Being an uncommitted voter, I'm really going to take the time to investigate all the candidates' issues and policies as we come up to the election.  I'm going to make an effort (though I'll probably slip now and then) to only compare the candidates on different positions, instead of only talking about one candidate when they put out a press release.  Mark Neumann recently unveiled his "Strong Wisconsin Reform", so I thought I would take the time to compare that with what Scott Walker and Tom Barrett have proposed thus far.

Strong Wisconsin Reform

Mark's reform is summed up as part of a 5 Point plan.  Why 5 points?  Because 14 points is apparently too many to work, and 5 points fits on your hand. I really don't know.  The first thing I see as I read Mark's Five Point Plan is that it really boils down to "supporting someone else doing something".  He will "ask" the legislature to amend it's rules and require five days of public review before a vote on a bill.  He will personally promise to limit himself to two terms (I'll believe it when I see it) and support term limits if passed by the legislature.  He will support the concept of allowing ballot initiatives (more on that later).  Pretty much every point in his "reform plan" involves him saying "pretty please with cherries and sprinkles on top" to someone else.

I understand that this is a tough row to hoe.  As President Obama found out, you can promise the world as a candidate for an executive office, but you are often times hamstrung by what the legislature does.  After all, in our system of government, the legislature passes the laws and the executive (Governor in this case) is in charge of carrying them out.  With that said, there are certain things that an executive can do to reform government using the powers of his office.  Unfortunately, none of the things he mentions really fit that bill.  Moreover, none of these concepts are very new.  Not that they're all necessarily bad (a 5 day review period is generally good), but when you combine old ideas with a lack of a proactive plan, it leaves me pretty unimpressed.  Many of these ideas could be turned into a proactive plan.  For instance, a promise to veto any bill that has not had a 5 day review period would be a way for the governor to enforce certain ideas, instead of simply suggesting a rule change to the legislature.

Citizen referendums, though a popular idea among many, are simply a bad, bad idea.  Zach of Blogging Blue does a good job of covering the issue.  The primary problem with ballot initiatives can be seen in California.  In that state, people tend to create initiatives that require the legislature to do something (usually an expensive something), but don't include a way to pay for it.  The legislature is then bound to implement the ballot initiative, and also figure out a way to pay for it.  That is one of many reasons why California has a massive budget deficit.  Granted, California has one of the highest (if not the highest) percentage of public sector employees belonging to a union than any other state which probably causes more problems.  The salary and benefits of the unionized public sector vs. non-unionized public sector is insane.

Walker's Plan

Scott's reform doesn't have a fancy name, but it does have 5 points!  It must be good then.  Scott is a little more vague than Mark in how he'd carry out some of his reforms (which I didn't realize was possible), but all the things that Scott mentions are at least things a Governor can do.  Never once do I read "ask the legislature to".  That's a good thing, because it means that Scott can be directly held accountable for the things he says he'll do in office... and he can actually do them!

These things include using General Accepted Accounting Principles during budget creation, "stripping policy and pork" from the budget (I assume through judicious use of the line item veto, but I'd like to see that specifically mentioned), and the pledge to end raids on segregated funds.  I would simply like to see more details behind the concepts.  For instance:

Start the state budget at zero. Just because a government program has a vocal constituency and a high-priced lobbyist does not mean it should continue, let alone receive automatic funding increases. Every dollar spent should be scrutinized and justified, not simply given a blind percentage increase.

Well, how will it be scrutinized and how will it have to be justified?  I understand that websites and campaigns are bad platforms for delivering details, but come one... give me something.  It's way too easy to just say "we'll cut the pork" or "I'll go over the budget with a fine toothed comb".  Maybe the campaign could list a few examples from the current budget that Scott would have scrutinized and decided to veto, along with an explanation as to why.

Barrett's Plan

I'm not sure what Tom's plan is, or if he even has one. His website has nothing but his announcement to run for governor, and a place to send money.  He may not have a plan to reform government, or it could be that his plan will include a pledge to have cute kittens perform line item vetoes with ink stained paws.  We'll see, and I'll be sure to post about it when it appears.