Walker would be a hypocrite to sign Lame Duck bills. But that reality won't stop him

I had the ideas and basic groundwork for a post ready to go, and then State Rep. Peter Barca beats me to it.

Governor Walker had previously vetoed a number of identical or essentially identical provisions earlier this session when he was presented with the state budget. His own veto message notes his substantial concerns with some of these provisions. It states that Governor Walker would ‘object to the limitations created,’ that he believes ‘these requirements will infringe on’ state agencies’ abilities to negotiate, and that he would ‘object to the creation of unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirements.’

“If Governor Walker believed these provisions would have unduly or unnecessarily constrained the operations of his office and administration, how could he support their inclusion in these proposals now?” Representative Barca asked. “It would be the height of hypocrisy for Walker to say that he believes these requirements should not apply to him, but should apply to the successor that defeated him.”

Governor Walker clearly understands the ramifications of this situation, as during his transition into office, he sent a letter to Governor Doyle imploring the outgoing administration not to take a number of executive actions during the post-election, lame duck period. “I call on Governor Walker to show integrity and decency and to be consistent regarding these lame duck proposals,” Barca said.

“As we are just going through the wonderful memorial ceremonies for President Bush it was prominently detailed how gracious he was to his successor, President Clinton, and history has been kind to him because of the type of character he demonstrated throughout his life. Governor Walker should veto these bills. He should do it for the voters of this state. He should do it for his own legacy. And he should do it because that is the way gracious leaders of character conduct themselves."

And then Rep. Barca includes a list of items Walker has vetoed in the past when they applied to him, and would apply to Evers under the Lame Duck bills.

Let me point out a few of my personal favorites, starting with the Lame Duck bills' attempt to prevent Governor Evers' DOT from moving federal and state moneys around to various highwat projects on an as-needed basis. Just over a year ago, Walker vetoed this out of the budget, claiming that it was inefficient.

I am partially vetoing these provisions because I object to the limitations created in this budget on the allocation of segregated funds among highway projects. The limitations placed on the amounts provided for the southeast Wisconsin freeway megaprojects and the major highway projects, in particular, will inhibit the department’s ability to allocate funds in the most advantageous manner especially in light of the I-94 north-south corridor project funding provided for in separate legislation.

As a result of my partial vetoes of these sections, the department will be able to make dollar for dollar reallocations among all state and local road and highway projects – including the southeast Wisconsin freeway megaprojects. My veto will ensure that the state can maximize the use of federal matching dollars and begin to implement state efforts to reduce local government’s costs immediately. While no overall increase in spending will be permitted by my partial vetoes, critical reallocations, especially to advance the southeast Wisconsin freeway megaprojects will be enabled. None of these reallocations, however, will hinder my earlier commitment to keep all major projects on schedule to the highest degree possible within the overall funding provided under the budget bill.

The next item I want to point out involves the state's STAR project, which was supposed to be a "one-stop shop" for human resources and other back-office functions, but has turned into a major headache, with cost overruns and delays. The Legislature wanted to have Walker's Department of Administration send a report to the Joint Finance Committee each year detailing how operations were going, along with how many tax dollars it was costing various agencies to be part of STAR.

Walker vetoed the measure last year, basically because that requirement it hurt his fee-fees.

I am vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because I believe that it encroaches on the executive branch's responsibility to manage state agency programs within the statutes and funding levels set by the Legislature. In the Executive Budget, the department requested the conversion of the self-funded portal appropriation from annual to continuing, which would have given the department more flexibility in managing the appropriation and expanding the number of e-projects based on existing fee revenue available. As part of this request, the department was directed to report to the Legislature on these projects. Given that the Joint Committee on Finance elected to reject this proposal, it will be involved directly in any expenditure authority increase and can request any additional information it would like at that time.

The last one on Barca's list that I want to go into relates to Walker's and WisGOP plans to make people jump through more hoops in order to get Medicaid. Part of the budget that the Legislature passed in September 2017 wanted to make the Walker Administration send a report on how they planned to implement this program, as well as have the Joint Finance Committee sign off on any waivers to Feds that might be required to make sure the plan followed the law.

Again, Walker said that the Joint Finance Committee doesn't get that veto power over the Department of Health Services.

I am vetoing this section because I believe these requirements will infringe on the Department of Health Services' ability to negotiate a successful waiver with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Further, I object to the creation of unnecessary and burdensome reporting requirements that could delay approval of the waiver, jeopardizing these reforms from being implemented.

Naturally, the Lame Duck bills have resurrected this idea of making JFC sign off on any waivers, and it goes further in having the Legislature micro-manage most waivers by DHS under Evers, and puts up even stricter requirements for the "welfare reform" plans.

So if Walker allows these extra reporting and restrictions in the Lame Duck bills to be put onto Evers, after he vetoing such measures when they applied to himself and his administration, it leads to a simple question. “Why is it different for Tony, Scotty?”

"We're going to screw with the next guy and the state. You with us, Scott?"

Let me conclude by noting that the vetoes by Walker could have been overridden by 2/3 of the State Legislature, and given that these measures passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Joint Finance Committee, and because they weren't taken out of the budget when debated in the Legislature, it is likely that the 2/3 override would have happened. But Assembly Speaker Robbin' Vos and Senate Leader Scott Fitzgerald chose not to do so, so apparently they didn't think it was vital to get this oversight into law...until Tony Evers was elected last month.

Let’s see the Republicans in Capitol in all offices explain their cowardly, hypocritical act, especially if Walker signs those bills without vetoing the same things he struck down 15 months ago. And I thoroughly expect Scotty to sign it, since that guy has been an amoral partisan GOP hack his entire career - why would he change now?