Evers reduced the GOP income tax cut from $3.5 billion to $175 million, and did away entirely with lower rates for the two highest earning brackets. He also used his partial veto power to increase how much revenue K-12 public schools can raise per student by $325 a year until 2425.
Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and instead vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425.
Anyone more familiar with how this works? Like, that wording is weird to me. How much revenue they can raise per student.
So is this like, local school taxes? Or like local fund raising? That wording doesn’t sound like it’s as big a win as the article title makes it sound like?
What are they supposed to do in the year 2425? Raise $140,000 per student?
Wisconsin allows this kind of partial veto by their governor. Scott Walker did a similar thing when he was governor preventing schools from adopting energy efficiency for hundreds of years
Honest question if you have inside knowledge - doesn’t the Wis. Governors partial veto authority make this constitutional?
It almost certainly is. It comports with precedent and prior Wisconsin court cases have ruled in favor of this use of the veto.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line-item_veto_in_the_United_States#Wisconsin
This is great to see.
My biggest complaint about Democrats has always been their lack of balls, and weird cultish insistence that they always take the “high road” and try to work with Republicans in good faith.
Finally the Democrats are fighting fascism with pettiness!
There’s no pettiness here. The changes he made are very good, positive help for our state, whereas veto of the entire budget would have been a disaster.
I’m all for this. It’s just a rarity that you see Dems do this kind of stuff. They try to play “by the book”
Evers was unable to undo the $32 million cut to the University of Wisconsin, which was funding that Republicans said would have gone toward diversity, equity and inclusion — or DEI — programming and staff.
How on earth do you justify cutting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion?? Are those not things we as a country want to promote?
We cannot keep calling them “conservative.” Abolishing standards has nothing to do with conservatism.
Conservatism has never been about conserving “things”, it’s always been about conserving power.
That’s what conservatism has stood for since its inception. The conservation of power by the rich elites. A conservative voter is basically a monarchist.
Almost literally, as conservatism as an ideology was created as a backlash to the French Revolution, except instead of worshiping bloodlines, it worships wealth. Which is often the same thing, but is slightly more open to new wealth joining the cause, and then that new wealth helping to keep everyone else poor.
There’s a large base of people who think DEI initiatives are unnecessary. I agree with you in that the United States ought to strive for promoting these ideas, programs and staff - but there’s a huge push back from many people.
A common argument I’ll always fall into is the idea that if you work hard, you’ll be successful - no matter who you are and what you look like. We know this isn’t always true and it’s why we have DEI initiatives.
To the people who don’t want to promote it, I’m not sure how they can justify it.
I think some people fail to realize (or care) that not everyone comes from the same starting point. Imagine a foot race; if one person starts out 40 yards from the finish line, while another person starts 100 yards away, it doesn’t matter if the second person tries twice as hard and runs twice as fast, they still finish behind the first person. Unfortunately people from more impoverished communities and backgrounds tend to be like the second person with further to run.
Equity is the problem. Replace equity with equality and I’d agree with you.
Well, that’s a ridiculous take.
If it was your job to hand out food to people who needed it, and you showed up to town and saw on your left a bunch of starving people on the verge of death desperately needing food and on the right a bunch of fat people sitting at a picnic table, eating tons of food.
Do you think it would be fair to give them both the same amount of food?
Yes, it would be equal, but it would not be equitable or moral, and that’s the difference between equality and equity. Equality is nice on paper, but nearly Impossible in an already unequal society.
It’s really refreshing to see a Dem fighting back like this. For decades now it’s been such an uneven playing field - Republicans constantly abusing executive authority to get what they want (thanks W. / Cheney), and Dems never doing more to combat it than sending strongly worded letters.
I don’t think the executive should have so much unilateral authority for either side, but it’s nice to see, for once, a Dem fight fire with fire.
It’s bullshit, but it’s legal bullshit. Yeah, I know it’s not great when your chief argument for something involves it not being against the law to do so.
I’m not happy that we have the aggressive line-item veto in Wisconsin(nor that we have it at all), but I’m not happy about a lot of the political situation in this state. I would prefer it if the Republican-controlled legislature would work with the governor, or, you know, not gavel out inside of thirty seconds when called to do the business of the state.
But there is precedent. And if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander, until we can curtail that power.
