“They are not really focusing on the future. They are continuing to obsess about the past and the good work that we have done. Unlike where our Democratic colleagues are, we're really looking at the issues that are important to the entire state of Wisconsin," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said during the press conference. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

Assembly Republicans announced a broad education agenda Tuesday along with a set of task forces. The slate of proposals they plan to advance this fall includes one to encourage school district consolidation and one to push Gov. Tony Evers to opt into a federal school choice program, though exact bill details were scant. Among the new task forces is one that pursues goals similar to those of a Republican committee established this year to improve government efficiency.

As Wisconsin lawmakers return from their summer break, they are beginning to roll out their goals for the rest of the legislative session through early 2026. Democratic lawmakers have also been rolling out  bills, including a package to cancel Walker-era labor laws and one that would reauthorize the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program. 

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rocherster) knocked Democrats’ proposals at the press conference Tuesday. 

“I’ve been watching over the course of the past several weeks as my Democratic colleagues have been talking about what they would like to accomplish this fall and the vast majority of things they’ll be introducing are repealing some good things that we have done,” Vos said. “They are not really focusing on the future. They are continuing to obsess about the past and the good work that we have done. Unlike where our Democratic colleagues are, we’re really looking at the issues that are important to the entire state of Wisconsin.” 

Republicans’ education proposals seek to address a number of issues.

Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) said new GOP legislation seeks to help address financial issues school districts are facing by encouraging them to look at consolidating and sharing services. 

Currently, there are 421 public school districts across the state. Nedweski said that given declining enrollment, that number may need to be cut. 

“We have lost 53,000 students over the last decade,” Nedweski said, “Because student enrollment is the primary driver of our state’s school funding formula, districts experiencing declining enrollment receive less money in state aid.” 

As state support for education has declined, Wisconsin school districts have increasingly had to go to referendum to ask for additional funding from local property taxpayers. Public school advocates blame record-breaking  referendum drives on state funding not keeping pace with inflation. During the most recent state budget, Democrats and advocates called for additional per pupil funding for public schools, but Republicans rejected it and provided no increase to schools’ general state aid.

“Democrats might argue that the solution is something to throw more money at the problem, but it does not solve the issue that there are just less kids being born today than there were 20 years ago,” Nedweski said. “It’s a birth rate issue as enrollment continues to decline, especially in smaller rural districts. Many schools will face difficult decisions, and our goal is to provide support and give tools, remove barriers, and create incentives for voluntary consolidation.”

Nedweski argued that consolidation would help address the “cycle of referendum.” 

She pointed to her own district as an example, saying she has seven single-school K-8 school districts and two school districts that are high schools. 

“That’s a lot of administrative costs and a lot of redundant services and money being spent that couldn’t be going to teachers and into the classroom, so many of them have gone to referendum over the last couple of years, some have been successful, some have failed,” Nedweski said. “We’re seeing a failure rate increase and consolidation cases like these could lower overhead, reduce costs and allow schools to serve students more efficiently and more effectively.” 

She said the specifics of the financial incentives are still being worked out, but will include providing state funds to help consolidating districts equalize their mill rates if they vary, a grant program for school districts exploring consolidation and potentially a policy related to “grade sharing,” among two or more school districts. 

“We are still sort of polishing up some of this policy that we really have taken input from people all around the state from administrators, even educators,” Nedweski said. 

A bill from Rep. Jessie Rodriguez (R-Oak Creek) will instruct Evers to opt into a new federal school choice tax credit program. 

A provision in the federal law signed by Trump in July and that goes into effect in 2027, will provide a dollar-to-dollar tax credit of up to $1,700 to people who donate to a qualifying “scholarship granting program” to support taxpayer-financed private-school vouchers. Governors have until Jan. 1, 2027 to opt into the program.

“This program isn’t about one educational school,” Rodriguez said. “Instead, it helps public, private, charter and even homeschool families access the tools they need to help their kids succeed.”

Rodriguez noted that the scholarships can be used for tutoring, transportation costs, supplemental courses and other costs. 

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Evers has already said he will not opt Wisconsin into the program. If the bill were passed by the Senate and Assembly instructing Evers to take action, he could veto the legislation. 

Rodriguez called on Evers to reconsider.

“He claims that opting our state in would be ‘catastrophic’ to public schools, but the federal tax credit can benefit students in private and public schools alike,” Rodriguez said in a statement. “Having Wisconsin join this federal program should be a slam dunk!… This is a chance to bring more resources into our classrooms — public, private, rural and urban — to help our children succeed.”

Teachers Bill of Rights and other bills

Rep. William Penterman (R-Hustisford) is authoring a bill that would implement a “Teacher’s Bill of Rights” that he said would seek to ensure teachers have recourses when  students exhibit disruptive or violent behavior. The language of the bill isn’t yet available.

“Every teacher needs to be safe in his or her classroom, so there needs to be a policy in place,” Penterman said. “What is the recourse if I, as a teacher, send a student away for some sort of violent, disruptive behavior? Teachers and administration need to be on the exact same page. We’re still finalizing some of the details, so I look forward to sharing the final bill with you when it comes out.” 

Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) said lawmakers will try to help address disparities in math performance by passing legislation similar to a new reading instruction law, but for math. He said the bill will seek to implement screeners to help catch students who are struggling early and put them on an individualized plan to help catch them up. 

“This bill is not going to be the full solution to the problem, but I think it’s a very good first step,” Kitchens said.

Kitchens said he also plans to introduce a bill to ban drones from flying over schools without written permission from school administrators following some complaints from constituents.  

“This is both a safety and a privacy issue,” Kitchens said. 

Another bill from Rep. Dave Murphy (R-Greenville) seeks to make it easier for students to participate in college dual enrollment courses. 

Vos said the bills do not negate Wisconsin’s local control policies for school districts. 

“We always stood strongly in favor of that, but there are some statewide standards,” Vos said. “As an example, if you look at protecting teachers, I think that’s very easy for us to say. It doesn’t matter if you teach in Milwaukee or Burlington, River Falls or Rice Lake, you should have the same protections to ensure that if a disruptive student happens at your school where it’s taking its division and that they’re standing behind you.”

Vos said that the goal of his caucus is to release bill drafts over the next two weeks, then move them through the public hearing process in time to be considered during an October floor session. 

The bills would also need to advance in the Senate.

“We are the ones who work a little bit faster in the Assembly, but an awful lot of things become  law because of our partnership with the state Senate…  I am extremely confident by February, when we adjourn, we will have produced a good package of bills we can all stand behind,” Vos said. 

Speakers’ task forces

The lawmakers also announced the creation of four bipartisan task forces by Vos, including one focused on protecting children online, one seeking to make state government more efficient using artificial intelligence, one to better elder services and one that will explore how to rework the state’s rulemaking process after a recent state Supreme Court ruling took away some of lawmakers’ power to block rules. 

The task forces will meet this fall with the goal of wrapping up their work by the end of the year.

The rulemaking task force will be chaired by Rep. Brent Jacobson (R-Mosinee). He said the task force will seek to identify agencies with broad rulemaking powers that may be “better left to the Legislature,” to strengthen standing committee review of rules and to write a constitutional amendment proposal that will reimplement the Joint Committee on the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR). 

Jacobson said the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Evers v. Marklein II decision in July — which found that state laws giving JCRAR broad powers to block administrative rules indefinitely were unconstitutional — was a “180-turn” on the rulemaking process. 

The Evers administration has  taken steps after the ruling to implement rules without the approval of legislative committees. Republican lawmakers have, in turn, tried to block the implementation of the rules, including a committee last week calling on the Evers administration to drop a proposed rule language change that would replace the phrases “mother” and “woman” with “member” and “father” with “other parent.”

Jacobson made an appeal to Democrats, noting the Evers will not be in office come 2027. 

“There could be a Republican in the governor’s office after next year’s election, and this topic could be one of Democrats’ top priorities next session,” Jacobson said. “With an open governor’s race, we have an opportunity for a bipartisan revamp of the way we hold bureaucrats accountable in Wisconsin.” 

Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) will chair a task force dedicated to looking at elder services. Rep. Lindee Brill (R-Sheboygan Falls) will chair a task force on “protecting kids.”

“We face a rising youth mental health crisis in our state. We recognize that social media and unrestricted access to the internet has opened a deep chasm into our family structure and filled it with mindless or even dangerous content,” Brill said. “As so many forces try to rip families apart and divide them from each other, we have an obligation to work diligently to keep families together, connected, informed and strong.”

Rep. Jim Piwowarczyk (R – Hubertus) will chair a task force on government efficiency and modernization. It is different from, though related to, a committee formed in the last legislative session that mirrored the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Wisconsin’s version is called the Government Oversight, Accountability and Transparency Committee (GOAT). 

The Speaker’s Task Force on Government Efficiency and Modernization will specifically look at ways to replace outdated processes with modern tools, reduce administrative overhead through automation, integrate systems and use data to predict demand and allocate resources more effectively. 

The GOAT Committee also has a goal of working to eliminate government inefficiency.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A worker walks beneath a United Airlines Boeing 737-900ER after it arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on June 5, 2019. The flight from Chicago to Los Angeles used aviation biofuel, a critical component of airlines’ goal of reaching a net-zero carbon goal by 2050. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Congress’ passage of President Donald Trump’s spending and tax cuts bill this month could help grow the market for sustainable aviation fuel, a nascent industry that could be a boon for corn-producing states as airline operators are betting on it to decarbonize the sector.

The Republican budget reconciliation law that Trump signed July 4 pared back some of the credits for sustainable energy in the law that congressional Democrats passed and President Joe Biden signed in 2022 — the Inflation Reduction Act.

But the recent law extended one energy tax credit for producing clean fuels, such as sustainable aviation fuel, an alternative to the typical jet fuel planes use. The credit initially went through 2027, but the GOP law extends it through 2029.

Advocates for sustainable aviation fuel had been pushing Congress to extend the tax credit to support production as states across the U.S. have passed or proposed their own tax credits to grow the sector and lure production within their borders. Lawmakers in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan and New York have introduced bills enacting tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel.

For airlines, increasing availability of the fuel is essential for the sector to meet its net-zero goal for 2050, with the International Air Transport Association estimating the cleaner fuel could get the industry 65% of the way toward its target.

“We’re not yet at commercial-scale production and you need that longer lead time for these types of projects so I think the extension is really key,” said Chris Bliley, senior vice president of regulatory affairs at Growth Energy, a biofuel industry group.

While the credit’s lifetime was extended, others say the environment for sustainable aviation fuel isn’t as favorable as it was just a few years ago. The new budget reconciliation law also included provisions to lower the credit amount for sustainable aviation fuel specifically and clawed back unobligated grant funding to support the sector.

The amount of sustainable aviation fuel that producers make today is far from how much the airline industry needs to be able to use the alternative fuel regularly. U.S. production capacity over the last couple of years, however, has grown, jumping from less than 5,000 barrels per day at the start of 2024 to more than 30,000 by February of this year, according to a May report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Badger State bill

Wisconsin state Rep. David Steffen, a Republican who sponsored a bill to incentivize sustainable aviation fuel, said he learned about a sustainable aviation fuel production company based in Madison called Virent Inc., now a subsidiary of Marathon Petroleum Corp. Virent’s fuel helped power the first domestic flight powered by 100% sustainable aviation fuel in one of its engines.

“I was intrigued that we had this company in our state and I want them and other companies of similar interest to find Wisconsin as their new home,” Steffen said. “It’s a great opportunity for not only the environmental benefits that come with it but for our farmers, dairies and timber producers to access a brand-new market for their product.”

Steffen’s bill also requires that to receive the tax credit, source materials for the fuel must be domestically sourced.

Wisconsin’s legislative session doesn’t end until next March and Steffen said he’s “very comfortable in saying (the bill) will have a clear path to the finish line.” Should it pass in its current state, the tax credit would go into effect in 2028.

Other states

Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska and Washington state all already have enacted laws to provide tax credits for sustainable aviation fuel.

Lawmakers in New York and Michigan have also proposed legislation to create their own tax credits. The New York bill barely moved in the most recent session, while legislation in Michigan has made it out of one committee and been referred to a second.

New York state Sen. Rachel May, a Democrat, plans to re-introduce the legislation next year. She said she wants to amend her bill to offer a larger tax credit for companies making sustainable aviation fuel specifically by mimicking photosynthesis so it doesn’t incentivize diverting feedstock like corn from being used for food, she said.

Her concern is moving the agriculture industry “away from both food production and maybe what might be the best uses of the land,” she added.

Corn ethanol, a common ingredient in automotive fuel, can be used to make sustainable aviation fuel.

Federal extension

While the extension of the federal clean fuels tax credit could be beneficial to the sustainable aviation fuel industry, the new law also lowers the amount of the tax credit for the fuel. It’s now the equivalent to what other biofuel producers qualify for, giving sustainable aviation fuel production less of a competitive advantage.

One version of the budget reconciliation bill also called for extending the tax credit by four years instead of two, but that got scaled back in the version of the bill ultimately signed into law.

The new law also took away any funding not yet obligated as part of a grant program for sustainable aviation fuel and makes fuels derived from feedstocks that come from outside the U.S., Canada or Mexico ineligible for the tax credit.

Despite any limitations, some analysts expect the law will still boost sustainable aviation fuel.

“The Trump administration has yet to outline its approach to SAF, but we expect the fuel to benefit from the administration’s focus on supporting biofuel-producing states,” analysts for Capstone DC, a firm that advises business clients on policy issues, said in a note in late June.

But changes to the federal tax credit could also make states more interested in adopting their own credit to support sustainable aviation fuel, Capstone added.

‘Not nearly as strong’

Tariffs, meanwhile, could also make U.S. feedstocks for producing the fuel more competitive, Paul Greenough, a vice president on Capstone’s energy team.

But Greenough cautioned that sentiment around sustainable aviation fuel still isn’t as rosy as it used to be.

“Momentum still exists for SAF but it’s not nearly as strong as it was under the Biden administration,” he said.

Some climate groups have also expressed concern over changing the clean fuels tax credit at the federal level. The Clean Air Task Force, ahead of the bill becoming law, said extending the credit will largely service other fuels that aren’t sustainable aviation fuel, which will in turn be costlier for the government.

“This purported attempt to incentivize ‘clean fuels’ is little more than a giveaway to the conventional biofuels industry,” the organization said in a post on its website.

'Trump Accounts' included in the tax and spending cut bill would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers. (Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Tucked in the “one big beautiful bill” is a proposal for tax-advantaged “Trump Accounts,” each seeded with $1,000 from the government for certain babies born in the United States over the next few years.

But financial experts and advocates for low-income children are not overly impressed.

The idea is not new and has been likened to other “baby bonds” programs aimed at reducing the growing wealth gap, like state-run trust funds in California and Connecticut. Democrats in Congress have introduced a bill to create a similar federal program. 

The White House has touted the proposal in the tax and spending cut measure as “pro-family” and one that “will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth.”

At a June 9 event to promote the “Trump Accounts” featuring CEOs of top American companies, President Donald Trump promised the pilot program will make it possible for “countless American children to have a strong start in life at no cost to the American taxpayer.”

Speaking at the same event, top House Republican tax writer Rep. Jason Smith of Missouri said “every child born under this policy will have a better shot at a future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road, this will make a significant difference to their lives.”

Critics say the accounts, as proposed, would mostly benefit children born to wealthier families.

They also say the restricted-access accounts, and the one-time government contribution of $1,000, will not help in the face of cuts to food and health programs for low-income people written into the massive budget reconciliation bill, titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

How ‘Trump Accounts’ would work

The investment savings accounts would be available to U.S. citizens born between 2025 and 2028, and whose parent, or parents, if legally married, already have Social Security numbers.

Each year, from a child’s birth to age 18, family and friends, parents’ employers, churches and other private foundations, could contribute up to a combined $5,000 annually to the investment account that will track a stock index and gain interest accordingly.

Deposits into the account are taxed. Later on, withdrawals would be subject to the long-term capital gains tax — a tax on the profit made from selling an asset, or investment, that a person has held for longer than a year.

After reaching 18, the account beneficiary could access half the account’s value only for qualified expenses that include higher education, vocational training, the purchase of a first home, and costs associated with an enterprise for which the beneficiary has received a small business loan or small farm loan.

The beneficiary could access the remaining half of the account after age 25. At age 31, the account loses its status as a “Trump Account” and any remaining balance is taxed as income.

Drawbacks seen

The Urban Institute warns that the proposed structure of the account will mostly benefit wealthy families who already have the resources to grow the funds.

The bottom 80% of households, by income, only hold half as much cash on hand as the top 20% of households, according to the left-leaning think tank’s nationwide financial health data.

Additionally, because of penalties for early withdrawals, lower-income families would be incentivized to save in less restrictive accounts, according to the think tank’s May 27 analysis.

The institute recommends the government provide more contributions based on income level, beyond just the one-time $1,000, and lessen the penalties for accessing cash for catastrophic events.

A 2023 Democratic legislative proposal put forth by Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts aimed to create an account that would target the benefit to children from lower-income households.

Their plan suggests accounts be initially seeded with $1,000, and then children would receive up to an additional $2,000 annually based on their family’s income level.

According to Booker’s and Pressley’s plan, a child from a family of four that brings in less than $25,100 in annual income would have an estimated $46,200 in investment savings by the time they turn 18.

Under the Trump Account proposal, a child’s one-time $1,000 deposit from the government would grow to roughly $5,000 by age 18 if no other contributions were ever made, according to the Urban Institute.

Child tax credits

Brendan Duke, senior director for federal fiscal policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the GOP proposal “wasn’t particularly well thought through.”

“It’s this question of whether it makes more sense to give every family $1,000 that they can’t access in those really important years, or whether you should have expanded the child tax credit,” Duke said.

Duke criticized lawmakers’ proposals that do not expand the child tax credit to the lowest-income families in the massive GOP budget reconciliation package.

While the House version temporarily expands the credit to $2,500 per child, up from $2,000, and the Senate version permanently expands the credit by a more modest amount of $2,200, neither version expands income or refundability parameters that would benefit the poorest families.

The CBPP estimates that 17 million children are left out of the credit because of the restrictions.

Existing savings vehicles

Another criticism of the Trump Accounts is that they provide a redundant option among the several existing tax-preferred savings vehicles for Americans, including 529 education investment savings accounts, Roth and Traditional IRAs and Health Savings Accounts.

The Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu said the account is “a move toward complexity rather than simplification.”

“We already have plenty of savings accounts with specific purposes, and a lot of different strings attached,” said Muresianu, senior policy analyst with the right-leaning foundation.

“We don’t really need another targeted account for a specific purpose, rather than a more easily accessible account with fewer conditions.”