Coulee Conservatives from multiple counties gathered for a workshop recently to study the issues that matter most to voters. Here is the summary of their findings

Topic 1: Property Taxes

• Stop wasting money; stop funding “nice-to-have” items before core services.
• Re-focus government on core services: “keep the lights on,” roads/streets, water & sewer/utilities, trash pickup, public safety (fire/police), emergency services, snow removal (as part of streets).
• Limit new parks; acknowledge long-term maintenance costs as a major budget driver.
• Reduce over-regulation because regulations increase costs (and can suppress growth).
• Shift more non-core social support to charities/community where they’re more efficient; government “gets out of the way.”
• Education as a property-tax driver: referendums; rising costs despite declining enrollment.
• Concern about growth in administrative overhead (more vice principals/admin roles) vs classroom needs.
• Seniors/fixed-income pressure: taxes keep rising even after mortgage is paid; discuss age-based exemption or property tax freeze/lock after a threshold (e.g., 65+).
• Assessment “game”: levy/mill rate messaging vs rising assessed values; perception that budgets are set first, then assessments/mill rates are adjusted to hit the target.
• Need for clearer public understanding and the ability to dispute assessments.

Property taxes were treated as the most immediate, “at-the-door” issue—especially for homeowners who feel trapped by annual increases even after paying off their mortgage. The group framed the solution set around budget discipline and scope control: local government should prioritize essential services (roads, utilities, public safety, trash, snow removal) and avoid expanding into discretionary projects that create permanent maintenance obligations. A recurring theme was that taxpayers end up funding programs many never use, and that a “match” model (voluntary giving + community support) could replace some tax-funded spending when there is genuine demand.

A second thread focused on structural drivers: education costs and the administration-heavy growth inside school systems, referendums, and the mismatch between declining enrollment and rising budgets. Participants also emphasized the assessment process—how higher assessed values can yield higher bills even when mill rates fall, and the belief that municipalities set budgets first and then “find the money” via assessments. Proposed relief ideas (tax freezes/locks for seniors, exemptions at a certain age) were framed as fairness measures for fixed-income residents who can’t absorb compounding increases.

Topic 2: National Defense

• Re-assert Monroe Doctrine posture / regional hemispheric focus.
• Greenland discussed strategically (missile defense “Golden Dome” concept, minerals, strategic space).
• Western Hemisphere trade/logistics: build stronger regional economic and security alignment vs global shipping dependencies.
• Venezuela/cartels framed as “narco-terrorist” threats; Mexico and Cuba mentioned as watch-list concerns.
• Fix procurement and contracting: more competition, less lobbyist-driven capture; avoid over-reliance on a small contractor set.
• Reform budgeting: reject “spend it all to keep it” incentives; preference for zero-based budgeting (justify needs from zero).
• Military action doctrine: clear objectives, “in and out,” mission-focused, minimize open-ended engagements (Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam cited as cautionary).
• “Peace through strength” as overarching principle; deterrence can be elite capability (SOF, strategic assets) not only massive systems.
• Fort McCoy: national defense value + regional economic impact; training scale and customer-service model for Guard/Reserve.

National defense discussion blended geopolitics with procurement realism. Strategically, participants gravitated toward a hemispheric orientation (Monroe Doctrine language), tying security to trade and logistics advantages in the Americas. The idea was less “throw weight around” and more: stabilize and secure the neighborhood, reduce vulnerability created by long supply chains, and treat narco-terror networks and hostile regimes (Venezuela, Cuba, and indirectly Iran) as legitimate threats to U.S. interests.

Operationally, the group emphasized two “how government works” fixes: contracting competition and budgeting incentives. They argued the defense industrial base should be broader and more agile—closer to the WWII-era mindset where many manufacturers could pivot quickly—rather than a closed ecosystem dominated by lobbyists and entrenched contractors. Budget discipline was framed as essential to reducing waste and corruption, with zero-based budgeting raised as a concrete method. Finally, they emphasized credible deterrence and clarity of mission: strong capability, clear objectives, execute, and exit—paired with recognition of Fort McCoy’s unique readiness value and economic footprint in the region.

Topic 3: Immigration

• “Shut it down / keep the border closed” as immediate policy preference; enforce immigration laws.
• Moratorium concept mentioned.
• Strong linkage between immigration and law & order (crime, enforcement, sanctuary conflicts).
• Census concern: census counts residents (citizens and non-citizens); insistence that only citizens vote, but residents still drive spending needs.
• Redistricting principles: districts should be compact/block-shaped and reflect shared interests; frustration with “screwy” maps that mix rural and urban communities.
• Visa overstays (work/student visas) should be enforced; no pass for ignoring rules.
• Perceived impacts on young families: wages, housing affordability, benefits competition, and fairness.
• Critique of “sanctuary” posture: local/state resistance forces higher federal enforcement burden.
• Concern about employer abuse via visa programs (cycling workers; regulatory arbitrage); harms citizens and migrants.

Immigration was treated as both a sovereignty issue and a kitchen-table economics issue. Participants repeatedly returned to enforcement: border control, visa compliance, and consequences for overstays. They framed current dysfunction as downstream of selective enforcement and “sanctuary” politics that complicate cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies. The group also tied immigration to representation mechanics—census counts influence redistricting and political power, while public services and welfare burdens track total residents, not just citizens. That produced a consistent refrain: only citizens should vote, and representation systems should not incentivize policies that expand non-citizen counts for political gain.

The conversation also emphasized second-order effects: housing affordability, wage pressure, and reduced opportunity for young families trying to buy homes and start stable lives. Several comments argued that current systems create leverage over visa holders (and encourage employer abuse) while simultaneously disadvantaging citizens through subsidized competition. The redistricting discussion reinforced the broader theme: systems and incentives matter—whether it’s immigration enforcement, map-drawing, or how population is counted and translated into seats and political power.

Topic 4: Law and Order (Judiciary, Accountability, and Election Integrity)

• “Law and order” defined broadly: not just policing, but courts, prosecutors, and equal enforcement of the law.
• Judges releasing repeat offenders; perceived lack of consequences; bail concerns.
• “Activist judges” / judges legislating from the bench; judges should judge, legislators should legislate.
• “Judicial oligarchy” mindset: courts acting beyond their proper branch authority; recusal concerns raised as a principle.
• Need more conservatives/constitutional conservatives to run for judicial offices; build a “farm team” / bench.
• Bar association and legal profession perceived as ideologically imbalanced; question of how to restore balance.
• Legislature’s role: should “step up” and use oversight/record-making tools; co-equal branches should check each other.
• Accountability theme repeated: unequal treatment (Democrats “get away with it,” Republicans face harsher consequences).
• “Profile arrests” / high-visibility accountability as deterrence concept (discussed as a political/justice-system dynamic).
• Election integrity explicitly added: verifiable elections, trustworthy elections, voter ID/proof concepts referenced earlier, and candidates should be pressed for plans.
• Broader civic call: proactive citizens should interrogate candidates; candidates should be given concrete issue lists and asked to respond.

This topic had the strongest emotional intensity because it combined personal safety, fairness, and institutional legitimacy. Participants described a gap between what citizens expect—neutral rules, predictable consequences—and what they perceive is happening in practice: repeat offenders released, inconsistent bail decisions, and courts behaving like political actors. The core diagnosis wasn’t simply “crime,” but a systems failure across the justice pipeline: policing, prosecution, and especially adjudication. They used “activist judges” and “judicial oligarchy” language to argue the judiciary is stepping outside its lane, and that the checks-and-balances mechanism isn’t being exercised forcefully enough by the other branches.

They then pivoted to solutions and capacity-building: recruit and develop more conservative legal talent to run for judicial seats; create a “farm team” so races aren’t left uncontested; and apply political pressure by forcing issues onto the record through legislation and sustained campaigning. Election integrity was grouped here as a legitimacy anchor—participants argued that without verifiable, trustworthy elections, other reforms are fragile. A key operational takeaway was tactical: distribute a clean executive summary of these concerns to candidates and to proactive citizens, so voters ask sharper questions and candidates move beyond generic slogans into measurable commitments (accountability mechanisms, judicial philosophy, enforcement cooperation, and election safeguards).