We are choosing a bleak future for Wisconsin children
Children at the Growing Tree child care in New Glarus. Wisconsin is one of only six states that doesn't put any money into early childhood education. (Photo by Kate Rindy)
Children are born into this world innocent. They did not choose their parents. They did not choose to be born into poverty. They do not get to choose if a parent is addicted to drugs or alcohol. Children do not get a choice to be born into an environment of neglect. Children do not choose to grow up in a home with violence. Children do not get a choice to be abused or assaulted. Children do not choose to be born with a disability. Children do not get to choose if they can access medical care. Children do not get a choice on whether they are even wanted or loved.
Adults do have choices. In Wisconsin, we have chosen to have a state where children are the largest demographic living in poverty. We have chosen to allow some children to live with constant hunger. We have chosen not to support children with disabilities. We are still choosing not to create systems to support children who have experienced adversity like abuse and neglect. We made the choice to create an education system based on the income of the people living in the community. We choose to allow children to be uncared for. We as a community have made these choices deliberately and without shame.
Consequently, we have chosen for those children to be less likely to graduate from high school, more likely to fail at a job, have poor health (which is connected to stress in the early years) and to be statistically more likely to be placed in the prison system.
We, as a state, have chosen to prioritize funding for prisons and spend nothing on early care and education, one of only six states that don't invest a penny in early childhood programs, even though we know that when children have access to quality early education that they are more likely to graduate high school, have higher incomes, be healthier, and are less likely to enter the prison system. We have chosen to remove health care options for children by not expanding Badgercare. We are soon to be the only state that does not provide postpartum Medicaid, risking the lives of new mothers and increasing the likelihood that children will have to grow up without them. We have decided that children with disabilities will receive services not based on their actual needs, but based on the budget for special education, which our state keeps at the barest minimum.
We have chosen to make the word 'welfare' into a bad word. Welfare by definition is the health, happiness and fortunes of a person or group. And we have chosen to deny the health, happiness and fortune of children in our state. Referring to a bipartisan push for Medicaid expansion to cover postpartum care, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos has said he 'cannot imagine supporting an expansion of welfare.' Why is providing welfare to support the health and wellbeing of children or anyone for that matter a negative concept? Why are we so afraid that if we support people in need that it somehow takes away from us? For example, why would providing children with free lunches at school be a bad thing to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to medical care regardless of whether their parents can afford it or not be bad to do? Why would ensuring that children have access to quality care and education in their early years, regardless of their parents' income, be a bad thing? Why would ensuring that children with disabilities have access to the services they need be bad? Why is it wrong to have systems in our state that ensure we are doing everything we can to give all children the best opportunities to grow, thrive and become productive members of our communities?
Rep. Vos and Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Sen.Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), and Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) all disagree with creating and funding policies that support our children. Time and time again, they have voted down policies that would have provided support to children. They have continued to forgo our future by not investing in our children. Instead, they invest in the wealthiest in our state and invest in our punitive prison systems. They invest in large businesses with expensive lobbyists who demand tax breaks and deregulation. They invest in those most likely to donate to their campaigns. These grown-up white men cannot stand the idea of anyone, even a child, getting help from the state. If they had to pay for school lunch, they figure, so should everyone else. If they had to pay for their child's medical visit, then so should everyone else. If they had to pay for child care, then so should everyone else. They are incapable of seeing past their privileges. They cannot appreciate what it is like to be a child born into an environment that causes harm and the trajectory that puts the child on. However, they will certainly be there when that child becomes an adult and enters the prison system. They are more than willing to pay for incarceration and punishment.
That's not just financially irresponsible — we spend about four times as much to keep someone in prison as we spend on education — it's inhumane, and it impoverishes our state and condemns children to unnecessary suffering and a bleak future.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
34 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's bill is floundering in the Senate as Musk attacks intensify
WASHINGTON — The clamorous end to President Trump's alliance with Elon Musk is increasing pressure on the White House over its signature legislation known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' — a bill under intense scrutiny in the Senate that Musk wants killed over its price tag, but that Trump views as critical to the success of his presidency. The bill faces strong headwinds among senators across the Republican spectrum, including fiscal conservatives who say it authorizes unsustainable spending, as well as moderates who fear the consequences of offsetting costly tax breaks in the bill with steep cuts to Medicaid. Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican from Wisconsin among those seeking to decrease spending in the bill, told NPR this week that it has 'no chance of passing' the Senate in its current form. 'It's easy to be the parent that says, 'We're going to go to Disney World.' It's hard to be the parent that says, 'yeah, but we can't afford it,' Johnson told reporters on Capitol Hill Friday. 'To get to yes, I need a commitment to return to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending.' Trump's relationship with Musk, the world's richest man and the largest Republican donor during the 2024 presidential campaign, shattered on Thursday in an exchange of public insults between the two men. After leaving his role in the administration last week, where he was assigned to cut federal spending and government waste, Musk sounded off on the bill as an 'abomination' that would cause the national debt to soar. Trump responded by suggesting Musk opposed the legislation because it includes cuts to energy tax credits that have benefited Tesla, Musk's electric vehicle company. The billionaire entrepreneur may also be angry, Trump mused, because his recommendation to head NASA was rejected — an important position for SpaceX, another Musk business. Those comments set off an online tirade from Musk that claimed credit for Trump's election victory and accused the president of links with Jeffrey Epstein, a notorious child sex offender. 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate,' Musk wrote on X, his social media platform. 'Such ingratitude.' Musk contributed over $280 million to Trump and other Republicans during the 2024 presidential campaign. But his tenure in the White House has come at a steep cost. Tesla's profits plummeted 71% over the first three months of the year, with reputation rankings showing a similarly precipitous drop amongst consumers. In Thursday alone, as his feud with Trump escalated, Tesla's stock price dropped 14%. 'I'm not even thinking about Elon,' Trump told CNN's Dana Bash in a phone interview on Friday. 'He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem.' Musk was also quieter on Friday, focusing his social media activity on his companies, a sign that both men see mutual destruction in the fallout from their feud. But the source of their feud — the bill — remains on thin ice. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill could add $2.4 trillion to annual deficits over the next decade and result in 10.9 million people losing their health insurance, prompting GOP senators like Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, where 28% of the state population is enrolled in Medicaid, to express concern. But Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, told reporters that the caucus is open to exploring cuts to another popular health program — Medicare, for Americans 65 and older — if it results in lowering the overall costs of the bill. 'The focus, as you know, has been on addressing waste, fraud, abuse within Medicaid and, but right now, we're open to suggestions that people have them about other areas where there is, you know, clearly, waste, fraud and abuse that can be rooted out in any government program,' Thune said in a news conference. Asked whether Medicare cuts are on the table, Thune replied, 'I think anything we can do that's waste, fraud and abuse are open to discussions.' House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, defended the bill against Musk's attacks on Friday and said his calls to kill the bill were a 'surprise.' 'I don't argue with Elon on how to build rockets,' Johnson said. 'I wish he wouldn't argue with me about how to craft legislation.' Johnson has said his goal is to have the legislation passed into law by Independence Day, before lawmakers start traveling home for a series of long summer recesses. But there are other reasons for the deadline. The Treasury Department anticipates the country could risk default unless Congress raises the debt ceiling by August. And tax cuts passed in 2017, under the first Trump administration, are set to expire at the end of this year, leading Republicans to warn of a 68% tax increase if the bill fails.
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oregon lawmakers hold hearing on Medicaid cuts under Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
PORTLAND, Ore. () – As President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' makes its way through the Senate, Oregon lawmakers held a hearing on Tuesday, detailing the impact proposed Medicaid cuts under the bill could have on Oregon. Republicans' reconciliation bill includes at least $880 billion in spending cuts, largely to Medicaid, to cover the cost of $4.5 trillion in tax breaks, as reported by , noting Republicans are pushing for the spending cuts to root out 'waste, fraud and abuse.' On Tuesday, the Oregon Senate Committee on Health Care held a with representatives from the Oregon Health Authority, health care clinics and health care consumers to learn more about what the cuts to Medicaid could mean for Oregon. FBI: Teen's plan for mass shooting at Washington state mall leads to arrest Emma Sandoe, the Medicaid director for the Oregon Health Authority, was among those who testified at the hearing. According to Sandoe, Congress is mostly addressing spending cuts to Medicaid by aiming to reduce the number of people enrolled in the program. The Oregon Health Plan — Oregon's Medicaid program — insures 1.4 million people in the state, or about 33% of the state's population, Sandoe said. Medicaid covers a variety of services for nearly half of all births in Oregon along with long-term health services and coverage for people with disabilities. Class action lawsuit accuses Grocery Outlet of deceptive pricing in Oregon stores Under the 'big, beautiful bill,' upwards of 100,000 Oregonians could lose Medicaid coverage, according to Sandoe, noting the bill could lead to at least $1 billion in Medicaid cuts to Oregon in the 2027-2029 biennium. Those payments support hospitals, clinics and health care providers. Medicaid cuts in the state would especially harm Oregonians and health care providers in rural counties, Sandoe said. 'For example, in Eastern Oregon, Malheur County for instance, 51% of the population is enrolled in Medicaid. So, providers in those counties rely heavily on Medicaid funding and if those providers aren't able to stay in business, not only does it impact the 51% of people that have Medicaid coverage, it also impacts the 49% of people that rely on other health insurance coverage to see those providers in that area,' Sandoe explained. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now 'When more people have coverage, it's not just good for the people who are enrolled, it is good for the whole system,' Sandoe told the committee. 'People covered are able to treat disease earlier, and providers are able to be paid for the health care services they deliver. This keeps providers in business for everyone.' During Sandoe's presentation to the health care committee, she explained several changes the federal bill would make, including adding new work requirements. The bill proposes requiring states to verify 80 hours of work activities per month for Medicaid applications and renewals twice per year. This would be required for people ages 19-64 in the Medicaid expansion group starting December 31, 2026. For Oregon, this means up to 462,000 Oregonians — many of whom work — could face additional red tape to keep their health care coverage, according to Sandoe, adding that 100,000-200,000 Oregonians could lose Medicaid coverage because of challenges demonstrating that they meet the work requirements. Tillamook opens first owned-and-operated facility outside of Oregon Additionally, the bill would require copays. This would be a change for Oregon, which has not charged copays since 2017, Sandoe explained, noting, 'copays of any dollar amount can be detrimental for Medicaid patients, preventing patients from getting needed medical care or consistent access to their prescription drugs.' The 'big, beautiful bill' also proposes stripping Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood clinics. According to Sandoe, this could lead to clinic closures in Oregon, noting tens of thousands of people could lose access to birth control, cancer screenings and abortion care provided by Planned Parenthood. The bill would also prohibit Medicaid funds from covering some healthcare services. National Geographic names Oregon Coast train ride among 'dreamiest' for stargazing Today, Oregon law requires the Oregon Health Plan and private health insurance plans to cover medically necessary gender-affirming care. However, the federal proposal would ban Medicaid funding for gender-affirming care for people of all ages and private insurers would no longer be required to cover this type of care – putting access to gender-affirming care at risk for more than 7,000 Oregonians, according to Sandoe. The OHA Medicare director warns these cuts to Medicaid could end up costing taxpayers more in the end. 'When we have instances that providers go out of business or — for example, (federally qualified health centers) or other providers that provide primary care services — then we're not able to do what we do really well in Oregon which is to ensure that we're treating the person early in their health care conditions before it becomes at a stage of needing higher costs and ultimately when a person is sick, they end up using the health care system in some capacity and having that higher cost does cost everyone more if it's uncompensated care.' Drug trafficker sentenced to 15 years in prison after largest meth bust in Oregon history Following the hearing, Committee Chair Deb Patterson (D-Salem) released a statement, saying, 'More than 1.4 million Oregonians have Oregon Health Plan coverage funded by Medicaid, and it's clear from the testimony today that slashing the program will have serious impacts on that population and well beyond. Patterson added, 'Our rural hospitals and clinics will lose funding, decreased staffing could make appointments harder to get, and people who are forced to delay care will face worse health outcomes.' The proposed budget bill passed the House on May 22 and is now being considered in the Senate. President Trump said he wants the bill passed by July 4. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Scoop: $5 million ad blitz targets GOP senators over "big, beautiful bill"
Two nonpartisan groups are launching a $5 million advertising campaign urging vulnerable Republican senators to oppose the GOP's mega budget reconciliation bill, Axios has learned. Why it matters: It's one of the first major media campaigns against the tax and spending cut package, landing as Senate Republicans negotiate changes to the bill. The two groups, Unrig Our Economy and Families Over Billionaires, will air the ads in seven states with Republican senators up for re-election next year. The first ads launching on Friday will run in North Carolina, Maine and Iowa. Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Susan Collins (R-Me.) and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) are considered potentially vulnerable. Ads will follow in Alaska, South Carolina and Ohio, The big picture: The ads focus on three main aspects of the GOP reconciliation bill that are causing heartburn for Republican moderates: Provisions that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would lead to 16 million people losing health insurance. Medicaid cuts that health care CEOs have warned could put rural hospitals at risk of closure. A spike in preventable deaths that the University of Pennsylvania estimates would top 50,000 a year. Between the lines: Trump's "big, beautiful bill" can afford to lose no more than three Republican votes in the Senate. And GOP lawmakers are eyeing cuts to Medicare on top of Medicaid, senators said after a meeting at the White House on Wednesday. "The president is willing to eliminate any waste, fraud and abuse anywhere," Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who attended the meeting, told Axios, adding that that "opens up Medicare, as well." What they're saying: Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Kobie Christian told Axios in a statement: "Republican Senators can try to minimize the effects of the Republican Tax Scam, but if they pass it, they would be putting hundreds of thousands of their constituents in danger."
