Carolyn Fath
Prosser on the role of government: “There will always be a place for well-reasoned spending and regulation.”
David Prosser spent 18 years on the Wisconsin Supreme Court before retiring in 2016 in the middle of a 10-year term. One of the court’s stalwart conservatives, his last few years on the bench were controversial; a physical altercation with Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley made national news and laid bare the contentious relations between the court’s liberal and conservative justices.
Prosser is also a former Republican lawmaker who served in the state Assembly from 1979 through 1996. He called Isthmus last week to offer a piece he was writing on how to address the state’s transportation funding gap. Gov. Scott Walker and Senate Republicans reject any call for a tax increase, while Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says new revenue must be raised. The state budget is on hold while these factions within the GOP jockey for position.
Prosser, now that he is out of the political fray, figures he has little to lose by offering some measured advice. He’s also hoping to raise awareness about a new nemesis — the roundabout! Hey, who knew a multi-lane roundabout can cost up to $2.4 million?
We sat down with the former justice and lawmaker for a short interview.
What motivated you to write this piece?
Transportation is an important issue for people. But it requires serious discussion instead of clichés. Often a blunt discussion of facts produces good discussion and new ideas.
When did you start thinking about doing it?
I’ve been ruminating about this literally for months. My initial hostility to roundabouts has dramatically changed in that I realize they are very popular with a lot of people and that there’s a great case for them.
Hostility as a driver?
Not so much as a driver....But the cost adds up. There is only so much money.
Were times different when you were in the Legislature? Were lawmakers on both sides of the aisle more receptive to finding common ground?
It does seem to me that people dig in to their positions and are less willing to compromise than in some older times. But sometimes the consequences of compromising are more severe than they used to be.
My whole life has been public service and mostly elected politics and there are costs, sometimes, when you make the right decision. I certainly thought that the right decision was to build a new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers — I was the floor leader on that bill. And people told voters in the 8th Congressional District — which is nowhere near Milwaukee — that they were paying for [the stadium]. It was not true. I think that my support of that stadium cost me a seat in Congress. It worked out pretty good though (laughs).
But that was in the mid-’90s. Now, with the internet, it’s very hard for the truth to catch up to charges on the internet or statements on the internet. To sit down and explain a perfectly rational decision is often not possible.
You’re going out on a limb with this piece. What do you anticipate will be the reaction? Do you think you will get a call from the governor’s office?
That I know I won’t get. But it might generate some discussion. I think it will probably generate a lot more discussion about roundabouts. And about the gas tax — [lawmakers] are dug in pretty deep but there might be some arguments that they haven’t fully considered.
One thing I think might happen is that some people who support roundabouts will be so outraged by my comments they will speak up and say we want more of them. But my question is, how do you pay for them?
In these times of hyper-partisanship, do you think someone who identifies as a Democrat will listen to what you have to say?
I’m going to lay my cards on the table. I believe everything I wrote. But Democrats — of which traditionally I’ve not been one — deserve credit for their courage to vote no [on the 2006 repeal of gas tax indexing]. And if they still have the same integrity, some will say we have to vote for additional revenue here. It would be very easy to say these stupid Republicans created the problem now so we get to vote “no” on any gas tax increase.
Do you think lawmakers have to fight against the anti-government rhetoric that is so popular today?
Well, I’m a pretty conservative guy but there will always be a place for intelligent, well-reasoned spending and regulation. The country always has to be moving forward.
Why did you come to us with your story?
Why not? I think it’s a longer piece and not likely to fit into one of the other two newspapers.
What other policy issues are you thinking about these days?
I have some ideas on how to replace Obamacare — and do something for corporate taxes. And they are all related to each other. President Trump wants to reduce corporate income taxes and I support that. I believe that people who provide health insurance to their employees should certainly get a better tax break in my view than those who don’t.
I also think it is outrageous that there is no tax on out-of-state internet sales so that we are discriminating against those who sell locally. States are losing billions. The federal government should step in and impose a tax and use all that revenue to help states pay for Medicaid. And that should firm up all the moderate Republicans.
Is this the first research project you’ve done since retiring?
This is my second article (laughs). The first was one for the Association for Justice [the statewide group for trial attorneys]. They asked me to write one on governmental immunity for torts — it has been very strict and I think it should not be that strict.
I’m also seriously thinking about writing an article on Diggers Hotline. This is fundamental America — you don’t dig until you call Diggers Hotline. The problem is that Diggers Hotline often does not know where underground pipes are. We had a case in the court where a contractor went and dug and it hit a gas line and blew up a tourist cabin. Several people died. The Supreme Court had a case this session that I wanted them to take that involved the DOT putting in a new stop light. They had to dig very deep and they hit a sewage pipe. A few weeks later there was sewage all over a shopping center. The subcontractor said we have immunity from this because we did exactly what the DOT told us to do.
It sounds like issues that came before you on the court are now getting your attention — a kind of return to your roots as a policy maker.
Yes. That sums it up well.
Read Prosser's proposals for breaking the state budget impasse.
