I’ve observed artificial intelligence accomplishing some remarkable feats in recent years, especially in healthcare. Researchers at Johns Hopkins, for example, are developing algorithms that can speed cancer diagnoses and, potentially, save lives.
Advances like these made me wonder if AI could also offer real-world solutions to complicated civic matters, such as Milwaukee County’s looming budget deficit. Curiosity got the better of me, so I turned to Perplexity AI’s Deep Research Mode to see how it would tackle a regional budget gap projected to reach nearly $50 million by 2026.
After feeding the system a briefing from the Wisconsin Policy Forum, the AI produced a detailed, 70-plus-page set of proposals ranging from transit restructuring to public-private sponsorships and consolidated county services. At first glance, it seemed like a treasure trove of fresh ideas.
Still, I wondered whether anything in the document was truly workable. Enter Rob Henken, the immediate past president of the Wisconsin Policy Forum, which has analyzed local government finances for decades. I asked him to review the AI-generated report, hoping to learn which ideas might have merit and which were more blue-sky than practical.
He was quick to point out that while the AI nailed several core issues — like skyrocketing overtime costs in public safety and the need for modernized revenue streams — its recommendations overlooked the emotional and political realities behind big decisions.
“Budgeting isn’t just an intellectual exercise,” Henken told me. “It’s also a value-laden exercise. You can’t fix the numbers without facing what the community wants or what’s mandated by state law.”
One of the AI’s most eye-catching suggestions was boosting revenue through naming rights for county parks and expanded advertising on buses and shelters. Henken acknowledged these steps might generate some extra dollars but cautioned that they’ve been tried before with modest success.
“It might help a bit,” he said, “but you’re still looking at a substantial shortfall, so you have to be realistic about how far sponsorships can go.”
The report also proposed consolidating certain county functions. In theory, that could streamline operations. But, as Henken noted, merging services frequently runs up against local traditions, resident concerns, and legitimate political hesitations.
“On paper, it might look optimal,” he explained, “but there’s a difference between balancing a spreadsheet and navigating the community’s priorities.”
Ultimately, the AI experiment didn’t yield a foolproof plan to close Milwaukee County’s deficit. Yet the exercise proved surprisingly valuable.
While I didn’t come away with an instant cure, I did gain a deeper insight into how civic budgeting works. Through its blend of data analysis and sweeping ideas, the AI gave me a crash course in everything from payroll pressures to state-imposed tax limitations.
Henken underscored that Milwaukee County’s true way forward lies in finding ways to contain costs without undercutting core services — an effort sure to demand both strong political will and thoughtful compromise among citizens, elected officials, and civic leaders.
“It’s not always popular or easy,” he added, “but at some point, real change means making decisions people may not like.”
In the end, AI showed me that technology on its own can’t solve human problems that involve deep-seated emotions, community values and legislative constraints. Even so, the fresh perspective was worth the effort.
By offering a broad range of potential solutions — no matter how partial — this experiment spurred new conversations about our local challenges. That, in itself, is an encouraging step toward more informed dialogue.
And just as AI holds great promise in speeding cancer diagnoses, it might also help us move faster in identifying ways to tackle other pressing concerns—so long as we remember that the final decisions rest with the people and institutions most affected.
