The real effects of the Wisconsin state budget on children
This summer Democratic and Republican legislators along with the Gov. Tony Evers participated in closed-door negotiations to come up with the 2025-27 state budget. All of the parties involved are touting the budget as a historic advance for children and patting themselves on the back for compromising with each other and the work they accomplished. In other words, they played well in the sandbox together. While yes, the state budget has never included funding for child care in its history, as we were one of only six states that didn't, crowing about it now is kind of like touting the fact that you've just changed a diaper for the first time when your child is 2 years old. It's not something to brag about, and the new state budget is nothing to brag about either.
On the surface, as you read the claims about historic investments in child care and K-12 schools, you might think the budget really solved some big problems. Take Evers' statement celebrating 'Over $330 million to support Wisconsin's child care industry and help lower child care costs for working families, a third of which is in direct payments to providers.' That means only $110 million is to continue the direct investment to all 4,700 eligible regulated child care programs. The original amount for this program was $480 million. Child care is receiving less than 25% of the requested amount. You might have surmised from Evers' victorious statement that parents will see a decrease in tuition costs with the new budget. However, the opposite is going to be occurring, and tuition increases will start in August. The $110 million will cause child care rates to increase next month because the new state investment is less than a third of what Child Care Counts, funded through the American Rescue Plan Act, originally provided.
The purpose of that money was to stabilize a field that had been declining for decades. It increased teachers' wages while holding down tuition costs for parents. It worked. The data showed a decline in closures and it raised the average child care educator's wage from $11 an hour to $13 an hour in Wisconsin. (In our state, over 50% of early child care teachers have some college education or degree, with an average of 10 years experience.)
This month the ARPA funds run out, and for the past few years, knowing the federal funding would be ending, families, child care providers, and businesses have been advocating for the state to fill the gap and to subsidize child care. We know that for every $1 a state invests in early childhood education, the rate of return is between $10-$16. Not only does quality early child care give children an opportunity for greater success as adults, it also supports our workforce, families and the economy.
Regardless of the research and well-being of children, the gatekeepers of our tax dollars on the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee deleted Evers' $480 million direct state investment budget request for child care. Instead, child care funding was determined behind closed doors with Senate Minority Leader Diane Hesselbein and Evers in one corner and Rep. Vos and Senate Majority Leader Devin Lemahieu in the other. It should be noted that no one in that space is considered an expert in child care policy. What came out of this room was a compromise for the sake of compromise.
The $110 million for child care won't come from state dollars. It's the interest that has accrued on the federal ARPA funds. It will be allocated directly to child care providers over the next 11 months, until June of 2026. It comes to about 70% less than the original amount paid through CCC. This is why, starting in August, there will be significant closures of child care centers and home daycares in rural areas of the state — already considered a child care desert. Tuition will increase at the child care operations that try to stay open. So no, working families will not 'see a decrease in childcare costs' as stated by Evers.
And when the $110 million ends next year, there is nothing to replace it. The Wisconsin Legislature will gavel out in March and not gavel in until January of 2027, as legislators will be campaigning the rest of 2026. There won't be an opportunity to pass emergency legislation funding child care. Rates will increase again and closures will continue.
The remainder of the $330 million in child care funding in the new state budget is for several new programs. A $66 million state investment for 4-year-olds to access 'school readiness' in their child care program. This will help parents as the state will pay for their 'preschool' time, but it replaces tuition for part of the school day. Child care programs that have school districts with all-day, free 4K will likely find it almost impossible to compete with public schools when they still need to charge for the remainder of the day plus wrap-around care.
In addition, there is a $28 million pilot project to deregulate the child care field, which ends in July 2027. This move comes directly from the Republicans' playbook. The pilot project will incentivize providers to increase their ratios, meaning more children per teacher, lower quality and safety for children and more stress on teachers.
Another harmful policy in the new budget is that 16-year-olds are now allowed to be assistant teachers and count as adults in the ratio. Coupled with the pilot project mentioned above, this means a classroom of 14 toddlers can be supervised by one 18-year-old and one 16-year-old. This reduces the quality, safety, care and education for the children in our programs. Recall that while these decisions were being made behind closed doors, there were no experts in child care policy in the room. This policy was made without consideration of our state accreditation program, YoungStar, and our national accreditations. Any program that participates in the pilot project will no longer qualify to be accredited. And in Wisconsin, accreditation is not just a certificate to state you are following high safety standards, but our YoungStar program is tethered to our Wisconsin Shares (subsidy for child care). Programs with a five or four-star rating receive a bonus subsidy rate. It can mean a considerable loss of funding for providers to participate in the new pilot project.
The politicians who wrote the budget deal behind closed doors neglected to consider the increased cost or loss of insurance for providers when we increase the teacher-to-child ratio and when we allow 16-year-olds to count as adults.
The same group of non-experts also decided to allow policies that, in 2023, were already proposed and had failed to become law due to the overwhelming outcry from families, providers and the medical field against a policy that reduces quality and safety for our children. The state is throwing millions of dollars in the garbage for these policies, which won't benefit child care programs and will cause actual harm to Wisconsin children.
Enacting policies like these without holding hearings raises the question: Who is representing us? The public already overwhelmingly said no to these policies two years ago. Furthermore, funding for child care is one of the top priorities that the JFC heard from voters throughout the state at budget listening sessions. Surveys show that the majority of both Republican and Democratic constituents support funding early child care. The only real compromise made in this budget was the compromise of safety and quality of our youngest children in the state.
So how did school-age children fare in the state budget? Again, we are reading about record-setting investments in schools, along with the biggest investment our state has ever made for children with disabilities. Evers proclaimed that the new budget 'secures the largest increase to special education reimbursement rate in state history.' You might think, great, finally children with disabilities will receive the support and resources they need. But you would be wrong. Evers' budget request was for a 60% reimbursement for children with disabilities. After all, 90% reimbursement is the amount that Wisconsin voucher and charter schools have already been receiving for children with special needs. Unfortunately, the new budget allows public schools a maximum of 42% in 2026 and 45% in 2027 reimbursement, which is a far cry from the 60% request — the rate of the 1980s. Yes, the increase in this budget is technically the largest increase in recent years, but it is still miles away from the finish line.
To make matters worse, the budget also provided a $0 per-pupil increase in general aid funding to public schools; however, a provision was placed in the budget paperwork that guaranteed voucher and charter schools would receive additional funding for their general aid in the budget. I can't recall a year when no new general funding was provided in a budget to public schools in Wisconsin. Last year Wisconsin saw a record number of public schools go to referendum to squeeze additional funding from their communities to compensate for the lack of state and federal funding. Under the new budget, we will see another record number of schools going to referendum next year. We will also likely see more schools close, specifically in rural, poorer areas where the communities cannot be squeezed any more than they already have been. As you can imagine, this budget will only continue to widen the education gap in quality between the wealthy and the poor.
Not to be all doom and gloom, there was one category of children that fared quite well with the new budget: our juvenile offenders. The budget will invest $1 million per juvenile offender. Yes, $1 million per kid. Remember when it was mentioned that investing in our youth early on saves us tenfold later on? The children in our juvenile justice systems are children who were not given the opportunity for quality early child care, children who were raised in poverty, children who have been abused, children who experience trauma, children with mental health issues.
The children in our juvenile systems are those who have been failed by our state. Their families could not afford child care, so they were shuffled from one person to another. They lived with violence and addiction in their homes. And when they got to school at age 5, they were already on a trajectory of despair; the school systems cannot afford to provide all the services and support these children need, especially for those who have suffered trauma at an early age.
Our new state budget only prioritizes these children once they are ready to be locked away.
Unfortunately the hype about Wisconsin making record investments in our children is terribly overblown. Instead, the truth of the matter is that we are putting in the minimum, and this budget keeps us on the lowest tier as a state for investment in our public schools and our young children compared to other states. Meanwhile, we continue to be among the biggest spenders on our juvenile offenders.
Our political leaders have misled us.
I don't think most Wisconsinites care whether their representatives can compromise or not. I think we would all rather have elected politicians who will actually represent us with integrity. Represent us with values that prioritize our children, families, workforce and our economy. This is our common humanity. We can stop generational poverty. We can stop children from going hungry, we can support children who have been abused and neglected, and we can give children a chance in life. But we just made the choice not to do that.
Correction: An earlier version of this commentary misstated the amount of Gov. Tony Evers' budget request as 90% instead of 60%. We regret the error.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Donald Trump says Beyoncé should be 'prosecuted' for alleged Harris endorsement payment
Donald Trump still has a political bone to pick with Queen Bey. The president, who has previously voiced criticism of celebrities who showed support for his election counterpart, Kamala Harris, took to social media on Saturday, July 26, to renew his unfounded claim that pop star Beyoncé was allegedly paid $11 million to endorse Harris' presidential bid. In the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, the "Cowboy Carter" songstress made her endorsement of Harris official when she appeared at the former vice president's abortion rights rally in her hometown of Houston in October. She also cleared the usage of her 2016 song "Freedom" for Harris, and the tune became the Democratic nominee's official campaign song. "I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats after the presidential election and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, $11 million dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note...)," wrote Trump in a fiery Truth Social post, also citing alleged endorsement payments to media mogul Oprah Winfrey and civil rights activist Al Sharpton. USA TODAY has reached out to a representative for Beyoncé for comment. "Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out!" Trump concluded. "Kamala and all of those that received endorsement money BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter." Trump's digital tirade comes just two months after he accused the Grammy-winning singer and other celebrities of being paid to publicly support Harris' candidacy. In a May Truth Social post, the GOP president announced plans for a "major investigation" into the Harris campaign's celebrity endorsements. Catch up: Trump calls Beyoncé's endorsement of Kamala Harris 'illegal' Did Beyoncé receive payment for Kamala Harris endorsement? At the time of Trump's original allegations in May, the Federal Election Commission had no record of an $11 million payment to Beyoncé from Harris' presidential campaign. Additionally, the agency does not have rules explicitly prohibiting candidates from paying for endorsements. It is unclear where Trump got the unsubstantiated $11 million figure. The Harris campaign last year rejected a rumor that it paid Beyoncé $10 million for her endorsement that spread on social media shortly after the music star's October 2024 appearance with Harris. Beyoncé's mother, Tina Knowles, also pushed back at the $10 million rumor in a November 2024 Instagram post, calling it "false information" and a "lie." She added that the singer "actually paid for her own flights for her and her team." Oprah Winfrey says she was not paid a 'personal fee' for Kamala Harris rally What has Beyoncé said about Kamala Harris campaign? During her October 2024 appearance at Harris' rally, Beyoncé, who was joined by fellow singer and Destiny's Child alum Kelly Rowland, said "It's time for America to sing a new song" when describing Harris' presidential bid. "I'm not here as a celebrity. I'm not here as a politician. I'm here as a mother," the pop star added. "Your freedom is your God-given right, your human right." Harris has long been a fan of Beyoncé. The California-born politician attended the singer's Renaissance World Tour in 2023 just outside of Washington, D.C., after she gifted Harris tickets. Contributing: Caché McClay, Joey Garrison and Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, USA TODAY


New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Gov. Hochul's latest redistricting threat is dangerous and undemocratic
Gov. Kathy Hochul and fellow Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps to win seats for their party. And in mid-decade, no less, in clear violation of the state Constitution. It's sleazy, anti-democratic — and illegal. Even Hochul admits it, but suggests Dems may do it anyway since Texas and Ohio are moving to draw up new districts in their states. Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democrats are again threatening to rig New York's congressional voting-district maps, writes The Post Editorial Board. Andrew Schwartz / 'All's fair in love and war,' she huffed last week. 'If there's other states violating the rules and are trying to give themselves an advantage, all I'll say is, I'm going to look at it closely.' Huh? If Texas and Ohio rig their maps, that doesn't give Hochul & Co. the right to break New York's laws — even if her goal is to offset any advantage Republicans get in those states. Note, too, that Hochul is huffing not about protecting New York's influence in Congress but her party's. And at the expense, presumably, of Republican voters in New York, since the goal would be to draw district lines favorable to Democrats. True, Texas and Ohio Republicans are expected draw lines they hope will favor them. But if those states cheat their Democratic voters, those voters can sue. Hochul and her party are worried that if more Republicans are elected from those states, it'll make it harder for Democrats to win control of the House in next year's midterms. But again, if the donkeys think those states are breaking any laws, they can go to court, too. Meanwhile, if Hochul tried to gerrymander in time for the midterm, she'd be doubly violating the state Constitution. First, redistricting can take place only once every 10 years, after the Census, not mid-decade. Second, in 2014 New Yorkers passed a constitutional amendment that empowered an independent decennial redistricting commission and specifically banned partisan gerrymandering. But Democrats ignored the amendment and tried to gerrymander anyway a few years ago, and it took a ruling by the state's top court to stop them. We don't condone gerrymandering, by either party, in any state. It cheats voters, skews representation and undermines democracy. As even Democratic boss Jay Jacobs warns, 'We need to be careful about democracy,' adding, 'You don't change the rules of the game to your advantage just because you can.' Given the tight timeframe, it's unlikely Democrats could pull this off. But then, if New York Dems were willing to violate the Constitution before, who can be sure they won't 'break the rules' again to push through corrupt new district lines in time? New Yorkers of both parties should demand Hochul take back her threat and obey the law.


CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Massie warns blocking Epstein vote in the House could be political liability for GOP in midterms
House Speaker Mike Johnson on Sunday criticized the push to force a vote in the U.S. House on releasing more federal files pertaining to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein as "reckless," while the measure's co-sponsors fired back against Republican Party leadership. "House Republicans insist upon the release of all credible evidence and information related to Epstein in any way," Johnson, R-La., said on NBC News. "But we are also insisting upon the protection of innocent victims," Johnson continued. "And our concern is that the ... discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented, it does not adequately include those protections," he added, referring to the measure introduced by Reps. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif. Meanwhile, Massie and Khanna took to the airwaves on Sunday to defend their bill — and criticize the Republican leadership, whom they see as standing in the way of holding a vote on the measures. Massie and Khanna both repudiated the allegations that releasing the Epstein files would hurt victims of the financier and convicted sex abuser. In an interview on NBC News, Massie said that Johnson was making a "straw man argument" when the speaker said that the bill does not include protections for victims. "Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted and that no child pornography will be released," Massie said. The lawmaker's comments underscore the ongoing divisions within the GOP over the Epstein files, which continue to fuel conspiracy theories among the party's MAGA base and infuriate some of President Donald Trump's strongest supporters. On Friday, Trump deflected questions about Epstein, a former friend. Epstein died from suicide while in jail weeks after being arrested on child sex trafficking charges in 2019. "I have nothing to do with the guy," Trump said of the man he had socialized with for years before a falling out in the mid-2000s with the convicted pedophile. The Trump administration has faced growing backlash in recent weeks after the Justice Department walked back on earlier plans to release the files related to Epstein's case. Massie also criticized Johnson on Sunday for beginning its August recess early in the U.S. House, avoiding being forced to take the vote on the motions related to the Epstein files. "The question is, why isn't Mike Johnson having this vote? Why did he send us home early?" Massie said on ABC News. He also warned of the political implications if Johnson does not hold a vote on the bill. "I'll tell you what's politically going to be a liability is, if we don't vote on this, and we go into the midterms and everybody ... they just check out because Republicans didn't keep their promise," he said. "We'll lose the majority," he continued. Massie said that he thinks pressure will build to hold a vote on it through the August recess period. Some Democrats, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) are also backing the bill. Massie was also asked how he would react if Trump granted convicted Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell some form of clemency. "I don't think she deserves that or needs that," Massie said on ABC News, adding that "it's hard to believe that she, herself, and Epstein did these crimes by themselves," which means it's "time to find out who else was involved," by evaluating documents, bank records and others including plea bargains previously under seal. In recent days, Maxwell was granted limited immunity by the Justice Department to answer questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case. This type of immunity allowed Maxwell to answer questions from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, without fear that the information she provided could later be used against her in any future cases or proceedings. When Johnson was asked what he thought of a possible pardon for Maxwell, he reiterated that the decision is ultimately up to Trump. "Obviously that's a decision of the president," Johnson said, adding, "that's not my lane."