GOP legislators approve $220 million increase for special education, $1.3 billion in tax cuts
Joint Finance Co-Chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that he would tell advocates who wanted the 60% rate that the state budget has to be 'right-sized' and 'affordable.' (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)
After many delays, the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee met Thursday evening to approve its plan for K-12 education spending that included a 5% increase to special education funding for schools and its $1.3 billion tax plan that targets retirees and middle-income earners.
Lawmakers on the powerful budget-writing committee went back and forth for nearly three hours about the plans with Republicans saying they made significant investments in education and would help Wisconsinites while Democrats argued the state should do more for schools.
The committee approved a total of about $336 million total in new general purpose revenue for Wisconsin's K-12 schools — only about 10% of Gov. Tony Evers' proposed $3.1 billion in new spending.
Special education costs will receive the majority of the allocation with an additional $220 million that will be split between the general special education reimbursement and a subset of high-cost special education services.
The special education reimbursement funding includes $77.2 million in the first year of the budget, which will bring the rate at which the state reimburses school districts to an estimated 35%, and $151 million in the second year bringing the rate to an estimated 37.5%. It's well below the $1.13 billion or 60% reimbursement for special education that Evers had proposed and that advocates had said was essential to place school districts back on a sustainable funding path.
Education advocates spent the last week lobbying for the additional funding — and warning lawmakers about the financial strain on districts and the resources the students could lose. Ahead of the meeting Thursday, Democrats and a coalition of Wisconsin parents of students with disabilities spoke to the urgent need for additional investment in the state's general special education reimbursement rate.
'Everywhere we've gone in the state of Wisconsin, whether it's rural school districts, urban school districts, whether it's school districts that have passed referendums and those that haven't, they all say the same thing — 60% primary special education funding is absolutely necessary for our schools to succeed,' Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) said at the press conference. 'You can see that we have had a cycle of referendum throughout Wisconsin, and that cycle has to end.'
The special education reimbursement peaked at 70% in 1973, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. After falling to a low of 24.9% in 2015-16, the state's share of special education costs has been incrementally increasing with some fluctuations.
The Republican proposal represents, at maximum, about a 5% increase to the current rate by the second year. According to budget papers prepared by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the investment lawmakers made last session was meant to bring the rate to 33.3%, but because it is a sum certain rate — meaning there was only a set amount of money set aside, regardless of expanding costs — the actual rates have been 32.4% in 2023-24 and an estimated 32.1% for 2024-25.
Joint Finance Co-Chair Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said at a press conference ahead of the meeting that he would tell advocates who wanted the 60% rate that the state budget has to be 'right-sized' and 'affordable.'
'The governor's budget has always [had] reckless spending that the state can't afford, and so we're choosing to make key investments and priorities, and these investments today will be some of … the largest investments you'll see in the budget,' Born said.
The committee also added $54.5 million to bring the additional reimbursement rate for a small number of high-cost special education services to 50% in the first year of the budget and 90% in the second year. The high-cost special education program provides additional aid when costs exceed $30,000 for a single student in one year. According to DPI, in 2025 only 3% of students with disabilities fell in the high-cost special education category.
In 2024-25, the program only received $14.5 million from the state. Evers had proposed the state invest an additional $18.5 million.
Republicans on the committee insisted that they were trying to compromise and making a significant investment in schools — noting that education likely will continue being the state's top expenditure in the budget. Meanwhile, Democrats spoke extensively about the need for higher rates of investment, read messages from superintendents and students in their districts and said Republicans were not doing what people asked for.
'High needs special education funding only reaches about 3% of Wisconsin's special education students,' Rep. Deb Andraca said. 'You're getting a couple good talking points, but you're not going to get the kinds of public schools that Wisconsin kids deserve.'
During the committee meeting, Sen. Julian Bradley (R-New Berlin) criticized Democrats for saying they would vote against the proposals. He said Democrats would vote against any proposal if it isn't what they want.
'If we all voted no, we would return to base funding, which was good enough by the way for the governor last budget because he signed it,' Bradley said. 'There would be no increases, but instead we've introduced a motion which will increase funding.'
McGuire responded by saying he wouldn't vote for a proposal that is 'condemning the state to continuing the cycle of referendum,' which he said Republicans are doing by minimally increasing the special education reimbursement rate and not investing any additional money in general aid.
'Wisconsinites across the state are having to choose between raising their own property taxes' and the schools, McGuire said.
The Kenosha School District, which is in McGuire's legislative district, recently failed to pass referendum to help reduce a budget deficit. School leaders had said a significant increase in the special education reimbursement would prevent the district from having to seek a referendum again.
'They had a $19 million budget gap, and if this state went to 60% special education funding, you know roughly where we promised we would be, that would've gone down to $6 million,' McGuire said, '…$13 million of those dollars are our responsibility. That's been our failing, and we should live up to that.'
'What are we arguing about? We're putting more money in,' Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point) said.'I would think that when this gets to his desk, Evers would sign this because it is a bigger increase than any of what he proposed while he was state superintendent.'
McGuire said the investment in the high-cost special education is also good, but only applies to a small number of schools and students.
'You know, what would benefit all school districts in the state and will benefit all students who need special education? The primary special education reimbursement rate, which you put at 37.5[%], but everyone says should be at 60[%].' McGuire said. 'I don't think this is your intention, but I don't believe that we should be exchanging children who need our assistance for other children who need our assistance. Why can't we just help all of the kids who need our help?'
Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) said that the increase for high-cost special education will have a significant impact on some schools, especially smaller ones, and students, even if it's not many of them.
'To get 90% for them is huge for any of our rural districts. One child, which deserves an education, can break the bank for our small districts,' Kurtz said. 'Is it perfect? No, it's not perfect, but we have to stay within our means.'
Committee co-chair Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green) echoed Kurtz's comments saying that there will be 'a lot of districts that are going to be awful happy about that.'
'They've been worried about sometimes, a student moves into the district, and it's of incredibly high, high needs,' Marklein said.
The committee also declined to include additional general aid for school districts. Republicans on the committee said there was already a $325 per pupil increase to districts' revenue limits built into the budget from last session due to Evers' partial veto. The increase gives districts the option to raise property taxes, though it doesn't require them to, and does not include state funding for the increase.
Sen. Romaine Quinn (R-Birchwood) told lawmakers not to forget about the increase, saying the 'insulting part about that is that everyone gets it.
There are schools that don't need that,' Quinn said. '72% of my districts spend less than [the schools of] my Democratic colleagues on this panel.'
School Administrators Alliance Executive Director Dee Pettack, Wisconsin Association of School Boards Executive Director Dan Rossmiller, Southeast Wisconsin School Alliance Executive Director Cathy Olig and Wisconsin Rural Schools Alliance Executive Director Jeff Eide said in a joint letter reacting to the proposal that lawmakers failed to hear the voices school leaders, parents and community and business leaders.
'While the $325 revenue limit authority exists, it is not funded by the state. Instead, it is entirely borne by local property taxpayers. In addition, school districts will not see the requested support in special education,' the leaders stated. 'Because of the lack of state support in these two critical areas, school districts will be left with no choice but to ask their local taxpayers to step up and shoulder the costs locally, regardless of their ability to pay.'
The leaders said the state was investing minimally and school districts will continue to struggle to fund mandated primary special education programs.
State Superintendent Jill Underly called the Republicans' proposal 'irresponsible' in a statement Friday and said it 'puts politics ahead of kids and disregards educators and public schools when they need support the most.'
'Our public schools desperately need and deserve funding that is flexible, spendable and predictable,' Underly said. 'This budget fails to deliver on all three. Once again, those in power had an opportunity to do right by Wisconsin's children — and once again, they turned their backs on them.'
The committee also approved $30 million for the state's choice school programs, $20 million for mental health services in school, $250,000 for robotics league grants, $750,000 for a single school, the Lakeland STAR Academy (a provision that Evers vetoed last session), $100,000 for Special Olympics Wisconsin, $3 million for public library system aid, $500,000 for recovery high schools and $500,000 for Wisconsin Reading Corps.
Republican lawmakers also approved tax cuts of about $1.3 billion for the budget Thursday evening after 8 p.m., including changes to the income tax brackets and a cut for retirees in Wisconsin.
Born and Marklein said the cuts would help retirees and other Wisconsinites afford to stay in the state.
'These are average, hard-working people in our state that will benefit from our tax cut,' Marklein said.
The income tax change will allow more people to qualify for the second tax bracket with a rate of 4.4% by raising the qualifying maximum income to $50,480 for single filers, $67,300 for joint filers and $33,650 for married-separate filers. This will reduce the state's revenues by $323 million in 2025-26 and $320 million in 2026-27.
People currently eligible for the second tax bracket include: single filers making between $14,680 and $29,370, joint filers making between $19,580 and $39,150 and married separate filers making between $9,790 and $19,580.
Wisconsin Republicans have been seeking another significant tax cut since the last budget cycle when Evers vetoed their proposals. After the rejection, Republicans started to narrow their tax cuts proposals to focus on retirees and a couple of other groups with the hope of getting Evers' approval. When negotiations on this year's budget reached an impasse, Evers had said he was willing to support Republicans' tax goals, but he wanted agreements from them, too.
The proposal also includes an exclusion from income taxes for retirees that would reduce the state's revenues by $395 million in 2025-26 and $300 million in 2026-27.
'This isn't a high-income oriented kind of thing,' Marklein said during the meeting. 'It just helps a lot of average people in the state of Wisconsin, so it's very good tax policy.'
Democrats appeared unimpressed with the tax proposal.
The Legislative Fiscal Bureau told lawmakers that the income tax change would lead to about a maximum impact of $253 annually for married joint filers, $190 annually for single filers and $127 for married separate filers.
'So roughly $5 a week for a married couple,' McGuire said.
McGuire said that Democrats just have the perspective that Wisconsin could invest more in the priorities that residents have been expressing.
'We heard from a lot of people about what they need,' McGuire said in reference to school districts. 'We also know that as they've been attempting to get those funds they've had to go to referendums across the state, and… we think that's harming communities and making it more difficult for people. As a perspective, we believe that that's a good place to invest in dollars.'
The committee also voted to provide additional funding for the Wisconsin technical colleges, though it is, again, significantly less than what was requested by Evers and by the system.
The proposal will provide an additional $13 million to the system. This includes $7 million in general aid for the system of 16 technical colleges, $2 million in aid meant for grants for artificial intelligence, $3 million for grants for textbooks and nearly $30,000 to support the operations of the system.
Evers had proposed the state provide the system with $45 million in general aid
Sen. LaTonya Johnson (D-Milwaukee) said the differences between Evers' proposals and what Republicans offered were stark.
'We hear my GOP colleagues talk about worker training all the time and this is their opportunity to make sure that our technical colleges have the resources that they need to make sure that we are training an adequate workforce,' Johnson said, noting that the state could be short by 1,000 nurses (many of whom start their education in technical colleges) by 2030. 'I've never had an employer complain about having an educated workforce, not once, but I have heard employers say that Wisconsin lacks the skill sets and educational skills they need. It seems my Republican colleagues are more concerned with starving our institutions of higher education, rather than making sure they have the resources they need.'
Testin said the proposal was not a cut and that Republicans were investing in technical colleges.
'We see there's value in our technical colleges because they are working with the business community … getting students through the door quicker with less debt,' Testin said. 'Any conversations that this is a cut is just unrealistic. These are critical investments in the technical system.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Rand Paul Takes Swipe at Elon Musk Over 'Big Not So Beautiful Bill'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Senator Rand Paul took a swipe at Elon Musk's large family over President Donald Trump's top legislative proposal, which he is calling the "Big not so beautiful bill." Both Musk and Paul have expressed frustration with the bill as it stands, with Paul's dislike being focused on its impact on government debt. Paul posted on X: "The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is [sic.] that a wise use of our $$?" How about this: tweak the Big not so beautiful bill so it doesn't add so much to the debt? The legislation, as currently written, would pay someone like Elon Musk $1000 per child, and we know how prolific he is . . . No offense, Elon, but Is that a wise use of our $$? — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025 Paul did not expand on this post. The budget bill as it stands brings the Child Tax Credit (CTC) up to $2,200. This is not directly paying people to have children but is a tax incentive for people making under $200,000 a year. The libertarian senator from Kentucky may also have been referring to the children's savings program portion of the bill, which would give every child born in America between 2025 to 2028 $1,000 in an investment account. This is putting money directly to a child's account, not to their parents, so would not necessarily benefit Musk, who is father to at least 14 children, directly. Newsweek has contacted Paul via email for comment outside of working hours. From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in... From left, Senator Rand Paul talks with reporters in Russell building on Tuesday, June 17, 2025, Washington DC; Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaks at the SATELLITE Conference and Exhibition, March 9, 2020, in Washington DC. More Left: Tom Williams, Right: Susan Walsh, File/Left: CQ Roll Call via AP Images, Right: AP Photo Why It Matters Paul and Musk have been reposting each other's comments about the impact of the bill on national debt, so Paul's comment on X may have been an effort to highlight how the bill would add billions to the national debt, rather than an insult. The bill as it stands is not popular with American voters. According to a poll conducted by The Tarrance Group, which Paul has also shared, 58 percent of people agree with Musk's assertion that the budget is a "pork-filled spending bill that will massively increase the budget deficit and burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt." The Trump administration says the bill is needed to address voter priorities. It seeks to permanently extend $3.8 trillion in expiring benefits while funding Trump's mass deportation efforts with $350 billion in national security spending. Not that we should govern by poll, but it is very clear people don't want this extreme amount of debt and reckless spending — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 28, 2025 What To Know Senator Rand Paul has been one of the most outspoken Republican voices against the "Big Beautiful Bill," as it stands. The bill passed a procedural vote in the Senate on June 28, with Paul and another Republican senator, Thom Tillis, voting against it. Paul has said he would be open to voting for the bill if it did not increase the debt, but it currently stands to add over $4 trillion, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Tax cuts in the budget bill are also expected to provide more tax benefits to the rich than the working or middle class. It will extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts that resulted in reducing taxes significantly more for the top 0.1 percent, per analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute, and Brookings Institution. The White House says that the bill "delivers for the American worker" and will deliver a "Blue-Collar BOOM." It highlights measures such as a 15 percent tax cut for Americans earning between $30,000 and $80,000 per year, and no taxes on overtime or tips. Trump has also said that revenue generated from global tariffs will offset the reduction in tax revenue. The tax cuts in the bill as it stands are expected to add $4.6 trillion in debt, and tariffs are expected to generate up to $3.1 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center, the Tax Foundation, and the Yale Budget Lab. Another Republican and libertarian legislator, Representative Thomas Massie, has criticized the "omnibus" nature of the bill, as it contains everything from tax credits to AI regulation in one package. Paul has agreed with this sentiment, saying on X: "Break up the bills so we can vote on individual matters, not a bunch of things at once." What People Are Saying Senator Rand Paul on X: "I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a principle." I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to negotiate if the White House strips the massive $5 TRILLION, long-term debt ceiling increase and replaces it with short-term extensions tied to real spending reforms. Fiscal responsibility isn't a talking point. It's a… — Rand Paul (@RandPaul) June 16, 2025 Daniel Hornung, former President Joe Biden's deputy director of the National Economic Council, told The Guardian: "It's really striking that this bill is both as fiscally irresponsible as it is and regressive. People making less than $50,000 a year will actually see their incomes go down, and it's really to finance tax cuts for largely high-income people." The White House, in a June 24 statement: "President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill lowers tax rates to keep more money in Americans' pockets—PREVENTING THE LARGEST TAX HIKE IN HISTORY." What Happens Next The budget bill just passed a procedural vote in the Senate without a single Democrat vote, or Senators Paul or Tillis. It still needs to pass another simple majority vote in the Senate, with Vice President JD Vance potentially needed as a tiebreaker. Then, it will return to the House for a final vote before it can be approved by the president.


The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Late Virginia lawmaker's former chief of staff wins Democratic primary to replace him
Fairfax County Supervisor James Walkinshaw (D) has won the Democratic primary in Virginia's special election race to fill the late Rep. Gerry Connolly's (D-Va.) seat in Congress, Decision Desk HQ projects. Walkinshaw, who worked as Connolly's chief of staff for more than a decade before serving as county supervisor, emerged on Saturday from a crowded field of candidates vying for the 11th Congressional District seat. He had announced a bid to replace his former boss this spring after Connolly decided he would not seek reelection amid a battle with cancer, setting off a scramble on both sides of the aisle. The longtime lawmaker died just weeks later after endorsing Walkinshaw as his successor. 'This is not a moment for on-the-job training. We need a strong representative, experienced in addressing national issues that affect our community, who can stand up to Trump and lead from day one. I believe James Walkinshaw is that leader,' Connolly said in early May. As early voting kicked off in Old Dominion earlier this week, social media accounts for the late congressman urged Democrats to vote for Walkinshaw, calling the election 'our first chance to stand up for our workers, our schools, our democracy, and everything Gerry fought for.' The move drew some criticism online. 2024 Election Coverage Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) set a July 11 deadline for parties to pick their nominees, who will advance from Saturday's contest to square off in a Sept. 9 special election. Ten candidates were running on the Democratic side, including state Sen. Stella Pekarsky (D), state Del. Irene Shin (D), Fairfax County planning commissioner Candice Bennett, retired Navy officer Joshua Aisen, attorney Amy Roma, and attorney Leo Martinez. Seven candidates Republicans were jostling on the GOP side. The heavily Democratic district, which includes Fairfax City and much of Fairfax County in northern Virginia, went to former Vice President Kamala Harris by 34 points in the 2024 presidential election. Connolly won reelection by 34 points.


Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Clarence Page: New York's mayoral race could be a testing ground for a Democratic comeback
A seasoned veteran of Chicago politics once told me that it often takes Democrats a couple of four-year cycles out of office before they can pull their fractious factions together into a winning coalition. There's a lot of truth in that, and that's why I am not surprised to see the off-year energy and enthusiasm well up around the neophyte campaign of relatively unknown New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. Politics will often amaze you. Who would have expected in a time of wars in the Middle East, and reverberations of those conflicts across the United States, that a young Muslim American would have a fighting chance of becoming mayor of the country's largest city? Yet in New York, along came Mamdani to pull ahead of the pack in the Big Apple's Democratic mayoral primary. As Mamdani moved up through the stages of the city's ranked-choice voting from 'Zohran who?' to new prominence as a rising star among next-generation Democratic leaders, I was reminded of young, relatively unknown Barack Obama campaigning through Illinois corn country on his way to winning a hotly contested Democratic U.S. Senate primary in 2004. Obama won the Senate race, and four years later he followed the same meteoric path to win the U.S. presidency. As Obama was, Mamdani is a conventional wisdom longshot who has risen up against a racial-ethnic glass ceiling. A gregarious and jovial 33-year-old state assembly member and self-declared democratic socialist, Mamdani also may be the first major candidate to include 'rapper' on his resume. Early handicapping favored Andrew Cuomo, 67, to prevail in the primary. Cuomo, you may recall, dominated New York's politics for a decade as governor before resigning four years ago amid corruption and sexual misconduct allegations. But despite Cuomo's boatload of campaign money and endorsements by a pantheon of establishment Dems, Mamdani emerged the clear winner, confounding many regular Democrats, including some Jewish party faithful who see in the young candidate an implacable foe of the state of Israel. Many centrist observers bemoan the fact no better consensus candidate than Cuomo entered the race. Even Cuomo's allies complained that he didn't seem to have his old energy or enthusiasm about the race, and the feeling seemed to be contagious. Whatever else you may say about the ex-governor, he hardly represented a departure from the hidebound, conventional election strategies that sank the party in 2024. You know, the performance that brought out the circular firing squads as Donald Trump began his Revenge Tour of 2025. Making a big difference in the New York Democratic primary were voters who are younger and more interested in bold change on pressing bread-and-butter issues, such as New York's notoriously high rent and other high costs of Big Apple living. Mamdani appears to have a lot of ground to make up to reach older traditional Democratic voters who can't hear the label 'socialist' without having heart palpitations. The congenial Mamdani hardly comes across as threatening, but he's going to have to deal with that credibility perception with assurances he still sees something good about free market capitalism, about which he has been uncomfortably snide on occasion. He will also be called upon to state explicitly what his views are on Israel's right to exist, and on how far he's planning to commit the city of New York to oppose what he has termed the genocide in Gaza and apartheid in the territories Israel controls. These are important positions to New York voters on both sides of the question. In my view, Mamdani also needs to distance himself from the 'defund the police' movement, a misguided reaction to the very real issue of police misconduct. While New York enjoys lower crime rates than other major U.S. cities, its citizens still place a high value on law and order. There's time for Mamdani to flesh out some genuine plans for improving enforcement and helping New Yorkers feel safe, too often an under-appreciated priority in liberal politics. Mamdani is well-placed to help New Yorkers of various backgrounds work together and save their communities, beat back the 'soft on crime' stereotypes and restore the sense of safety that many recall from the days before former Mayor Rudy Giuliani went full MAGA with President Trump. Moreover, after all the hand-wringing and soul-searching that followed the Democrats' 2024 disaster, Mamdani offers a ray of hope for a recovery before the next national election cycle takes shape. Among the many postmortem conclusions in Democratic ranks is the sense that it's time for the party's old guard to step aside for a new generation. Here again, the comparison of Mamdani to Obama is apt. He is an avid and appealing campaigner. He is a compelling speaker. He articulates a point of view on kitchen-table issues that Democrats have begun ceding to right-wing populists. Even where he is arguably the most controversial — on the Israeli-Hamas conflict — he seems to place high importance on genuine dialogue based on common notions of justice. As polarizing as Mamdani may appear to some — and make no mistake, the mighty right-wing noise machine is firing on all cylinders to demonize him — the points of contention that surround him are all too real and endemic in the Democratic 'coalition' writ large. Whether Mamdani wins or loses the mayoral race, the issues that challenge his election campaign also challenge the Democrats fortunes nationally in 2026 and 2028. The sooner Democrats mend their coalition, the better their chances will be to redeem American democracy. As Obama might say, keep hope alive!