Dem guv candidates have different specifics on budget surplus, while Tiffany has nothing

Ahead of tonight's debate, I wanted to draw your attention to a goosd rundown from the Wisconsin State Journal on what the various governor’s candidates say they would do. Among the list of questions given to each of the candidates for governor in this article was one that asked why each candidate had opposed the property tax and school funding deal from May that Tony Evers and GOP Legislative leaders tried to get through (click here if you want a reminder of what was in that). And the State Journal also asked what they’d want to do with the estimated $3 billion that would be in the bank for the state for the 2-year budget that would start next July 1.

Let’s start with the GOP Guv candidate Tom Tiffany on why he opposed the budget surplus deal and what he’d do with the money.

The last state budget increased spending by roughly 15%, exceeding $100 billion for the first time in Wisconsin history, so I believe the full surplus should be returned to taxpayers. The problem isn't that taxpayers aren't sending enough money to Madison. The problem is that government has drifted away from its core responsibilities. Government should focus on doing the basics well: keeping our communities safe, maintaining our roads and bridges, educating our kids and funding special education, caring for our most vulnerable citizens and protecting taxpayers. Instead, we've seen too much growth in bureaucracy, too many new programs and too little accountability.

These are a bunch of random words that add up to nothing. Where are the specifics as to how any of this will be done? HOW will the money be “returned to taxpayers”. HOW will our most vulnerable citizens be cared for or our schools and our roads and bridges be funded? What are these “basics” of government?

It’s not like Tiffany was asked off the cuff as part a video/radio interview for a 30-second answer. This is a written, allegedly thought-out response to the question! And that "$100 billion" comment on the budget isn't the total being paid in state taxes. It's the total over 2 years for ALL sources of funds, including $33.7 billion from the Feds, and another $31.4 billion is paid for by fees for services like campground admissions, UW sporting events, room and board fees, and licensing. The total over two years is $111 billion up front and another $3 billion being borrowed.

And a guy who has spent the last 2 years in Congress voting to explode our US budget deficit with tax cuts to the rich and major increases in funding for ICE and to give $1.15 trillion to our military next year has zero credibility on fiscal items.

Compare Tiffany's response with what the current leader in the polls for the Dems wants to do.

[State Rep. Francesca Hong:] The deal used a temporary surplus for one-time payments, new spending and permanent reductions in state revenue. It’s not fiscally responsible to make permanent monetary commitments without permanent revenue to sustain them. A recurring program funded only by one-time money creates the same structural problem as a permanent tax cut funded by a temporary windfall.

One-time money should pay for one-time needs; permanent commitments require permanent revenue. I would use surplus dollars to strengthen our reserves, pay down debt and deferred costs, repair public buildings, replace lead pipes, clean up PFAS contamination and capitalize revolving funds that finance affordable housing and infrastructure.

“One-time money for one-time needs” seems pretty fiscally conservative to me, doesn’t it? Hong also reminds us that the state package included an exclusion of income taxes on tips and overtime premiums that would have gone on beyond 2028, when those Trump/GOP tax cuts end at the federal level.

There is a guy in this race who oversaw the arranging of the state budget for Tony Evers for both the 2019-21 and 2021-23 budget cycles – Joel Brennan. So let's see what he would have done.

There was a better one-time option sitting right there. The Child Care Bridge Payments program was about to expire. Renewing it instead of letting it lapse would have been real, targeted money solving an actual crisis, not a check that skips over the families who need it most. And that commitment would cost the state a little over $100 million, not the entirety of the expected surplus. We must be cautious in a Trump economy, because we know that gas prices will continue to be volatile and that Trump tariffs have already cost Wisconsin families nearly $1,100 this year. More harm to our economy over the next year from Trump’s federal actions is a near certainty.

I like Brennan’s idea of bridging the funds on Child Care Bridge Payments to avoid long-term commitments. But I’m not a fan of banking the rest of the surplus, because additional funds will be needed to both reduce property taxes and reverse the damage to education and our economic competitiveness that we’ve had to deal with over the last 15 years.

That said, I also understand that there are a sizable number of unfunded mandates in Medicaid, SNAP and other federal programs whose costs are going to be shoved down to the State in the next 2 years due to the Trump/GOP Tax Scam 2.0 that Tom Tiffany voted for. So we won't have nearly the cushion that some may think we have.

As for the other candidates – Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley also uses Hong’s “one-time surpluses should be used strategically for one-time needs” theme, and goes on to say the surplus should be used for generic Dem priorities that he says improves the economy with investments in “education, workforce development, infrastructure, housing, and childcare.”

Mandela Barnes is relatively generic as to how he would use the billions at his disposal for 2027-29, but he does mention the need for Dems to win both houses of the Legislature to get “the deal Wisconsinites deserve”. Which I agree with, and I recall Crowley telling “Up Front” over the weekend about the need to be a Dem “team captain” as the nominee. Which makes it all the odder that Barnes has run such a sluggish campaign that isn't geared toward firing up Dems with the rare opportunity that is out there.

Barnes’ budget plans include

fully funded schools, make the wealthy pay their fair share, and cut taxes for middle-class families. We will do that by using the surplus responsibly—ensuring we do not create a structural deficit—alongside taxing the rich and closing the loopholes that let billionaires get away without paying their fair share.

Good themes to be sure, and I'd call it as a "less specific progressive" plan.

State Sen. Kelda Roys was one of the first legislators to publicly oppose the package, and reiterated to the State Journal about the structural deficit that would have loomed in the next budget had it become law. She follows with this explanation of what she would ask for as Governor.

One-time rebate checks do nothing to create long-term solutions to the state’s budgetary challenges or to reduce property taxes, but if we use the [surplus] balance as a bridge to help ease the transition to a functional school funding formula and a phase-out of the voucher program, we can actually improve the state’s bottom line.

Interesting connection between eliminating vouchers as a fiscally responsible move, and given how voucher funding has exploded in the 15 years that Republicans have been in power in the Legislature.

Clawing back that $394 million that was taken away from public schools (and added to in property taxes) to pay for vouchers in 2025-26 sure seems like a logical place to cut if you want to have real changes in where resources go in our state.

The state budget and the funding ideas behind it is likely the largest item the new governor of Wisconsin would do. And so ahead of tonight’s debate, I wanted to forward this thing so you can see what the Dem candidates would want to do with it, and also to note that Tom Tiffany either has no idea or is hiding his real plans about the state budget. It’s amazing that a guy who was in the majority party in the State Legislature for a decade seems to not know much about what he’d do in the Capitol should this state be dumb enough to give him the Governor’s job.

While that’s far from the only red flag you should have about Tom Tiffany, it really shows why Dems need to hammer that fool relentlessly and make him try to give some real answers. And to make our media ask him real questions.