GOP bills revamping unemployment rules get Assembly hearing
State Rep. Jerry O'Connor gives testimony in favor of a bill that would require state agencies to report on various metrics for training and workforce development programs they supervise. (Screenshot/WisEye)
Republicans in the state Legislature are taking another run at changes to unemployment insurance and workforce programs in Wisconsin that Gov. Tony Evers vetoed in August 2023.
While sponsors of the bills cited a couple of modifications in some measures, they are for the most part unchanged, they said during public hearings Wednesday for four bills in the Assembly's labor committee.
One, AB 162, would require state agencies to compile a series of metrics on training and workforce development programs under their supervision, including the unemployment rates and median earnings of participants six months after they graduate from a program.
'We want to make certain our money's being spent in a way that generates a positive beneficial return both for taxpayers and for the individuals participating in the programs,' said state Rep. Jerry O'Connor (R-Fond du Lac), testifying in favor of the bill. 'We'd look at the percent of individuals enrolled in training programs who obtained a measurable skill gain.'
O'Connor said the bill draws its performance measures from the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a federal workforce training law updated in 2014.
In vetoing the version of the bill that passed the last session of the Legislature, Evers said that many state programs it covered didn't fit with WIOA's reporting structure and 'have separate requirements under current state law.'
Three other bills would impose tighter restrictions on the unemployment insurance (UI) system.
AB 167 would expand the definition of employee misconduct that would be grounds for denying an unemployment insurance claim as well as for a worker's compensation claim. The bill would also require DWD to conduct random audits of 50% of all work searches reported by people claiming UI.
AB 168 would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting felony fraudulent UI claims to eight years. It would also require the state Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to produce more training materials for employers and UI claimants, operate a call center and expand its hours in times of higher volume, check various state and national databases to verify that UI applicants qualify, and implement 'identity-proofing' measures.
AB 169 would penalize UI recipients who do not show up for a job interview they have been granted or a job they've been offered — 'commonly referred to as ghosting,' said state Rep. Dan Knodl (R-Germantown), the bill's author.
A UI recipient who fails to respond to an interview request or job offer, fails to report for a scheduled job interview or who is not available to return to work at their previous job would lose unemployment benefits for the week in which that occurred. The bill does not impose the penalty for the first offense.
State Rep. Joan Fitzgerald (D-Fort Atkinson) asked Knodl whether the bill had gone through the state's Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council. The joint labor-management body revises the state's UI law every two years. In the past Evers has vetoed UI proposals for not going through the council.
'This is one of those that they're not going to visit,' Knodl said. 'So that's why we're here as a stand-alone bill.'
Nobody testified against the bills Wednesday, but Victor Forberger, a Madison attorney who represents people with UI claims, sent the committee a four-page memo opposing them. He wrote that DWD already does most of what AB 168 would require, and that it would 'hamstring' the department 'when new practices and resources emerge.'
The measures 'will do nothing to make unemployment more useful and efficient for Wisconsin workers and employers,' Forberger wrote.
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
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage
The passage of the budget reconciliation bill by the House of Representatives in the early hours of May 22 demonstrated once again President Trump's ability to win the votes of Republican members of Congress. But there were two noteworthy exceptions. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) were the only Republicans to resist Trump's pressure and vote against his so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' Both men deserve the country's gratitude, even from those on the political left who would struggle to find much in common with these far-right conservatives. Both men are comfortable with Trump's MAGA-world and both have voting records that put them at odds with Democrats. But in voting to oppose the tax bill, they demonstrated that their convictions are real and lived up to the ideal of an independent legislative branch capable of acting without a president's direction. Alongside a Republican party unwilling to balance the power of the presidency, Democrats have demonstrated an equally unproductive tendency to place loyalty to a party leader above their constituents and the country. The aggressive efforts to downplay, dismiss and cover up former President Joe Biden's declining faculties in 2024 offers a prime example of this type of misplaced loyalty. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) went so far as to explain his support for Biden after the June 2024 presidential debate by saying simply, 'I don't do disloyalty.' This sentiment was indicative of a Democratic Party wholly unwilling to call out the obvious — whose leaders and members chose instead to misinform the American people. With their votes in favor of Trump's tax bill, too many Republican members of Congress have done something similar. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) took a middle path, voting 'present' rather than for or against the bill. But the effect of that meek decision pales in comparison to the clarity offered by Massie and Davidson. Both opposed the bill because they know it massively increases the size of the federal government's annual deficit and relies on future members of Congress to address a problem that needs to be resolved now. Their unwillingness to kick the can further down the road is in keeping with the character it takes to stand up to a president who is willing to threaten the political future of Republicans who oppose his will. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was courageous enough to admit publicly what most Republicans understand in private: 'We are all afraid.' Republican politicians are intimidated by Trump and his allies. Murkowski has consistently demonstrated uncommon fortitude by her principled opposition to Trump when she disagrees with him or believes his policies will harm her constituents. Massie and Davidson have earned their place as the most principled Republicans in the House by sticking with their beliefs when faced with political consequences. They exemplify the idea that it is better to lose with your principles intact than to win after sacrificing them to political pressure and conformity. In recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have abdicated their proper constitutional role in favor of powerful chief executives from their respective parties. At the same time, the judiciary has replaced Congress as the primary check on presidential power — a development that perhaps encourages courts to overstep their intended role. The rebalancing of power in the federal government will start only when members of Congress are willing to assert their independence. A more confident legislative branch would take pressure off the courts and allow them to return to a less activist role. Neither Massie nor Davidson is likely to earn plaudits from Democrats, who have demonstrated their own willingness to put party loyalty over country and are quick to dismiss the value of political independence. They showed this by their shoddy treatment of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) after he challenged Biden for the nomination in 2024, and by their growing criticism of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) for deviating slightly from the ideology of the far left. Democrats have done and are doing exactly what they now accuse Republicans of doing by mindlessly supporting the president's tax bill. Massie and Davidson showed us something better. We might make real progress if more of their colleagues were willing to follow. Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans struggle to defend Trump's military parade as tanks prepare to roll in D.C.
Around this time eight years ago, Donald Trump attended Bastille Day celebrations in France in 2017, which the president apparently loved — in part because it included a military parade along the Champs-Élysées. 'It was one of the greatest parades I've ever seen,' the Republican said after the event, adding, 'It was military might.' Soon after, Trump began pushing for a related display in Washington, D.C., which was not an especially popular idea, even among many of his allies. According to multiple reports, Gen. Paul J. Selva, the then-vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the president during a Pentagon meeting that military parades were 'what dictators do.' There were similar reactions on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said ostentatious American military parades would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' adding that he wasn't interested in a 'Russian-style hardware display.' Around the same time, GOP Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana explained, 'Confidence is silent. Insecurities are loud. When you're the most powerful nation in all of human history, you don't have to show it off, like Russia does, and North Korea, and China. And we are the most powerful nation in all of human history. Everyone knows that, and there's no need to broadcast it. I think we would show our confidence by remaining silent, and not doing something like that.' The White House's plan ultimately unraveled in 2018 — though in politics, it's often tough to keep bad ideas down. On Saturday, June 14, the president will finally get the military parade he's long sought, ostensibly celebrating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary. The event will also fall on Flag Day, as well as Trump's 79th birthday. Seven years after Graham said such displays would likely be 'a sign of weakness,' the South Carolinian told NBC News this week that he's now 'okay' with the parade. And while that trajectory was probably predictable given Graham's broader political evolution, as HuffPost noted, many of his colleagues were more reluctant to talk about the event. They snapped. They stared off into space. They zipped into Senate elevators and smiled as the doors closed with them safely inside. This is how nearly a dozen Senate Republicans reacted Wednesday when asked the simplest question: Do you plan to attend President Donald Trump's military parade in D.C. on Saturday, and are you comfortable with its estimated $45 million price tag? What's more, GOP senators aren't just loath to answer questions about the military parade, they're also disinclined to show up for the festivities: Politico reported that most congressional Republicans won't be in attendance when tanks start rolling down Constitution Avenue, and 'those begging off include members of the Republican leadership in both chambers.' As for intraparty criticism, Graham has apparently changed his mind, but other Senate Republicans have subtly made clear that they're not fully on board with Trump's vision. 'I wouldn't have done it,' Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky told NBC News this week. 'I'm not sure what the actual expense of it is, but I'm not really, you know, we were always different than, you know, the images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that,' Paul said. (He clarified that he was 'not proposing' that that's the image Trump intends to project, but he's worried what message the parade will send.) As for Louisiana's Kennedy, the senator echoed the point he raised during the president's first term. 'The United States of America is the most powerful country in all of human history. We're a lion, and a lion doesn't have to tell you it's a lion. Everybody else in the jungle knows and we're a lion,' the senator said. It's a point Trump will probably never fully understand. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. debt-limit deadlock is making this favorite asset more scarce
The booming money-market-fund industry could soon face a shortage of its favorite assets to buy. The supply of Treasury bills, a kind of short-term debt used to fund the federal government, has been shrinking since January, when the U.S. hit its $36.1 trillion debt limit. I'm in my 80s and have 2 kids. How do I choose between them to be my executor? My friend, 83, wants to add me to his bank account to pay his bills. What could go wrong? Why Goldman Sachs says high-flying tech stocks may be headed for a tough stretch Gundlach says gold is no longer for lunatics as the bond king says wait to buy the 30-year 'It might be another Apple or Microsoft': My wife invested $100K in one stock and it exploded 1,500%. Do we sell? That matters because investors poured more than $7 trillion into U.S. money-market funds. The industry ranks as the second-largest group of investors in the $6 trillion T-bill sector, behind the category of households and others. T-bills are considered a cash equivalent because they tend to be liquid and mature in a year or less. But as the supply dwindles, competition for fewer assets increases, which can lead to shrinking yields. 'Cutbacks so far have been manageable,' Deborah Cunningham, chief investment officer for global liquidity markets at Federated Hermes, told MarketWatch. Yet she expects it to become more problematic the longer the debt-ceiling issue drags out. After the U.S. debt limit was reached in January, the Treasury began running down the supply of outstanding bills. Barclays analysts estimate the sector shrunk by $375 billion through May. See: Trump's Treasury is running out of money fast. Why the 'X date' matters for markets. The yield on the 3-month Treasury bill BX:TMUBMUSD03M was at 4.35% on Wednesday, down from closer to 5.4% a year ago, according to FactSet data. The drop in yield largely traced the series of Federal Reserve rate cuts last year. While the bond market has been hyperfocused on the U.S. deficit, House Republicans passed a massive tax and spending bill in May that would add $4 trillion to the nation's debt limit, providing the U.S. more runway to borrow. The plan would add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. deficit over the next decade, with another $551 billion in debt-servicing costs over that time frame, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Senate now must weigh in on the bill. As those negotiations continue, the supply of T-bills will keep shrinking and the U.S. will draw closer to its 'X date,' the estimated point at which the Treasury will have exhausted all its emergency cash-management strategies and won't be able to pay all of its bills on time. Some estimates put the X date around mid-August, but it has been a moving target based on tax receipts, tariffs and other factors. To offset dwindling T-bill supply, some money-market funds also can invest in somewhat longer-duration Treasury securities, repurchase agreements and other government-related assets. 'That opens up a much broader group of assets,' Cunningham said of many funds. A much smaller subset of funds were designed to only invest in short-term T-bills. With the major U.S. stock indexes SPX DJIA COMP back near record territory, many investors have been reluctant to move out of money-market funds and other cashlike havens. U.S. money-market funds hit a record $7.4 trillion in assets in the first week of June, according to Peter Crane, president and CEO of Crane Data. While weekly flows were expected to come under pressure around the June 15 tax-payment deadline, he said that could help offset some of the supply and demand issues in T-bills. 'You are not seeing the gigantic inflows of two years ago,' Crane added. 'But you will see inflows in the second half. That could become an issue then.' Ideally, the debt-ceiling issue would be resolved by then, unleashing the start of what Barclays analysts think could be a $1.4 trillion to $2 trillion deluge of new bill issuance through the end of 2026. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was expected to follow the recent trend and keep U.S. borrowing needs focused in shorter-term bill issuance. 'That will be a great thing. Right now, rates are lower than they should be in the Treasury market because of the cutback in supply,' Cunningham said. 'When the debt ceiling is finalized and bill supply resumes, that's a positive from a money-market-fund industry standpoint.' Fund manager who sold Tesla, just in time, says investors are overlooking these tech bargains My life partner is 18 years my senior. He wants to leave his $4.5 million fortune to me — not his two kids. Do we tell them? 'I prepaid our mom's rent for a year': My sister is a millionaire and never helps our mother. How do I cut her out of her will? The S&P 500 is nearly back to record highs, but investors shouldn't get too comfortable Value investing is finally excelling again in 2025 — but there is one catch for Americans Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
