Reading Time: 6 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu struck a compromise to spend $1.8 billion in surplus state funds on tax rebates, special education funding and lower property taxes. The state Senate rejected the proposal Wednesday night.

• The rejection leaves the money on the table for the next governor and Legislature to use in the next biennial budget, raising the stakes for who wins the November election.

• Lead Republican gubernatorial candidate U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany and several of the Democratic contenders slammed the proposal, though Democrat Missy Hughes criticized her opponents for opposing it.

A bipartisan deal struck between Democratic Gov. Tony Evers and Republican legislative leaders to spend $1.8 billion of Wisconsin’s projected budget surplus failed in the Senate late Wednesday night after days of criticism that put both Evers and GOP leaders at odds with members of their own parties. 

The fallout has become a blame game over who is responsible for the deal’s failure:

• Republicans blamed Democrats for not being willing to provide assistance to Wisconsinites.
• Senate Democrats blamed Republicans and Evers for not involving them in negotiations and described the bill as “reckless” and “irresponsible” spending. 
• Several Assembly Democrats criticized the deal for not providing long-term structural changes to education funding or property taxes.
• Evers blamed both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, the likely GOP gubernatorial nominee in the governor’s race.
• Tiffany called the proposal a “backroom relief deal” that “fails to deliver lasting relief to Wisconsin taxpayers.” 
• The Democratic gubernatorial candidates split on whether the bill was a good idea. 

The underlying reason for all of the statements, social media posts and comments debating the surplus spending is that future control of the Capitol hangs in the balance come November, said Anthony Chergosky, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse. 

“It’s very interesting that this agreement was struck by three politicians who will not be in office this time next year, when the upcoming budget process is taking place,” Chergosky said. “There are a lot of people involved in the politics of this agreement who will be around potentially and are kind of wondering about the wisdom of three lame-duck members of state government striking a significant deal that will have potential ripple effects, whether they be positive or negative.” 

Evers, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, who are not seeking reelection this year, announced the deal on Monday. It followed months of negotiations that began after state leaders learned of the projected surplus in January. The nearly $2.4 billion surplus far exceeded projections made last year as lawmakers crafted the state’s 2025-27 budget. 

The deal would have directed over $300 million to Wisconsin school districts through special education reimbursement, another $300 million for school districts to lower property taxes and $870 million through income tax rebates for those who filed state income taxes in 2024. It also would have permanently eliminated state income taxes on tips and overtime wages, which Evers vetoed in Republican-led bills in April. 

Here are a few lessons we learned from the failed surplus deal debate. 

Democrats are increasingly splitting with Evers 

Not too long ago, legislative Democrats had to be ready to defend Evers’ vetoes from Republican overrides. 

This week, all 15 Senate Democrats and 32 in the Assembly broke with the two-term governor on the surplus deal. Ten Assembly Democrats, including several running in close districts this fall, voted with Republicans to pass the bill in the Assembly. 

In statements and comments, many looped Evers in with Vos and LeMahieu as lame-duck elected officials leaving the Capitol in the coming months. 

“This is a completely reckless proposal stitched together in a backroom deal by three people who will not be running around and won’t be here when the consequences of a multibillion-dollar deficit comes home to roost,” Senate Minority Leader Dianne Hesselbein, D-Middleton, said ahead of the Senate vote. “It’s simply something I can’t support.”

Even the majority of the seven top Democratic candidates for governor criticized the deal. Only Missy Hughes, the former CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp., directly supported the surplus spending plan. 

“@GovEvers bargain with the GOP is bad for Wisconsin,” Democratic gubernatorial candidate and state Rep. Francesca Hong, D-Madison, said in a social media post this week explaining her no vote. “This backroom deal is a payday loan taken out at the expense of our children, our infrastructure, our economy, and our future.”

Evers this week did not hesitate to return criticism to the lawmakers of his party. He told CBS58 that Democrats calling the bill irresponsible was “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.” 

“Wisconsin’s kids and schools aren’t going to get the investments they desperately need this year because Tom Tiffany and a few Republican and Democratic lawmakers chose to blow up a bipartisan plan to invest in our K-12 schools, lower property taxes, and help working families afford rising costs, all because they’d rather do what’s best for the next election than what’s right for the people of our state,” Evers said in a statement immediately after the Senate vote. “So many Wisconsinites feel left behind, frustrated, and disillusioned by politics these days because they think a lot of politicians in the Capitol are only here to serve themselves. And, today, they’re right.” 

Strange bedfellows on good governance

For nearly eight years, Republican lawmakers have frequently sparred with Evers both in the Capitol and the courts.

The debate over the surplus deal saw legislative Republicans defending Evers against criticism from Democratic lawmakers. Several thanked Evers for being willing to compromise and work with Republicans. 

“You’re going to hear from my Democratic colleagues that they want to save the money because they want to invest it in growing the size of government. That’s what they’re going to say, even though they might not use those words, we know the truth. We want to give it back. Some Democrats want to keep it,” Vos said on the Assembly floor. “Luckily, Tony Evers isn’t one of those. He actually had the ability to say, let’s compromise, let’s each give, let’s find a consensus, because the people of Wisconsin expect us to do better than to just stand up and shake our fist.” 

On the other hand, many Democratic lawmakers urged caution against approving the spending for the projected surplus when there are economic uncertainties at the federal level.

Sen. Kelda Roys, D-Madison, who is running for governor, said she was “shocked” to agree with Tiffany and state Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, a hard-line fiscal conservative, in their criticism of the deal. 

“This is a deal that does not help us fix the significant long-term structural problems we have, namely the way we have robbed our children of their futures in defunding public education,” she said during the Joint Finance Committee meeting Tuesday. 

Nass, who is not seeking reelection, was one of three Republicans who sided with Senate Democrats on Wednesday in opposing the deal. Sen. Chris Kapenga, R-Delafield, and Sen. Rob Hutton, R-Brookfield, also voted against it.  

Nass asked Senate Republicans to reject the proposal for concerns about financial stability. 

“I’ve enjoyed standing up for we, the people, especially financially, as I’m doing this evening, and until my final day, I will vote in a way that financially protects those I represent,” Nass said during Wednesday night’s Senate floor debate. “What we’re doing now is mortgaging our future and our children’s future, to some extent, for the temporary convenience of the present. And the only way that can stop is for us to resist it and to vote no.” 

The surplus as an election issue

Legislative inaction on the surplus likely means the next governor and whoever holds majorities in the Assembly and the Senate in January will control how that money is or is not spent. 

Assembly Minority Leader Greta Neubauer, D-Racine, told reporters on Thursday that future election criticism about the deal’s failure should be directed at Republicans. 

“Republicans are in the majority, and they failed to get this bill out of the state Senate with their own members,” she said. “That’s something that they’re going to have to answer for, as well as, of course, 16 years of failing to address these issues and creating an affordability crisis.”

Tiffany said if he is elected governor, the surplus funds will “be returned to taxpayers where they belong.”

It’s possible, for the slew of candidates running in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, that this is a turning point in what has otherwise been a quiet campaign so far, Chergosky said. 

“This might be the thing that gives the nomination race a little kick in the pants or a little nudge to start getting moving because we are seeing some daylight between the candidates,” Chergosky said. 

For example, Hughes, the lone Democratic gubernatorial candidate who directly supported the deal, in a social media post on Thursday criticized Tiffany but slammed, without naming names, “certain self-serving Democratic candidates for governor who would rather boost their own personal political ambitions than serve our kids and taxpayers.”

“Imagine if those candidates had acted like the leaders they profess to be. Imagine if they had paused before sending press releases and Twitter threads and jumping to name calling. Imagine if they had set aside their bruised egos and leaned in,” Hughes said. “Ultimately, they could still have voted no or opposed the bill, but they never even gave it due diligence. That’s not leadership, that’s gamesmanship. These Democratic candidates exposed themselves for lacking the maturity and responsibility a governor must have if they are to move our entire state forward.” 

Former Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes said the deal delivered “meaningful dollars” to schools, but did not fix the state’s “broken system” to help working people. 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Joel Brennan, the former Department of Administration secretary under Evers, criticized the deal negotiations for not being done in public. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley said “a one-year property tax break is not a long-term affordability plan.” 

Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez called the deal “a compromise that’s far from perfect.”

Wisconsin’s $1.8 billion budget deal collapses, exposing rifts within both parties is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Click here to read highlights from the story

• Wisconsin allows child welfare agencies to take federal benefits and child support payments meant for children who are in foster care. 

• The practices cost foster children and their parents more than $10 million annually. 

• While there’s been increasing bipartisan support for restrictions and bans on these practices, Wisconsin lawmakers haven’t acted.

Who foots the bill when a child is placed in foster care? In Wisconsin, it’s sometimes parents — and even the kids themselves.

Like many U.S. states, Wisconsin allows child welfare departments to take federal benefits intended for children who have a disability or a deceased parent. The practice means some foster children are paying for care the state is legally required to provide — care others get for free.  

The state also bills some parents for foster care — even when parents are trying to bring their kids home and struggling to make ends meet. 

In Wisconsin alone, these practices cost foster children and their parents more than $10 million a year. 

Now those approaches are facing growing criticism for prolonging family separation and depriving kids and families of much-needed resources. In response, some states have enacted bans or restrictions, but Wisconsin hasn’t — despite bipartisan support.

Advocates decry ‘orphan tax’

Wisconsin child welfare authorities take around $3 million each year in Social Security benefits intended for foster children, according to the state’s Department of Children and Families. 

Five years ago, nearly every U.S. state was taking these payments, NPR and The Marshall Project reported in 2021. Their investigation focused on Alaska, where hundreds of former foster youth sued in 2014, demanding the state return their money. Many didn’t know about the payments — often several hundred dollars a month — until they were about to age out of the foster care system, reporters found. On their own, those young people often struggled to afford things like rent, car payments and college tuition. 

“We get out and we don’t have anybody or anything. This is exactly what survivor benefits are for,” one former foster youth told NPR and The Marshall Project. 

Last year, Alaska’s Supreme Court ruled in their favor. It ordered the state to notify foster children if they are entitled to Social Security benefits and allow eligible children to choose to have their benefits managed by someone else instead of the state. It did not require the state to repay the estimated $1.8 million in lost benefits.   

Chief Justice Susan Carney recommended banning the state from taking such funds in the future. 

“I urge the Legislature to consider joining those of our sister states that have restricted their child protection agencies from depriving vulnerable children of these benefits intended to help them overcome extraordinary trauma as they move to adulthood,” Carney wrote.

Nationwide – largely after the Alaska case was filed – 38 jurisdictions have introduced legislation or executive actions to preserve those benefits for foster children, according to the Children’s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego, which has been lobbying for such change for years.  

Ten of those jurisdictions have barred authorities from taking any Social Security benefits intended for foster youth: Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington, D.C.

“The attention has been truly overwhelming. It’s like a tsunami,” said Amy Harfeld, national policy director for the institute.

Consensus grows in Wisconsin 

The agency that oversees foster care in Wisconsin now favors ending the practice too. Children who turn 18 in foster care are at a higher risk of homelessness, incarceration and health problems. 

For those children, the state’s goal should be to “help launch them into success,” Department of Children and Families Secretary-designee Jeff Pertl told lawmakers at a March hearing. Holding these payments in trust is one way to do that.

“We do a lot of things for kids who are aging out of care as an agency, but I would say (this is) probably one of the areas where we could spend just a little bit of resources and generate pretty significant improvements in people’s lives,” Pertl said.

Last year, Gov. Tony Evers proposed limiting the practice. Under his plan, child welfare departments must screen all incoming foster children for eligibility for Social Security benefits, apply on behalf of eligible children and hold the money in trust. The proposal included $3 million to hire a contractor to apply for benefits and manage those accounts.

The plan would have allowed the money to be used for expenses the agency would not typically cover for a child, as is the case now, but it would have barred agencies from using it to reimburse themselves for the care they’ve already agreed to provide. Leftover funds would be transferred to the child or their guardian when they leave foster care. 

The proposal was one of more than 600 items Republicans on the Legislature’s budget-writing committee removed in a single vote, a move that has become routine in Wisconsin’s divided Statehouse. 

Months later, President Donald Trump’s administration called for an end to the “orphan tax.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services sent letters in December to 39 governors. The letters demanded their child welfare agencies stop taking children’s Social Security survivor benefits, which are based on contributions made by a deceased parent.

“Every earned benefit dollar belongs to these foster youth, not the government agencies or bureaucrats,” Alex J. Adams, assistant secretary of the department’s Administration for Children and Families, said in a statement. 

In February, in the final weeks of the legislative session, Wisconsin state Sen. André Jacque, a Republican from New Franken, introduced Senate Bill 990, which would require child welfare authorities to save Social Security benefits for foster children in their care. Unlike Evers’ proposal, it does not require authorities to check eligibility or apply for benefits.

“Children who enter foster care are already at a disadvantaged position in life,” Jacque said at a hearing on the legislation. “Preserving their benefits can provide a modest but meaningful financial foundation as they transition into adulthood, helping them pay for education, secure housing, purchasing a first car or beginning a new career.”

Parents billed for foster care 

Years before the Trump administration decried the taking of Social Security payments, President Joe Biden’s administration urged states to limit another controversial practice: charging parents for foster care. 

For years, the federal government required billing parents as a way to lower its own costs. It changed its guidance in 2022, after NPR reported the practice was separating families — sometimes permanently. 

Outside of the foster care system, a parent who doesn’t have custody of their child may be ordered to make monthly child support payments to the custodial parent or guardian. Parents who don’t pay can rack up thousands of dollars of debt.

When a child is placed in foster care, child welfare departments often apply to collect that money, along with any past-due payments, in the child’s name. That can leave the parent who used to receive those payments struggling to cover rent or basic expenses. 

To defray its costs, the child welfare department may seek a court order requiring the custodial parent to pay child support, too. That’s despite the fact that many of those parents are already struggling financially. About two-thirds of the foster children in Wisconsin were removed from their biological homes because of neglect — a condition often tied to poverty, Pertl said.

Wisconsin foster care authorities seldom seek new child support orders, but they do regularly apply to collect payments on existing orders, said John Tuohy, executive director of the Wisconsin County Human Service Association. The group represents child welfare departments in all 72 counties. 

Child welfare authorities bill the parents of 7 in 10 foster children in the state, according to the Department of Children and Families. In recent years, parents have paid an average of more than $7.6 million a year. Studies show those bills can make it harder for parents to bring their children back home. 

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison compared data from Wisconsin counties that tend to collect child support for foster children to counties that don’t. A charge as low as $100 delayed reunification by more than six months, they wrote in a 2017 paper. 

Another UW-Madison study, published in 2024, found children whose parents were ordered to pay for foster care spend more than twice as long in care — an average of 21 months instead of nine — and are less likely to be reunited with their parents.

“The research suggests (allowing parents to keep that money) would help that parent to maintain a residence and have the financial capacity to have a home ready for the kids to go back to,” Tuohy said. 

Meanwhile, charging parents can actually increase the cost to taxpayers. For every dollar the department spends trying to collect these payments, it recoups only 88 cents, according to Connie Chesnik, administrator of the department’s Division of Family & Economic Security, which oversees child support collection. The department estimates ceasing this practice would substantially reduce the time those children spend in foster care, saving counties approximately $18,000 per affected child.

“The evidence indicates that cost recovery child support orders for children in out-of-home care are not in the best interest of children and families, and they’re not in the best interest of government or taxpayers,” UW-Madison social work professor Lawrence Berger told lawmakers.  

The Department of Children and Families wants the practice to stop, too. 

“It’s very clear that this kind of change in policy and practice will yield real results in terms of reunification with families,” Pertl said. 

Bipartisan support, little action

As with Social Security payments, Evers proposed allocating funds to stop child support collections for most children in foster care. The $1.87 million provision was one of the hundreds cut by the Republican-led budget committee. GOP lawmakers then introduced their own legislation at the end of the session.   

“The cost of care should not be subsidized by those who can least afford it,” Sen. Jesse James, R-Thorp, said at a hearing for Senate Bill 1072, which would bar child welfare departments from collecting child support for most foster children. Rep. Karen Hurd, R-Withee, led the Assembly companion to James’ bill.

At the hearing, lawmakers from both parties voiced support but acknowledged the bills wouldn’t pass so late in the Legislative session.

Sen. Sarah Keyeski, D-Lodi, wondered aloud why the bills didn’t get a hearing until after the Assembly had gavelled out for the session. 

“These are good bills, and I’m just disappointed we didn’t hear them sooner, because we could have done something about them,” Keyeski said. 

Lawmakers could come back to the Capitol this year to take action on spending the state’s $2.4 billion surplus, but ideas floated by Evers and Republican legislative leaders don’t include proposals on foster care payments.

Both James and Jacque said they plan to reintroduce their bills in the next budget cycle, although both lawmakers must first survive reelection bids in 2026. 

“I see a path to it getting done,” Jacque said of his proposal. “It’s certainly an idea that should have bipartisan appeal.” 

In Wisconsin, status quo persists

The lone opposition to the measures comes from the local governments that run foster care in every Wisconsin county except Milwaukee, where the Department of Children and Families directly administers care. Tuohy, of the Wisconsin County Human Service Association, said counties will face a budget shortfall if they can’t collect funds from children or parents.

“County human service budgets are very tight,” Tuohy said. “Counties cannot afford to absorb that fiscal impact.”

He said his group is open to such policy changes, as long as lawmakers allocate funding to make up for what agencies will lose and hire experts to administer these funds. 

“Our group is willing to work with both the Legislature and the governor on those types of things. We want to do what’s best for kids and families and to get better outcomes for kids who go into out-of-home care,” Tuohy said. “But … until you address the fiscal effect, it’s hard to really talk about what’s good policy or not.”

The Department of Children and Families agrees. 

“I’ve been doing this a long time. You know how we get these things done? We keep folks whole,” Pertl said. “In the scheme of the state budget, this is not a particularly expensive proposal. This is a very doable thing.”

Doable or not, any such legislation will likely have to wait until lawmakers return to the State Capitol in January. Jacque and James said they plan to add funding when they reintroduce their bills, to help counties make up the difference.

When they do, Harfeld believes the pressure will be on, especially when it comes to the taking of Social Security benefits. That practice, she said, has riled people of assorted political persuasions. 

“We’ve got the support from Evangelical groups who just see this as an affront to God, in addition to violating at least six different biblical prescriptions on stealing from orphans. We have gotten a lot of attention from the MAGA right, who are seeing this now as waste, fraud and abuse,” Harfeld said. Libertarians, meanwhile, see the practice as government overreach, she said. 

“How many issues are you seeing that have really broken through all of the political divides and resulted in this consensus between very unusual bedfellows?” Harfeld asked. “This is one of them.” 

Have you or your children been in foster care in Wisconsin? I’d like to hear how foster care costs have affected you and your family. Please email me at nyahr@wisconsinwatch.org or call me at ‪‪(608) 620-5610‬.

Wisconsin takes millions from foster kids and their parents — even as both parties say it should stop is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers on Monday signed legislation that would give raises for the first time in a decade to permanently and totally disabled people receiving worker’s compensation.

The bill, which includes other changes to the worker’s comp system, was passed by the Assembly (97-0 vote) in January and by the Senate (32-1) in February. Both chambers are majority Republican.

The bill would help people like 65-year-old Bob Hurley, who suffered a back injury in 1982, at age 22. While helping build a car wash, he fell 15 feet from a forklift and “landed flat on my back in a concrete pit.”

Through four surgeries, Hurley continued working for 17 years before being declared PTD. 

Hurley, now living in Minnesota, said he receives $2,900 in monthly worker’s comp benefits. He said his only other income is $2,600 monthly in Social Security benefits. Without cost-of-living adjustments in his PTD payments, “it gets harder and harder every year,” he said.

Wisconsin Watch reported in September that more than 300 permanently and totally disabled recipients haven’t received a raise in their worker’s comp benefits since 2016.

The bill would also make these changes for PTD recipients:

• Make an estimated 210 more PTD recipients eligible for raises. Currently, only PTD recipients injured before Jan. 1, 2003, are eligible for raises. The bill would change that date to Jan. 1, 2020.

• Raise the maximum weekly benefit for PTD recipients by 57%, from $669 to $1,051.

• Give PTD recipients annual raises, with the amounts set shortly before taking effect. The raise amounts would vary based on when the recipients were injured and their earnings at the time. 

One example, provided by the state Department of Workforce Development: A PTD recipient injured in 1985 and receiving $535 a week would get a 57% increase to $840. The increase would amount to nearly $16,000 per year.

Big raise on its way for permanently and totally disabled workers as Tony Evers signs worker’s comp bill is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.