GOP bills revamping unemployment rules get Assembly hearing
Republicans in the state Legislature are taking another run at changes to unemployment insurance and workforce programs in Wisconsin that Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in August 2023.
While sponsors of the bills cited a couple of modifications in some measures, they are for the most part unchanged, they said during public hearings Wednesday for four bills in the Assembly's labor committee.
One, AB 162, would require state agencies to compile a series of metrics on training and workforce development programs under their supervision, including the unemployment rates and median earnings of participants six months after they graduate from a program.
'We want to make certain our money's being spent in a way that generates a positive beneficial return both for taxpayers and for the individuals participating in the programs,' said state Rep. Jerry O'Connor (R-Fond du Lac), testifying in favor of the bill. 'We'd look at the percent of individuals enrolled in training programs who obtained a measurable skill gain.'
O'Connor said the bill draws its performance measures from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a federal workforce training law updated in 2014.
In vetoing the version of the bill that passed the last session of the Legislature, Evers said that many state programs it covered didn't fit with WIOA's reporting structure and 'have separate requirements under current state law.'
Three other bills would impose tighter restrictions on the unemployment insurance (UI) system.
AB 167 would expand the definition of employee misconduct that would be grounds for denying an unemployment insurance claim as well as for a worker's compensation claim. The bill would also require DWD to conduct random audits of 50% of all work searches reported by people claiming UI.
AB 168 would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting felony fraudulent UI claims to eight years. It would also require the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to produce more training materials for employers and UI claimants, operate a call center and expand its hours in times of higher volume, check various state and national databases to verify that UI applicants qualify, and implement 'identity-proofing' measures.
AB 169 would penalize UI recipients who do not show up for a job interview they have been granted or a job they've been offered — 'commonly referred to as ghosting,' said state Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), the bill's author.
A UI recipient who fails to respond to an interview request or job offer, fails to report for a scheduled job interview or who is not available to return to work at their previous job would lose unemployment benefits for the week in which that occurred. The bill does not impose the penalty for the first offense.
State Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson) asked Knodl whether the bill had gone through the state's Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The joint labor-management body revises the state's UI law every two years. In the past Evers has vetoed UI proposals for not going through the council.
'This is one of those that they're not going to visit,' Knodl said. 'So that's why we're here as a stand-alone bill.'
Nobody testified against the bills Wednesday, but Victor Forberger, a Madison attorney who represents people with UI claims, sent the committee a four-page memo opposing them. He wrote that DWD already does most of what AB 168 would require, and that it would 'hamstring' the department 'when new practices and resources emerge.'
The measures 'will do nothing to make unemployment more useful and efficient for Wisconsin workers and employers,' Forberger wrote.
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
18 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Exclusive: Democrat on Bipartisan Push to Undo Part of 'Big 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. Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, has introduced legislation that would restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent late in the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB). Titus spoke with Newsweek about her Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation (FAIR BET) Act, which she says so far has garnered "10 times the response" from constituents in her state and beyond compared to other aspects of the OBBB. Republican Representatives including Troy Nehls of Texas and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, also support Titus' bill. Why It Matters The roughly 900-page bill passed by Congress included a provision inserted by Senate Republicans without consent of the House that imposed a tax increase on Americans who gamble, reducing from 100 percent to 90 percent the amount of losses they can deduct from gambling winnings for their income taxes. The new provision, added by the Senate Finance Committee late in the legislative process ahead of the July 4 bill signing by President Donald Trump, means that gambling losses that have traditionally been fully deductible would no longer be so and gamblers could owe taxes even if they ended up with net losses in a year. For example, someone winning $100,000 and then losing that same amount may still owe $10,000 in taxes on that income—even though they broke even. What To Know Titus, in an exclusive interview, said the issue has drawn more widespread attention on the OBBB compared to other scrutinized portions of the legislation, such as Medicaid and food stamp cuts. "We've certainly heard from the industry, they've all kind of now gotten on board," Titus said. "But I can tell you that we put out a lot of messages about that big, bad BS bill and we talked about Medicaid, we talked about food stamps, we talked about renewable energy, but this issue has gotten 10 times the response than any of those have." The congresswoman continued: "I think it's people who are on the internet, I think it's young people who found an issue that they can kind of identify with. And I don't think it's just limited to the people directly impacted by gaming in Nevada. It's a national issue because now everybody can gamble on their phone, and so they're writing in, they're texting in, they're calling in to say, 'We should fix this.'" Titus said she "found it hard to believe" that some Republican senators were unaware of this provision in the bill's final version. She doesn't believe it was inserted from an ideological or partisan standpoint, however, but rather based on tax policy. "Let's just make it clear these are not just high rollers, these are not just the big professional poker players who itemize," she said. "Think how many people bet on a football game or bet on their phone, and how much they advertise some of the sports betting apps. These are just ordinary people who bet." Titus added: "It's not fair...I don't think people are going to say, 'I'm not going to gamble,' but what they may say is, 'Why would I itemize? Why would I turn this in if I'm going to have to pay tax on losses?'" Gambling losses up to the amount of one's winnings can be claimed but only if one itemizes their deductions. However, most don't do that because they opt for the standard deduction and better tax break. Titus also has a front-row seat to the benefits of the gaming industry, noting how cities like Las Vegas are important economically. People travel to gamble, spend on dining and shows, or just to watch poker championships—the "full ambiance" as she described. "They're going to go gamble on unregulated sources, whether it's offshore or the black market or the predictions market that's coming on so strong," Titus said. "Those entities don't pay taxes to the state, they don't invest in brick and mortar, they don't hire good union labor. In that sense it also hurts industry and a community's economy." Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, tells Newsweek why she introduced the FAIR BET Act to restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent in the One Big... Representative Dina Titus, a Nevada Democrat, tells Newsweek why she introduced the FAIR BET Act to restore the 100 percent deduction for gambling losses that Senate Republicans reduced to 90 percent in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. More Americans Overwhelmingly Support Gambling In its August 2024 report on Americans' attitudes towards gambling, the American Gaming Association (AGA) said than half of all American adults (55 percent) participated in some form of gambling in the previous 12 months. Roughly 122 million adult Americans, or 49 percent of the population, visited a casino for gambling or other entertainment purposes in that span—the highest level of casino visitation on record. Nearly nine-in-10 (88 percent) Americans find casino gambling to be acceptable for themselves or others, the research found, with 59 percent of Americans finding gambling personally acceptable—another an all-time high. The AGA represents major trade partners including Churchill Downs, DraftKings, MGM Resorts International and other big companies online and in casinos. A gaming industry source told Newsweek that there is support for Titus' legislation, adding that lawmakers or the Trump administration did not convey why this provision was included in the final bill. "This could potentially have a very direct impact on a professional gambler or a very high-volume recreational gambler who chooses to itemize committed to working with Representative Titus, as well as her co-sponsors in the House," the source said. Asked if Titus' bill is unsuccessful, the source said there's time to make legislative fixes between now and the spring of 2027 when people go to file their taxes for their prior calendar year. "We're motivated to get this done," they said. Financial Hit to Nevada Efforts in the Senate, led by Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, sought unanimous consent to restore the full deduction for gambling losses. That was unsuccessful. Cortez Masto told Newsweek that she will continue to explore all options available to restore the 100 percent dedication for gambling losses and protect Nevada's gaming and hospitality industries. "Republicans' hastily put-together bill is full of provisions that are completely counterproductive and harmful to Americans," the senator said. "The provision limiting the wagering loss deduction will have a negative impact on Nevada, and it's one of the many reasons I voted no." What People Are Saying Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, in a statement to Newsweek: "The Republican budget would kneecap sports and gambling by making Americans pay taxes on gambling losses. This is deeply unfair. I'm proud to introduce the FAIR BET Act with Rep. Titus to restore the 100 percent tax deduction for gaming losses." Professional poker player Daniel Negreanu told "I'm going to do everything I can to help make sure this isn't a reality or a problem. And when I say everything, I mean everything. This law would be, as I understand good at all. I'm going to reach out to people who are smarter than me on this. And then take measures to see if I can help in any way. And hopefully I can." Rufus Peabody, a professional sports bettor, told The Wall Street Journal: "More likely than not, I would owe more money in taxes than I actually made in 2026 if I continue betting. And so, as it stands, it becomes untenable to be a professional gambler." Phil Galfond, a professional poker player, wrote on social media: "This new amendment to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would end professional gambling in the US and hurt casual gamblers, too," "You could pay more in tax than you won." What Happens Next The tax deduction change is going into effect on January 1, 2026, unless modified sooner by Congress. It won't affect Americans' tax returns until after that date. Titus said the timeframe provides "a little bit of breathing room" for changes to take hold.
New York Times
18 minutes ago
- New York Times
G.O.P. Push Behind Trump Agenda Has Congress in an Uproar
Republicans' relentless marathon to force President Trump's agenda through Congress over objections from Democrats and some in their own ranks is taking a toll on the institution and its members, prompting tempers to boil over and relationships to fray on Capitol Hill, with potentially disastrous consequences ahead. In recent days, lawmakers clashed bitterly over federal spending, presidential nominees and even broadly supported cryptocurrency bills — all while a dispute raged over releasing files in the case of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. The normally staid proceedings of Congress were punctuated with shouting matches, a committee walkout, charges of abandoned deals and Democratic demands to fire the director of the Office of Management and Budget. By Thursday, Republican leaders in the Senate and House rushed to finish their business and get exhausted lawmakers out of Washington to allow them some time to cool off. And that was just last week. Veteran lawmakers said that the level of vitriol and dysfunction in the Capitol had reached a fever pitch. 'It is bad — really bad,' Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, said when asked to assess the mood on Capitol Hill. 'There's a level of frustration. How do we get back to doing our jobs?' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Former NPR CEO: ‘This has not been a great week for free speech'
Former NPR CEO Vivian Schiller criticized CBS's canceling of Stephen Colbert's show in a Saturday interview amidst pushback of a decision that the network said was made due to financial constraints. 'This has not been a great week for free speech and speaking truth to power, without a doubt,' Schiller said on MSNBC. CBS has garnered criticism for the move, which many took in the context of its decision earlier this month to settle a lawsuit brought by President Trump for $16 million. CBS's parent company, Paramount, is currently seeking federal approval for a merger deal with entertainment conglomerate Skydance. Colbert panned CBS's move afterwards, calling the settlement a 'big fat bribe' in his monologue and pointing out Paramount's merger effort. Paramount's lawyers had previously characterized the lawsuit, which took issue with CBS's editing of an interview with former Vice President Harris, as 'without basis in law or fact.' Schiller acknowledged Saturday that the evidence around the cancellation of 'The Late Show with Stephen Colbert' was 'circumstantial,' but still called the move 'curious.' The network has maintained that the decision was motivated by financial concerns. 'We have to also make note that Stephen Colbert is unafraid to, again, speak truth to power,' the former NPR executive said. 'He does it in a very bipartisan way over the years, and comedy and parody is an important part of a democratic ecosystem.' Schiller's comments come after a difficult week for NPR, the media organization she helmed for three years. Republicans voted to zero out funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofit that provides a small slice of money to NPR's national headquarters and a significant portion of revenue for the broadcaster's member stations. Schiller told NPR's media reporter this week that she thought the loss of federal funds was inevitable, and that the network should have better prepared itself ahead of the vote by Congress. 'Any evidence-based news organization that reports critically is going to be accused of left-wing bias,' she said. 'Journalism and government funding in the United States — those two things are incompatible.' Schiller exited NPR in 2011 over her own controversy surrounding federal funding. Republicans at the time were threatening to cut the broadcaster's funding when video surfaced of a prominent NPR fundraiser attacking Tea Party activists.
