Just don't expect the pieces to neatly add up.

The candidates and their surrogates are waging an escalating war of words over who might spend or tax more, based on plans released late last week in response to a Journal Sentinel request. Both candidates take great pains to insist they wouldn't raise taxes, but they each challenge the other on that point.

The clash has included McCallum repeatedly denouncing Doyle for not taking into account the cost of new and expanded programs that Doyle has said he supports as part of his budget-balancing plan. And Doyle has dissed McCallum for "fanciful" figures for gleaning new revenue from Indian tribes and the federal government.

Here's how some of that shakes out:

Q.McCallum claims and Doyle denies that Doyle supports $2.7 billion in new spending for the next budget. Who's right?

A.The McCallum claim is based on his review of Doyle positions such as expanding health care for the poor, reducing school class sizes, increasing state support for special education costs and numerous other changes.

Doyle campaign director Bill Christofferson said the figures McCallum attributed to his programs were arbitrary and in some instances grossly inflated. Furthermore, Doyle is not advocating immediate implementation of his entire campaign "agenda for change," Christofferson said.

"I think it is unlikely that you are going to see major changes in his first budget, in terms of new spending initiatives," if Doyle is elected, Christofferson said.

McCallum said he stood by his estimates of Doyle's new spending. If Doyle now says he's not going to start the new programs next year, that casts doubt on his promise not to raise taxes, McCallum said.

"Are they empty promises? He has said this is his commitment to the public," McCallum said in an interview. "Has he gone to all these interest groups and said, 'Oh, it's 50 years down the line?' Come on."

The descriptions Doyle gave in his campaign agenda for program expansions are often not specific, and Doyle does not list cost estimates.

Todd Berry, president of the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said he couldn't judge the accuracy of McCallum's estimate of Doyle's plan. "I'm not saying I believe it or don't believe it. I'm saying there isn't enough detail to judge it."

Q:Doyle keeps saying McCallum has "wasted" the state's entire multibillion-dollar tobacco lawsuit settlement, that it's "gone forever" and that Wisconsin will never see another dime of it. True?

A:Not exactly. Bottom line: Nobody knows for sure if all of the money will be used for this year's budget fix or whether a substantial chunk may be left over.

McCallum did sign into law a budget-balancing bill for this year's budget that sold the state's long-term settlement payments for $1.3 billion up front. But the officials who run the program say they do not expect the entire 25 years of payments to be gobbled up to cover this year's deal.

State Budget Director Dave Schmiedicke said it's true the state pledged its entire lawsuit settlement to pay off bonds that were sold to provide the quick $1.3 billion. However, the state estimates that the $150 million to $175 million in annual payments to Wisconsin from the tobacco companies should pay off the bonds by 2017. If that holds true, about $2.3 billion in tobacco payments would have gone to cover this year's budget fix, not the $6 billion figure Doyle commonly uses.

It also would mean that unencumbered annual payments would flow into the state's general coffers from 2017 forward, Schmiedicke said. He acknowledged that the worse-case scenario remains that the entire tobacco settlement gets used for this year's budget fix.

And that, along with the pledge of the full settlement to pay off the bonds, makes Doyle's claims about blowing the entire settlement accurate, according to Christofferson.

Q.McCallum is counting on a $100 million-a-year annual increase over the $23 million the state's 11 Indian tribes now pay the state for their exclusive gambling rights as a part of his budget- balancing plan. How realistic is that?

A.Not very, judging from McCallum's own comments, as well as those of tribal officials. McCallum suggested the actual number could vary.

"It may be $100 million, it may be $70 million. These are all part of the discussions taking place," he said. The tribes are looking for long-term gambling compacts with the state, higher limits on blackjack and permission to offer a full slate of casino games.

McCallum, who has adamantly ruled out approval of any additional off-reservation casinos, said he's open to discussing longer compacts and the other changes.

Schmiedicke, the state budget director, said the $100 million figure was based on raising Wisconsin's piece of the tribal gambling take from an estimated 2% to 8%, which he said was the national average.

Ray DePerry, chairman of the Red Cliff Chippewa tribe, said the $100 million increase was a huge amount that the tribes couldn't afford. He said McCallum had never mentioned the figure to tribal leaders.

"I believe he's pulling a figure out of the air," DePerry said.

Q.McCallum says he'd be able to pull in $600 million more per year from the federal government to help balance the budget, something Doyle calls doubtful. Who's right?

A.McCallum points to his success in getting federal approval for the state SeniorCare prescription drug program, which comes with some $80 million, as evidence of his prowess in securing federal money. The $600 million figure was based on the hope that the state could leverage more federal Medicaid revenue to cover care of patients in hospitals and nursing homes, Schmiedicke said.

Berry, of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said elected leaders in the Capitol have been pledging for decades -- without success -- to get Wisconsin out of its ranking as one of the worst states in terms of return on federal dollars sent to Washington.

He said it was more likely that Wisconsin would get less -- not more -- through the Medicaid funding.

Q.McCallum says he expects state tax collections to increase by more than 5% in each of the next two years, which would generate $1.8 billion in additional revenue to plug the shortfall. But Doyle calls that a phony estimate, and he is predicting 3% growth next year and 4% growth the following year. Who is right? What does it matter?

A.Every 1% in state growth brings in $110 million more in taxes -- extra cash the next governor will desperately need when he faces a $2.8 billion budget deficit by mid-2005.

Because of how that growth is computed, and compounds in the second year, Doyle and McCallum have a $700 million disagreement on this issue. McCallum's more optimistic estimate would erase $1.8 billion of the $2.8 billion deficit; Doyle's slower growth projection would erase only $1.1 billion.

Defending his estimate, McCallum's campaign advisers produce 23 annual growth projections for the nation that range from 3.2% (from Goldman Sachs & Co.) to 6.6% (from the federal Conference Board). They call their 5% growth estimate the "consensus" of all those projections.

Doyle says Wisconsin's economy simply won't rebound that fast, making the job of the next governor much harder.

Berry makes a more important point: Whether tax collections increase by 3%, 4% or 5%, growth alone won't balance the 2003-'05 budget the next governor must present to the Legislature early next year.

A footnote: Over the past 20 years, state tax collections have gone up an average of 5.5% a year, including the boom decade of the 1990s.

Q.Doyle says McCallum's proposed 2001 budget plan raised taxes by $123 million, evidence of the governor's taxing proclivities. McCallum said he really just raised University of Wisconsin tuition paid by out-of-state students. What did the governor recommend?

A.Days after moving from lieutenant governor to governor on Feb. 1, 2001, McCallum gave the Legislature a proposed 2001-'03 budget that included tax increases, UW System tuition increases and changes in other fees and licenses that would have totaled $123 million over the following two years.