It's been a week since the budget surplus deal fell apart at the capital 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-Wagtendank and Zach Schultz. 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 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 Calder
Roy's, 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 say, this is a good deal and it makes sense to try and get this done.
Perhaps a way to try and give herself a little attention in a crowded race word. Everyone's
trying to struggle for oxygen. Then we saw kind of a muddled middle of a lot of candidates that
really were like, I really don't like the process. This may not be the best deal, but it was clear
they were not ready to come out against it. Then it failed. Then the knives started coming out
afterwards. 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. 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.
How are you processing this, I guess, a variety of reactions all coming from these candidates at
once? In some ways, I think the bill was an election year messaging tool anyways for the people who
negotiated it. 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. This is a way. Most people are not watching our show over here.
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. Talk about trying to stand out. There are sort of degrees of
no and degrees of yes. On degrees of no, Kilda 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. There's somebody
who's trying to let people know, I'm definitely against this. She's got a vote on it one way or
another. Might as well take a position, Francesca Hong, the same day. Then you've got the candidates
as you alluded to, Joel Brennan, who worked for Tony Evers saying, I didn't like the process.
Then some, I don't know exactly where they stand on the deal where they're just basically saying,
it failed. We got to 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. I think it probably was true that Kilda 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. She had the most
distinct opportunity to put her stamp on this entire process. As 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 and 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 have 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 there. They're not hoping for, you know, if they win a primary, come close,
if Evers bestowing, you know, 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. Anya, 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 to 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, right. 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 on 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? Well, then also taking part in the political maneuverings
in the Capitol, 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. And do you think that coming out in favor of the deal is
Missy Hughes did, for example, is going to 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 will stand up for something as opposed to like 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 is 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 where you're
now, but the one after. That feels real to me, Anya. I mean, just looking through those numbers.
Right. And 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 $3 billion 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 so 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, like, gamesmanship 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.
You know, I think 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, Nas and Kapigah,
Nas 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 ever believe that. I don't care who you're talking to, but then that assumes
that you're going to get Kapigah as well and not to 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 Kapigah has been a no in the 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 are up 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 cheeky ground to go in 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 Walker, and I'm studying political science
at UW-O-Coffs. My question is, why have there been so many special sessions called by Governor
Evers? And does this trend signal break down a 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 sessions? 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 calls
a special session a few years ago on child care, trying to force, you know, 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 only ever covered Evers 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?
Jack, 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, 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, I mean, 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 of past two and a half decades, we've looked at this, there 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 of 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 and introduce his values,
his principles, and say this is what I would like to see happen. And then he can call special
sessions. Other than that, 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 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 is the founders intended or the framers of the state constitution
would have intended where look, the regular sessions done or our calendar days are done.
We have this big issue we want to deal with that we just ran out of time with. Let's let's agree
to come back in for a special, special 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 gabbled 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 said let's end partisan gerrymandering and Republicans said we'll consider it.
And not anymore. It's gabbled 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 gavel 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 or extraordinary
sessions when the legislature calls them. Those are just names. All it means 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 Capitol 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 inside wisconsin
politics at wpr.org. Before we wrap up here, I did 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 lost to the Wisconsin Institute for Long 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 in
these grievances from four years, 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
energized 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.