Tony Evers:
Believe it or not, this is not the Tony Evers’ budget. It’s not the democratic budget, speaker’s budget or the republican budget. This is the people’s budget.

Zac Schultz:
Governor Tony Evers introduces what he’s calling the people’s budget. Good evening. I’m Zac Schultz. Tonight on “Here & Now,” analysis of Governor Evers’ budget proposals, reaction from the Republican co-chair of the Joint Finance Committee and State Supreme Court candidate Brian Hagedorn is here. It’s “Here & Now” for March 1.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Zac Schultz:
In our first look tonight, we’ll talk about Governor Tony Evers’ budget proposal. His plan includes $6 billion in new spending to pay for an extra $1.4 billion for public education, a 10% tax credit targeted at Wisconsin’s middle class, an extra $600 million in transportation funding, an expansion of Wisconsin’s Medicaid program and it also legalizes medical marijuana and decriminalizes smoking and selling small amounts of marijuana. Governor Evers says there is strong public support for his ideas, even if there is limited political support in the Republican-controlled legislature.

Tony Evers:
More than one million Wisconsinites have raised their own property taxes to support their local schools in their communities. This is simply not sustainable. I’ve said all along that what’s best for our kids is best for our states. Investing in our kids will yield dividends for our future. So we’re going to start with K thru 12 education, providing historic investments and returning to two-thirds funding at the state level.

[cheers and applause]

Zac Schultz:
For analysis of the Evers budget, we welcome back Todd Berry, now a fellow at the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. Thanks for being here today.

Todd Berry:
And teaching on the campus by the way.

Zac Schultz:
Good for you. Tony Evers says this is the people’s budget and he referenced a lot of polling support in his speech for some of his positions. But Republicans are saying this is the most extreme liberal agenda they’ve ever seen. Where do you fall in all this?

Todd Berry:
Well, I don’t — I try to avoid the punditry here and go to the underlining structural mechanics of the budget: the numbers. And so I look at what’s called the General Fund Condition Statement. The long and the short of it is by the time we get to fiscal 2021, the surplus’s opening balance is over $900 million. When we end that year, the net balance is $20 million. In other words, we’ve really spent one-time money and I couldn’t figure out seeing all these things going on in the press about all these things he was proposing, we only had $1.8 billion in new money coming supposedly, how was he paying for all this? The answer was in part surplus and then there’s a billion plus in tax increases. Now, there’s some tax cuts, too, but — and that, you know, the one thing that will unite Republicans is taxes. And so that’s why you’re getting the shout back from them.

Zac Schultz:
So, now Republicans criticized the governor last night for not consulting with them before releasing the budget. Is it realistic for that to happen?

Todd Berry:
No. No.

Zac Schultz:
Or should this be like his ideals?

Todd Berry:
No. Governors don’t consult with — it’s the executive budget. Governors prepare the budget. Then the legislature disposes, so to speak. I mean this is the normal process. So that’s just rhetorical. Now, there may be some reasons, valid reasons they don’t like the budget, but this isn’t one of them.

Zac Schultz:
So how does education get paid for in here?

Todd Berry:
Yeah. Well, again, it’s striking that historically — we’re really talking K-12 because there’s not a lot for the university or tech colleges. Historically school aids were about 35% of the general fund budget. He’s putting almost 60% of the new money in school aids. So one way he’s paying for it is hardly anything else is growing except Medicaid and that he’s doing with federal money. So put other things on hold, draw down this surplus and then fill in with tax increases.

Zac Schultz:
So — and this might be a loaded question, but is this fiscally responsible?

Todd Berry:
Well, Ill put it my old Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance hat, and we tried to hold governors and legislators of both parties’ feet to the fire on this for years. And when we saw second-year budgets where they were spending a lot more than they were bringing in in revenue, which this does, you create this big problem going into the next budget. So you have like an $800 million plus problem. The other thing we looked at is what were the implications for the state’s financial statements, which nobody talks about. The so-called gap deficit. And this budget at least as it stands now would increase that by a billion dollars. So it starts to move it back up. Walker had gotten it down a little bit and then had let it drift up again and then it came down a little bit. Now it’s going to go up.

Zac Schultz:
We know that Republicans are going to completely rewrite this. They’ve talked about possibly introducing their own budget or working off the old base budget. In the end, how much does it matter which version they work from? What matters is what they deliver to his desk.

Todd Berry:
Yeah. You know, I know they’ll get attacked for putting his budget in the nearest receptacle. Although Governor Evers is probably used to that because as DPI, he would always propose budgets and Governor Walker would always ignore them. So I think that there may be so much going on in this budget. There are just so many proposals for his base in a sense that they may just say we don’t want to have to sit and think about every one of these and vote yes or no. Maybe we should just start over. Process-wise it might be easier.

Zac Schultz:
Now, does this account for any possible downturn in the national economy? What would happen if we did approach —

Todd Berry:
Well, this is the other thing I always worry when I was doing this full-time is, does the budget sustain itself if anything goes wrong. And the ending balance net is $20 million. I mean, $20 million, as I always said, on Doyle budgets and Walker budgets, because they were all like this, too, is a spit in Lake Mendota. You know, that’s a day of income tax collection. And if you look at the underlying Fiscal Bureau revenue estimates, what it was showing was that the revenue growth was only about 3% per year and yet this budget is growing spending at 5, 6% a year. I mean I think most economists are saying we’re nervous about 2021.

Zac Schultz:
So in the end, will this come down to a battle between the budget writers for the Republicans versus Governor Evers’ veto pen?

Todd Berry:
Well, it would be hopeful if it would be a battle between the budget writers on the Finance Committee and the core budget decision-makers in the Evers’ administration, that while the Republicans were doing the partisan thing up front, that if they could be working on some accommodations behind-the-scenes so we don’t go back to the old Chvala-Jensen days when we had budgets passed in October. Although we had one under Walker too when it was all Republican.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Todd Berry, thanks for your analysis.

Todd Berry:
My pleasure.

Zac Schultz:
Governor Evers also made the pitch for increased transportation funding, saying Republicans spent eight years kicking the can down the road on a long-term funding solution.

Tony Evers:
Were going to be increasing fees for titles and heavy trucks, and we do have to raise the gas tax. But as I promised all along, we’re sure as heck not going to raise the gas tax by a dollar.

[cheers and applause]

Tony Evers:
Gonna be less. It’s going to be less. We’re going to raise it eight cents a gallon, well below what they did over the river raising it by 20 cents in Minnesota and 18 cents in Ohio. But the good news is we’re also going to repeal a hidden tax that costs you 14 cents a gallon on gas. That means our plan actually makes possible for you to pay less at the pump than you do right now.

[cheers and applause]

Zac Schultz:
Last night, the budget took the next step forward when it was formally introduced to the Joint Committee on Finance. Earlier today I caught up with the Republican Co-chair of JFC, John Nygren.
Lets start with your first impressions of Governor Evers’ budget.

John Nygren:
First, I think the impression would be kind of disappointment. I mean he’s used a rhetoric about finding common ground, things that are non-divisive, yet we kind of had the insight of all the things that had been rolled out over the last several weeks. I would say it’s kind of a missed opportunity of being able to work with us. I mean there’s obviously from Republicans’ perspectives, there’s nonstarters in here. Significant tax increases, spending increases, but things such as, you know, driver’s card for illegal immigrants. Obviously that’s a very divisive issue, so it’s kind of counter to what the rhetoric he’d been using.

Zac Schultz:
Typically a governor uses their first budget to lay out their priorities. We’ve seen Governor Walker do that. Governor Doyle, Thompson. And then with the understanding that there’s going to be a lot of change in that budget. So why is it a surprise that he would lay out some of the things that even he may know he may not get but still wants to say this is what I believe.

John Nygren:
I think one of the biggest surprises is based on how the rhetoric he’s used. He’s not used rhetoric that’s been so divisive. He kind of campaigned as more of a moderate person. He campaigned that he wouldn’t raise taxes. Now he is. So I think, using his own words. You mentioned Governor Doyle. We’ve actually kind of gone back and looked at Republican reaction to Governor Doyle’s first budget. I think Tony Evers I think genuinely is a nice man, comes across as a very gentle man. But going back to looking at Republicans’ reaction and some of the things that Governor Doyle did in his first budget, this is even more, farther to the left than Governor Doyle is. So this is actually contrary to what he’s presenting himself as.

Zac Schultz:
So one of the big issues that we heard about first last night was transportation funding, eight cents a gallon increase in the gas tax. Republicans in your chamber have been looking for years to try and find a solution under Governor Walker. Are you still committed to the idea that more revenue is needed in transportation?

John Nygren:
Well, I think we’re still looking for — Republicans in the Assembly have, like as you said, historically been looking for a long-term funding solution. We still have — we are not a unicameral. We have two bodies of the legislature. We — reality check to Governor Evers, as majority leader pointed out last night. We still have a very conservative Republican members in both houses but specifically in the Senate that we have to be able to get support to pass anything. So, you know, I do believe that we’re committed to find a solution. I don’t know that the proposal that Governor Evers put out last night will meet that opportunity.

Zac Schultz:
He said he’s committed to the lowest amount of bonding for transportation that we’ve seen in a couple — or generation. Are you in line with that? Because it seems like Republicans have tried to limit bonding.

John Nygren:
My guess — if you go back, I don’t know the numbers off the top of my head, but I believe Governor Walker’s last budget was the lowest bonding in a generation. So I think that we’ve already demonstrated we don’t want to put this debt on and burden on our children. We want to pay for it now. So I think transportation, there’s some opportunity for us to find a compromise. But it’s not going to be a rubber stamp, that’s for sure.

Zac Schultz:
Now, what happens to the budget as a whole when you start removing things like Medicaid expansion or the elimination of some of the manufacturing tax credits that Republicans have said is a non-starter. Does the whole thing just kind of fall apart?

John Nygren:
Well, I mean where we start, I think, you know is obviously the biggest question right now. People have thrown out the idea of starting with a base budget. I think for me and you who have been around this building for a few years, maybe we understand that. I don’t think the general public necessarily understands that. So I think that’s more inside baseball. The question comes down to which pieces of Governor Evers’ budget are things that we can work together with him on. I mean, I think we’re going to focus on — we’re going to want to see a significant increase for K-12 education. Last budget had the largest one ever up to that point. Well this one is more than double that. So I think we have to be realistic. We can’t spend more money than we have. This budget increases the structural deficit by nearly $850 million, meaning we’re not going to have the money to pay for it into our next budget, increases the gap deficit by 75% after we had reduced it by nearly 60% over the last eight years. So the problem with this budget is sustainability.

Zac Schultz:
Governor Walker’s, one of his main budget priorities over eight years was keeping property taxes at or below where he came into office or 2014, depending on the moment in time we’re looking at. This has 1.7% increases in the first two years. $50 a year on the average — median taxpayers’ home. Is there expectation that some increase in property tax is okay or do you hold Governor Walker’s old line?

John Nygren:
Well I mean my understanding of the numbers my staff has put together, this is a working — we were up pretty late last night running the numbers. My understanding is it’s a $150 increase in property taxes on the median value home. So do I believe that we can continue to buy down property taxes throughout the state? I do not. Should we be buying down the growth of your personal — your home’s value? I think that’s a reasonable expectation, that as your home becomes more valuable, the tax burden could go up a little bit. I just don’t believe that the $150 number is appropriate.

Zac Schultz:
Governor Evers said last night we can’t afford to play politics with the budget. But the budget is inherently a political document. So is that naivety or is he playing to an audience out in the state that maybe doesn’t understand that?

John Nygren:
Well, it goes back to the comments I made about the rhetoric he’s using about working together. His proposal is anything but, anything but a unifying document. It’s actually very controversial, as we said, a number of things that are in it. Regardless where the public is on things such as in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants, the driver’s cards, tax increases, marijuana. Those are all very divisive issues that if they’re going to be considered, they should be considered — we should have public hearings on them, separate, in a different document. So I think there’s a possibility with some of those more controversial items that we might maybe send them to a separate committee, the standing committees, and have them review those more in-depth.

Zac Schultz:
You have retained — Republicans have retained some of Governor Walker’s old budget writers. Some of the people have done that. How carefully will you be crafting the language you use with Governor Evers’ veto pen in mind?

John Nygren:
That’s the biggest concern in Wisconsin government, especially in split government, is the power of the veto pen. Now, while we’ve restricted that over the last ten years, I believe it’s estimated that the governor has the most powerful veto pen in the nation, still retains that. So that is definitely something that we will be watching. I don’t think you’re going to be seeing — while Democrats have complained about policy in the budget under Governor Walker, I would point out we pulled all those items out in the last budget. This has a number of policy initiatives in it. I don’t think you’re going to be seeing us looking to put more in. I think we’re probably going to be taking those out because those policy initiatives are the biggest opportunity for creative vetoing. I’ve got great staff. Some of them did work in the Walker administration in the budget office. So we’ve got a good expertise to help us out.

Zac Schultz:
Representative Nygren, thanks for your time.

John Nygren:
Good to be with you Zac.

Zac Schultz:
I spoke with Representative Nygren earlier today at the state capitol. Now to our nation’s capitol, where the House passed a bill this week to override the president’s national emergency declaration. Thirteen Republicans joined Democrats on the vote, including Wisconsin Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner and Mike Gallagher. The rest of the state’s delegation fell along party lines. As the bill heads to the Republican-controlled Senate, Tammy Baldwin says she will vote for overriding the president’s declaration, while Ron Johnson would not say.
We turn now to the upcoming Supreme Court election. On April 2nd, voters will choose between two appeals court judges to replace the retiring Justice Shirley Abrahamson. We interviewed Lisa Neubauer two weeks ago and you can find that interview on our website. Tonight we’ll chat with Brian Hagedorn, who serves on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. Hagedorn clerked under former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman and served as chief legal counsel to Governor Scott Walker before Walker appointed him to the Court of Appeals and he won re-election to that court in 2017. Judge Hagedorn, thanks for your time today.

Brian Hagedorn:
Great to be with you.

Zac Schultz:
First off, why are you running for the Supreme Court?

Brian Hagedorn:
Im running for the Supreme Court because I believe we need a justice who’s going to defend the rule of law, uphold the constitution and protect the public. By defending the rule of the law, I mean that the job of a judge is to say what the law is and not what the judge thinks the law should be. We should get partisan politics out of the court. It doesn’t matter which political party writes the laws. Same thing with upholding the constitution. You uphold the words as written, protecting our rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms. Those are actually written in our document. And finally, protecting the public. We do have a drug crisis. It’s hitting our state. The opioid crisis as well as the meth crisis that’s really all over the state. Talking to sheriffs, law enforcement, proud to have the support of 44 sheriffs across the state of Wisconsin, far more than my opponent. And this is a pressing issue that we need to tackle.

Zac Schultz:
Thats interesting that you bring that up. I was going to ask how do heroin and meth play into the Supreme Court. What could you do as a justice?

Brian Hagedorn:
Right, well, this is something that’s a little personal to me as well. I’ve been married for 17 years. I have five children. My youngest little girl, her name is Lilly. She’s five years old. And she was born addicted to drugs. We adopted her. We were there in the hospital with her. And she was addicted to opiates and we’re caring for her while she was there in the hospital. The thing is that story is repeated all across the state. So part of what you do on the court is you’re listening to folks everywhere and being a part of that conversation. I mean unquestionably when Im talking to judges, prosecutors and law enforcement, this is one of the top things on their minds. So there’s pilot projects that can and are being done, drug treatment courts. There’s funding issues and conversations to be had to and making sure that we have adequate resources devoted to actually solving those problems.

Zac Schultz:
Now you mentioned your endorsements, your opponent claims 325 judges across the state. You have the majority of the sheriffs and the conservative members of the Supreme Court. Which of those should be more relevant when it comes to voters deciding what endorsements matter?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure, well the judges that actually review our work are the members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I have five justices supporting me. My opponent has none. I think that says a lot about those who are paying attention to the work, what we’re doing, and reviewing it carefully. And so yeah. I’m proud of the endorsements I have. Also the support of judges, district attorneys. But I do think law enforcement is an important part of this race and proud to have support all over the state, not just from elected leaders, but from citizens. Thousands and thousands who are already working hard on our campaign.

Zac Schultz:
Now both you and your opponent say that you’ll be independent as jurists but she has family connections to a lot of elected Democrats. And you have obviously served under Governor Scott Walker. He appointed you to the court. What should voters think about those connections or why should they dismiss those and believe in independence?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure. Well, you know, Elena Kagan was President Obamas top lawyer before the United States Supreme Court when President Obama tapped her to be on the Supreme Court. There’s nothing implicitly or otherwise wrong with people having backgrounds in government service, as I have. I’ve not been elected to political office. I’ve not been a prolific political giver, anything along those lines. I was privileged to serve in a significant role. I think, number one, that highlights the experience. The experience I have litigating big cases, being part of these big picture questions. But the real question is judicial philosophy. The question is do you think that your partisan politics should be a part of your judicial decision-making? And my answer to that is no, it shouldn’t be.

Zac Schultz:
Talking about judicial philosophy, as a law student in 2005 you had a blog in which you argued, “The idea that homosexual behavior is different than bestiality as a constitutional matter is unjustifiable.” Do you still stand by that?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well first of all, this race isn’t about blog posts from when I was a law student. This race is about bigger questions about the judicial philosophy that ought to govern our courts. You know, with regards to that post, this has often been, I think, misreported. But I was tracking a legal argument. Tracking exactly the same argument that Justice Scalia made in a case. Three Supreme Court justices were making an argument, critiquing the logic of a particular case. I never made a moral argument. I was never making a political or policy argument. In fact, I said I explicitly wasn’t. So I think there’s a lot of undue attention being paid to a legal argument and I have always been committed to upholding the constitution, the way it’s written, and being faithful to it, no matter what anyone’s personal policy views might be.

Zac Schultz:
When you talk about a legal argument, though, should voters be able to consider that as ok, that’s part of your legal thought process and that’s how you believe or would act as a jurist on the Wisconsin Supreme Court?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well, I think I have a track record that people can pay attention to. Again, I would remind voters these were posts before I was a lawyer. I wasn’t even a bar attorney at that point, when I was writing these things. So I don’t think those things are as relevant to this race and what this is about. I have the experience as a law clerk for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, as someone who’s been in one of the most significant positions you can be in in giving high-level legal decision, litigating significant cases before the court. And I have a track record. I have never, ever decided a case, never decided a case as a judge where I have let my personal views affect the way I decide the case. I’ve always followed the law.

Zac Schultz:
Something that is more recent that’s also been in the news is in 2016 you and your wife helped found a Christian school that allows for the firing of teachers if they are homosexual. That revelation caused the Wisconsin Realtors Association to withdraw their endorsement and ask for their money back. What should voters make of that, since that is much more recent than when you were as a law student?

Brian Hagedorn:
Sure. We have had really an unprecedented attack on not just me but on people of faith and I think that’s representative of that. You know there are people and parents and students around the state who go to their local catholic school, their local Lutheran school, their local orthodox Jewish school, the Muslim school, Mormon school, whatever it might be. And there’s nothing unique about many of the teachings that we’ve had that are consistent with teaching for thousands of years. And so that — we have a right to freedom of religion in our country. There’s — no one’s forcing anybody on anything. When my wife and I live out our faith, we live out our faith by being a part of a school for our kids and volunteering in a school for our kids. Nobody should be excluded from public life or public office because they volunteer at the Knights of Columbus or volunteer at their kids local religious school. I think those attacks have been shameful and they’re wrong. It’s okay for people to disagree about even important things and live shared life together in public. I treat everybody who comes before me with respect and with integrity and decency. That’s been my track record and that’s who I am. A lot of the name-calling that Ive been receiving on the basis of some of these reports has been unfortunate. Again, I think motivated by some really troublesome developments in attacking people of faith.

Zac Schultz:
If that is so important to your faith and to who you are as a person that you helped found a school, why should voters not consider that to be instrumental in your viewpoints of the law as well?

Brian Hagedorn:
Well, because Im not running to on impose my moral religious views, at all. My whole campaign is premised on the idea that my job as a judge is to say what the law is and not what I think the law should be. In fact, I am deeply committed to protecting everyone’s religious freedom. People don’t have to agree with me at all. In fact, I will defend people’s right to disagree with whatever personal views I may have. I want to reiterate. I’m not running on my personal views. I never have. It’s my opponent and her special interest allies who are attacking me for my faith and who keep bringing up personal views rather than the law, and that’s what this race is about.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Brian Hagedorn, thanks for clearing that up.

Brian Hagedorn:
Thank you so much.

Zac Schultz:
Governor Tony Evers announced this week he is withdrawing Wisconsin National Guard troops currently deployed to the southern border. Governor Scott Walker sent more than 100 Guardsmen to the border starting last June. That was after the president asked the military to help secure the border. In a statement released with his executive order, Governor Evers says, “There is simply not ample evidence to support the president’s contention that there exists a national security crisis at our southwestern border.” In the order, Evers asked the Guard’s adjutant general for a prompt withdrawal of troops, which is expected to be complete in the coming week. And next Friday, Governor Tony Evers will be here. I’m Zac Schultz. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.