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 Shawn Johnson here with my
colleague Zac Schultz and
Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, guys.
>> Hello. >> Hello.
>> Hey, Shawn. >> 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. Zac, what was in this thing
that was negotiated by Democratic Governor Tony
Evers and the Republican legislative leaders?
>> Well, the top line picture is it's $1.8
billion in 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 Shawn, a month ago, we asked, what's the
possibility that this could actually happen? And my
answer at the time was, well, we this is the only
time it could happen because we have three
leaders that are all leaving the stage. It's
legacy time. Well, we didn't account for is
everyone else who's still running for reelection 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,
your tank up. And as they're about to run for
reelection, 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 the big Democrat
and the big Republicans. You had speeches to start
the day, including by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos.
we listen and that we ares.
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. We
said. >> 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 at 3:00. Well,
it's actually five, five, 45. And then we just went
with half hour increments, you know, six, 637, eight,
eight, you know, and on and on and on it. They were, I
want to, I want to say it was four hours that they,
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, etc. and
then there were concerns about costs and this being
a projected budget surplus, etc. and how this could
plunge us into a deficit in the coming budget cycle.
>> Yeah. So that night, the 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 Hesselbein,
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 multibillion dollar deficit
comes home to roost. It's simply something I can't
support. >> In. 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 is something we do not see every day. Zac,
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 Senator Soros and Kapenga.
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 LeMahieu 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. And
the second part of why Senate Democrats were not
in line with this comes next fall. And that's what
the reelection there. 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. You know, if 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. They
would have voted yes. No. Republicans probably
wouldn't have brought it up in that case. So, you know,
it's a it's a theoretical exercise. But but Senate
Democrats, I'm confident, would have been with him.
He is not on the ballot, though, this November, as
Diane Hesselbein 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, was 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. Yeah. 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 LeMahieu and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. 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 reelection. So maybe that
made them feel freer to speak their mind. But as
Zac mentioned, you've also got Senator Steve Nosse 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 LeMahieu
didn't have the sort of control over his caucus
that Robin Vos 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 Wanggaard, 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 dem and nose and Kapenga and
Rob Hutton wanted to spend more and keep more of your
money. So you've got a Republican saying that
Steve Nosse wants to keep your tax dollars from 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 it's
just unlike anything I've ever seen. And I wanted to
ask both of you, Shawn, how many times in your careers
have you seen a bill pass? You know, this kind of bill
with this kind of build up where you would expect the
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. 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
Haley 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, they become a
lame duck. They lose a lot of control. What's most
impressive about all of this is Robin Vos holding
his entire caucus together, even though he's going to
be exiting stage right, he still has enough to keep
his chamber together. Senate Senator LeMahieu
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. Kapenga
and Soros 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 Nash, I mean,
has been a thorn in the side to leadership for his
entire career, basically, or at least.
Unapologetically the part And can you imagine him on
his last vote ever in the legislature saying, you
know, I'll take one on the I'll take one for the team
for Robin Vos. 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 they both
chambers got to voting at night, I bet you 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, Jodi Emerson, voted yes. You go
south from there into La Crosse. Brad Pfaff in the
Senate voted no within his district, Joe Billings and
Steve Doyle, two Assembly Democrats in competitive
districts, both 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 Marklein 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 Marklein if she voted no on this
deal. So some of this has to be political maneuvering.
>> And, you know, 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 and
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. But do you want to be 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. 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. You know, get things started off
right. From a political perspective, I don't know
why you come out against this. I just don't it's
like a theoretical exercise because you're not in there
voting, but like, why come out in against a big tax
cut and why why attack Tony Evers like 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 differentiate yourself here
by agreeing with them. I'm not sure. Now, Rich, one
question I had for you that we kind of traded notes on
throughout the night was, will voters actually
remember this? Like, will anybody be rewarded or
punished? >> You know, that's that's
a huge question. You all of what you're saying makes
sense to me, someone who's been really following this.
But, you know, I also remember being at a Supreme
Court election night event and a fellow 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 voters mind. It's different,
I guess, if you're getting your door knocked
consistently and people are reminding you of that, or
if you see a lot of commercials. But, you know,
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. going out there right now
in 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.
Wagtendonk will be back next week. Be sure to
follow us on wpri.org, PBS, wisconsin.org, YouTube, or
wherever you get your podcasts.