Summary: Why Wisconsin's "budget repair" bill is really about giving the GOP unlimited power.
By now, everyone is aware of what’s happening here in Wisconsin.
Our newly elected governor, Republican Scott Walker, has introduced a “budget repair bill” that would strip public-sector workers of their collective bargaining rights.
Although there are budget-balancing measures in the bill, it goes far beyond that.
What the bill would do to public-sector labor organizations:
• Prevent collective bargaining over salaries and wages beyond cost-of-living adjustments
• Ban collective bargaining over pensions and health care benefits as well as working conditions
• Stop unions from receiving dues through paycheck deductions
• Require the unions to hold annual elections among their members for the recertification of the union.
When you put all these things together, it is obvious that many public employees will ask the same question: why keep the union?
Make no mistake, if this bill passes in the form Walker is demanding, it will dissolve public employee unions.
Walker claims the bill is to prevent a $137 million shortfall in the state’s budget, and to close the gap public employees needed to put approximately 6% of their income toward their pensions and 12% of their income toward their health care plans.
The unions conceded on those grounds long ago.
So state Democrats issued a proposal that would balance the budget -- and give Walker virtually everything he wants -- while leaving collective bargaining untouched.
Walker: “not good enough.”
Then, state Republicans offered another proposal. It would give Walker virtually everything he wants, with a two-year moratorium on collective bargaining.
Walker: “still not good enough.”
So why does Walker insist on busting unions?
At this point, it is clear that the controversial bill has nothing to do with balancing the budget. It doesn’t even have to do with destroying unions. It has to do with Democrats.
It’s often said that the Democratic Party is a “big tent” party. Well, if the Democrats are a big tent, the unions are the poles that hold it up.
Back when I worked on a congressional campaign in northeast Wisconsin, and my organization needed to quickly round up volunteers, I always told my interns to contact three groups of people:
1) Previous volunteers
2) Leaders in the local county Democratic Party.
3) The United Steelworkers
Unions are critical to the Democrats. No one else in the tent offers the same structural support. Environmental groups, LGBT groups, minority groups, and even women’s advocacy groups tend to be little more than social clubs that offer their votes and -- occasionally -- a little money.
Unions, on the other hand, are well financed and well organized for the mass support efforts needed to win elections. And with the exception of SEIU and a few others, public-sector unions like AFSCME and the teachers are the only ones left with any real strength.
Without organized labor, Democrats will lose easy votes, a ready-to-assembly pool of volunteers, and most importantly, a lot of massive PAC checks.
(Want further proof? The three public employee unions who endorsed Walker and who tend to be more conservative -- the Professional Fire Fighters of Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, and the Wisconsin Troopers’ Association -- were all exempt from his proposal.)
Simply put, without organized labor, Democrats will be neutered.
To be fair, the Republicans have a lot of similar resources (like the Tea Parties) rooted in business groups (Koch Industries being the most notorious these days). But business groups are at no risk of being broken up, especially in the age of Citizens United.
As a political operative for Democratic candidates, I have real concerns about staying in Wisconsin if this bill passes. If labor groups don’t survive, how will my party survive? If my party doesn’t survive, how will I survive?
Make no mistake; this bill is about destroying the opposition -- not balancing the budget.
Today WALYA reports on local politics from Wisconsin.
Today Gov. Jim Doyle (D-WI) announced he will not be seeking a third term for the state’s highest office. When news broke of his decision over the weekend it caught many in the media by surprise.
Last month, we commented on how state Democratic incumbents across the country were at risk in 2010. Doyle’s own approval rating at the time was 43%, and not long after we finished the post, another poll revealed his approval had dropped to about 34% - with 60% of voters disapproving of his performance.
Of course, Doyle has had a fairly successful second term and he made a point of it in his announcement today, listing a wide range of successes over the past year and a half. But with the impossible predicament of this year’s budget crisis - a result of revenue shortfalls attributable to the recession - no decisions he made were going to be popular.
Now, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the scramble for the governor’s seat:
With his decision - 15 months before the 2010 general election and lacking an heir apparent - Doyle has left potential successors on both sides enough time to run a competitive race and an open field for Democratic candidates.
Much will depend on who decides to jump in to the race for governor.
"There's no clear (Democratic) front-runner, certainly," said Joe Heim, a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse political scientist.
The obvious speculations for the Democratic ticket have been on Lt. Governor Barbara Lawton, U.S. Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
The liberal Badger State blog, BloggingBlue.com, gives their thoughts on such candidacies:
Lieutenant Governor Barb Lawton – There’s absolutely no doubt Lt. Gov. Lawton will run to succeed Gov. Doyle. According to campaign finance documents, Lt. Gov. Lawton ended the last reporting period with $50,904.18 case on hand, and once Gov. Doyle formally announces he’s not running, you can expect to see Lt. Gov. Lawton’s fundraising kick into overdrive. Lawton’s weaknesses – as I see them – are the fact that she can be tied to the Doyle administration, and as such she’ll likely face criticism for some of Gov. Doyle’s more unpopular moves as Governor. What’s more, Lawton hasn’t proven she can shine running a campaign of her own, so it will be interesting to see how she does when her campaign isn’t tied to Gov. Doyle’s.
Representative Ron Kind – Though not a full-fledged “Blue Dog” Democrat, Rep. Kind is definitely a centrist Democrat, a fact that could aid him in the parts of Wisconsin that aren’t Milwaukee or Madison. However, I’m not sure how well known Rep. Kind is in the parts of the state that don’t include his Congressional district, and so he’d have to overcome that lack of name recognition in comparison to the other Democratic challengers.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett – Mayor Barrett ran for governor in 2002, finishing second to then-Attorney General Jim Doyle in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, and I wouldn’t be at all shocked to see Barrett throw his name into the ring for 2010. Barrett was reelected Mayor of Milwaukee in 2008 by the largest margin in 40+ years, and during his time as Milwaukee’s Mayor he’s shown he’s a capable administrator/”chief executive.”
Another potential candidate that has gotten a good deal of attention since Doyle’s intentions were leaked is Dane County (Madison) Executive Kathleen Falk, who ran against Doyle in that 2002 primary and was the unsuccessful Democratic nominee for Attorney General in 2006.
Blogger “Zack W” says he wouldn’t be surprised if Falk ran again, but her loss in the “very winnable” AG race didn’t inspire confidence.
A few other names we’ve heard thrown out there are State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Waunakee) and even Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson (D-Kaukauna).
Of course, none of these politicians have said whether or not they will run, but chances are there will be a very competitive Democratic primary.
And on the GOP side, there was already a very competitive primary. Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker - while probably in the lead - faces a challenge from former U.S. Rep. Mark Neumann (R-WI) and the politically unknown Appleton businessman Mark Todd.
But this will be the first time a sitting Wisconsin governor wasn’t up for re-election in 28 years, and three Republican challengers for the seat will probably not be all we see come September 2010.
Now three more Republican names have been thrown into the mix. Two of them have confirmed that they’re considering: lobbyist Bill McCoshen and former 4-term Governor Tommy Thompson, who left in 2001 to become Bush’s Secretary of Health and Human Services and later a presidential candidate in 2008. Thompson has also been speculated as a possible challenger to U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) who is up for re-election next year.
And depending on who does run, it will create a ripple effect (like the one we’ve seen in Illinois) for other Wisconsin races.
If Kind runs, for example, his rural Wisconsin seat will become extremely competitive. He was already being challenged by State Sen. Dan Kapanke (R-La Crosse) for a seat that could easily go red in 2010 without an incumbent in the race. Depending on what candidates the Democrats can produce out there (no names have yet been mentioned) it could turn into Wisconsin’s ugliest battle next year.
Similar things could happen if or when Lawton, Erpenbach, Barrett, or any other Republicans get into the race for governor. Several replacement candidates have - no doubt - already considered the ripple effect possibilities.
It will also be interesting to watch what kind of message the Democratic candidates use to try to hold on to the seat. The Journal Sentinel seems to think that Lawton will try to engage her supporters in the progressive wing of the party while distancing herself from Doyle, and that Kind will use his moderate legislative history to bring in votes from rural areas (presumably). In other words, they will try to run on a “change” basis despite the fact that their party has been in charge.
Or, they might try to build on the successes Democrats have had in Wisconsin lately - with the Great Lakes Compact, BadgerCare expansion, etc. - and hope that they can take credit for improvements in the local economy.
The Republicans will also have to rethink their message (although Walker is telling the press otherwise) because they won’t have a sitting-incumbent to attack. And depending how what kind of improvements happen locally, primary fighting could become intense on both sides.
Either way, Doyle’s decision is going to make Wisconsin a premier battleground in 2010.
Today WAYLA reports on local politics from Milwaukee.
On Saturday, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker wrote an editorial for the Wall Street Journal explaining his opposition to the stimulus bill.
"Recently, a firestorm ignited in Wisconsin when I, as Milwaukee County executive, refused to submit a wish list to Gov. Jim Doyle for items in the federal "stimulus" package.
Gov. Doyle -- like other politicians -- had lined up at the federal trough begging for billions in "free money" to cover budget deficits and to fuel new spending. He and others simply couldn't understand and were outraged that I didn't join them, and that I didn't relent even after the president signed the stimulus bill into law."
In his State of the County Address last month, Walker said that the stimulus money should be used for suspending Wisconsin’s 5% sales tax for the rest of the year - which he claimed would save the typical Wisconsin family $3,000 for 2009 (although state and federal figures demonstrate it would be closer to $600).
A firestorm did ignite. Local businesses hoping for stimulus assistance cited the economic advantages of the bill, including spending on much needed waterway projects. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said “While those proposals could have some effect on consumer spending, the better use of stimulus money is on projects that put people to work.” And letters to the editor of the newspaper rushed in, accusing Walker of bad ideas, and being a "one-trick pony" (his one trick being tax-cuts).
So Walker wrote his Wall Street Journal piece in part as a rebuttal to such arguments. On the issue of public works projects, for example, he writes, "While the stimulus package might create a few construction jobs, the federal money will run out and those workers will lose their jobs."
You might be thinking that Walker either failed Economics 101 or never took the course (and you may very well be right) but there is another glaring factor. As Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett pointed out "I think he's getting ready to run for governor, that's what it was."
In fact, Walker raised over $272,000 in the final months of 2008 (more than twice what he raised in the 6 months prior) bringing his cash-on-hand to over $360,000. Recently he made a trip to Washington DC for a fundraiser with Wisconsin’s Republican Congressional Delegation. His next County Executive race would not be until 2012.
In addition, he has been increasing his attacks on Wisconsin’s Democratic governor, Jim Doyle. In his editorial he wrote:
"Wisconsin is afflicted with fiscal woes. In every budget he has signed, Gov. Doyle postponed difficult decisions using accounting gimmicks and excessive bonding to pay for ongoing operational costs. The most egregious example is the damage done to the transportation fund over the past six years, which uses state gas taxes and vehicle registration fees to fund road projects. The governor has raided the segregated fund for a total of $1.2 billion to cover ongoing operational costs for government programs. He's partially replaced the raided funds with $865.5 million in bonds."
And yet Wisconsinites generally support the stimulus plan that he is so vehemently against.
So what are the political motives for Walker to oppose the stimulus?
In 2006 Walker sent out letters to supporters indicating his wishes to run for governor. But after the Wisconsin GOP indicated they did not want a primary - and that Congressman Mark Green was their best shot - Walker ended a short-lived candidacy.
For 2010 he may have to compete with such Republican names as former Congressman Mark Neumann, businessman Mark Todd, and former State GOP Chair Rick Graber, who has recently returned from an ambassadorship to the Czech Republic. Whether facing them in a primary or an inner-party battle, Walker will want to portray himself as the most fiscally conservative. He will not want to repeat what happened last time.
Despite what his own constituents may think about the stimulus, Walker has to oppose it. After all, he hopes Milwaukee County is just a stepping stone for him.
