Some Hope for the Fall Race

An article in yesterday’s State Journal gave me some hope that the fall campaign between presumptive gubernatorial nominees Tom Tiffany and Francesca Hong might be more enlightened than I have thought. Okay, so probably not, but you never know.

The occasion for my (very limited) optimism was a lengthy piece in which the paper printed verbatim responses from all of the four remaining Democrats in their primary and from Tiffany to some substantive questions about how they’d govern. Given its length and dryness I’m going to say that only I and many of our YSDA readers actually read the whole damn thing. This reflects poorly on us, people. Others have actual lives.

Nonetheless, in a sea of pablum, only two answers stood out, one from Tiffany and one from Hong.

Here’s the Tiffany answer where he said something that badly needed saying:

Tiffany: One position where there’s real opportunity for persuasion is when Democrats say we need to “fully fund our schools.” I agree every child deserves a great education. I attended Wisconsin public schools, and my wife and I raised our three daughters in them. That’s why I supported the largest increase in general school aid and special education funding in more than a decade in 2019. But I’d ask a simple question: what does “fully funded” actually mean? Wisconsin’s per-pupil spending average is over $18,000, yet too many students still aren’t reading or doing math at grade level. Simply spending more without improving results or reforming the system isn’t fair.

Yes! Every Democrat checks the teachers’ union box by saying we need to “fully fund” public schools without ever saying what that amount is exactly. And none calls for any reforms or accountability, as if the only problem is that we don’t spend enough. If this becomes a key debate between Tiffany and Hong the public will be well served.

Then Hong said this in response to a question about the state’s $2 billion surplus:

Hong: The deal (proposed by Gov. Evers and Republican leaders) used a temporary surplus for onetime 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.

Yes! We’ve been arguing here at YSDA that the state should use the full amount to pay off debt. That’s as unsexy as it gets, but it’s the most responsible thing to do because it’s using one-time money for a one-time purpose and it saves a whole lot of bucks in interest payments. Hong would be more creative than I am and I wonder if even $2 billion is enough to make a dent in all of the problems she mentions, but nonetheless everything in her plan makes a lot of sense. She had a much better answer than any of the other candidates. Tiffany wants to give it all back to taxpayers in a one-time payment. Again here, if she and Tiffany would focus on this question of what to do about the surplus that would be a service to voters.

Both Tiffany and Hong have heavy baggage. Tiffany voted to overturn a free and fair election in 2020 and he is fully on board with the MAGA populist movement. Hong said just recently that when a Madison police officer shot a man who was wielding a knife while violently resisting arrest that was a “state sponsored execution.” And she’s a member of the Democratic Socialists of America whose platform is as looney as it is dangerous. It’s an open question as to whether MAGA or the DSA is more nuts.

So, I don’t hold out much hope for a useful debate over substantive issues, like education or how to use the surplus. But both candidates have demonstrated that they’re capable of that. It would take remarkable strength of character for either or both to overrule their consultants and their worst partisans to insist on actually answering more serious questions like these.