Twenty months ago, I said "Your vote should be for Scott Walker. In four years, Wisconsin will either be in remarkably better shape or remarkably worse shape. But if you end up going down, at least you'll have gone down swinging. Voting for Barrett is like voting to take a called third strike and hoping you can take first because the catcher lets the ball pass by him."
Twenty months later, I never would've guessed that in the intervening time there might be more literal swinging at the Capitol than figurative swinging. That said, I see no reason to change my position.
I think Governor Walker's demeanor in office his first year largely sucked. I think Act 10 went too far in removing the ability of public employees to negotiate workplace conditions. But at the same time, WEAC in particular pushed things too far in the other direction for decades, so maybe it was only natural that when the pendulum swung back it might go too far in the other direction.
Is Wisconsin better for Act 10? Absolutely. Act 10 was worth it if only to give government the ability to better negotiate the cost of health insurance benefits. Countless public sector employees have the same benefits this year as they did last year; the only difference is that their employer is saving taxpayers giant sums of money. The loss was to the insurance companies, and last I checked, Democrats liked it when insurance companies lost.
Was last summer's budget perfect? No. Was it vastly better than the work that preceded Walker in the decade before he became governor? Absolutely. Policy objections aside, the point of a budget is to pay for what you spend. And by that measure alone, Walker did better in his first effort than Jim Doyle or Scott McCallum ever did.
Twenty months later, I never would've guessed that in the intervening time there might be more literal swinging at the Capitol than figurative swinging. That said, I see no reason to change my position.
I think Governor Walker's demeanor in office his first year largely sucked. I think Act 10 went too far in removing the ability of public employees to negotiate workplace conditions. But at the same time, WEAC in particular pushed things too far in the other direction for decades, so maybe it was only natural that when the pendulum swung back it might go too far in the other direction.
Is Wisconsin better for Act 10? Absolutely. Act 10 was worth it if only to give government the ability to better negotiate the cost of health insurance benefits. Countless public sector employees have the same benefits this year as they did last year; the only difference is that their employer is saving taxpayers giant sums of money. The loss was to the insurance companies, and last I checked, Democrats liked it when insurance companies lost.
Was last summer's budget perfect? No. Was it vastly better than the work that preceded Walker in the decade before he became governor? Absolutely. Policy objections aside, the point of a budget is to pay for what you spend. And by that measure alone, Walker did better in his first effort than Jim Doyle or Scott McCallum ever did.
Does Walker lead from behind too much? Yes. Should he have taken a more visible role in developing a compromise on mining legislation? Absolutely. Aside from a big win on Act 10 and passing the budget, Walker's agenda was largely stalled out or non-existent. He needs to do better.
Meanwhile, Tom Barrett is still Tom Barrett, running another lukewarm campaign for governor. Do I think he was the Democrats' best choice? Absolutely. Do I think that says something unfortunate about the Democrats' bench strength in Wisconsin? Absolutely.
Democrats need to spend more time cultivating future leaders in the legislature and less time turning the place over to retreads like Peter Barca, Fred Kessler, Jim Holperin, and Tim Cullen. Now Joe Wineke may well be on his way back, which would be a huge benefit to the rudderless ship that is the Assembly Democratic caucus but again fills the need for real leadership with old blood instead of new blood. And no, whiners and screamers like Kelda Helen Roys, Gordon Hintz, and Chris Larson are not leadership, any more than Tom Nelson holding sleepovers in the Assembly chamber was leadership.
For lieutenant governor, one must seriously consider whether Rebecca Kleefisch is capable of doing anything other than putting on a plastic smile and spouting catchphrases - especially in light of Gov. Walker's potential legal issues. The consensus opinion from those in and around the Capitol seems to be that she is not. So why not do what many of those closest to the epicenter are doing - cast your vote for Walker, and then vote Mahlon Mitchell for lieutenant governor? Mitchell doesn't have experience in elected office, but his career experience is certainly more in line with public service than someone who read cue cards for a living and thinks her relationship with Christ is a qualification for elected office.
Among a bunch of mediocre choices, Scott Walker and Mahlon Mitchell are Wisconsin's best bets. Good luck with the next two years. You'll need it.
Among a bunch of mediocre choices, Scott Walker and Mahlon Mitchell are Wisconsin's best bets. Good luck with the next two years. You'll need it.
6 comments:
The loss was to the insurance companies, and last I checked, Democrats liked it when insurance companies lost.
What do you mean here? HC costs didn't go down, they just shifted. Insurance companies are making the same profits off the state plan as before, they're just getting more from employees than their employer. More specifically, the mandated 5% reduction in HC premiums was a reduction in state HC costs, not payments to insurers. The 5% was made-up by 10% co-insurance for employees.
I'm specifically referring to *local* governments that, as a result of Act 10, were free to shop for different health insurance providers because the specific provider was no longer a mandatory subject of bargaining with employees. The state, thankfully, never allowed itself to be put in the position that so many school districts were in when the employee union and the employee insurer were affiliated.
As much as I'm planning on voting for Barrett tomorrow, it almost seems like the best long-term results for the Democrats might be something like this:
Barrett loses, but closer than 2010
Mitchell wins
Dexter beats Moulton
Lehman beats Wanggaard
Who cares about the other two races.
This would give them the ability to block most of Walker's agenda until 2014 without actually taking on many responsibilities.
I couldn't agree more with the need to develop new leadership, and you forgot to mention Fred Risser in that bunch of oldsters, though I guess your point was more oriented towards people who served in the legislature, retired, and then came back again.
Robb Kahl might be someone to watch over the next 8-10 years. As Mayor of Monona, he was often thought to be a closet conservative, yet when he announced his run for the legislature, he almost immediately won the support of both the hard left leaders in the district as well as the pragmatic business Democrats. I was really shocked when he rolled out the Erpenbach endorsement and some of the Monona City Council members that were behind him.
Alex,
You are forgetting that Tiffany wins the open Holperin seat and the new Fondy district is a sure loser for Jess King. I think they only pick up one between Moulton and Van, and then regain the Senate in November.
Longer term, the new districts mean the GOP's only concern for the next decade is how big their majorities will be. Meanwhile, public employee membership will dwindle and the cash that goes with them.
By 2020, public employee unions will only be a shell of their former selves, have almost no operational strength and regardless of who the guv is, no Dem policy items of significance will have passed the legislature in years.
The brightest note is that after Walker wins today, both Mary Bell and Marty Beil will get thrown out on their collectively enormous asses for getting smoked for 18 moths straight.
I'm most looking forward to watching Ed preen in front of another live Madison audience tonight while the polls are still open and those folks should be busy making calls or driving people to the polls. But hey, I guess being red faced getting in the shot is what democracy looks like.
On the topic of new leadership this may be a short term loss for the Dems but a long term gain. Barrett and Falk will have been cleared out in the space of a few weeks, since neither is a good statewide candidate this is a positive thing.
Into the wayback machine, what this reminds me of is the Kasten/Garvey election back in the 80s. Kasten did what he had to to win but that put the next election past him. I don't think John Doe will take out Walker (and I shudder at the thought of Kleefisch being in charge) but it will wound him and even with a 20:1 money advantage it'll still be difficult in 2014.
I also think John Doe will cause problems downballot but with redistricting it probably won't matter much.
Post a Comment