Did you hear the story going around that the Weaksauce Republicans saved the recent budget session of the Wyoming Legislature from the slash-and-burn Freedom Caucus?
Pretty typical anti-Freedom Caucus spin from liberal Republicans who have forgotten which brand they're supposed to be riding for, and the few, scarce-as-Bigfoot Wyoming Democrats.
For instance, a group called “Better Wyoming” out of Laramie released its “2026 Post Session Accountability Report” recently, which contends that “lawmakers approved a two-year state budget that omits nearly all the cuts proposed by the Freedom Caucus.”
An entirely different view of the session emerges, however, in a report by Doug Gerard, of “Evidence Based Wyoming,” titled, “The Budget Wyoming Actually Got: Conservative Discernment vs. a Progressive Rubber Stamp.”
Gerard concludes, “The Freedom Caucus did not lose the 2026 session. They lost some bills – mostly on a super-majority threshold designed to filter out non-budget legislation in budget years. On the question that actually defines a budget session – how much does Wyoming spend and on what – the conservative legislators were the ones making the hard calls vote by vote, while the progressive caucus approved everything in sight.”
In a five-step statistical analysis laid out in his report, based exclusively on votes actually cast, Gerard's bottom line is good news for conservatives: The Wyoming House wanted to CUT the governor's proposed $11.1 billion budget by $113 million. The Wyoming Senate wanted to ADD $53 million to the governor's proposed budget.
And – here's the surprise - the budget conference committee agreed to CUT $53 million from the governor's proposed budget. (And, figuring he got 99 percent of what he wanted, Gordon signed the compromise budget bill.)
According to Gerard's report, Senate President Bo Biteman “was outgunned on the Senate floor, 20-to-whatever-he-could-hold. He didn't have the votes to constrain spending in his own chamber. But he used the tools he did have – conference committee appointments, his own seat at the table, and a House delegation that shared his fiscal instincts – to pull the final number lower than anyone watching the Senate floor votes would have predicted.”
Why was Biteman outgunned on the Senate floor?
Gerard's analysis finds three distinct groups in both the House and Senate.
In the House, the “Conservative Core” has a strong 25 members, most of whom are Freedom Caucus members, a “Moderate Coalition” of 13 members, and a “Progressive Caucus” of 24 members. It's tight, but the conservatives, with help from the moderates, were able to prevail in the 62-seat House.
It's a different story in the Senate, where the Conservative Core has 13 members, the Moderate Coalition has six, and the Progressive Caucus has 12. Not enough in the Conservative Core, and that explains how their version of the budget would have added $53 million to the governor's budget.
“The Senate needs different senators,” Gerard concludes, citing two specific changes that would make a big difference (using “PorkBarreler” to describe free spenders, and “BudgetGuardian” to describe spending watchdogs).
In Senate District 1, “Replacing incumbent (Ogden) Driskill with (Chip) Nieman flips a progressive caucus PorkBarreler seat to a conservative core BudgetGuardian.” Which, he writes, “is not a marginal change.”
And in Senate District 23, Gerard recommends “BudgetGuardian” Rep. Abbie Angelos to fill the seat being vacated by “PorkBarreler” Eric Barlow, who is running for governor.
As for governor, Gerard writes, “A Governor Barlow would be Governor Gordon's spending instincts with a fresh mandate.”
Megan Degenfelder, on the other hand, would be, “a conservative governor with the willingness to use the line-item vetoes as a fiscal backstop – not just as a negotiating gesture – (that) would add a layer of spending restraint that the Senate's own floor votes cannot produce,” Gerard concludes.
One last item of note. We've all heard the allegation that the House Freedom Caucus members get “marching orders” on how to vote. Democrats and RINO Republicans in the Progressive Caucus are more charitably depicted as independent thinkers who evaluate issues and tend to vote together.
But, Evidence Based Wyoming voting records show the Conservative Caucus was 93.6 percent aligned in its voting this session, and the Progressive Caucus follows close behind at 91.9 percent aligned.
If that indicates marching orders being issued for the Freedom Caucus, how do we not acknowledge the same near-unanimity among the free-spending Progressive Caucus?
So, could we stop with the “marching orders” silliness?
There's far more to the Evidence Based Wyoming reports than I can cite here, so I recommend reading them in their entirety at evidencebasedwyoming.com. Trust me on this: It's a good read.
While you're at it, check out whether the person you've been voting for is actually riding for your conservative Republican brand.
Or, if your alleged Republican actually votes like a Democrat.
Dave Simpson can be contacted at davesimpson145@hotmail.com
