David Craig: The spending hypocrisy of Tony Evers (and his media cheerleaders) knows no bounds

The column below reflects the views of the author, and these opinions are neither endorsed nor supported by WisOpinion.com.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, with its entrenched liberal majority, recently ruled that Governor Tony Evers acted within his constitutional authority by using his partial veto power to enable an annual property tax hike on homeowners and small businesses… for the next 400 years.

This is, of course, extremely newsworthy—and distressing—for homeowners. However, the ruling raised little interest in the mainstream media, with the Associated Press minimizing the real impacts calling Evers’s action a “school funding increase” via a “creative budget veto.”

Contrast Evers’s treatment in the media for increasing taxes for centuries with literally a stroke of his pen with the treatment President Trump has received for reducing the size and scope of government with his pen. The difference in policy result and media coverage could not be starker in contrast.

When Tony Evers and Joe Biden use executive authority to increase government spending, their actions are lauded as “creative” and “forgiveness.” When President Trump uses his executive authority to restrain the wasteful spending of federal taxes, the AP declared the president pushed “the limits of presidential power” and that his actions were “sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis.” Give me a break.

Evers has further expanded one of the most powerful governorships in America into an unholy merger of executive and legislative budgeting power. But when Republicans point out this fact, it’s framed as “targeting” and “resistance” by the usual suspects at American Pravda.

However, the Left’s hypocrisy and inconsistency on the use of executive authority doesn’t end with Evers’s veto pen.

After Evers successfully trampled the separation of powers at the State Supreme Court, he has now flipped his position, asserting that the principle of separation of powers actually does exist, but only so long as it works to stop Donald Trump. So perturbed with executive overreach is Evers that he announced several lawsuits against the president’s administration, targeting President Trump’s attempt to get unlawful and unconstitutional funding, like that for racist diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programming, out of federal agencies.

So, do both Evers and Trump have similar constitutional problems to reconcile? Not even close.

On one hand, we have the president’s actions to restrain government and government power by freezing a fraction of the funding for various agencies. The exercise has sent D.C. swamp creatures into an all-out tizzy with leftist groups running repeatedly to the U.S. District Court for District of Columbia to “stop Trump.”

Democrats on Capitol Hill are in on it too, calling Trump’s actions “unlawful impoundments.” (The impounding of funds is the delay or withholding of funds enacted for a purpose by congress). Such actions have been taken by presidents going at least as far back as Thomas Jefferson, with records detailing that he refused the purchase of additional naval vessels for lack of need. Congress enacted a law to generally prohibit presidential impoundment, but the constitutionality of a president’s authority to impound has never squarely been adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Even if Trump’s fiscal restraint doesn’t rise to the level of an impoundment, the bigger question for the Court is whether an appropriation by Congress is a floor for spending or a ceiling, and whether a president is obligated to spend more than what’s necessary to meet Congress’s goal. By the reaction of leftists in the swamp, any spending less than the absolute maximum is a constitutional crisis, regardless of what’s actually needed for the project.

When American families struggle to put food on the table, they understand the need to pull back spending where it’s not needed to focus on priorities. But when government doesn’t play by the same rules, instead trampling on the separation of powers meant to protect liberty and financial freedom, they should be less understanding.

Evers’s actions binding Wisconsinites and their offspring beyond their 10^th generation grandchildren to higher taxation should awaken cash-strapped Wisconsinites to the impact elections have on their wallets, including Supreme Court elections. Because of the continued liberal majority on Wisconsin’s high court, Evers will defend his 400-year property tax increase as “blessed” by the court. Most families would not feel blessed by the fact that Tony Evers can unilaterally help raise their taxes for centuries. That seems like more of a curse. And, certainly a lot less virtuous than President Trump working with Congress to reduce the federal budget deficit. Even if the AP doesn’t agree.

Evers likes to defend his actions by trumpeting that “the will of the people is the law of the land,” but I’m hard-pressed to imagine a less democratic policy in modern history than tethering generations of Wisconsinites to perpetual tax increases that neither they nor their elected officials ever voted for. But leave it to the governor who repeatedly attempted to illegally shut down the state and who refers to mothers as “inseminated persons” to break policy mold.

Evers, his cheerleaders in the media, and his cronies in the D.C. swamp may not know what side of the separation-of-powers debate they are on. But one thing is certain, their thirst for more of your money, (and now in Wisconsin your children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s, children’s money), will never be satisfied. Remember that next time you hear the swamp creatures and Tony Evers crying about President Trump taking on the federal deficit.

David Craig is a Wisconsin resident and former elected state representative and senator. He works as the Legal Director for the Foundation for Government Accountability.