Yearly Archives: 2021

(The Center Square) – A $15 minimum wage would result in 1.4 million jobs lost and disproportionately hurt younger workers and those with less education, a new Congressional Budget Office report says.

President Joe Biden, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats have proposed raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025, more than double the current federal minimum of $7.25 an hour.

Biden says such a move would lift million of Americans out of poverty. While the CBO confirms the poverty-reducing impact, it also says it would hurt the economy.

"In 2025, when the minimum wage reached $15 per hour, employment would be reduced by 1.4 million workers (or 0.9 percent), according to CBO’s average estimate," the report says. ... "Young, less educated people would account for a disproportionate share of those reductions in employment."

The higher minimum wage also would result in increased prices for consumers, including on health care, and businesses would be on the hook for higher unemployment premiums because more out-of-work people would seek the benefit.

“Under the bill, Medicaid spending would increase because the effects of increases in the price of health care services and increases in enrollment by people who would be jobless as a result of the minimum-wage increase would outweigh the effects of decreases in enrollment by people with higher income," according to the CBO. "Prices, such as those for long-term services and supports and medical services, would increase as a result of negotiations that accounted for higher costs of labor facing health care providers.”

Other ramifications of a $15 minimum wage, according to CBO, would be less investment by businesses.

"Some businesses would invest in capital goods to replace workers," the report says. "Other businesses, however, would be discouraged from constructing new buildings or buying new machines if they anticipated having fewer employees to use them. On average, over the 2021–2031 period, real investment would be slightly lower than it would be if current laws did not change, CBO estimates. That reduction in investment would reduce workers’ productivity and lead to further reductions in their employment.”

The Georgia Center for Opportunity, which advocates for those in poverty through free-market solutions, said the negatives of such a large minimum wage hike outweigh any benefits.

"Workers need immediate help, but doubling the federal minimum wage when Georgia small businesses are closing left and right is not the right answer," Buzz Brockway, GCO's director of public policy, said in a statement. "Recent data have shown us that unilateral minimum wage hikes hurt low-income, low-skilled workers the most. What's needed for low-income Georgia workers is more than a temporary fix: What's needed is practical training and credentialing to help them 'upskill' into better-paying jobs and careers."

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s lieutenant governor is breaking out the puns to support Gov. Tony Evers’ push for legal marijuana in the state.

Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes used one of his two Twitter accounts to offer-up puns over the weekend.

“Maybe I’m being blunt, but it’s high time we stop living in the failed past,” Barnes wrote in one tweet. “Other states take advantage of Wisconsin weed tourists who leave the state for greener pastures. What was once a pipe dream is now long overdue.”

“We have to do this. If Iowa legalizes before us, Wisconsin will be in a geographical weed bowl,” Barnes wrote in another.

Barnes seems to have taken on the role of promoter-in-chief for Evers’ legalization push.

The governor is asking lawmakers in Madison to legalize both recreational and medical marijuana in the state.

“Legalizing and taxing marijuana in Wisconsin — just like we do already with alcohol — ensures a controlled market and safe product are available for both recreational and medicinal users and can open the door for countless opportunities for us to reinvest in our communities and create a more equitable state," Evers said in a statement.

Barnes added from his official Twitter account: “In the year 2021, there's no reason Wisconsin shouldn't join the 15 other states — red and blue — that have legalized marijuana.”

He also tweeted: “[N]ot only will this plan create jobs and reduce justice system costs, we can invest the revenue it raises in creating a more just and equitable state.”

There is little chance Evers’ proposal becomes law. The Republicans who control the state legislature have opposed marijuana legalization in Wisconsin for years.

But they are not alone.

Taxpayer groups are also suspicious of the governor's proposal.

Eric Bott with Americans for Prosperity in Wisconsin said there are real questions to ask about who would benefit from legalization, and not just people who want to use marijuana.

“The details of [Gov. Evers’] regulatory scheme matter a lot (or would if this were passable),” Bott tweeted over the weekend. “Wisconsin doesn’t need another crony three-tier system that helps a few gain advantages at the expense of the many.”

Both Illinois and Michigan have legalized marijuana. Wisconsin’s other neighbors have legalized CBD or medical marijuana in some shape or form.

U.S. House and Senate Democrats have reintroduced the PRO ACT, a sweeping pro-union bill that would wipe out right-to-work labor laws in 27 states.

Democrats argue the PRO Act will create safer workplaces and increase employee benefits by expanding union organizing. Those opposed to it argue it will force small businesses to close, cost an untold number of jobs and worsen the economy, and “impose a laundry list of other union boss power grabs.”

A version of the bill was introduced in 2018 and 2019 and the Democratic-controlled House passed a version of the bill along partisan lines in 2019.

The bill, which includes sweeping changes to labor laws, is the “most significant worker empowerment legislation since the Great Depression,” unions claim.

Among its many provisions, the bill would advance union organization and collectively bargaining rights by authorizing the National Labor Relations Board to levy fines against employers who violate workers’ rights and unilaterally overturn a workplace election. It also would ensure that workers can participate in secondary boycotts and collect “fair share” fees.

The bill would make it illegal to permanently replace striking workers, adopt California’s ABC Test to give union officials the power to force tens of thousands of independent contractors into unions, shut down Big Labor’s competitors by granting special powers that enable union bosses to drive merit-shop companies out of business, reinstate the Obama-era “persuader rule” that makes it more difficult for employees to hear both sides before getting the chance to vote on unionization, and the Obama-era “joint employer” standard which allows for increased litigation, among many other provisions.

Mark Mix, president of the National Right To Work Committee, says instead of calling the bill the PRO Act, it should be called the “Pushbutton Unionism Bill” because “it will make forcing workers into an unwanted union as easy as pushing a button.

“After Big Labor poured millions in forced-dues dollars into their campaigns last year, these politicians have put workers back in their sights at the behest of the union bosses that helped get them elected,” Mix added.

In 1935, Congress gave Big Labor the power to force employees to accept their “exclusive representation,” and made it illegal for workers to represent themselves. Workers, regardless if they wanted union representation or not, were required to pay for it, even in cases where representation opposed their best interests.

It took another 12 years for Congress to amend previous laws. After the Taft-Harley Act of 1947, states were given the ability to “opt out” of the NLRA’s forced-dues provisions by passing state right-to-work laws. There are currently 27 states with right-to-work laws. The PRO Act would reverse the changes of the right-to-work laws in these states.

Doing so would kill jobs and economic growth, the National Right To Work Committee argues. Its calculation of job growth in right-to-work states is double that of growth in forced-unionism states, and the average family living in a right-to-work state has $4,258 more to spend in after-tax real income.

Democrats disagree, arguing that “unions are critical to increasing wages and addressing growing income inequality.” They point to studies showing that union members earn on average 19 percent more than those with similar education, occupation, and experience in a non-union workplace.

“The PRO Act would reverse years of attacks on unions and restore fairness to the economy by strengthening the federal laws that protect workers’ right to join a union and bargain for higher wages and better benefits,” the sponsors of the bill argue.

But other groups like the International Franchise Association argue the bill will wipe out small businesses, including franchises.

Franchising is an industry that empowers new entrepreneurs to operate under a national brand, allowing small businesses and national companies to grow faster and contribute more to local communities and the wider economy, IFA argues. The bill would seek to unionize franchises, thereby preventing national brands from partnering with small businesses.

Implementing an Obama era “joint employer” standard, IFA argues, “puts franchisors at risk of being sued for things they never did and had no power to stop. Faced with this reality, franchise companies are much less likely to partner with local entrepreneurs, lest they open themselves up to a slew of lawsuits.”

An NLRB 2015 joint employer rule action led to nearly double the amount of litigation against franchise businesses, IFA notes, costing them $33.3 billion per year. The Obama standard also prevented the creation of 376,000 new jobs in less than four years, IFA adds. The PRO Act would make this provision permanent, resulting in higher losses and lower job creation and small-business formation, the association argues.

The 2021 House bill was introduced by U.S. Rep. Andy Levin of Michigan, House Committee on Education and Labor Chairman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott of Virginia, Rep Frederica Wilso of Florida, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, and Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania.

The Senate bill was introduced by Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chair Patty Murray of Washington and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

(The Center Square) – Nothing is changing about Wisconsin’s coronavirus emergency order or the state’s mask mandate. At least for the time being.

Republicans in the State Assembly did not vote to overrule the governor on Thursday, largely because of questions about nearly $50 million a month in enhanced food stamp benefits.

Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services on Wednesday said ending Gov. Evers coronavirus emergency order would also end the state’s eligibility for enhanced SNAP benefit funding. DHS said those benefits totaled $49.3 million for 242,507 households this month alone.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, on Thursday said not including a work-around for those benefits in the original override was a misstep.

"Unfortunately when our Senate colleagues passed it, they didn’t necessarily do the same due diligence, which is why we had to add that amendment to AB1 today. We do not want to repeat that mistake,” Vos told reporters at the Capitol.

Republicans in the State Senate approved the override Tuesday. Senators on Thursday added a fix for the food stamp mistake into the coronavirus relief package passed by the Assembly. But that too appears to be dead for now.

State Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, said Senators did what was necessary “to preserve those funds going forward.”

Vos said he wants to double-check before taking the next step.

"I think the amendment that we worked with in the Senate probably fixes the issue but I don’t know that for sure,” Vos added. “Our job is to guarantee when we pass legislation we know what the ramifications are.”

Democrats in the legislature are satisfied to have the governor’s emergency order and mask mandate remain in place.

“I am both relieved and not surprised that we are here not taking up repealing the mask mandate,” Rep Gordon Hintz, R-Oshkosh, said during the Assembly debate. “I hope the extra time allows cooler heads to prevail.”

Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate say overturning the governor’s emergency order and mask mandate is not about masks. They insist the move is about reining-in the governor who they say has overstepped his legal authority.

(The Center Square) – Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate approved a resolution that rolls back Evers’ latest emergency order extension on a largely party line vote.

The resolution prompted Democrats at the Wisconsin Capitol on Tuesday to paint a dark picture of what will happen in the state without Gov. Tony Evers’ latest emergency order and mask requirement

Gov. Evers has issued several emergency orders since last March dealing with the coronavirus. State law limits his emergency powers to just 60 days, though the Wisconsin Supreme Court is considering that question right now.

Last week, Evers issued another extension that would carry the state’s emergency coronavirus restrictions and mask requirement into mid-March.

Sen. Duey Stroebel, R-Saukville, said Wisconsin has been under one emergency order or another since last March.

“There is no such thing as a perpetual emergency,” Stroebel told senators. “Reissuing emergencies every 61 days is transparently attempting to circumvent the law.”

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said earlier on Tuesday that lawmakers want to check the governor rather than decide who should wear a mask.

“I don’t think the Constitution envisioned a single person being able to make rules forever by himself,” Vos told reporters. “I’m going to say people should still wear a mask, especially if you’re in a group of people that you don’t know.”

Sen. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, said the vote is not about face masks or even coronavirus restrictions. Nass said the question is about the balance of power in state government.

“This is not about face masks, Nass said. “This is about repeatedly issuing emergency orders, contrary to what the law allows. This is about the rule of law.”

Nass said lawmakers must act to “protect the governed from an abusive government.”

Republican Sen. Rob Cowles, R-Green Bay, and Sen. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield, voted against the resolution.

Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, said Tuesday during the Senate debate over the governor’s order he is annoyed "because my neighbors are dying,” adding: “This will shut down our state. Moving this forward will shut down our state and hurt even more. And maybe you’ll feel great and pat yourself on the back. But the rest of society will say ‘What the hell are you doing?’'"

“I know you can work things out,” Sen. Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee, said, addressing Republicans favoring a new round of negotiations with the governor. “I know you’re going to alienate your base. People are going to be mad at you. People will be mad enough that they will storm the Capitol, kill people, break windows, think they are taking over the U.S. Capitol.”

Carpenter didn’t stop there. In a 20-minute speech from the Senate floor, Carpenter blamed former President Trump for a lack of a national mask requirement, too few vaccines, an angry political culture, and thousands of deaths.

Carpenter also said the same people who oppose masks in Wisconsin are the same people who wanted to kidnap Michigan’s governor.

After the Senate vote, the Wisconsin Assembly scheduled a vote on the resolution to roll back the governor’s order on Thursday.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s largest business group says Gov. Tony Evers’ planned PFAS chemical lawsuit is nothing more than a political stunt.

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce on Friday said the governor is way off base in announcing he will sue to punish companies for years of what he called PFAS pollution.

“They want to sue businesses for the past use of compounds for which no standards have been set under either state or federal law,” WMC’s Kurt Bauer said.

PFAS chemicals, or forever chemicals as they are also known, are in everything from Teflon, to waxes and paints, to food packaging materials. PFAS chemicals are also used in firefighting foam. That is where they are most common, and where Gov. Evers has focused his pursuit.

Bauer said the governor is trying to make a political point, while ignoring the reality of how businesses have been trying to work with environmentalists across Wisconsin.

“The business community has worked cooperatively with policymakers and regulators to address concerns stemming from the use and testing of firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals.” Bauer added. “[This] action doesn’t recognize the sincere attempts by businesses to collaborate with governmental entities on the complexity of PFAS-related issues.”

Environmental groups, on the other hand, are thrilled with the governor's decision.

The group Clean Wisconsin says Gov. Evers needs to sue, blaming state lawmakers for not going along with the governor’s earlier requests to implement new PFAS standards into state law.

“Against legislative inaction and limiting any PFAS protections at the behest of industry and PFAS-users, this action finally provides accountability and prioritizes public health,” Clean Wisconsin director of government relations Carly Michiels said. “Industry and heavy PFAS-users cannot continue to drive the narrative to protect their own pocketbooks, forgetting those most harmed by their actions.”

Gov. Evers’ office says the state is monitoring 50 sites for PFAS contamination or pollution across the state.

There is no federally mandated PFAS threshold, meaning there is no EPA required level for what constitutes pollution or contamination. The EPA does recommend that PFAS levels be under 70 ppt (parts per trillion) in water samples.

Gov. Evers is recommending 20 ppt, or almost four times lower than what the federal government recommends.

Bauer and the WMC said on Friday tht “the Evers Administration seems dead set on disparaging Wisconsin employers regardless of whether there is an actual health risk associated with certain PFAS compounds.”