Wisconsin and the Nation at a Crossroads

“Budget Repair Bill” about much more than budget repair

Among the handful of specific promises Scott Walker made during his recent campaign for governor of Wisconsin, the two most prominent were promises to create 250,000 jobs in the state and to kill plans for a high-speed rail line running from the Illinois border to Madison. Walker wasted no time fulfilling the second promise and (some say) rewarding his wealthy financial backers in the process.

Workers and supporters protest by the tens of thousands outside the Madison Capitol Building in mid-February; Photo Matthew Wisniewski

Within days of taking office he had formally turned down $810 million in federal stimulus money for the high-speed rail line, a move which no doubt pleased one of his major campaign backers, the state’s road builder’s association. With the help of the new Republican-dominated legislature, he quickly pushed through a $127 million tax cut for big business. This was followed by legislation restricting new wind farm siting to the point that wind farm development is now all but impossible in the state. Next he turned down some $40 million in federal money to bring high-speed internet to underserved Wisconsin communities. Meanwhile he put up “open for business” signs along the state borders. (Who this pleases is still unclear.) Having done his part to push the state back into the 19th century technologically, he has turned his sights on the public employees and their unions in hopes of doing the same economically.

Walker’s “Budget Repair Bill” (AB11 and SB11, linked here) would make radical changes to the state’s 1959 collective bargaining law. With the exceptions of the Police and Fire unions, state and municipal employees would be required to contribute significantly greater percentages of their income to their health and retirement benefits, concessions that the unions have already agreed to. Their main objection to the bill are provisions that would severely curtail employee’s rights to collective bargaining.

If the bill were passed, state employee unions (“labor organizations” in the bill) would be required to hold elections annually, and gain at least a 51% majority to continue to represent employees. (Currently employees must gather a certain number of member names on a petition for an up-or-down vote to take place.) If the union were to be voted down, employees could not hold another vote for at least one year. And even if the union were upheld, dues would be voluntary and employees would remain union members whether they paid their dues or not. Unions could collectively bargain only on wage increases, which would be limited to the rate of inflation. The law would also limit the duration of collective bargaining agreements to one year, so any agreements would have to be renegotiated annually. Employees of the University of Wisconsin (UW) System, the UW Hospitals and Clinics Authority, and some home care and child care providers would be banned from collective bargaining entirely.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

There is wide agreement that these provisions would render state employee unions irrelevant. But that’s not all this bill does. Section 44, part 16.896 of the Senate bill (page 24) reads as follows:

“Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).”

In other words, state-owned heating, cooling, and power plants (such as UW-Madison’s power plant) could be sold without soliciting bids for any amount the administration desires, and the sale would by law be deemed in the public interest! If federal financial assistance was used to acquire, construct, or improve any of these facilities, the state would be on the hook for these funds.

You may have heard of the state’s very successful BadgerCare program, which helps low income residents with their medical bills. According to an article in the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, people earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level ($14,484 for an individual) are eligible for Medicaid. The state currently makes up the difference for people earning up to 200 percent of this level, or $21,780 for an individual. Walker’s bill would eliminate this funding, dropping an estimated 60,000 low- and moderate-income residents from subsidized health insurance. University of Wisconsin law student Brendan Fischer explains these provisions in detail, presenting evidence that Walker and his new head of the Department of Health Services Dennis Smith intend to eventually eliminate the state’s Medicaid program entirely.

Workers and supporters protest Governor Scott Walker's "budget repair bill" in Madison, mid-February 2011; Photo Matthew Wisniewski

Other onerous provisions of the bill have gotten little notice in the mainstream media. In his article, Fischer points out that the state will likely lose $47 million in federal transportation funds for publicly-run municipal bus systems. These funds require that the state uphold collective bargaining rights that were in place at the time they were authorized.

Another provision in the bill turns 27 high-level civil-service positions now filled on the basis of applicant merit into politically-appointed positions. These positions are scattered throughout state agencies, leaving little doubt that the purpose of this provision is to put these agencies under direct control of the governor’s office.

Well, you may say, maybe all of this is necessary in order to balance the state’s budget. Wisconsin’s projected budget deficit for this year is $137 million, comparable to the amount forfeited by Walker’s big-business tax cut. According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau the state faces a $3.5 billion deficit over the next two years. This deficit is small, though, compared to the state’s $50 billion annual budget. The previous administration of Governor Jim Doyle took office with a $5.8 billion dollar deficit, and they were able to whittle this down to the current level without resorting to radical and punishing measures.

And why the provision allowing sale of the state’s power plants? The multi-billionaire Koch brothers David and Charles own Koch Industries, an energy conglomerate based in Wichita, Kansas. Their holdings and products include Brawny Paper Towels, Dixie Cups, Georgia Pacific Lumber, Stainmaster, and Lycra. Besides giving $43,000 (the legal limit) to Walker’s campaign, a significant chunk of the over $1 million the Koch brothers gave to Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and a similar amount David Koch gave to the Republican Governor’s Association was used to run ads favoring Walker and disparaging his opponent. While the Koch brothers recently issued a statement saying they were not interested in these power plants, the no-bid provision has many wondering about Walker’s motives.

Why are this governor and his cronies in the legislature attempting to push this hard-line bill through at all costs, while thousands of protesters fill the streets below? After the Citizens United case, which allows unlimited money to be spent on “issue” advertising during campaigns, unions are the only organizations that even come close to being able to compete financially with the corporations. Essentially destroying the unions in Wisconsin and elsewhere will eliminate the last major organized opposition to corporate money in politics.

In the recent prank phone call by Buffalo blogger Ian Murphy posing as David Koch, Walker told the caller that it was “our time”. The AFP has rented an office in Madison and is working hard to see that Walker’s attempt to destroy the state employee unions is successful.

As George Lakoff writes in his story What Conservatives Really Want, the goal of radical conservatives is to turn the country to radical corporate conservatism in every issue. In this new political landscape, authority will come from the top. Profit will take priority over civic life, and only those who are profitable will deserve to benefit from the system. Scientific facts (about global warming, for example) that conflict with market values will be denied. Anything that interferes with corporate profits will be marginalized, attacked or banned.

For those who don’t want this future for themselves and their children, the battle unfolding in Wisconsin may well be central to our country’s future. Among the many watching Wisconsin with interest are the new ultraconservative governors of Maine, Ohio, and several other states. Will our future be one of democracy, freedom, and social and environmental sustainability, or one determined by the market-driven, conformist imperatives of multinational corporation and their socially ultraconservative allies? The outcome may well be determined by the standoff in Wisconsin.

Download Article as PDF