logo
Governor signs budget in early morning to secure Medicaid funds

Governor signs budget in early morning to secure Medicaid funds

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers signed a new two-year budget in the early morning hours Thursday in a race against Congress to ensure the state gets a federal Medicaid match that it would lose under President Trump's tax and spending cuts package.
In an extraordinarily rapid succession of events, Evers and Republican lawmakers unveiled a compromise budget deal on Tuesday, the Senate passed it Wednesday night and hours later just before 1 a.m. on Thursday the Assembly passed it. Evers signed it in his conference room minutes later.
Democrats who voted against the $111 billion spending bill said it didn't go far enough in meeting their priorities of increasing funding for schools, child care and expanding Medicaid. But Evers, who hasn't decided on whether he will seek a third term, hailed the compromise as the best deal that could be reached.
'I believe most Wisconsinites would say that compromise is a good thing because that is how government is supposed to work,' Evers said.
Wisconsin's budget would affect nearly every person in the battleground state. Income taxes would be cut for working people and retirees by $1.4 billion, sales taxes would be eliminated on residential electric bills and it would cost more to get a driver's license, buy license plates and title a vehicle.
Unprecedented speed
There was urgency to pass the budget because of one part that increases an assessment on hospitals to help fund the state's Medicaid program and hospital provider payments. Medicaid cuts up for final approval this week in Congress cap how much states can get from the federal government through those fees.
The budget would increase Wisconsin's assessment rate from 1.8% to the federal maximum of 6% to access federal matching funds. But if the federal bill is enacted first, Wisconsin could not raise the fee, putting $1.5 billion in funding for rural hospitals at risk.
In the rush to get done, Republicans took the highly unusual move of bringing the budget up for votes on the same day. In at least the past 50 years, the budget has never passed both houses on the same day.
'We need to get this thing done today so we have the opportunity to access federal funding,' Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said at the start of debate just before 8 p.m. Wednesday.
Governors typically take several days to review and sign the budget after it's passed but Evers took just minutes.
Bipartisan compromise
In a concession to the Democratic governor, Republicans also agreed to spend more money on special education services in K-12 schools, subsidize child care costs and give the Universities of Wisconsin its biggest increase in nearly two decades. The plan would also likely result in higher property taxes in many school districts due to no increase in general aid to pay for operations.
The budget called for closing a troubled aging prison in Green Bay by 2029, but Evers used his partial veto to strike that provision. He left in $15 million in money to support the closure, but objected to setting a date without a clear plan for how to get it done.
Republicans need Democratic votes
The Senate passed the budget 19-14, with five Democrats joining with 14 Republicans to approve it. Four Republicans joined 10 Democrats in voting no. The Assembly passed it 59-39 with six Democrats in support. One Republican voted against it.
Democratic senators were brought into budget negotiations in the final days to secure enough votes to pass it.
'It's a bipartisan deal,' Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein said before the vote. 'I think everybody left the table wishing it was different, but this is something everyone has agreed on.'
Democrats said newly drawn legislative maps, which helped them pick up seats in November and narrow the Republican majorities, led to greater compromise this year.
'That gave us leverage, that gave us an opportunity to have a conversation,' Democratic Sen. Mark Spreitzer said.
But still, Spreitzer said the budget 'fell far short of what was needed on our priorities.' He and other Democrats said it didn't go enough to help fund child care, K-12 schools and higher education, in particular.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler will run for reelection, not for New York governor
GOP Rep. Mike Lawler will run for reelection, not for New York governor

Yahoo

timea few seconds ago

  • Yahoo

GOP Rep. Mike Lawler will run for reelection, not for New York governor

NEW YORK — Republican Rep. Mike Lawler Wednesday announced he'll skip the New York governor's race and will instead run for reelection in his Westchester County-based swing congressional district. 'After months of deliberating over this and really working through it, I've decided the right thing to do for me and my family and my district is to run for reelection,' Lawler said. The two-term moderate Republican said he wants to help the GOP by running to hold onto the suburban swing district, which is considered one of the most competitive battlegrounds in the entire nation. 'I'm proud to run for reelection on my record and win next November and keep the House Republican majority,' Lawler added. Democrats mocked Lawler for chickening out of the governor's race, with Hochul tweeting that he 'doesn't have the spine to face me.' A crowded field of Democrats has already lined up for the chance to take on Lawler, whose NY-17 district is one of just three in the nation that elected a Republican to the House but backed Kamala Harris over Donald Trump. The challengers include Rockland County legislator Beth Davidson and Army veteran Cait Conley. Lawler was a key vote to pass Trump's unpopular Big Beautiful Bill, which included draconian cuts to health spending to fund outsized tax cuts for the rich. He claimed a side win in the bill by convincing Republicans to raise the cap on deducting SALT, or state and local taxes, to $40,000 from $10,000. Democrats say he welched on promises to eliminate it altogether. Lawler burst onto the political scene by toppling ex-Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney in the 2022 midterms in a race that featured a round of internal Democratic bickering following a redistricting battle that changed the district somewhat. In 2024, he easily turned aside a comeback effort from Democratic ex-Rep. Mondaire Jones, who held the seat previously. Lawler's decision is a boost to the no-holds-barred effort by President Trump and his Republican allies to hold onto their narrow House majority in the forthcoming midterm elections. The GOP holds a 219-212 edge, with four vacancies, three of which are in strongly Democratic districts. The party in power typically loses House seats in the first midterm elections after a president takes office, which would suggest a grim prognosis for the GOP, especially with Trump's approval ratings dipping into the low 40% range. But Trump is pushing Republicans to unilaterally redraw congressional district lines in states they control, most notably Texas and Ohio, which could yield close to 10 additional Republican seats. Democrats might counter by doing the same in blue states, potentially even New York, although the process looks legally trickier for them. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, could now be a frontrunner for the GOP gubernatorial primary race. Republicans will also be keen to defend her far upstate district, but it should be an easier lift as it voted for Trump by a margin of about 20 points in 2024.

Democrats can rebuild government by learning from how Trump has destroyed it
Democrats can rebuild government by learning from how Trump has destroyed it

The Hill

time2 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Democrats can rebuild government by learning from how Trump has destroyed it

We know the tragic effects of President Trump's dismantling of the federal government. Social Security service delivery are in crisis. Calls to the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the wake of disaster go unanswered. Rural hospitals brace for a loss of federal support. And now congressional Republicans are surrendering the power of the purse to further hobble core government services by choking off funding. But the truth is, Trump alone didn't break the federal government. He is putting the devastating capstone on a decades-long conservative project of undermining its capacity to function: underfunding agencies, outsourcing expertise, layering on procedural hurdles, stacking courts with partisan allies, and eroding public trust. Long before Trump took office, the result was a government that couldn't move quickly, deliver boldly or meet the needs of the people it was supposed to serve. And when the government is unable to visibly respond to people's discontent and aspirations within the timeframe of an electoral mandate, the legitimacy of democracy itself erodes. If Democrats truly believe in the power of government to improve people's lives, they should be cautious about reverting to pre-Trump institutions. Our time in the Biden-Harris administration taught us that the federal government wasn't meeting the needs of middle- or working-class people long before the 2024 election. What was left of it has now been intentionally sabotaged. If we want to implement a bold policy agenda in the future — one that truly creates agency, power and opportunity for people who don't have it — we have to start planning now to build the basic infrastructure for a government that's much more responsive to and resonant with ordinary Americans, not the monied few. For too long, Democrats have been stuck in a vicious cycle of playing catch-up in a game with existential stakes. Phase one: Republicans dismantle government programs and services and trigger economic crises through their laissez-faire approach to governance. Phase two: Democrats retake power, and then scramble to steer a hobbled system back to the status quo. Phase three: Democrats fail to deliver the visible change the electorate craves, Republicans retake power, and the cycle repeats. What has to change? We need to confront a hard truth: Despite good intentions and tireless efforts from appointees and civil servants alike, the old tools and norms have not worked. Administrative rulemaking has been too slow, fragile, and captured by well-resourced industries to meaningfully serve the public interest. Major policies passed with fanfare took four or more years to show results — long after voters were asked to judge them. Meanwhile, activist courts stacked by the right delayed or dismantled even modest reforms. Agencies were afraid to antagonize the powerful industries they were supposed to oversee, or to take an investment risk and face public failure. Enforcement against corporate lawbreaking was underfunded and slow. Outsourcing of core government functions made private contractors rich even when their performance was shoddy. And far too often, the government was a distant, impenetrable behemoth that piled paperwork on Americans, instead of proactively listening to them to understand their needs and deliver frictionless services in response. We can't win back faith in government with policies that are invisible, delayed or drowned in process. We need a new playbook — one that matches the urgency of the moment and the acuteness of people's needs. One that learns, paradoxically, from the relentlessness of Trump and his allies. What they've demonstrated is that the rules and norms constraining government action aren't fixed laws of nature. They're conventions — and they can be changed. If there's no political cost for ignoring them in the service of corporate power and oligarchic corruption, there should be even less fear about changing them to make government work better for ordinary people. Democrats should take the lesson: Flip the risk profile. Go big or go home. That means reorganizing policymaking around speed, visibility and political resonance. It means building teams around outcome-driven missions — not statutes, institutional bias or risk-averse compliance. It means treating economic, legal, outreach and communications strategy as one integrated campaign, and working much more collaboratively with our state and local government partners and community-based organizations. It means starting work long before Day One with the understanding that we will need to simultaneously build and deliver: pre-drafting policies, mapping authorities, recruiting top-flight talent and identifying the signature priorities for each agency that will show up in people's lives within a single term. These are unified campaign-style operations, not bureaucratic ones. And it means breaking free from the norms that keep the government mired in caution. Abolish or radically retool obsolete veto gates, such as the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Limit judicial meddling in economic policy choices made by political leaders accountable to the people, and refocus courts on protecting individual liberties. Make the government great to work for again, and repopulate it with technologists, statisticians, product managers, service designers, community organizers and movement lawyers. Clean out the procedural clutter that saps time and bandwidth. We've seen what gets in the way. Now it's time to start clearing it. Importantly, when we act, we must act boldly. During the last administration, the types of policies that resonated were the big, simple, universal ones: a cap on insulin prices, a ban on junk fees, an end to noncompetes, a free, easy way to file your taxes. These were policies designed to be tangible, memorable and swift — and they addressed economic frustrations that transcend partisan lines. That's not just good economics. It's good politics. It's good democracy. Policies must provide proof that the government can still work for ordinary people, not just large corporations or insiders. For too long, Democrats have tried to govern within a framework designed to thwart them and to protect entrenched interests. Trump simply ignored it. If we want to change that trajectory for government, we need to be just as fearless and bold in building a new framework as Republicans have been in destroying the old one. If Democrats want to lead, the party must demonstrate that the government can — and will — continue to change lives for the better. Let's stop trying to tinker with a broken machine. Let's start building one that actually works.

Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'
Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'

The Hill

time2 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Trump reacts to Tulsi Gabbard reveal: ‘Irrefutable proof of Obama coup'

President Donald Trump is furious with former President Barack Obama, whom he is accusing of participating in a 'coup' against him in 2016. Trump is referring of course to recent disclosures from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who has released documents showing it was Obama who encouraged intelligence officials to reach stronger conclusions about Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 election. According to Gabbard, the intelligence community was well aware that Russia did not hack voting machines, nor did the country have much impact on the outcome, but Trump's enemies in the Democratic Party wanted to paint him as a Russian collaborator, and so they overreached. The media, of course, followed suit, publishing headline after headline suggesting that Trump was a Russian stooge. Here is President Trump reacting to the latest news: 'We found absolute — this isn't like evidence, this is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious. That Obama was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton and with all these other people, but Obama headed it up. And, you know, I get a kick when I hear everyone talks about people I never even heard of. […] It was Obama, he headed it up. And it says so right in the papers.' These allegations are extremely serious. Now, it's far too premature to throw around the word treason; in fact, I don't like when anybody, Democrat or Republican, starts accusing their opponents of treason. This reads less like treason to me and more like political weaponization of national intelligence for partisan purposes, which has become a recurring theme. Make no mistake: There was an effort to de-legitimize Trump's election to the presidency, and the argument was made by mainstream media mouthpieces leveraging the expertise of deep-state spymasters. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter both said that Trump was an illegitimate president, in response to media reporting on Russia's meddling. This was the original 'stolen election' theory, and it's only been overshadowed because Trump's false contention that the 2016 election was stolen has subsequently received much more media coverage and much more vigorous pushback. Let me be perfectly clear: Trump should have never claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from him. But he's in good company: Look at the Democrats who said the same thing about 2016! And their main theory backing that up was Russian malfeasance — something intelligence officials privately discounted, until they went to the White House and had a chat with outgoing President Barack Obama.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store