On Nov. 14 Walker vetoed the entire 2007 budget proposal after the board made its amendments. The board retaliated by overriding Walker's veto 14-5 Wednesday. A two-thirds majority was needed to override the veto.,”

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors showed last week that "hardball" is the name of the game in county politics.

On Nov. 14 Walker vetoed the entire 2007 budget proposal after the board made its amendments. The board retaliated by overriding Walker's veto 14-5 Wednesday. A two-thirds majority was needed to override the veto.

"What's silly is that the county executive and most supervisors agree on 99 percent of the budget," said Harold Mester, public information manager for the board. "They're debating about $8.4 million, which is only 1 percent of the budget."

On Sept. 28, Walker presented his budget proposal to the board. The board revised the plan, reinstating positions that Walker said he eliminated to save money. The budget was then sent back to the county executive for a signature or a veto.

The positions Walker tried to eliminate are held by county employees, including jobs in the district attorney's office and security in the county courthouse. With the board's revision, these positions were reinstated and many other changes made by Walker were reversed, meaning the 2007 budget remains essentially unchanged from the previous year.

According to Rod McWilliams, director of communications for the county executive, Walker has a line-item veto power, which means he can only veto items he dislikes, not add propositions to the budget.

Walker took an unprecedented step when, instead of using his line-item veto power, he vetoed the entire budget in one fell swoop. County Supervisor Michael Mayo Sr. of the Seventh District called Walker's move "political grandstanding" and said it was the first time in the history of Milwaukee County that an entire county budget has been vetoed.

"If he had vetoed certain parts line by line I would have worked with him to create a budget we agree on," Mayo said.

McWilliams said Walker had fundamental issues with the board's changes, especially the tax raise and the deficit created when the board restored jobs that Walker eliminated. McWilliams said the reinstated positions were not adequately funded past the three-month mark.

"It's like buying a house you can't afford and saying you'll pay for it when you win the lottery," McWilliams said. "It could happen, but it probably won't."

According to Mester, not fully funding the positions is a strategic negotiating tool. Certain unions have not agreed to the health care plan that other county employees are on. If union members agree to the plan, $6.5 million will be freed up to fund their jobs in 2007, he said.

"This is not us putting money back in just to put money back in," Mayo said. "We are putting in money for safety, transportation and veterans."

Mayo, who voted to override Walker's veto, said budget deficits are not a big concern for Walker when there are deficits in his own budgets.

"The county executive's budget always has deficits," Mayo said. "He loves to play with numbers and usually he must work with the board to alleviate the deficit."

Had the board upheld Walker's veto, Mester said the board would have had only one week to create a new budget from the ground up. The board needs to notify local municipalities about tax plans so that citizens can receive tax information by the start of the new year.

"Had the county executive used a line-item veto, it would have been possible to rework it," Mester said.

McWilliams said Walker has made it clear he is unhappy with the board's vote but that Walker will do what is necessary to make the budget work.

"The decision was made and now we have to live with this budget," McWilliams said.

“