Real Politics; 103

Senator, is it true that you were at a meeting of Democrats where you decided that you're going to have the governor on a limb, that you're going to force him to have a deficit or force him to sign a sales tax bill, is that true or not true? That is entirely false and I think you just dreamt that up Senator. In fact, even in our discussions with the governor on a transportation bill, we said we will hold your hand if you're that scared. During the press conference announcing same. But he still failed to take the lead. No, we're not setting him up or trying to be responsible. Please join us. That objection, the clerk will call the roll. Senators Adelman, Bablitch, Baer, Berger Brown. Hello, I'm John Powell. Heated debate is a well-worn phrase used by reporters like me to politely describe some rather volatile conflicts that arise during the political process. On our last edition of Real Politics, we saw how warmed up things could get even when members of the same political party got together to try to work out agreements on items in the state budget. Consider the possibilities when members of opposing parties square off

on points of real political contention. Working agreements so carefully hammered out in party caucuses, are truly put to the test on the floor of the state Senate and in the Assembly. Sometimes rival parties seem light years apart on issues. In other cases, politicians will cross party lines and vote with the opposition on matters of principle or constituent interest. When politicians act in this independent manner, they often say of themselves that they're voting their conscience in spite of party philosophy. [phone ringing] Party leaders often call it something else. [phone ringing] We, in the press, call this whole process of political confrontation, partisan politics. And it means the exercise of influence by political parties on legislative decision making in Wisconsin. [Senator Daniel Theno] So where are we sitting. We're sitting here playing little games. And I tell you it's getting damn frustrating for the senator of the 25th and a couple of the rest of us who would like to sit down with the majority party. Who would like to have a permanent solution. Who would like to get our fair share of the Motor Fuel User taxes that the senator of the

16th talks about. But what have you offered? You certainly haven't offered leadership. When you get going in that little caucus there and king caucus takes over which I assume it's going to do. I hope that you live up to your responsibilities that you're sent down here for in the first place. [Senator Walter Chilsen] I would ask any of you, are you, have you gone up when asked to be listed as a co-author of my amendment? That does provide the permit solution, that would tax out-of-staters as well as it was Wisconsin residents. I have not heard any of you asked unanimous consent to be listed as a co-author. Yesterday, I said I was not trying to be divisive when I, I said I hope we could get together and join in a permanent solution. Today, I don't care if I'm divisive or not. Will the senator yield the requester. Senator yields. Senator yields. Will you yield to a question? Senator yields. Senator isn't it true that you were at a meeting of Democrats where you decided, that you're going to have the governor on a limb, that you're going to force him to have a deficit or force

him to sign a sales tax bill? Is that true or not true? That is entirely false and I think you just dreamt that up Senator. In fact, even in our discussions with the governor on a transportation bill, we said we will hold your hand if you're that scared during the press conference announcing same. But he still failed to take the lead. No, we're not setting him up, we're trying to be responsible. Please join us. Mr. President, would the Senator from the 14th yield. I will not yield. Good idea I yield. I'll yield to your father-in-law, the former Highway Commissioner of Outagamie County that has asked for this bill, this amendment. [laughter] Can I have a list of requests from your father- in-law right here. [laughter] The former Highway Commissioner, who just a year ago had a hearing in the Shiocton American Legion clubhouse. Put the present Highway Commissioner there very concerned over the fact that the county may have to put our state trunk system, Highway 76 and 10 on a county road project in order to get the roads fixed. And

your father-in-law chaired that meeting. [laughter] Now, if you have any more questions about highways, call him. [Senator William Bablitch] It needs the push of the governor and if the governor isn't going to push it and if he's not going to give us the kind of impetus that we need, we, that we know we need to sell the program. Then, why should anybody in this house go through that kind of political cut. And that's what the political facts of life are. Let's put it on the table and let's talk about it sincerely. I don't think there's any use, Republicans beating up Democrats in this house or Democrats beating up Republicans when we all know what the facts are. I surmise that of many of you in the majority party are unwilling to stick your necks out, feeling that if you do the governor will chop it off. In effect, many of you have said to me privately that you are in essence afraid of the

oratorical ability of Lee Sherman Dreyfus. I submit to you that if a permanent solution was added to this budget, Lee Sherman Dreyfus would sign it. That being the case, how in the heck can you come back and say that the governor is going to come in your districts in 1980 and crucify you. Senator. [Senator Clifford Krueger] The Senator of the 24th has indicated and some of the other Democratic masterminds around here, about the highway program. They're threatening us with that amendment. Bring it in, make the motion. If you don't. I will. I know I won't get enough support. Now let's cut out this gobbledygook about the highway program. When it came time to cut out the gobbledygook and vote on the amendment being debated, the action was routine and speedy. Many Republicans broke ranks and voted with the majority Democrats. And many Democrats offered to help Republicans define amendments.

Mr President, if the minority party would like, I'll explain your amendment. [noise from audience] Mr. President, I'm beginning to wonder whether there's any willingness on the majority party to adopt any of these amendments? [laughter] The afternoon was almost a repeat of the morning session. The numbers were different. 19 Republican amendments tabled. The votes were more down party lines, but the result was the same. The Democrats had control. As afternoon became evening, both parties caucussed and the Democrats came back to the floor with a new game plan. They brought 6 tabled Republican amendments back into play, passed them, and then called for a vote on the budget. This prompted Senator Everett Bidwell to chastise Senate Majority Leader William Bablitch for the final attempt at a bipartisan vote in favor of the budget. We liked to have that... [Senator Everett Bidwell] I have witnessed in the last 15 or 20 minutes as a senator from the 12th probably would say "The Greatest Show On Earth". It's a show. It's a show.

I was ready and willing to command the senator from the 24th for his sincerity, for the way he had conducted this budget hearing, discipline. Senator, it was excellent. But you have spoiled the entire show. You went into our caucus and listened to some remarks made by the senator from the 1st and some of the other senators as to their stand. And you came out with an olive branch, holding it out for a bipartisan budget. Senator, I am really shocked. I am really shocked at what you have done in the last 15 to 20 minutes. When the debate was over, the Senate voted 26 to 6 to pass the budget. 5 Republicans had defected, 6 had stood their ground. The budget now moves to

the Assembly. Richard Wexler was in that body today, where lawmakers were bouncing around ideas on what to do about rubber checks. Suppose you go out to buy a television set. You pay the full price on the spot and you use a personal check. But you don't have enough money in your account to cover that check. And you know it. That's a crime. If you're convicted, you can be subject to a heavy fine. But now suppose, you bought that TV on credit. And six months from now, the check you use for one of your payments bounces. Again, you knew the check would bounce. When that happens, the person who sold you the TV can take civil action. He can sue you. But there are no criminal penalties. Assembly Bill 351 would change that. It would add a criminal fine of up to $10,000. The bill is sponsored by the Chairman of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, State Representative Edward McClain. That checks are not play money. That when you write out a check to somebody, it is supposed to mean something.

And you know why district attorney says he has a lot of problems in Marathon County because he has small merchants coming to him and they have bad checks that have been written by their customers. And they asked him to prosecute. But a former District Attorney, State Representative David Prosser, said his colleagues were trying to pass a bad bill. If there is a high pressure outfit in your community that sells television sets and freezers and refrigerators and does everything to lead people into that store to buy. And says to them, don't bring any money. You don't have to pay till September or till October. It's going to be a complete credit arrangement. They walk out with the television set and they have a payment plan of 18 periodic payments or 36 periodic payments or what have you. That is a credit arrangement.

And if on the ninth payment, no payment is made, the merchant takes steps, civilly, to get back his property to or to try and force the contract or to protect himself in a civil court. There is no criminality involved. But if this bill becomes law, when we get to the ninth payment, of the guy who was led into that store and he really couldn't afford the property and he's pressured and he's pressured by the merchant to come up with something and he writes a bad check, then it becomes a criminal matter and the merchant is going to go waltzing into the district attorney and says lean on this guy and get him to make his payments. Lean on this guy. That's why this letter says the District Attorney's office will become the biggest collection agency in the state. This bill is subject of heated partisan debate passed by a vote of 68 to 29. Then another bill was presented for discussion. It was called the Minimum Tax bill. If it

became law, no Wisconsin resident would be allowed to eliminate his or her entire state tax liability by using so-called tax loopholes. [Rep William Broydrick] What it would do is allow a $10,000, $10,000's worth of tax loopholes. But once you had more than $10,000 worth of tax loopholes, you'd pay a 5 percent tax on that loophole income. You see at the moment there are over 350 individuals in Wisconsin who earn more than $100,000 a year and pay less than 5 percent in taxes. And there are a few people in Wisconsin, who pay absolutely no state income tax. What the minimum tax is designed to do is have everyone, no matter how wealthy and how many tax loopholes they enjoy, pay some state income tax. [Rep John Shabaz] It's an unneeded tax. The people in the state of Wisconsin have been over taxed for a great many many years and it seems to me that this type of tax is going to further destroy the incentive of those people who want to give jobs to the people

here in Wisconsin. What we're going to do, is we're going to double tax many of the people who invest in businesses and in real estate. And I think that it's putting up another flag at Wisconsin's borders you know, stay out of Wisconsin. The tax climate here is detrimental to your health. Politicians have many jobs and they also have many bosses. The party leaders are one group of bosses they listen to very closely and for the most part go along with. But they also have thousands of employers back home. The voters who elected them. And as we've seen when it comes to a choice between voting the party line or voting on behalf of one's constituency back home, politicians often leading toward the voter's interests when they possibly can. There's one more employer however, the politicians listen to very carefully. It's their own conscience. Often elected representatives will find themselves faced with a situation where neither the wishes of the voters nor of their party leaders meet with their approval. At times like these, politicians wind up voting their political conscience on matters

of principle. Their ultimate loyalty being to, good government for all. Next time on Real Politics, we're going to take a look at how government affects a group of people who generally feel left out of the political process. Politics and Youth will be the subject. And you might be surprised at how important you are in the world of real politics. He knows and I know that not one single dime of the tax that would be raised under this proposal is going to come from out-of-state truckers and not one single dime is going to come from out-of-state motorists when they come from Wisconsin. It's sticking it to the Wisconsin citizen.