Wimberger, Goeben hear concerns about potential Medicaid cuts, gambling
A sign for the Oneida Community Health Center in Hobart, Wis. | Photo by Jason Kerzinski for Wisconsin Examiner
Wisconsin state Sen. Eric Wimberger (R-Oconto) and Rep. Joy Goeben (R-Hobart) heard concerns about potential Medicaid cuts and gambling at a listening session Monday in Oneida, Wis.
A woman at the session said her son receives Medicaid through the Katie Beckett program, which serves children under 19 who live at home and have certain health care needs. She said that 'with the $880 billion that is going to be reduced in the federal budget, it is without a doubt going to impact Medicaid in our state.'
A budget proposal approved by the House in late February requires lawmakers to cut spending to offset tax breaks, likely requiring Medicaid cuts, KFF Health News reported. The committee that oversees spending on Medicaid and Medicare is instructed to cut $880 billion over the next decade.
The Congressional Budget Office found House Republicans' budget goals would require cuts to Medicaid, CBS News reported on March 6.
The woman said she's wondering what's happening in the state budget to 'plan for these shortcomings that are going to be coming from the federal level.'
'I don't know on the federal side, what's going on there,' Wimberger said. '…I can't imagine that we'd let any sort of tragedy happen to people who—if there's a cut of any kind, so we'll have to adjust to it.'
Medicaid is funded by both federal and state governments. Proposals that would reduce the amount of money paid by the federal government would not require states to pay more to make up the difference, and most states will not likely increase their health care spending, according to an opinion article by the president of the health policy research and news outlet KFF.
Wimberger is a member of the state Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance, which is responsible for reviewing state appropriations and revenues. The
committee will hold listening sessions on April 2 in Kaukauna, April 4 in West Allis, April 28 in Hayward and April 29 in Wausau.
Brandon Stevens, the vice-chairman of the Oneida Nation in northeast Wisconsin, spoke at the listening session. One topic discussed was online and in-person gambling.
In Wisconsin, tribes have the exclusive right to operate Class III games, through compacts with the state. Class III includes banking card games, electronic games of chance, including slot machines and, generally, high-stakes, casino-style games.
Tana Aguirre from the Oneida Nation's intergovernmental affairs and communications office sent the Examiner a statement that covers a few of the tribe's budget priorities.
The Oneida Nation is requesting an increase in funding to help address illegal/unregulated gambling activities, according to Aguirre. The tribe requests compliance and/or enforcement measures 'to help deal with illegal gambling machines and practices throughout Wisconsin.'
'We're paying a premium for exclusivity through the gaming compact [between the tribe and the state]. It's basically a violation of the compact if they're allowed to game at a particular level,' Stevens said.
Aguirre said the Oneida Nation and other tribes want to see increased funding for a tribal elderly transportation grant program. The grant gives the state's 11 federally recognized tribes financial assistance for transportation services for tribal elders on and off the reservation.
The Oneida Nation also wants funding to go toward an intergovernmental training program, Aguirre said.
The program 'is meant to enhance the skill set and understanding between state and tribal officials.' It aims to promote the different governments engaging in 'meaningful and productive' consultations and discussions.
Aguirre said that for the items included in his email, the tribe is requesting that funding come from Oneida Nation gaming revenue that the state of Wisconsin receives.
Tribes submit gaming-related payments to the state. A variety of state programs receive state funding from tribal payments, such as gaming regulation in the Department of Administration and law enforcement in the Department of Justice. Gaming revenue has been put toward tribal family services grants, a tribal law enforcement grant program and other programs.
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
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Political fights put spotlight on leader of Washington's largest public employee union
Mike Yestramski, president of the Washington Federation of State Employees, could not get a meeting with Gov. Bob Ferguson so he "called" during a March protest in the governor's office. (Photo by Jacquelyn Jimenez Romero) Mike Yestramski has enjoyed a low profile through much of his six years leading Washington state's largest public sector union. Not anymore. His very public clashes with the governor during a contentious 2025 legislative session put a political spotlight on the president of the Washington Federation of State Employees. The union represents 54,000 state government, higher education and public service workers. Ferguson and Democratic state senators — longtime union allies — wanted to furlough workers and make them pay more for health care coverage. They also called for curtailing programs and closing Rainier School, a rehabilitation center in Pierce County for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moves certain to trigger layoffs. Yestramski and legions of fellow union members turned out in force to oppose these moves. Clad in the union's green t-shirts, they rallied on the Capitol steps, demonstrated at the governor's office and patrolled the hallways outside the House and Senate chambers to pigeonhole lawmakers through the final hours of session. The muscular, pony-tailed labor leader was ubiquitous, rebellious and, in the end, victorious in some of the most pitched political battles of the session. And he didn't hold back with rhetorical slights against the new governor, calling Ferguson a 'pseudo Democrat' at rallies and 'Ratfink Robbie Ferguson' on Facebook. The swipes further brightened the exposure of the union's demands. Yestramski said in a recent interview in the union's Olympia headquarters that he prefers 'adult conversations' to resolve differences, though he realizes what occurred in the legislative session 'may have painted a slightly different impression.' But the gravity of the situation demanded a strong retort, he said. 'I generally believe that collaboration tends to be more successful than aggression,' he said. 'But that takes all of the parties involved to do that.' Yestramski, 45, was elected to a two-year term as federation president in 2019. Then 39, Yestramski said he was reportedly the federation's youngest ever president. Yestramski was reelected in 2021 and 2023. He plans to seek a fourth term this fall. He started his public service career as a homeless outreach social worker in Baltimore. He came to Washington in 2013, taking a job as a psychiatric social worker at Western State Hospital. An active union member, Yestramski said he pursued the leadership post because he was 'just getting really sick of seeing my friends and co-workers getting beat up, really, really bad.' 'People ended up in ICUs. People lost digits,' he said. Jobs at the hospital can still be dangerous, but Yestramski credited CEO Charlie Southerland for working collaboratively with the union to come up with solutions to bolster worker safety. The following interview was lightly edited for clarity and length. Have you had a chance to chat with or meet face-to-face with the governor? I have not. You've called him a few names. How do you feel about him now? While his rhetoric during the session I didn't love, he did ultimately sign the budget that funds our contracts and did not contain furloughs. As far as what he actually did, he didn't harm us, which was the fear based on statements that were coming out. For that, I'm thankful. You did say you felt scammed and that workers were lied to because Ferguson's proposals didn't align with his pledges to labor leaders in the 2024 campaign. Do you think WFSE members now feel they can trust him to have their backs? As a social worker — this is going to be related, I promise — the therapeutic school that I was brought up in was behaviorism. One of its basic tenets is, 'I don't really care what your motivations are, as long as you do the right thing.' To that end, whether it was genuinely in his heart or whether it was due to the political pressure of our members, whatever reason it was that got that outcome, the outcome is what was important. As far as our members trusting him, obviously, folks are going to be a little bit hesitant. This isn't just the governor. This is any elected official where we have to continue to make it known that we're paying attention, that we'll show up and that we have expectations of our elected officials. When we do that in large enough crowds, they listen and they do the right thing. In the end, did Ferguson do the right thing enough to secure the union's backing for reelection? That's three-and-a-half years away. In sports terms, there's going to be a lot more game film to review by the time that decision comes up. Enough time for a reconciliation? As far as he and I, personally, I can't say. My door is always open, even if it's to say I don't like you, right? I don't care if it's me. I believe the narrative got a little bit into a personal thing between me and Bob. I need to know that there are people in the governor's office that he will listen to, who can make sure that our main issues are being heard and addressed. Do you feel that way today? I feel that now more than I did two months ago. Would I like to have a better relationship with the governor? I don't want to be in a feud with our governor. You're probably not going to call him a 'ratfink' again. Probably not.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What Is a Constitutional Crisis and Are We in One Under the Second Trump Administration?
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take You might have heard the term 'constitutional crisis' thrown around on social media or in the news lately. What used to be a relatively obscure concept you might learn about in civics class is now suddenly being talked about everywhere. Some say we're in a full-blown constitutional crisis, others claim we're veering toward one, and others believe the panic is overblown. Here's what the data says: Today, a majority of Democrats and Independents agree that the United States is experiencing a constitutional crisis, while just 3 in 10 Republicans say the same, according to surveys conducted by the States United Democracy Center and YouGov. As the leader of an organization that works to protect our democracy, and as a lawyer who served at the highest levels of state government, it's hard to disagree with the majority of my fellow Americans as I look at what's happening in our country right now — it feels like we are in a constitutional crisis. But what is a constitutional crisis? Is there an on-off switch, or is it a spectrum? And, more importantly, why should you care and what can you do about it? To answer that big question, we have to look at the source material: The United States Constitution. Our Constitution lays out a system of government that divides certain powers between the Congress, the courts, and the president, while giving states the authority to govern their people and to check the federal government. After a series of debates and compromises, the framers of the Constitution created that system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from exercising too much power. Our democracy is built to withstand our differences while safeguarding our freedoms. You were likely taught how it's supposed to work: The president can veto Congress's bills. Congress can refuse to fund the president's priorities or reject their nominees. The courts can strike down laws they deem unconstitutional. And states can defend against federal overreach. In short, the Constitution is like a democracy rulebook. But it also relies heavily on the idea that people in power will respect those rules. An attempt to undermine or go around the system is an attack on our democracy. That's a constitutional crisis. The Constitution puts guardrails on the president's power — whether he likes it or not. But since President Donald Trump took office again in January 2025, the executive branch has repeatedly gone beyond its constitutional authority, testing the bounds of federal power like never before. Most recently, in response to protests in California, Trump moved thousands of National Guard units from state control to federal service. The action came without authorization from the governor, who is typically in command. When governors need federal assistance, they ask. It should not be forced on them. Trump has attempted to freeze federal funding for everything from disaster relief to child care. One problem: He doesn't have that power. The Constitution gives Congress the 'power of the purse' — the right to decide when and how our federal tax dollars are spent. And Congress has already promised those funds for essential services for everyday Americans. Federal judges have repeatedly ordered the administration to cease its attempts to stop funding for essential services. But as these lawsuits wind through the courts, real people are being hurt. State and local health departments can't pay staff, college students are having trouble accessing federal financial assistance, and job training programs are being canceled — all because of an unconstitutional power grab. Our system is set up so that when there are constitutional disputes between the branches of government, we look to the courts to resolve them. And an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that the law should be applied equally to everyone, including those in power, according to March polling from States United and YouGov. When a court issues a ruling, it's not a suggestion — it's the law. Even the president must comply. Imagine if a regular person, after being convicted of a violent crime in court, could decide to ignore the jury and walk free? Americans would never stand for that. Yet, the Trump administration continues to defy court orders across the country. They reportedly didn't turn around planes carrying people being deported to El Salvador. They spent weeks refusing to comply with an order from the Supreme Court to 'facilitate' the return of a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported. And they refused to let Associated Press journalists into Oval Office events, even after a judge found that was a violation of the First Amendment. Administration officials have also made a series of concerning statements calling into question the judicial system's check on executive power. When it comes to the Trump administration disregarding our system of checks and balances, the list goes on. You've probably heard about how the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk until his recent departure, gutted federal agencies that were created by Congress. But did you know that Trump also tried to use an executive order to change key aspects of how we run elections? The Constitution is very clear that states have authority over our elections. That helps ensure that elections work for the people, not the party in power in Washington, DC. It's how we keep our elections free, fair, and secure. Trump tried to grab that state power. Once again, a judge stopped him, blocking parts of his order. By the way, many of Trump's executive orders haven't just been deemed illegal in the courts — they're also unpopular. Nearly three-quarters of Americans believe policy changes should happen through the passage of a bill in Congress, not an executive order by the president, according to our March poll with YouGov. No one person gets to declare a constitutional crisis, just like no one person gets to break our democracy. And even if there were a 'constitutional crisis' switch we could flip, there would be no cavalry riding to the defense of American democracy. We are the cavalry. We can debate the wording. We can argue over what really tips us into crisis, but at the end of the day, that's a distraction meant to divide us further. Because here's what I'll tell you is really important: President Trump continues to violate our constitutional system. Plain as day. He's breaking the law and ignoring the people who are meant to keep him in check. Despite all that, I firmly believe it's not too late. The Trump administration has done a lot of damage in these first five months, but we can still preserve American democracy. Enforcing and upholding the Constitution is the way forward. And we need to use every power that our country's founders gave us to do so. Because this is our democracy — our future. And the Constitution is our rulebook. It begins, 'We the People,' after all. Many of our state leaders — governors, attorneys general, and secretaries of state — are standing up for the Constitution and our freedoms, and our team at States United is committed to supporting them. Judges across the country are interpreting the law without fear or favor. But we also need citizens — especially young people — who are informed, engaged, and unafraid to speak out. You've already taken the first step, which is educating yourself on how the system works. What's next? You can vote, organize, protest, and lead. You can express your views online and challenge disinformation. You can work or volunteer for an organization that's fighting back. You can support elected officials who defend the rule of law, hold accountable those who don't, and one day run for office yourself. We can't take our democracy for granted. The Constitution doesn't enforce itself. It relies on each of us to uphold it. The question isn't whether we are in a constitutional crisis. It's what we're going to do about it. Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue Want more U.S. government coverage? The Current Supreme Court Is Illegitimate What It's Like to Live In a State Run By Politicians You Can't Stand Mass Incarceration Is Cruel, Expensive, and Ineffective The True Story of a White Supremacist Insurrection in the U.S.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
LA Riots Hand Republicans Script for Midterms
The masked man on the motorcycle, the one who waved a Mexican flag in front of a torched car as Los Angeles police stood by, will soon be famous. His identity remains unknown, his image iconic - but for all the wrong reasons. Republicans will replay the clip again and again in campaign ads ahead of the midterms. "This lawlessness is exactly what Americans rejected in 2024," said Michael Whatley, chairman of the Republican National Committee. "While Democrats sow chaos, Republicans stand as the party of law and order." President Trump is delivering on his campaign promise to crack down on illegal immigration, Whatley told RealClearPolitics, and ahead of the midterms, his party "will continue to run on this winning message and finish the job for the American people." As National Guard were being deployed to quell violence in California, Republicans were mobilizing to capture and catalog video of looting, rioting, and violence. One RNC official told RCP they were struggling to capture the flood of content coming across cable news. "It was just non-stop," they said. "There was so much." That content from the LA riots will soon provide fodder for the contrast Republicans hope to paint in November of next year, illustrating the failed immigration policies they allege California Gov. Gavin Newsom now embodies. For his part, Newsom blames Trump for inflaming an already "combustible situation." Los Angeles became ground zero for the Trump administrations immigration crackdown Saturday when ICE agents launched a series of raids across the city. Protests followed. Some of the demonstrations have been peaceful. The ones getting wall-to-wall news coverage, however, were not. Demonstrators hurled rocks, firework shells, and Molotov cocktails at police. Vandalism and looting ensued, prompting Trump to order 2,000 National Guardsmen to the city without the approval of the California governor. Newsom quickly condemned the move as a "blatant abuse of power" that puts the nation on a path to authoritarianism. "Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles," Newsom said in a speech delivered from an LA studio Tuesday, as the city remains under a curfew ordered by Mayor Karen Bass. "Well beyond his stated intent to just go after violent and serious criminals, his agents are arresting dishwashers, gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses." "California may be first, but it clearly wont end here," the governor said. "Other states are next. Democracy is next." The White House already saw the riots as an opportunity to paint Democrats as hapless in the face of lawlessness. After the governors speech, they were overjoyed to have that fight with Newsom. "Democrats are not even choosing the 20 on 80-20 issues," a White House official told RCP. "Theyre choosing the 10 on 90-10 issues." The situation in Los Angeles could be perilous for Democrats. Newsom has tried to differentiate a violent mob from lawful demonstrators, warning on social media that those "who take advantage of Trumps chaos" will be held accountable, while encouraging those who are "protesting peacefully." The White House, meanwhile, sees nothing but anarchy and is considering invoking the Insurrection Act, a law that grants the president authority to deploy the military on U.S. soil. Asked if he was considering it, Trump told RCP Tuesday in the Oval Office, "We will see." Republicans are betting that voters have already made up their minds. "AI couldnt generate better imagery," said Jesse Hunt, a GOP strategist and former communications director at the National Republican Senatorial Campaign. Trump won the general election, in large part, in reaction to the lax immigration policies of the Biden administration, Hunt told RCP, and the mob violence in LA will capture voter attention ahead of the midterms. "It paints a real picture of which side voters can choose to be on," he said, "public servants enforcing U.S. law in an American city or a violent mob waving another countrys flag." The National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee has already cut a digital spot that will serve as a template for the midterms. Posted on social media Tuesday, the video splices together clips of rock-hurling rioters in the smoke-filled streets of LA with soundbites from Democrats defending the demonstrations as "mostly peaceful protests." The Congressional Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with Speaker Mike Johnson and the largest spender in House campaigns, has already argued this week that the riots roiling Los Angeles will continue to spread to other cities. When confronted with that chaos, the group predicted, "Americans will vote accordingly." A new survey commissioned by CLF, obtained by RCP, and conducted by Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio, provides the reasoning for their confidence. The polling of key congressional districts found that on illegal immigration and deportations, 57% favor "hiring nearly 40,000 additional ICE and border patrol agents to address illegal immigration as well as drug and human trafficking." The Republican survey also showed 68% of voters favor funding for the military to support law enforcement "in their fight against drug cartels." The Trump administration remains convinced that the public is on their side. "They are incredibly out of touch with what the vast majority of Americans support," a White House official said of Democrats, telling RCP, "We are going on offense and backing them into the corner of supporting dangerous criminal illegal aliens, violent rioters, and lawless chaos." Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent. & Philip Wegmann is White House correspondent for RealClearPolitics.
