Conservatives have described Scott Walker, in his undeclared run for President (I choke as I type that phrase), as “not ready for prime time.” They cite his flip-flopping, his handling of the Liz Mair hiring/firing resignation, and his inability to answer expected questions.
What they don’t cite is Walker’s inability to govern, an inability that is evident in the budget he delivered to the state on February 4. The budget and subsequent hearings and analysis reveal
- that Scott Walker did not communicate to his cabinet members the key changes for which they would be responsible,
- that many of the conservative selling points contained in the budget lack even the slightest detail about program implementation, and
- that many of the major policy proposals were crafted without the involvement of the key stakeholders.
Since he dropped this “bomb,” Mr. Walker has traveled the country seeking adulation support from those who do not know him, instead of advocating for his budget proposals back home.
John Torinus, a well-known Republican businessman from Milwaukee, detailed the lack of communication between Walker and his department heads in his blog post, “Who is running the good ship Wisconsin?” (This post has since appeared as an opinion piece in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.) He writes:
Cathy Stepp, secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, admitted to being surprised by the governor’s budget proposal to strip the Natural Resources Board of its traditional policy making role. She also does not appear to have been directly involved in the major decision to zero out the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund that conserves select lands.
Similarly, Kitty Rhoades, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, was caught flat-footed by the budget proposal to completely revamp the state’s Medicaid program for long-term health care of the elderly and handicapped. It’s [a] $2 billion program, so this is not a trivial matter.
Before the bombshell budget came out, Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb had gone public with a call for a lot more money for road building, including a higher sales tax on gasoline and a stiff fee on car sales. It may have been a straw man for Gov. Walker and the legislature to knock down, but it didn’t get five steps toward first base. The secretary must have been embarrassed.
… [Walker’s] budget proposal to merge the public-private Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Housing Authority (WHEDA), a very different financing animal, may have been signaled to their leaders, but they couldn’t have endorsed that quarter-baked idea. WHEDA relies on bonding and lending, and any hint of political management of the now independent authority works would tank its bonding sales.
So, four cabinet agencies left unsupported and uninformed of major changes. This is not governing in any meaningful sense of the word.
Conservative selling points. Scott Walker gets great applause at places like CPAC and meetings of the South Carolina Republican Party for his declarations that he is going to drug test recipients of “entitlement” spending like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), unemployment insurance, and certain workshare programs. He is also applauded when he talks about his efforts to shrink government and make it more efficient.
Little do his followers know, however, that these alleged “reforms” of Wisconsin state government are merely words, and not really actions. Drug testing SNAP recipients? There’s no plan for that, there’s no money in the budget for it, and it requires a federal waiver. Drug testing unemployment insurance recipients? The proposal is so broad as to be unusable and unenforceable, and there’s no money for it. Drug testing for BadgerCare? This conflicts with federal Medicaid statutes, and there’s no money in the budget. Drug testing for workshare? Those states that have tried it have spent far more money on the testing than they would have spent offering benefits to the few people who tested positive, and there’s no money in the budget.
Scott Walker also tells his audiences that he is making government more efficient, more lean. How does splitting Wisconsin’s widely-admired worker’s compensation program into two parts and moving it from one agency into two, neither with experience in worker’s compensation, increase efficiency? The program already works extremely effectively with almost no taxpayer dollars. No “lean government” with this move.
Failure to include stakeholders in policy development. There are so many examples of this issue in the Executive Budget that I am sure I will miss many, but here are a few.
- The proposal to cut the UW System budget by $300 million over the biennium in exchange for an ill-defined “public authority” model was made in consultation with UW-System administration, without inclusion of the UW Regents, the system’s governing board. Resolutions after the release of the budget demonstrated that many faculty, staff, and students also felt they were not represented in negotiations. By statute, the UW-System operates under “shared governance” which gives all of these actors a role in decision making for the university. The public authority proposal seems to have been developed in contravention of tradition and statute. (The authority proposal also falls under the “incompletely conceived” column of ideas, as Regent David Walsh illuminated in their March 5th Regents meeting with President Cross.)
- Decisions about Wisconsin’s Family Care, IRIS, and Senior Care programs, which cover frail elderly, disabled, and low income elderly citizens, were made without consulting the provider groups, the families of these citizens, or their advocacy groups. Even the secretary of the Department of Health Services was unaware of the proposed changes until she saw the budget.
- The Secretary of the DNR was unaware of the sweeping proposals to reduce scientific staff, change the role of the DNR board, or change the stewardship fund; neither were the DNR board or the environmental groups of Wisconsin.
- Workers compensation attorneys, hearing examiners, staff, and the Workers Compensation Advisory Council alike were taken by surprise when they started to hear rumors in late January of changes to the WC structure in Wisconsin. Historically, changes to WC have come about as a result of discussion on the Council. This group, comprising representatives from labor and management, is charged with advising the Department of Workforce Development and the legislature on policy matters concerning the development and administration of the worker’s compensation law. The administration’s bypass of the Council to propose major legislation affecting worker’s compensation was notable for its disregard of longstanding precedent.
I am sure that I have missed several items — feel free to add on as you think of them!
Once I got over the shock, I began to see Walker’s budget proposal as integral to his presidential campaign. The only person who would propose such a train wreck is one who has no intention of discussing it with citizens or sweating about implementation. He’s already gotten what he needs from the proposal; something shiny to hold up to intrigue low information voters. Walker is so over Wisconsin.