick. We can't do that. Which side of that gimmick do you want to be on when you're 15:51.480 --> 15:57.720 doing doors in November and people are struggling with costs? It's a popular kind of bill, 15:57.720 --> 16:00.840 giving people money and saying that you work together with the other side. 16:00.840 --> 16:05.640 So Sean, let's look at the outside players in this because Tom Tiffany was a big factor in this. 16:05.640 --> 16:09.400 I've seen some Republicans online saying he would have been better off being quiet, 16:09.400 --> 16:14.760 given how it played out. Instead, he did come out against this bill and he was on the record 16:14.760 --> 16:19.480 talking to at least one state senator who did vote for it, but weighing in on his concerns 16:19.560 --> 16:25.160 about this bill, what do you make of that? Yeah, from a practical perspective, I get it. From a 16:25.160 --> 16:30.760 political perspective, I do not. I don't understand what he was doing. What I mean is from a practical 16:30.760 --> 16:36.200 perspective, if Tom Tiffany thinks he's going to be governor, then I bet he wants to either have 16:36.200 --> 16:42.200 that money in there so that he doesn't take office with the deficit or if the economy does okay, 16:42.200 --> 16:48.440 maybe he wants to come in as governor and throw a special session for a Tom Tiffany tax cut, 16:48.920 --> 16:54.760 not a Tony Evers tax cut. Get things started off right. From a political perspective, I don't 16:54.760 --> 17:02.280 know why you come out against this. It's like a theoretical exercise because you're not in 17:02.280 --> 17:10.840 their voting, but why come out against a big tax cut? Why attack Tony Evers? He's not on the ballot. 17:10.840 --> 17:15.000 All these Democrats who are also against this bill might be running against you in November, 17:15.880 --> 17:22.360 so how do you differentiate yourself here by agreeing with them? I'm not sure. 17:22.920 --> 17:27.640 A rich one question I had for you that we kind of traded notes on throughout the night was, 17:27.640 --> 17:32.280 will voters actually remember this? Will anybody be rewarded or punished? 17:34.680 --> 17:42.200 You know, it's a huge question. All of what you're saying makes sense to me, 17:42.280 --> 17:48.360 someone who's been really following this, but I also remember being at a Supreme Court election 17:48.360 --> 17:53.160 night event in a fella at the hotel not knowing there was an election that day. So there's a part 17:53.160 --> 17:58.120 of me, I'm always skeptical that this sort of thing will stick in a voter's mind. It's different, 17:58.120 --> 18:02.600 I guess, if you're getting your door knocked consistently and people reminding you of that, 18:02.600 --> 18:09.240 or if you see a lot of commercials, but in the grand scheme of things, a $300, $600 check, 18:09.240 --> 18:13.240 that's a big deal. But, you know, all the political infighting and everything like that, 18:13.240 --> 18:17.480 I just, I'm not sure if people will carry that all the way to November. 18:17.480 --> 18:22.840 There's a lot going out there right now in national and world politics, that's for sure. 18:23.800 --> 18:28.520 That's all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining us. This has been Inside Wisconsin 18:28.520 --> 18:33.480 Politics. Our colleague Anya Van Wechtenonk will be back next week. Be sure to follow us on 18:33.480 --> 18:40.920 wpr.org, pbswisconsin.org, youtube, or wherever you get your podcasts.