The Journal Sentinel & Mark Green Part Three

Four years ago a kid with a dream was running for governor. He knew he was going to face a huge deficit. He publicly announced a few plans to deal with it.  But he didn't say where every penny was going to come from.

How did the JS handle that?

The lead from a 9/15/2002 story by Steve Schultze:

If Democrat Jim Doyle was feeling any pressure to provide details on how he would balance the wounded state budget and beef up public education without raising taxes, he didn't let on Saturday, as he took his 4-day-old general election campaign for governor on the road for the first time.

Coldblooded!

From the same story:

He told the educators that he yearns for a victory Nov. 5 over Republican Gov. Scott McCallum so he can declare: "The war on teachers is over."

"We are going to focus in on the real, basic issues: a good well- trained teacher with a good support staff and a small enough class size to make sure real education takes place," Doyle said.

Those might reasonably be assumed to add costs, but -- as with other stands -- Doyle doesn't give enough detail to say for sure.

Ouch!

So how does the JS treat Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green's much-anticipated memo mission statement plan something or other on the budget that doesn't, you know, go into detail?

From an 8/1/2006 story by Stacy Forster:

Sun Prairie Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Green attempted Monday to fill in some of the blanks on his budget plan, pledging never to use the line-item veto to increase spending or raise taxes.

Green also promised to end "raids" on special funds to balance the budget and to hold the line on borrowing.

Riding in a 35-foot RV that he will use to tour the state, Green rolled into Sun Prairie just before noon to mark the 99-day point until the Nov. 7 election, when he faces first-term Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle.

Does that seem a little bit softer than the Schultze lead?

Deeper in the story there's this:

After releasing his original budget plan in April, Green was criticized for not providing enough specifics on how he would handle the state's budget issues. On Monday, Green provided more details about how he would manage state dollars:

Holding taxes down: Green has said that if elected governor, he wouldn't run for a second term if he didn't lower the tax burden in Wisconsin. That includes state and local taxes, including property taxes, Green said in Sun Prairie.

"Because we are competing for good paying jobs and we are competing to bring employers to this state, I want to lower the tax burden that's driving businesses away," Green said.

As Xoff, What's Left, In Effect and others pointed out he didn't provide "more details about how he would manage state dollars." A potentially empty promise ain't a plan.

Then on Aug. 2, Journal Sentinel readers get this admission deep in a story from Forster and Greg Borowski:

(Green campaign manager Mark Graul)  also defended the lack of detail in Green's proposals.

"Mark's budget plan is a statement of principles," Graul said. "We don't have the budget office available to us to do line item by line item of what that will be."

Dude, then don't call it a plan! (Milwaukee Rising comments on this, along with a plan to get the Pack back to the Super Bowl!)

And shouldn't the JS have made a teensy bit more of the fact that back in April Green was going to come up with a plan and manifestly has not?

Another interesting bit from the JS story:

Schmiedicke said there will be "more than enough revenue" to cover future commitments.

That does not, however, take into account that it will cost more for the state to provide the same level of services because of rising costs for wages, gasoline and in other areas. Asked what happens when cost projections are matched against the other measures, Schmiedicke said it was too soon to say because departments have not submitted budget requests.

That followup provided more scrutiny than anything we have seen applied to Green.

Now the Brawler is not saying that Doyle was treated badly four years ago or that he should not be put under scrutiny. Politicians should be held accountable. And politicians have to expect sharp elbows.

But the Brawler will say he finds it strange that the Journal Sentinel encourages Green's babysteps toward a plan rather than holding him accountable for not having a plan while bashing Doyle's and accusing him of budgeting under the influence of special interests?

One last gem:

Graul said Green wouldn't have to completely fill the deficit hole with funds from different areas because an increase in business activity could drive up revenue.

Shouldn't he be pressed a little bit more on that? How much of an increase is he expecting? By how much would it drive up revenue?

Comments

[What Next?]

Superb reporting, BWB. Keep it up! Even when we don't comment, we're reading you daily.

[Xoff]

As someone who lived through the last race as a Doyle strategist, I can vouch that you are right on target.

I recall several exchanges and stories in the general election when McCallum came up with a phony budget plan that projected an incredible percentage of economic growth and therefore more revenue. Green just kisses it off, without even offering a number, and they give him a pass.

[Todd]

Stacy's similarly biased when it comes to her reporting on the civil unions and marriage ban.

[Tim]

I agree with What's Next. You have become a daily read of mine. Great job ... love your style!

[Mags]

But wait. How is it that he's going to "cap tax revenues at the previous year's level," but simultaneously "take all of our state revenue growth and plow it back into paying off our bills." Aren't those statements a wee bit inconsistent?