Yearly Archives: 2023

(The Center Square) – Republican lawmakers at the Wisconsin Capitol want to make sure dangerous felons who carry illegal guns go to prison.

The Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice on Tuesday held a hearing on Assembly Bill 58, a plan that would require five years in prison for any felon caught with a gun.

“We have numerous situations where judges have ignored or chosen not to address the fact that the convicted felons who they are sentencing were in possession of firearms,” Rep. Tom Michalski, R-Elm Grove, told lawmakers. “In Milwaukee County alone, over 3,500 gun possession cases were sent to the D.A.’s office between 2011 and 2015. Thirty seven percent of these never had charges filed.”

Michalski is the chief sponsor of the legislation. Sen. Jesse James, R-Altoona, will lead the effort in the Senate.

On Tuesday, James hinted that the lack of punishment for felons who continue to carry guns is one of the reasons why Milwaukee has seen a spike in violent crime.

“Public safety has been on everyone’s mind lately. And the concern over crimes involving firearms is not new,” James said. “Illegally possessing a firearm as a previously convicted felon is an issue that has been overlooked in our state. From 2011 to 2015 three out of every four felons arrested for illegal possession of a gun in Milwaukee County didn’t go to prison. Over half weren’t even convicted.”

The new proposal would require judges to sentence felons to five years in jail if charged with having a gun. Wisconsin law has a five-year maximum for felony possession of a weapon, but no mandatory minimum.

Democratic Rep. Tip McGuire, D-Kenosha, worried that a mandatory minimum would either encourage prosecutors to offer plea deals to felony weapon suspects, or snare a lot of nondangerous felons.

“Under the law, a person who is convicted of, let's say manufacturing and distributing heroin, if they possess a firearm [it’s] five years,” McGuire said. “The same as someone with, let’s say felony OWI and has a hunting rifle in their truck. They both get five years automatically.”

Under the proposed law, prosecutors could drop felony weapons possession charges, but judges could not drop the mandatory minimum.

Wisconsin's Chiefs of Police Association and the Wisconsin Fraternal Order of Police support the legislation. Gov. Tony Evers has not committed for or against the measure.

The cost of interest payments on the national debt will continue to grow as a financial burden for the U.S. over the next decade, even surpassing what the nation spends on national defense within a few years, a newly released budget analysis shows.

The national debt hit $31 trillion last fall and is well on its way to $32 trillion this year. As that debt grows, the U.S. Congressional Budget Office projects that the federal government will shell out over $10 trillion in the next decade on interest payments alone.

“To put this $10.5 trillion total in perspective, this means that spending on net interest will exceed all defense spending over the next decade,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in its analysis of CBO's data. “In addition, we estimate the net interest spending will surpass all federal spending on children this year, meaning that we will be paying more to service our debts of the past than to invest in future generations.

“For every dollar that the U.S. government will borrow over the next decade, 50 cents will be just to pay interest on our national debt,” the group added.

CBO also projects that the debt as a percentage of GDP will hit record levels in that time and average $2 trillion deficits.

The latest debt projections are based on current spending obligations. That means new spending from Congress without offsetting tax increases or spending cuts will accelerate that growth of the debt beyond those projections.

“After jumping from $352 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 to $475 billion in 2022, annual net interest outlays will triple, reaching $1.4 trillion by 2033,” the CRFB said. “As a share of the economy, net interest will rise from 1.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in FY 2022 to exceed its record as a share of GDP – 3.2 percent set in 1991 – by 2030 before reaching a high of 3.6 percent of GDP by 2033."

CRFB said the cost of interest on the national debt will soon surpass entitlement spending if nothing changes.

“Unfortunately, the decades to follow 2033 are projected to be in even worse fiscal shape. With deficits continuing to grow unsustainably over time, interest on debt will eventually become the largest part of the federal budget,” the group said. “Net interest will surpass defense spending by 2028, Medicare spending by 2044, and Social Security spending by 2050, becoming the largest single line item in the budget. By 2053, net interest will consume approximately 7.2 percent of GDP – nearly 40 percent of federal revenues.”

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a legal challenge to President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.

Biden announced in August of last year that his administration would “forgive” $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 per year or $250,000 for married couples. Debtors who borrowed money before July 1 can qualify.

For Pell Grant recipients, the debt reduction would total $20,000. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated that the plan would cost taxpayers roughly $400 billion.

The Biden administration argued that the administration has the legal authority to cancel the debt. Justices poked back at that claim, asking whether Congress’ HEROES ACT, which allowed the federal government to delay debt collection because of national emergencies, really grants power to cancel that debt.

Justices point out that the law does not explicitly allow for the waiving of student debt in this way, but the Biden administration argued that forgiving the student debt was still in line with the purpose of the bill.

Justices also raised concerns that using a questionable legal argument to allow such a large release of federal funds may go beyond the power of the legislation. The Biden administration, though, argued that the legal challengers did not have a real injury because of the policy that would give them legal standing to challenge the plan in the first place.

The Biden administration has paused student loan repayment until the Supreme Court rules on this case, expected by June and no later than July.

“Today, my Administration argues our case for student debt relief in the Supreme Court,” Biden said in a statement. “This relief is critical to over 40 million Americans as they recover from the economic crisis caused by the pandemic. We're confident it's legal. And we're fighting for it in court.”

A poll from August 2022 found Americans are concerned that forgiving the student loan debt will hike inflation.

A CNBC/Momentive survey found that 59% of those surveyed said they are concerned forgiving the debt will make inflation worse.

“Republicans are especially concerned: 81% of Republicans say student loan forgiveness will make inflation worse, nearly double the number of Democrats who say the same (41%),” Momentive said.

(The Center Square) – The price for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race continues to get more expensive.

Ad Impact, a group that tracks ad buys in political races across the country, on Monday said a pro-Dan Kelly group purchased its first set of ads for the April election.

“Fair Courts America just placed their first reservations in the Wisconsin Supreme Court general. So far we've seen $180,000 placed. In the primary, they placed $2.9 million supporting conservative candidate Daniel Kelly,” Ad Impact said on Twitter.

The buys from Fair Courts America come after, and are dwarfed by, an ad blitz from liberal candidate Janet Protasiewicz and the groups that are supporting her.

On Thursday, Ad Impact reported another million-dollar buy from Protasiewicz’s campaign.

“Janet Protasiewicz has expanded her advertising reservations ahead of the WI Supreme Court general election. She has placed $1.4 million in ads today, bringing her general election total to $1.5 million,” Ad Impact reported.

That’s on top of another half-million dollars in ad support from A Better Wisconsin Together, a pro-Protasiewicz group.

So far, a number of reports have the price tag for the Protasiewicz-Kelly race at $9 million for the primary alone.

The next month or so will certainly see more spending.

That’s still short of the most expensive Supreme Court race ever, the 2004 race for a seat on Illinois’ Supreme Court.

Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Ben Wikler said on Milwaukee TV over the weekend that the state party is also now spending on the race as well.

"We are also providing financial support to the Protasiewicz campaign, a fundraising partnership to ensure that she has the resources to fight back against the kind of attack ads that are already on the air," Wikler said on UPFRONT. "We really can leave no stone unturned because the stakes for the freedom to control your own body, the freedom to live in a Democracy are so vast."

Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Brian Schimming said a lot of the millions of dollars coming-in for Protasiewicz is from outside of Wisconsin. “"This has turned into kind of a national race, literally talking about it all over the country," Schimming said on UPFRONT. "I suspect both sides will see a fair amount of funding come in from around the country because it's not just about one Supreme Court seat. It’s about the majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and it will be Janet Protasiewicz’s attempt to turn back 25 years of reform in this state, including on school choice, Act 10, concealed carry, voter ID."

Voters will decide between the two in April.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s public school leaders are marking the beginning of Public Schools Week with a new op-ed that tries to explain what public schools are.

The piece from Department of Public Instruction Executive Director of Equity and Inclusion Demetri Beekman begins with an anecdote about a student who thanked a teacher for being the only one who remembered the student's birthday, and goes on to highlight the connections that public schools in Wisconsin can foster with students.

“Those are the moments I live for as an educator,” Beekman wrote. “The moments of connection. The moments of celebration. The moments that say, ‘I see you, I hear you, I believe in you.’ Because I know those moments build a culture of inclusion, inclusion creates a community of opportunity, and opportunity makes it possible for our students to find their purpose and realize their hopes and dreams.”

The op-ed continues.

“Public schools are for everyone because they are where hopes and dreams come alive, where educators connect with every learner, where everyone feels safe and where students and educators alike can learn about and with people who are different from themselves,” Beekman added. “All of that sounds rather serious and very important, and it is, but public schools are also places of laughter and joy; if you can’t laugh with kids, then you are missing out on some great learning opportunities.”

Jim Bender, one of Wisconsin’s longest and strongest supporters of school choice, said Beekman’s ode to public schools left a few things out.

“There are 500 words in this column and yet ‘read’ and ‘math’ are nowhere to be found. Before we make any other policy decisions in Wisconsin, or celebrate our institutions, we need to all agree that teaching kids both reading and math are the top priorities for all schools and for all kids,” Bender told The Center Square.

Test scores show most kids in Wisconsin cannot read or write at grade level. The latest national report card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, shows nearly two-thirds of Wisconsin kids are not reading as they should be.

The report card stated back in November of last year that just 33% of 4th graders and and just 32% of 8th graders are proficient in reading.

Bender said DPI cannot continue to ignore the lack of reading and writing, no matter the connections that teachers build with students.

“Without those basic tools for all of our children, everything is else is just window dressing. Wisconsin continues to rank at or near the bottom for children of color for academic success. We should hold off on the celebration until our children can read,” Bender added.

When schools, stadiums, and churches were locked and empty, hundreds of thousands of Americans poured into the streets to protest the police killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020, setting up an uncomfortable conflict between public health and social justice during the early days of the pandemic in America.

More than a thousand experts and activists, including many from academia, weighed in. Yes, they wrote in an open letter that quickly went viral, social distancing remained an “effective” method to slow the spread, but “white supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19.”

These same voices added, however, that their support of Black Lives Matter demonstrations “should not be confused with a permissive stance on all gatherings, particularly protests against stay-home orders.” Those kinds of protests, they insisted, were “rooted in white nationalism.”

This was the moment when DeSantis lost faith, if he had any left, in the experts, i.e., the ruling class of public health professionals who governed the U.S. response to COVID-19. What Florida’s Republican governor saw as an obvious double standard “told me all I needed to know about what partisans these people were.”

Those kinds of “experts,” DeSantis concluded, “were not going to save us” – a populist theme that defines his forthcoming memoir, “The Courage to Be Free,” set to be published Tuesday and segments of which were obtained early by RealClearPolitics.

DeSantis writes that Florida became “a citadel of freedom” during the pandemic by “cutting against the grain of elite and media opinion” and “bucking the experts,” including those who led the COVID task force in the Trump White House. As he explores his own bid for the presidency, a contest that would necessarily pit him against the former president, the book brings that implicit contrast into sharp relief.

Though he loves to loathe them now, Trump never told Anthony Fauci or any of the other lockdown architects he employed “You’re fired!” But DeSantis, without criticizing Trump specifically, writes how he “consumed data” and “measured it against policies implemented” in other states before deciding early on “that I would not blindly follow Fauci and other elite experts.”

That difference could be a deciding factor in the 2024 Republican primary season if the two men find themselves crossways on a debate stage. Trump has already been blasted on COVID from the left. A rebuke has not yet materialized on the right. And DeSantis does not offer an explicit one in “The Courage to Be Free” so much as he rails against the media, whom he excoriates for holding up “governors like Andrew Cuomo as heroes,” and while treating the pronouncements of self-confident experts as gospel.

For DeSantis, Fauci is an obvious foil. He recalls how the public face of the pandemic response advised states like Florida in July of 2020 that they “should seriously look at shutting down.” The reason, according to the now retired director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was that “we are seeing exponential growth.” Democrats in the Florida legislature echoed that warning and called for a state-wide mask mandate in a public letter that was read on loop on cable news.

DeSantis did not listen. This isn’t because of what his critics called “neanderthal thinking,” he says in his memoir. It’s because he was convinced that “Fauci and the House Democrats were not in tune with the data.” He recalls that emergency room visits had already peaked by the time of Fauci’s warning. What’s more, the numbers the federal COVID task force was relying on were out of date, at least in Florida, as documented infections could take as long as 10 days to be reported. Their prescription amounted to “a post-peak shutdown,” DeSantis writes, “which would have been totally counterproductive and hurt Floridians.”

And while other states sought to “shut down the virus,” Florida shifted strategy and adopted a more focused approach. He writes of that recent history that the goal was to preserve hospital capacity for the worst-case scenarios, “not to achieve zero COVID,” a lofty aspiration that he says – and medical professionals now concede – “was impossible.” In this way, the governor writes that Florida looked more like “lockdown-free Sweden.”

Some readers may not have the appetite for retrospective debates about epidemiology, but conservative voters are still frosted about what they see as unfair treatment. DeSantis delivers a heavy dose of media criticism, criticizing “legacy media outlets” for politicizing a once-in-a-century global pandemic and using “it as a cudgel against their political opponents.”

DeSantis writes with a sense of vindication, especially when comparing and contrasting his state with others. The subtext that may become increasingly apparent if he seeks the presidency: During the pandemic there was another way, a better way, than the trail blazed by Fauci and the feds – and Democrats all over the country.

The governor writes that while New York under former Cuomo and California under his nemesis Gov. Gavin Newsom locked down for longer, Florida did the opposite – with better results. Between April of 2020 and July of 2022 in Florida, DeSantis writes, excess mortality, the rubric for measuring the increase in deaths in contrast to a pre-pandemic baseline, “rose by 15.6% – a smaller increase than in lockdown-happy states that typically received media praise.” New York and California fared worse with excess mortality rates of 20% and 17.7% respectively, and even then, without the additional inherent challenge that Florida faced, namely “one of the most elderly and vulnerable populations.”

Opponents heaped criticism on DeSantis at the time for refusing to permanently lock down; one liberal activist drew national headlines for dressing up like the Grim Reaper and patrolling Florida beaches in protest. Voters rewarded DeSantis with a rout at the polls; he won reelection last year by double digits, voters said, because he kept the state open and returned kids to school earlier than other states.

One main reason, according to DeSantis? He listened to the other doctors, the epidemiologists and medical experts who had credentials as good or better than those directing the White House COVID task force, though they never graced the covers of magazines or had artisanal cocktails named in their honor while deaths of despair skyrocketed around the country. The Florida approach, DeSantis writes, was in line with what the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration later recommended.

As those scientists pointed out, the risk of mortality during COVID was highest among the elderly, and their declaration on the economic and social harms caused by the lockdowns was published in October of 2020. Their opinions were well known though not widely adopted outside of some states like Florida, something DeSantis considers malpractice. “This fact should have played a major role in shaping the proper COVID-19 response,” DeSantis writes, “but most public health experts rejected a strategy focusing on minimizing risks to the elderly while avoiding the harms associated with shutting down society and imposing restrictions on low-risk people.”

As frequently as he questions the experts who were in vogue during the pandemic, DeSantis highlights a trust in the individual to “make the best decisions for themselves and their families.” His job, as he recalls, was to find “evidence-based” approaches “that recognized the obvious harms of mitigation efforts, and that best maintained the normal social functioning of our communities.”

Face coverings are one prominent example. If masks were as effective as advertised, he writes, “then people would choose to wear them without government coercion.” Shutdown orders are another. “Just as I refused to impose a shutdown,” he adds, “I rejected imposing a mask mandate.” Trump has since challenged him on that timeline.

The former president is running a third time for the White House and now argues that the governor is “trying to rewrite history.” Trump told reporters last month that there were “Republican governors that did not close their states” before adding that “Florida was closed for a long period of time.”

DeSantis does not take that Trump criticism head on. He does address it, though. “Because the media and liberal politicians vehemently criticized Florida for being open, people sometimes forget that, early in the pandemic, Florida did four weeks of so-called essential business,” he writes. This, he notes, was in accordance with “the template provided by the federal government.”

The Florida definition of essential business was purposefully left so broad “that it included everything from construction to WWE wrestling.” He did issue a brief stay-at-home order in April of 2020, making Florida one of the last densely populated states to do so. Critics slammed him for waiting.

Controversies over lockdowns and mask requirements have since given way to arguments over the vaccine as the pandemic turns endemic. The debate over “the jab” could be potent in what some have already called “the vaccine election.” The DeSantis argument is simple: He got the shots quickly for those who wanted them. He never forced anyone to get vaccinated.

“While I rejected mandates to require any Floridian to take the vaccine, at the time my hope was that the shots would produce sterilizing immunity such that those who took it would not get coronavirus,” DeSantis said, explaining his thinking. “This, of course, did not happen.”

According to the governor, the mRNA vaccines subsequently became “a flashpoint” in what he describes as “the battle against the biomedical security state.”

The “lockdowners,” he says, switched to demanding vaccine requirements “even as evidence piled up that the shots were not living up to expectations” and in a deliberate effort “to marginalize those who declined the shot.”

The simple through-line of the DeSantis book: He rejected mandates when others did not. He leaves readers to make their own comparisons, perhaps until he decides to run for president himself.

“By the end of the summer of 2020, I could tell that more and more Floridians were thankful that I had been willing to take the fire to keep the state open and keep our citizens free,” he writes. “After reviewing the data, I made the judgment that draconian measures would do major damage to the economy and society while making little to no impact on the trajectory of the disease.”

In this way, DeSantis explains, Florida became “the citadel of freedom in the United States.”

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

COVID-19 likely spread due to a mishap at a Chinese laboratory, the U.S. Energy Department stated according to a Wall Street Journal report that said it got its information from a classified intelligence report that was given to the White House and members of Congress.

The Wall Street Journal noted that the Energy Department had previously stated it was not certain how the virus emerged. The shift was cited in an update to a 2021 document published by the office of Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines.

NBC News followed with its own report that the Energy Department concluded with "low confidence" that the pandemic started due to a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China. NBC News cited two sources with "direct knowledge" of the situation.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many in the media have labeled claims that COVID-19 came from a lab in Wuhan, China, as misinformation.

The Washington Post reported May 25, 2021, "The possibility that the coronavirus emerged from a lab was quickly dismissed by scientists in early 2020."

USA Today reported on March 21, 2020, "Suggestions that coronavirus was manmade or engineered for use in Chinese bioweapons are false." In February 2021, USA Today updated the story to alter its ruling to "partly false" to reflect "current information."

The classified report, NBC reported, says that the consensus was that COVID-19 was not the result of a bioweapon but that the leak was an "accident," citing an anonymous source.

"I'm 100% CONVINCED that the virus was made in the Wuhan lab," Ronny Jackson, a physician and U.S. Congressman from Texas, posted on Twitter. "We're going to uncover the cover-up. We're going to find out how tied Fauci was to funding this. We're going to find out EVERYTHING about the origins of Covid!!"

Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases until he retired at the end of 2022, told NBC's "Meet The Press" in November 2022 he had a "completely open mind" about the origin of COVID-19.

Fauci said that respected virologists had strong evidence the virus jumped from animals to humans, according to Politico.

However, in May 2020 Fauci told National Geographic "the best evidence shows the virus behind the pandemic was not made in a lab in China."

National Geographic reported, "Based on the scientific evidence, he [Fauci] also doesn’t entertain an alternate theory – that someone found the coronavirus in the wild, brought it to a lab, and then it accidentally escaped."

Nate Silver, founder of FiveThirty Eight that does opinion poll analysis, criticized the suppression of discussion on whether COVID originated from a lab.

"The behavior of a certain cadre of scientists who used every trick in the book to suppress discussion of this issue is something I'll never forget," Silver tweeted. "A huge disservice to science and public health. They should be profoundly embarrassed."

The House Oversight Committee is pressing the U.S. State Department after media reports indicate the federal agency funded an overseas group that targeted right-leaning U.S. news sites.

The Congressional inquiry comes after the Washington Examiner reported that $330,000 from the State Department went to the Global Disinformation Index, a British group that discouraged major ad companies from using conservative news sites including Newsmax, The New York Post, RealClearPolitics, and The Federalist.

"The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating reports that federal funds administered by the Department of State were used to suppress lawful speech and defund disfavored news outlets under the guise of combatting disinformation," House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Antony Blinken. "The Committee is disturbed by recent reporting that taxpayer money ended up in the hands of a foreign organization running an advertising blacklist of organizations accused of hosting disinformation on their websites, including several conservative-leaning news organizations. The Committee seeks documents and a staff-level briefing to understand the scope of the Department’s use of federal funds for a taxpayer-funded censorship campaign."

This is just one of several instances of the federal government working to censor certain viewpoints. The Department of Homeland Security, for instance, is under investigation by the committee for working with social media companies to censor posts.

"We continue to be concerned by efforts across the federal government to censor the lawful speech of Americans and discredit legitimate criticism as mis-, dis-, or mal- information, whether through the creation of a 'Disinformation Governance Board,' or labeling dissenting opinions as threats to critical infrastructure," the letter said.

The committee called for records, documents, communications and more about the grant funding and to what degree federal employees directed that certain news outlets should be targeted. They gave a deadline of March 9.

"The federal government should not be censoring free speech nor policing what news outlets Americans choose to consume," the letter said. "And taxpayer funds should never be given to third parties with the intent that they be used to censor lawful speech or abridge the freedom of the press."

(The Center Square) – Unsurprisingly, dairy and other farm groups in America’s Dairyland are not happy that the federal government wants to allow other people to use the term "milk."

The FDA this week released its draft guidance on so-called milk alternatives.

"The FDA determined that consumers generally understand that [plant-based milk alternatives] do not contain milk and choose to purchase PBMA because they are not milk," the FDA's draft guidance states. "However, many consumers may not be aware of the nutritional differences between milk and PBMA products."

The Edge Dairy Cooperative, one of Wisconsin’s largest dairy groups, on Wednesday blasted plant-based milks as “inferior.”

“The nutritional benefits of dairy products are superior to imitation products, and consumers should be well-informed using proper labeling and terms. Dairy foods, including milk, are part of a healthy eating pattern and provide consumers with healthy and nutritious food options,” Edge President Brody Stapel said.

The Wisconsin Farm Bureau also said milk alternatives are trying to use the name "milk" to infer a health benefit that may not be there.

“Consumers choose milk because it is a trusted term associated with quality and nutrition. This trust has been built over generations of Wisconsin dairy farmers who take pride in producing a quality product with regulations that reflect that quality,” Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation President Kevin Krentz said. “Plant-based milk alternatives are not milk. They aren’t held to the same regulations and therefore should not be labeled as milk.”

Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin took it a step further, and accused plant-based milk makers of trying to piggyback on milk’s place in America's refrigerators.

“America’s dairy farmers work hard to produce second-to-none products with the highest nutritional value, and plant-based products should not be getting away with using their good name,” Baldwin said in a letter to the FDA this week. “Since the FDA is failing to enforce its own definitions for dairy terminology and stop imitation products from deceiving consumers, we will be reintroducing our DAIRY PRIDE Act to stand up for America’s dairy farmers and the quality products they make.”

Baldwin introduced the Dairy Pride Act back in 2019, but it has yet to move forward on Capitol Hill.

The FDA’s new guidance on plant-based milk alternatives is now open for public comment.

Milk producers in Wisconsin are expected to make their feelings known, officially, in the coming weeks.

(The Center Square) – Kind words are pouring in following the death of former Wisconsin Gov. Tony Earl.

Earl died Thursday. He was 86.

Earl served one term as Wisconsin governor, from 1983 to 1987.

Current Gov. Tony Evers remembered Earl as a trailblazer and a friend.

“A formidable leader and public servant, trusted colleague and mentor, and a good and loyal friend, Tony was well-liked and respected by so many,” the governor said in a statement. “Tony was always a staunch defender of our state’s proud traditions, including conservation, and his passing is a significant loss for our state and for all who had the fortune of meeting and serving with him. His wisdom and wit will be well missed.”

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin also remembered Earl as a leader ahead of his time.

“From protecting our environment to appointing Wisconsin’s first African-American cabinet officer to advocating for LGBTQ+ rights, Gov. Earl was a courageous leader who spent his life serving Wisconsin and the progressive cause,” Party Chair Ben Wikler said in a statement. “His legacy is one from which we may all draw inspiration, and which will live on in our state for generations to come.”

He served as the head of the Department of Natural Resources before becoming governor, and always had an eye for conservation.

Early also led on gay rights in Wisconsin. He issued an executive order that created a process for gay people to file discrimination complaints, and he created the Governor’s Council on Gay and Lesbian Issues.

Earl also raised taxes, and he made Wisconsin’s 5% sales tax permanent. Those taxes, the Earl Administration argued, helped dig Wisconsin out of a $1 billion deficit.

Earl lost his 1986 reelection bid to Republican Tommy Thompson, who would go on to be Wisconsin’s longest-serving governor.

Wisconsin’s Democratic U.S. Senator, Tammy Baldwin, was an intern for Earl while he was governor. On Thursday she remembered her time with his office.

“Gov. Tony Earl was a mentor and friend to me, and I am deeply saddened to hear of his passing. From my time as his intern, through his later years, Gov. Earl was always a shining example of what is good about government and the good that government can do, working with Republicans and Democrats to deliver for Wisconsinites and always putting people over politics,” Baldwin said. “Gov. Earl represented the best of the Wisconsin tradition, fighting for working families, advocating for the responsible stewardship of our waters, lands, and wildlife, and never wavering on his commitment to do right by his neighbors.”

Earl’s family said he died Thursday after suffering a stroke.

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race is set.

Judge Janet Protasiewicz easily won Tuesday’s primary, getting about 445,00 votes. Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly edged out Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow by getting just over 232,000 votes to her nearly 210,000 votes.

Kelly immediately framed the race for the court as a choice between his views on the rule of law, and Protasiewicz’s view of what she wants the law to be.

“She said that in most cases there won’t be a thumb on the scale, as if that was meant to reassure us,” Kelly told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber Wednesday morning. “You’re not supposed to have your thumb on the scale ever. And if you do it even once, it disqualifies you from any office of trust within the judiciary.”

Protasiewicz is framing the race as a choice between Kelly’s pro-life stance and her pro-abortion stance.

“I'll be running against someone who doesn't think women get to make their own reproductive rights. I will guarantee you that my opponent, if elected, will uphold the 1849 near-total abortion ban. I can guarantee you that," Protasiewicz said Tuesday night.

Kelly’s victory came after a contentious campaign against Dorow, who became instantly famous for overseeing the Waukesha Christmas Parade massacre trial.

Dorow took to Twitter Tuesday night to pledge her support to Kelly.

“To all my supporters, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I ask that you join me in supporting Dan Kelly in the race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Wisconsin needs a Supreme Court justice who will protect our constitutional rights and not legislate from the bench,” she said in a tweet.

“I appreciate Judge Dorow’s graciousness. She was just incredibly generous last night in the conversation we had, and with her pledge of support to our efforts to win in April, and her commitment of supporting us,” Kelly said Wednesday.

Wisconsin’s race for Supreme Court is the most expensive and most watched in the country. A number of reports say the race has already seen more than $7 million in ads, mostly from outside groups. By the time Election Day comes in April, experts say Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race could be the most expensive in U.S. History, Currently that crown is held by Illinois’ 2004 race for the Supreme Court which cost over $15 million.

Kelly and Protasiewicz will face voters again in April.

A new Republican candidate threw his hat into the presidential race late Tuesday, focusing his campaign on an “anti-woke” agenda.

Vivek Ramaswamy, an author, activist, and a multimillionaire businessman, announced his candidacy on Tucker Carlson tonight and with a string of Tweets

“We’re in the middle of a national identity crisis,” Ramaswamy wrote on Twitter. “Faith, patriotism & hard work have disappeared. Wokeism, climatism & gender ideology have replaced them. We hunger for purpose yet cannot answer what it means to be an American. We long for that answer. That’s why I’m running for President.”

Ramaswamy said “ending affirmative action” would be a top priority for him upon taking office and named China as the top foreign policy threat to the U.S. and called for going after the Mexican cartels. He emphasized the importance of meritocracy, free speech, and self governance on Carlson’s program.

“People who we elect, make them actually run the government rather than this cancerous federal bureaucracy,” he said. “That’s going to be the heart of my message.”

Ramaswamy’s announcement comes after Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor and presidential Cabinet member, announced earlier this month she is running for president.

Haley, 51, served as ambassador to the United Nations during the Trump administration. Trump also announced last year he is running for president.

Ramaswamy lives in Columbus, Ohio with his family. He has written two books, “Woke, Inc.: Inside Corporate America’s Social Justice Scam” as well as his second book, “Nation of Victims: Identity Politics, the Death of Merit, and the Path Back to Excellence.”

“We’ve celebrated our ‘diversity’ so much that we forgot all the ways we’re really the same as Americans, bound by ideals that united a divided, headstrong group of people 250 years ago,” Ramaswamy wrote on Twitter. “I believe deep in my bones those ideals still exist. I’m running for President to revive them.”