The Beguiling Blandness of Devin LeMahieu
Senate majority leader is conservative but eschews the nasty style of Robin Vos.
Sen. Devin LeMahieu. File photo by Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Watch.
State Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu and his GOP caucus took a beating from Democrats during the Senate floor session on Wednesday as the Republicans voted for bills to spend Wisconsin’s share of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in ways that likely violate the law.
But the intensity of that debate did not appear to faze the Republican leader from Oostburg the following day as he gave subdued, even bland answers to questions on such matters with dispassionate conservative talking points, a stark contrast in style with other state GOP leaders. As is typical of his public persona, he never raised his voice, slung any insults or showed any venom, even when he was asked about relationship issues he has had with Speaker Robin Vos and Gov. Tony Evers.
On Evers: “We need to get things done for the state of Wisconsin. … My office has reached out to his office at times. I have called him personally at times … but it’s been awhile since we talked.”
It’s difficult to imagine anyone accusing LeMahieu of hyperbole or being too excitable.
The audience watching WisPolitics’ Jeff Mayers interview LeMahieu on a virtual luncheon program got few surprises — with the most newsworthy tidbit being that knowing where his Senate Republicans stand, he does not have enough votes to pass either full or medicinal legalization of marijuana, including his own vote.
“I think it’s somewhat important not to pass laws that are in conflict with the federal government,” LeMahieu, who was first elected to the Senate in 2015, said. He added that employers tell him they are concerned about people being “high on the job,” and he doesn’t want to be a “rogue state.” (At least in this matter; later he offered a different take as one of the few hold-out states against Medicaid expansion.)
Spending hated stimulus money
LeMahieu echoed his GOP colleagues in what Democrats labeled a hypocritical argument: He objects to the federal government spending an “immense” and “reckless” amount of money in the American Rescue Plan Act. But he also wants to spend Wisconsin’s portion of $3.2 billion in the manner Republicans laid out in 11 bills that passed the Senate and Assembly this week, even though the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau stated it could result in the vast majority of the money needing to be returned, potentially in violation of forthcoming U.S. Treasury guidelines.
“According to the LFB memo 90% of this money being proposed is possibly on the hook, as in not allowable, can’t do it,” said Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-West Point) on the Senate floor. Passing bills that promise a tax cut or checks “holds out a false hope” for constituents who will think they might receive money only to become “pretty upset” when it doesn’t come through, he said. Not all the goals laid out are bad, they’re just disingenuous because they are not reality and, Erpenbach added, if Republicans hate ARPA, then reject the money. “I don’t see a piece of legislation here from the Republicans to send the money back to D.C.,” said Erpenbach. “I just don’t think you can have it both ways.”
LeMahieu labeled the bills more of a plan, even though if they were signed into law — which is almost certain not to happen under Evers — it would be binding.
“We think it’s very important that the legislature has a voice in how this $3.2 billion is spent,” LeMahieu said. “Speaker Vos and I sat down together and with both of our respective caucuses and developed a plan, sort of a roadmap if you will, of how we think this money should be spent. That’s sort of the game plan behind what we wanted to do — to show the governor what we thought was responsible use of these funds.”
He also made it clear his hope is that some of the ARPA money can replace money allocated in Evers’ budget for one-time expenses such as local roads, broadband expansion and capital building projects. Without knowing how the money will be spent, he said Republicans are “flying blind” as they craft a budget. He did not acknowledge that it also makes it impossible for Evers to allocate it until the federal guidelines have been laid out.
Nor would even the full $3.2 billion that the governor can allocate cover all of the costs Republicans cited in the bills. Sen. Janis Ringhand (D-Evansville) pointed out that it would take $2 billion for the state to catch up on its capital building needs alone. “That’s not fiscal conservatism, that’s pennywise and pound foolish,” Ringhand said.
Voting is “pretty simple”
On the Senate floor Wednesday and in his interview Thursday, LeMahieu and Republicans continued to peddle bills to make it more difficult to vote in Wisconsin,
Unlike many of his colleagues, LeMahieu did not offer false proclamations of a Donald Trump victory or stolen elections, but he did fall back on the circular rhetoric that such bills are needed “to make sure the citizens of Wisconsin have confidence” in their elections, which was undermined because Trump and Republicans have been repeatedly spun false stories of fraud.
As the author of legislation requiring voter rolls be purged, he was disappointed in the recent Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.
“I think it’s pretty simple to vote in the state of Wisconsin,” LeMahieu opined. “Wisconsin is a very purple state and our statewide elections are very close. So we think it’s very important to have transparent voting safeguards.”
The majority leader was also asked about another major issue frequently raised this budget season, which is why Wisconsin Republicans do not support expanding BadgerCare, even though it would bring in an additional $1.6 billion in revenue for the next biennial budget.
No health care gap
Democrats have pounded on this GOP position for years as being fiscally irresponsible, as well as heartless when it would mean that 80,000 – 90,000 Wisconsinites would gain access to health care through Medicaid while taxpayers saved money.
For LeMahieu the answer is by the numbers — not the people — and it’s the standard conservative rejection of “government run health care,” but in his low-key answer belies the severity of the issue for the tens of thousands of people it impacts.
He added that Wisconsin has high-quality care and “we don’t have a coverage gap.” (Democrats would beg to differ). Pushed, he said Obamacare “seems to be effective.”
“Another interesting fact is that among the states that haven’t accepted the Medicaid expansion, we’ve had the lowest amount of people who are uninsured,” LeMahieu added, “so we do a great job with health care in Wisconsin and we’re not willing to put more people on government-run health care and jeopardize the system we have in place.”
At the close of the luncheon, Mayers noted that LeMahieu is the owner of a Sheboygan area newspaper and asked for his opinion on what is wrong with the media. While his predecessor in leadership, now Congressman Scott Fitzgerald was known for colorful critiques and dislike of the media, LeMahieu simply smiled, demurring that his paper is more of a shopper, and added without any bite, “I’d like to see the media cover more positive stories going forward.”
Reprinted with permission of Wisconsin Examiner.
Still a rightwing hack.
For someone who hasn’t followed LeMahieu closely until he became Senate Majority Leader, and has done most of my following now through WPR, WisPolitics, and other state media outlets (as opposed to watching his actual press conferences and floor statements), I have to say, he seems to do a pretty good job of embodying Obama’s old canard – I disagree with him on nearly everything, but he doesn’t seem disagreeable. He was willing to deal with Evers at the outset of this legislative session (for a moment, at least, until Vos went ape), he doesn’t always seem to reflexively revert to standard political talking points, and as the article suggests, his demeanor seems pretty low-key, rather than the bombast of his peer in the Assembly. I’ve seen a few commentators lately note that “politics is not total war” and “politics is not religion”, so when someone engaged in it and seems to bring it down a level or two in terms of existential importance, it’s kind of nice – or at least novel.