Where have the Less-Government Less-Spending Republicans Been Hiding All These Years? Updated:

Holding Republicans Accountable

Where have the Less-Government Less-Spending Republicans Been Hiding All These Years?

The chart below shows the path of Wisconsin’s Biennial Budget through the course of the last 7 budgets starting with the 2009 budget while Jim Doyle was in office. Notice Governor Walker’s first budget (2011) had a relatively small increase, if you can call over $282 million small. The budget amount reflects the savings from Act 10.

The amount of spending that has been done by the Republican controlled legislature is worth noting. Starting in 2011, both the Senate and the Assembly have enjoyed majority party status and for the most part, a sizable majority. It also needs to be understood that both houses need to approve any increase in spending right down to the penny.  Also, note that in Walker’s four budgets spending increased by $10.7 billion while the Republicans under Robin Vos’s leadership (after Walker left office) the budget increased $22.9 billion in just three budgets.

NOTE: Mark Born has been on JFC since 2015, he loves to spend YOUR money!!

There are several items of interest:

1.       Other than the 2011 budget (the Act 10 budget) 2015 was the smallest budget increase to date. Interestingly enough Rep(s) Krug, Edming, Novack, Nerison, Bernier and Ripp cast their only no votes for any of the budgets. Did the budget not spend enough for their liking? Krug, Edming and Novak were nays for a 4.16% increase in 2015 but were ayes for a 9.2% increase in 2019? Hmmm.

2.       Our biggest criticism of the spending is that there has not been any accountability attached to the massive amounts of taxpayer dollars flooded into public education and the UW system.  For the 2009 budget state spending on public education was 12,994,858,800 and by the 2023 budget was 17,492,819,500. A 35% increase while test scores plummet. The UW system went from 10,824,986,800 in 2009 to 13,738,682,900 in 2023. That is a 27% increase for a university system that does not tolerate free speech on campus and spends millions on woke programs. You can form all the “free speech” committees you want; the only thing that moves the needle is a good swift kick in the pocketbook. Once again money is poured into the system without an ounce of accountability.

3.       The Republican led leadership in both houses put all the legislators in a position to fail in 2023. The leadership is responsible for the budget. 100% responsible. The Republican leadership put together a budget that increased spending by a whopping 11.36%! I suspect that is the largest single budget increase in the history of the state. I’d be interested to hear differently. The carrot was a massive $2 billion middle class tax cut that the governor all but said he’d veto before the budget was even voted on. The onus clearly falls on leadership. So, in essence, the Republican leadership asked their caucuses to either vote for a massive spending increase or against a sizeable tax cut. Note – I advised the legislators I spoke with to abstain from voting, since they could not vote for the spending or against the tax cuts.

No Votes in the Assembly -

Since Scott Walker took office, the Republican has had a sizable majority in the assembly and a majority in the senate. As we pointed out, the budget is completely controlled by the legislature. The governor does have veto power but cannot increase spending. Below is the short list of no votes for each budget since 2011 (Assembly Republicans only).

2011 – No Republican voted no on Walkers first budget which was almost without increase (due to Act 10 savings).

2013 – No votes were Rep(s) Nass, Marklein, Kestell, and Pridemore.

2015 – No votes were Rep(s) Bernier, Edming, Novak, Nerison, Krug and Ripp (see point number one above). 

2017 – No votes were Rep(s) Allen, Brandtjen, Gannon, Jarchow and Sanfelippo.

2019 – No votes were Rep(s) Brandtjen, Gundrum and Ramthun.

2021 – No Republican voted no.

2023 – No Republican votes no (see point number three above).