Retired professor Larry White says the email message he got on July 4 from the Social Security Administration was unlike any he’s ever seen from the agency.

“The Social Security Administration (SSA) is celebrating the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” the email message began — using the official name of the massive legislation signed by President Donald Trump that cuts taxes and also slashes spending on Medicaid and SNAP, along with making numerous other policy changes.

White, 71, who lives in Middleton, Wisconsin, has been getting Social Security Administration email since he retired from the Beloit College psychology faculty in 2019. But until the July 4 message, he said, every single one has been straightforward, factual — and nonpolitical.

The message included a misleading description of one provision in the new law. The Social Security Administration later published a correction.

That alone angered White. But that the message was sent at all was just as irritating, he told the Wisconsin Examiner.

The email, including a quote from Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, “appeared to value currying favor with the president over telling Americans the truth,” White said. “I want our federal agencies to be independent, nonpartisan offices that act with integrity and serve the public, not the president.”

The Social Security message claims that the legislation “ensures that nearly 90% of Social Security beneficiaries will no longer pay federal income taxes on their benefits…”

“This is a historic step forward for America’s seniors,” Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano stated.

As was soon widely reported, however, the message itself was off the mark.

“I was surprised to see SSA send this out as an email to such a large list since this seems more about politics than anything specific to the program,” said J. Michael Collins, a household economics expert at the University of Wisconsin. Collins directed a Social Security research center at the UW until the Trump administration shut it down earlier this year.

The actual change that the message refers to is to income taxes paid by all people 65 or older with incomes $75,000 a year or less for single filers and $150,000 a year or less for couples — regardless of whether they’re collecting Social Security or not, Collins explained.

While the message appears to single out Social Security income, “there is no new exemption of SSA income from federal income taxes, just a new deduction for all people 65+ regardless of income source,” Collins told the Wisconsin Examiner in an email message.

For people who are 64 or younger and who get income from Social Security, there’s no comparable tax cut, he added.

To be sure, the reduction does give some help to taxpayers 65 or older who collect Social Security.

A 2022 IRS tax tip explains that half of Social Security income is taxable for a single person whose income is $25,000 to $34,000 and for a married couple filing jointly whose income is $32,000 to $44,000.

For a single person with income over $34,000 or a married couple with income over $44,000, 85% of their Social Security income is taxable.

Social Security beneficiaries with incomes below the $75,000 or $150,000 ceiling will get relief from those tax bills — along with everyone else 65 or older whose income also falls below those limits.

The tax break also lasts just a few years, ending in 2028 — stretching the claim that qualifying beneficiaries “will no longer” pay income taxes.

The email message produced a sharp blowback.

“I was appalled — it was really unprecedented,” Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, told the Wisconsin Examiner in a phone interview. “They’ve taken an agency that’s supposed to be above politics and made it an arm of propaganda.”

Altman recalled that when Social Security checks were mailed in October 1972, President Richard Nixon suggested including an insert in which he could take credit for a benefit increase — even though he had initially opposed it. The commissioner at the time, Robert Ball, threatened to resign if Nixon followed through, and Nixon backed off, Altman said.

As originally worded, the email message appeared to suggest two separate tax cut provisions — one for Social Security recipients 65 and older and one for others:

“The new law includes a provision that eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits for most beneficiaries, providing relief to individuals and couples. Additionally, it provides an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older, ensuring that retirees can keep more of what they have earned.”

On July 7, the Social Security Administration added a correction and changed the second sentence in that paragraph to, “It does so by providing an enhanced deduction for taxpayers aged 65 and older…”

The correction was previously reported by HuffPost reporter Arthur Delaney.

The morning that he received the Social Security message, White, the retired Beloit professor, wrote back to Bisignano directly — guessing at a direct email address for the Trump-appointed Social Security Commissioner.

“Commissioner Bisignano, When did the Social Security Administration become so blatantly political? I thought government agencies like the USPS were supposed to just go about their business from one administration to the next, but clearly that’s not the case with the SSA. You have become an unabashed mouthpiece for Trump. Shame on you!”

“I was upset that the head of a major federal agency would act in a way that undermines the public’s trust,” White told the Wisconsin Examiner.

“For years, Trump has expressed contempt for America’s once-revered institutions — courts, universities, the press, medical experts, climate scientists, long-time allies abroad … the list is a long one,” White added. “Trump wants to diminish any group or individual who questions his aims or methods.”

The email message appears to play directly to that characteristic of the president, he said, and White fears that will diminish the agency in the public eye.

“What upsets me is that the commissioner of the SSA foolishly wrote a letter that will prompt millions of Americans to question the integrity of the SSA,” White said. “It takes years for an organization to build up a good reputation, but it can be fatally damaged almost overnight.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

House Democrats think their most likely strategy to prevent major cuts to Medicaid or other popular federal programs in the current budget reconciliation process will be to win over a few House Republicans.

“We just need three Republicans, basically nationwide, to say no to something,” said U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) at a Q-and-A session with reporters Wednesday in his Madison office.

The Republican majorities in both houses of Congress are using the complicated budget reconciliation process to pass a spending plan that will allow them to extend tax cuts enacted in 2017 during President Donald Trump’s first term.

As part of that, House Republicans passed a blueprint calling for $880 billion in cuts to programs overseen by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Medicaid represents the largest expense item in the committee’s purview, and analysts have said Congress could only hit that target by making Medicaid cuts.

Pocan said estimates of the cost of preserving the tax cuts have risen in Washington, from $4.5 trillion in the original House proposal to “more like $7 trillion in tax cuts” in the current proposal combined from House and Senate alternatives.

The objective for House Democrats currently is to make cuts to Medicaid harder for GOP members to go along with, Pocan said. In Wisconsin, about 1.3 million residents are enrolled in Medicaid, including one third of the children in the state and 55% of seniors in nursing homes.

“You know, the more they hear that, at some point they may listen,” Pocan said of Republican members who won swing districts by narrow margins — and, he argues, they could push back against those sorts of cuts.

“I don’t expect them to maybe say it publicly and maybe to hold a town hall and say it, but if they say it privately in their caucus, that’s good enough, as long as three people won’t support something,” Pocan said. “That’s enough to kill something, right? So that’s kind of my goal is to keep facilitating that.”

The focus, though, is not on stopping the tax cuts, but stopping the cuts to Medicaid, SNAP and other federal programs.

“If we could stop that, and we could stop, maybe, some of the education cuts that might otherwise come … funds for low-income [districts], funds for special ed, I think they’re still going to move forward with their tax cut bill,” Pocan said.

He speculated that under those circumstances, the GOP majority would pay for the tax cut with a deficit increase.

“Is that a good answer? No,” Pocan said. “But is it better than seeing people lose their health care right now or their food assistance through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program? Yeah. So you know my job is to wake up in the morning and get excited about bad choices rather than the worst choices.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

Moves by the Trump administration to cut the federal workforce have caused chaos and fear inside agencies ranging from the U.S. Forest Service to the Social Security Administration, advocates for federal employees say.

Some two dozen Forest Service employees in Wisconsin returned to work Monday, five weeks after receiving termination notices and being walked out, as a result of a court order March 13 holding the termination notices issued on Valentine’s Day were illegal.

Wisconsin is home to some 18,000 federal workers, U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Black Earth) said at a rally in Madison Saturday — workers whose jobs are on the line under orders from Washington, D.C.

“I am getting record numbers of calls in our office, literally thousands of calls every single week,” Pocan said. “People are pissed. They’re upset about cuts to the Veterans Administration. They’re upset about what’s happening with the Social Security Administration. They’re upset about Medicare and Medicaid potential cuts. They’re upset about cuts to agriculture and education.”

At the Social Security Administration, the acting Social Security commissioner has announced plans to close regional offices and cut 7,000 jobs “through buyouts, layoffs, resignations and terminations,” said Jessica LaPointe, president of American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Council 220, who joined the Saturday rally at the headquarters of the South Central Federation of Labor. The council represents Social Security field office employees.

Social Security operations have been “historically understaffed,” LaPointe said, and the planned reductions “will lead to longer service delays, systems failures, and even inevitably benefit disruptions.”

In an interview with the Wisconsin Examiner during a Wisconsin visit in October, Martin O’Malley, Social Security commissioner at the time, said staff at the agency’s Madison field office has dropped by 40% since 2019. O’Malley said he told members of Congress they should increase staffing at the agency to restore “at least an adequate level of customer service.”

The cuts the agency has announced are “exacerbating the chaos, confusion and anxiety felt by workers under siege,” LaPointe said Saturday. She added that the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s project to slash operations across the federal government “are destroying the public’s ability to access timely and effective service from the Social Security Administration, with the intent — let’s be real about their intent — of turning the American people against Social Security.”

William Townsend, president of the AFGE local at the Department of Veterans Affairs VA hospital in Madison, said the department’s plan to cut 80,000 or more positions nationwide would be detrimental to the health care of veterans counting on the agency.

AFGE also represents employees at the Transportation Security Administration. The union and the Biden administration signed a new contract in 2024, but Trump administration TSA leaders told the union last month they were canceling the contract and would no longer recognize the union.

Nevertheless, said TSA worker and AFGE Local 777 president Darrell English, the union will continue to stand up for its members’ rights while conducting a legal battle to restore their union contract. “We know it’s going to be a long fight, but we’re here,” English said at Saturday’s rally.

At the U.S. Forest Service, 24 Wisconsin employees were fired on Feb. 14 — part of a wave of thousands of “probationary” employees let go, said Carl Houtman, a union official.

Houtman works at the Forest Service Products Laboratory in Madison and is president of the National Federation of Federal Employees union local there. He is also the national negotiation chair for the union’s Forest Service Council. In an interview Monday, he stipulated he was speaking strictly as a union leader, not as a Forest Service representative.

About 170 of the Forest Service’s 672 Wisconsin employees work at the laboratory, researching the use of wood as a building material and wood chemistry for papermaking and in a variety of new applications. Most of the other Forest Service employees in the state are associated with the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest in northern Wisconsin.

After a series of legal challenges, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to reinstate the fired probationary workers, ruling that Trump administration officials hadn’t followed required procedures.

The fired workers returned Monday, said Houtman, including a colleague who was among those who had been dismissed.

“It’s crazy the inefficiency that has caused,” he said Monday. “They walked her out the door, took her computer and her door card, and they basically had to hire her back. In this intervening month she could have been reasonably doing her job, but the agency was forced” by the federal Office of Personnel Management, now under the Trump administration’s control, “to fire these people.”

The federal judge’s ruling requires the administration to follow the legal procedures for reducing the federal workforce. Houtman said federal workers and their unions involved in the February firing expect to learn more about the administration’s intentions in the next month.

“We anticipate about the middle of April getting an idea about what’s going on,” he said. “It’s possible that a large number of people in Wisconsin will get wiped out — we just don’t know.”

Houtman said there are concerns among employees that “this administration wants to wipe out the science arm of the Forest Service” and possibly sell most or all federally owned forest land, harming the nation’s natural resources.

Established in 1910, the forest products lab remains a vital source of research, he said. Its findings help shape codes and standards for building as well as for product manufacturing — such as a project currently underway to develop a consistent test for how recyclable consumer packaging is.

The lab also plays a role in training new scientists, he added.

“Most of the probationary employees were new hires, starting to learn wood science from us,” Houtman said. “You basically have wiped out the next generation of scientists. It’s going to do irreparable harm.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has abruptly stopped a program that has helped more than 280 Wisconsin farmers move their products to local food banks around the state, to the consternation of participating farmers.

On Tuesday, Gov. Tony Evers in a press release berated the administration of President Donald Trump for “trying to walk back promises to Wisconsin’s farmers and producers” and urged the administration to restore the 2025 Local Food Purchase Assistance program.

Funding for the program was approved and signed into law “years ago,” Evers said.

Over the past two years, 289 Wisconsin farmers took part in the program, distributing $4 million worth of food products across the state, said Julie Keown-Bomar, executive director of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, and participants were looking forward to continuing for a third season.

“It’s very disturbing that the federal government would renege on a federal contract that was already approved by Congress,” Keown-Bomar said in an interview.

“It was an enormous benefit to the farmers who counted on those purchases,” Keown-Bomar said. The program helped farmers have some certainty about their income, she added, and some hired new employees to handle the added production and distribution of goods.

“It really helped strengthen the food distribution system and create local food networks that were not there before,” she said.

Along with the Local Food Purchase Assistance program, the USDA told school nutritionists on Friday it would end a companion program that connects farmers with local schools. Politico reported Monday on the cancellation of both programs.

Politico quoted a USDA spokesperson who said funding announced in October “is no longer available and those agreements will be terminated following 60-day notification.” The unnamed spokesperson said the programs “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.”

Evers’ office said the loss of the two programs would cut off farmers nationwide from more than $1 billion in support and would cut “Wisconsin’s promised funding by nearly $6 million.”

“The Trump Administration must stop turning their backs on America’s Dairyland and betraying our farmers, producers, and agricultural industries by trying to gut funding Wisconsin’s farmers and producers were promised,” Evers said.

He also took the administration to task for tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico, now on hold until early April.

“With President Trump’s 25 percent tariff taxes that are going to cause prices to go up on everything from gas to groceries and his escalating trade wars that could affect our farmers’ and producers’ bottom lines, these reckless cuts to critical federal programs couldn’t come at a worse time,” Evers said.

The local food programs marked the second time in less than a month that Wisconsin politicians have pushed back on Trump administration agriculture policies.

On Feb. 26, U.S. Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin wrote to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins demanding that the department restart suspended grants for dairy farmers under the Dairy Business Innovation initiative. The program, begun in the 2018 Farm Bill, provides aid to dairy farmers to diversify and market products as well as expand their businesses.

“The uncertainty surrounding DBI funding is incredibly alarming because it threatens the future of many dairy businesses that were promised this support to grow and remain competitive,” Baldwin wrote in her letter to Rollins. She added that the “unnecessary and ill-advised disruption could have widespread economic consequences, particularly, for small dairy operations in Wisconsin that drive our rural economies.”

The suspension put 88 Midwestern dairy businesses on hold for $6.5 million in funds that had been appropriated in 2023, Baldwin said, including 30 in Wisconsin.

On Friday, Baldwin announced that USDA had restarted the program.

Evers noted Tuesday that complaints from his office, Baldwin and dairy industry leaders had successfully reversed the suspension, and called on the Trump administration to also reverse its decisions on the food bank and school food programs.

The governor’s office also criticized Trump for having “threatened to cut thousands of jobs from USDA,” including firing about 6,000 federal employees who were subsequently reinstated.

Evers’ 2025-27 budget proposal has been relying on the local food program funding, and includes a request for $770,000 over two years in conjunction with that money. His office said Tuesday that the loss of the program heightens the importance of a $30 million initiative in his budget proposal to help Wisconsin farmers and producers distribute their products across the state, and called on the state Legislature to approve that, among other items.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

For Aquilino Gonell the inauguration Monday of Donald Trump to a second term as U.S. president will carry bitter ironies.

Before and after winning the election in November, Trump said he would pardon those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by a mob that sought to overturn his 2020 reelection loss.

Gonnell was a sergeant with the U.S. Capitol Police, one of hundreds of police officers on the scene who sought to protect the building, members of Congress and their staffs during the attack that delayed the vote by hours to certify Joe Biden’s election as president.

“I was assaulted multiple times,” Gonnell told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview. “Not because we instigated anything, but because I was defending my colleagues and myself and the Capitol, along with the elected officials” — some of whom, he added, were trying to set aside the result of the 2020 election that Trump lost.

“Both my hands were bleeding on that day, and my left shoulder required surgery,” Gonnell recalled.

He and his fellow police in the building were the targets of violence by the Trump-supporting rioters.

“These are the same people that claim that they support the police, that they respect the rule of law, that they believe in law and order,” Gonnell said. “And with their actions, they showed otherwise.”

Last week, the Courage for America campaign took out newspaper ads urging members of Congress to publicly oppose the pardons. Courage for America formed in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 riot to spotlight the violence and call attention to members of Congress who they believe have papered over the violence with misinformation and propaganda. The group describes its mission as opposing “an extreme MAGA agenda that puts money and power over the rights and freedoms of the American people.”

In Wisconsin the group published ads in Wisconsin Rapids and Stevens Point newspapers, both in the district of U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, a Republican and Trump supporter.

“We must call January 6th what it was, a domestic terrorist attack of the highest level,” said Courage for America’s spokesperson, Danny Turkel. “Americans must unite and remind our elected officials that violent criminals who assaulted the United States Capitol and threatened our democracy pose major public safety risks to our communities. Every member of Congress, including MAGA Republicans, have a duty to loudly and publicly oppose the pardoning of the January 6th rioters.”

The full-page ad tells readers to “Exercise Caution” and warns of “violent criminals” who “may soon be present in your community.” It urges people to call Van Orden “and demand he oppose the pardoning of any January 6th insurrectionists.”

Van Orden was first elected to Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District in 2022 and was reelected this fall. On Jan. 6, 2021, however, he was at the Capitol, taking part in the rally that preceded the attack.

Gonnell spoke to the Wisconsin Examiner in conjunction with the newspaper ad.

He reserves his most pointed criticism for members of Congress who were in the building on the day of the riot and who, he says, feared for their lives at the time but have since downplayed or ignored the violence that took place.

“People who organized and orchestrated the attack, and the people who we protected, they tend to tell others and the public that it was not as severe, as grave, as we say,” Gonnell said.

On Jan. 6, however, “the only reason why they made it out was because we saved their asses — and yet, they have contorted themselves to tell the public and tell themselves that it was peaceful.”

He scoffed at Trump’s description of the riot as a “day full of love.”

“If that was a day full of love, they almost loved me to death,” Gonnell said sardonically.

A native of the Dominican Republic, Gonnell said he came to the U.S. legally and enlisted in the military, fighting in Iraq during the Gulf War then pursuing a law enforcement career with the Capitol police, where he served for 17 years.

Because of his injuries, he received a medical pension. The benefit is less than his income before he was hurt, “but is enough for me to be able to sustain myself and pay my bills,” he said.

Legislation was enacted in 2022 to expand benefits for public safety officers or their survivors after suicide or disability as a result of post-traumatic stress disorder, but Gonnell said law enforcement personnel involved in defending the Capitol on Jan. 6 have yet to receive any assistance from the program.

He believes his outspokenness about his experience cost him the support of department brass. He’s written a book, “American Shield,” and has a website that tells his story.

Gonnell testified before the Congressional committee that investigated the Capitol attack. He believes that the stories he and others in law enforcement who defended the Capitol have told failed to resonate with the voting public because many more officers who were also injured or traumatized that day haven’t come forward.

“They saw how the few of us who spoke out were being treated and they probably said to themselves, ‘Why should I put myself out there? Look how they treat you,’” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling this past summer that presidents have immunity for acts committed in their official capacity — a decision that delayed the federal felony case against Trump on charges of election interference in 2020 — “is a betrayal,” Gonnell said. “Because of that decision, this person is about to return to power.”

He expects that Trump will go through with pardoning at least some of the Jan. 6 convicts. Reports that members of Congress have invited Jan. 6 riot participants as inauguration guests infuriate him. “They are returning these people to the crime scene,” Gonnell said.

He’s already heard about comments by the president-elect that the rioters deserve an apology. “But he will never apologize to the officers who were defending the Capitol,” Gonnell said.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

In February 2018 Melissa Hubbard underwent surgery to remove part of her colon. What she didn’t know until afterward was that her ovaries were removed as well.

Removing Hubbard’s ovaries had been recommended to Hubbard’s surgeon by her gynecologist to treat another painful condition that Hubbard was dealing with. But while the gynecologist had previously discussed the ovary surgery with her, Hubbard wasn’t ready to go forward with that procedure. She was unaware that the gynecologist had suggested it to the surgeon who was operating on her colon.

On Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit that Hubbard has filed against the gynecologist, Dr. Carol Neuman. The lawsuit argues that Neuman’s recommendation to the surgeon without Hubbard’s knowledge was an act of medical negligence.

The lawsuit Hubbard filed against Neuman hasn’t gone to trial yet. The Ob/Gyn doctor, through her attorneys, argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed on summary judgment.

The lawsuit — and the doctor’s argument to throw it out — revolve around Wisconsin’s law that requires informed consent from patients for medical treatment.

Neuman’s lawyers argue that the doctor had no legal responsibility for Hubbard’s surgery under that law and no duty to tell Hubbard about what was merely Neuman’s recommendation to the surgeon, since Neuman didn’t perform the surgery herself.

A Rock County circuit judge disagreed with the doctor’s lawyers and rejected the summary judgment motion. The 4th District Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court’s refusal to dismiss the case. Now Neuman’s lawyers have asked the state Supreme Court to reverse those decisions.

Writing for a three-judge District 4 appeals court panel in March 2024, Judge Chris Taylor found that “the duty to inform a patient about ‘the availability of reasonable alternative medical modes of treatment and about the benefits and risks of these treatments’ applies to any physician who treats a patient, regardless of whether that physician actually performs the disclosed treatment options.”

According to the appeals court’s summary of the case, in 2018 Hubbard was in Neuman’s care for treatment of endometriosis — a condition in which the same sort of tissue that lines the inside of the uterus also grows outside the uterus. Endometriosis can cause pain as well as infertility, according to the Mayo Clinic.

In a medical note quoted in the original lawsuit, Neuman wrote that she told Hubbard she should consider having at least her left uterus tube and ovary removed, or both tubes and ovaries.

Those procedures would leave Hubbard unable to conceive a child, but Neuman wrote in her clinical note, “I believe her endometriosis is so severe she may need reproductive specialists to help her. She does not want to see them because her insurance does not cover this option.”

Hubbard did not agree to the removal of her reproductive organs, according to the lawsuit.

Neuman also referred Hubbard to a surgeon for a separate procedure: the removal of part of her colon due to a concern about cancer, according to Hubbard’s lawyer, Guy Fish of Milton.

Before the colon surgery, the doctor made a recommendation to the surgeon that he could remove Hubbard’s ovaries at the same time.

“Hubbard, prior to her surgery on February 13, 2018, at no time advised Neuman that she opted to have an ovary or ovaries be surgically removed” during the operation, however, according to Hubbard’s lawsuit.

Neuman and the surgeon, Dr. Michael McGauley, “engaged in pre-surgery discussions and planning … without including or briefing Hubbard,” the lawsuit states. At one point in their discussions, the plan was for Neuman to remove Hubbard’s tubes, ovaries and uterus, with McGauley performing the colon surgery in the same procedure.

Hubbard was not informed of those conversations, the lawsuit states. On the day that the surgery took place, McGauley performed the colon surgery and also removed Hubbard’s ovaries himself.

“Had Hubbard been apprised of Neuman’s pre-surgery recommendations to McGauley . . . Hubbard would have immediately cancelled the scheduled surgery for February 13, 2018 in order to consider all her options,” the lawsuit states.

Defending the motion to dismiss the case, Neuman’s lawyers have argued that a doctor’s recommendation to another doctor shouldn’t be subject to the state’s informed consent law.

“A recommendation is not an order or a prescription,” wrote Neuman’s legal team, from the Corneille Law Group in Madison, in a Supreme Court brief. The lawyers argued that not disclosing to Hubbard the recommendation Neuman made to the surgeon should not be treated as a violation of the state’s informed consent law.

“Treating physicians who discuss the patients’ care must be able to freely exchange their thoughts, opinions, advice and counsel without concern that they may each be liable for failing to disclose the content of those communications to the patient,” the brief for Neuman argues.

The brief asks the Supreme Court to send the case back to the Rock County circuit court with an order to dismiss the lawsuit.

But Hubbard’s lawyer argues that it’s in the interest of patients to encourage disclosure, including of communications among doctors.

“Doesn’t a treating physician more fully fulfill his/her duty by disclosing more pertinent medical information to the patient?” Fish asked in a brief to the high court.

The lower court also rejected the assertion that holding the gynecologist responsible for providing informed consent for her recommendation to the surgeon would squelch doctors from freely consulting one another.

In making their ruling, the appeals court judges focused on whether the state law would not apply to Neuman even assuming all of the factual allegations in the lawsuit were true.

The effect of Neuman’s recommendation — the loss of Hubbard’s ovaries without her knowledge ahead of time — was instrumental enough to consider Neuman a “treating physician,” even though she didn’t perform the surgery, the lower court judges wrote.

In making the recommendation to the surgeon, they wrote, Neuman arguably had a responsibility to disclose to the patient the risks of the procedure, the probabilities of success and any alternative treatments that might be available.

In short, they ruled, Neuman failed to make the case for dismissing the case outright.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

A farm worker in Barron County has tested positive for avian influenza after being exposed to a poultry flock infected with the virus, Wisconsin health officials said Wednesday. The woman is the first person identified with the infection in Wisconsin.

At the other end of the state, a case of the highly contagious disease has turned up in a Kenosha County poultry flock, according to the state agriculture department. The flock has been isolated and will be destroyed.

The risk of illness for the general public remains low, according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS), while people working with infected animals or who might be otherwise exposed to them are at higher risk.

Also Wednesday, the federal government reported the first severe case of bird flu in a patient in Louisiana. That was believed to be associated with wild birds, not domestic poultry.

The infected woman in Barron County was identified through a test at the Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene. The diagnosis is pending confirmation at federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

She was exposed to the Barron County poultry flock where the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) identified an infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) last week. The flock was destroyed.

After the infected flock was identified, DHS and Barron County Health and Human Services began monitoring farm workers who may have been exposed to the birds, said Thomas Haupt, a DHS research scientist and epidemiologist, in an online news conference Wednesday.

The woman who tested positive was one of two people tested.

“She had relatively mild symptoms but symptoms that would be consistent with influenza, including sore throat, slight fever, some fatigue, some eye discharge,” said Haupt. He said she was improving after being treated with an antiviral medication and was expected to make a full recovery.

Public health officials are monitoring another 19 people who were exposed, Haupt said.

State public health veterinarian Dr. Angie Maxted said when people are infected with a communicable disease, public health agencies contact family and other household members to test them for the illness and inform them about preventive measures.

The Kenosha flock where an H5N1 infection was reported Wednesday is a “backyard flock” — one that is raised for a family’s own use, with limited, local sales of eggs or other products, said Dr. Darlene Konkle, DATCP state veterinarian. The flock consisted of 88 chickens and five ducks.

Haupt said the Kenosha County residents who might have been exposed are being tested for the virus. There are no concerns that members of the general public were at risk, however. Maxted said that it appears only the flock’s owners were exposed to the birds.

According to DATCP, the birds from the flock where the infection was reported will not enter the food supply.

In addition, poultry within a 10 kilometer (6.2 mile) area of the Kenosha flock will be restricted from being moved on or off any premises, said DATCP, which establishes a control area around any premises where an infection is found.

DATCP has a mapping tool that poultry producers and owners can consult to learn whether their poultry are in an active control area or surveillance zone.

Concern about the virus has been heightened for the last three years, with reports of infections in both wild and domestic birds in North America since December 2021.

Konkle said DATCP has been sending information to dairy, poultry and other livestock producers all year, encouraging them to improve biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of disease and protect their birds and animals.

The H5N1 HPAI virus is highly contagious and can be fatal to domestic poultry. The severity of the illness varies depending on its strain and on which species of animal it affects, according to DATCP.

The virus spreads by contact with infected birds, commingling with wild birds or their droppings, and through clothing or equipment used by people working with infected birds or animals.

DHS has a web page with guidance for Protective Actions for People. The department can provide a limited amount of surplus personal protective equipment for farm workers, businesses and processors from the department’s medical stockpile through its Office of Preparedness and Emergency Health Care.

State law requires all Wisconsin livestock owners to register where their animals are kept, which helps health officials alert flock and herd owners.

Avian flu in domestic birds tends to increase late in the year, likely due to weather conditions and the flow of migrating birds through Wisconsin. “There’s more opportunity, when it’s circulating in these wild birds” for the virus to spread, Konkle said.

People who have contact with livestock and animals are at higher risk for exposure to the H5N1 avian flu virus and should avoid contact with sick or ill animals, said Maxted.

When they must be in contact, people should follow “common sense” precautions, washing their hands frequently and wearing protective clothing including gloves, respiratory protection and eye protection, she said, and clothing exposed to animals should be cleaned and disinfected.

Haupt said the DHS bureau of environmental and occupational health has been working with farmers and farm workers to inform them about the risks of avian influenza and precautions to protect themselves from the virus. The agency urges people who do get sick to take time off.

“If someone is sick, if you don’t have to work — don’t work,” Haupt said. “Stay home, give yourself time to heal.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

For employees of small businesses, health benefits cost more and cover less than they do for employees of large companies, according to a new report released Tuesday.

“Small-firm employees are paying more for their health insurance coverage but getting less financial protection in return,” according to the report, produced by The Commonwealth Fund.

Wisconsin is right in line with the national trend. In 2023, insurance premiums for family coverage cost Wisconsin small business employees just over $1,300 more each year compared with the cost for employees of large businesses, according to the report.

Wisconsin small business employees also absorbed higher health costs up front, paying nearly $1,400 more a year on their health insurance deductibles in 2023 than their big business counterparts.

Those are close to the national average, with a smaller disparity than some states have. According to the report, small-firm employees in some states pay as much as $10,000 more toward their annual health insurance premiums than their large-firm counterparts.

Most large employers provide health coverage, and smaller employers competing with them for workers are motivated to provide coverage as well, but find it a lot more difficult, the report finds.

“Small firm employers have generally been in a tough place because they have so much less leverage than a large firm,” Sara Collins, a coauthor of the report, told the Wisconsin Examiner in an interview. “They have higher administrative costs per employee, and it’s a much more onerous benefit to provide.”

Because of those challenges, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), enacted in 2010, includes requirements for businesses with 50 or more employees to provide health coverage, but exempts smaller employers.

“While all firms face growing premiums, small employers may have less capacity to absorb these rising costs and may pass on greater portions of these costs to their employees,” the report states. “Half of participating small-business owners in a 2024 survey reported raising employee contributions in response to rising health care costs.”

Wonderstate Coffee owner TJ Semanchin. (Photo courtesy of Main Street Alliance)

For TJ Semanchin, who owns Wonderstate Coffee, the report’s analysis rings true.

Wonderstate operates a coffee roastery in Viroqua, Wisconsin, as well as three cafes: in Viroqua, Bayfield and Madison. The roastery employs about 30 people, and the three cafés about 20 people each.

“Our current health system is a major competitive disadvantage for small business,” said Semanchin.

He would like to see a universal, single-payer health care plan. But since that’s not the current reality, “We want to be providing as best we can for our staff as a responsible employer, and we’re also competing for talent.”

The roastery and the cafés are structured as separate corporations and have different health plans.

On the café side, Wonderstate offers a supplemental policy for employees who don’t have health insurance or whose insurance has a high deductible; the policy covers needs such as emergency room visits and a telehealth service.

The business encourages employees to sign up for comprehensive coverage at Healthcare.gov under the Affordable Care Act, where they’re likely to qualify for enhanced tax-credit subsidies that have lowered the premium costs for people whose incomes qualify.

On the roastery side of the business, Wonderstate recently made a major switch after facing the prospect of an 18% increase in premium costs for employees.

“That is on top of years of double-digit increases,” Semanchin said. “That’s not sustainable at all.”

In response, Wonderstate switched to a level-funded plan for roastery division employees — similar to a self-funded plan, in which an employer covers health care costs directly from its revenues.

Wonderstate will pay a fixed amount each month from which the company managing the plan will pay for medical care as it’s needed. There’s company-wide catastrophic coverage if health care costs exceed the budget for the year.

Nationwide, according to the Commonwealth Fund report, about 40% of small-firm employees with health benefits are covered by self-funded or level-funded plans. Those plans are exempt from state insurance regulations and from protections provided by the Affordable Care Act, which prevents insurers from denying coverage or increasing premiums based on a person’s health history.

Semanchin said the provider reviewed the staff medical history before approving the business for the plan. Wonderstate pays 80% of the premium for individual coverage and 50% of the family coverage premium.

“It’s allowed us to hold costs [down] for the first time in many years,” Semanchin said of the new plan. “If our staff has a bad year for medical bills, we might get kicked off” in future years.

That is not unusual, and the result can have “a very destabilizing effect on the small group market,” Collins said. “The markets function a lot better when everybody plays by the same rules.”

The report lists a number of policy options to help bolster the ability of small employers to provide health coverage for employees.

States that have expanded Medicaid under the ACA to cover people with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty guideline could require employers to inform workers who would qualify for Medicaid about the option — which has low or no premiums and limited cost-sharing requirements — if it would be more affordable than the employer’s plan.

For states that haven’t expanded Medicaid — including Wisconsin — the report suggests that Congress could create a federal fallback plan covering the same group of people expansion would cover. “This would enable lower-income people with unaffordable employer plans to enroll in Medicaid in those states,” the report states.

Another option the report suggests would be to make enhanced subsidies for low-income purchasers of insurance at Healthcare.gov permanent. The subsidies are now scheduled to end next year. The report also suggests making it easier for workers at small firms with unaffordable or low-quality health plans to become eligible for the subsidies.

Extending the subsidies is already shaping up to be a significant subject of debate in Congress next year. “People are going to see really big increases in their premiums if they aren’t extended,” Collins said. “That will be a real cost shock to families,” leading more people to return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

Milwaukee State Rep. Ryan Clancy readily admits he was the odd one out last week at a Washington, D.C., meeting of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ALEC, a nonprofit that brings together state lawmakers and corporations and drafts model legislation, describes its point of view as “dedicated to the principles of limited government, free markets and federalism.” It has produced state policies embraced almost solely by Republicans — drafted with input from corporate members of the organization.

Clancy is neither a Republican politician nor a corporate official. “To the best of my knowledge, I would be the only Democrat — and almost certainly the only socialist” at the States & Nation Policy Summit ALEC held Tuesday through Thursday, Clancy said in an interview. But as a state legislator, he was technically welcome at the event.

On the last day, however, Clancy was summarily kicked out and told his registration would be withdrawn and the fee refunded. While declining to explain how, an ALEC spokesman said Clancy was being “disruptive” — something Clancy categorically denies.

Attending an ALEC event was important to him, said Clancy, who is just wrapping up his first term in the Assembly after being elected in 2022. He wanted to see the process by which ALEC drafts model legislation and distributes bill proposals through its member lawmakers to statehouses around the country.

Clancy said that in his first term in Madison he has seen a lot of legislation circulate that originated in ALEC proposals. Those included more than a dozen bills putting restrictions on trans and nonbinary people, such as preventing gender affirming medical care for people under 18, he said.

“My oldest child is trans,” Clancy said in an interview. “It was just horrific to have to bring together the community to push back on those. But it was also good to know about them in advance.”

Clancy said the anti-trans legislation points to priorities that he believes ALEC has beyond the talking points it makes about individual liberty, free markets and limited government.

“Even more economic-seeming policy discussions were often peppered with anti-trans and anti-DEI comments behind the scenes,” Clancy said.

While his attendance was cut short, he said, his time at the session offered a preview of ALEC-inspired legislation that he expects to see in the coming session of the state Legislature, and an opportunity for his fellow Democratic lawmakers to “figure out how we can push back on that.”

Democratic tradition

When Clancy joined ALEC and signed up to attend last week’s policy summit, he was following a tradition among Wisconsin Democrats in the state Legislature, who have long viewed the organization with suspicion.

The first Democrat to decide to attend ALEC sessions was then-state Rep. Mark Pocan, who began attending the meetings two decades ago, before he became a member of Congress. He was succeeded by Democratic Rep. Chris Taylor, who has since left the Legislature when Gov. Tony Evers appointed her to Dane County circuit court, before her election to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.

Most recently in 2023, Reps. Kristina Shelton (D-Green Bay) and Francesca Hong (D-Madison) attended an ALEC annual meeting in Florida.

ALEC has its lawmaker members join two task forces, and Clancy, a former Milwaukee Public Schools teacher, chose education and the environment.

In the education task force, Clancy caught a discussion about legislation that would give families who home-school their children or enroll them in private schools a tax credit to offset the taxes they pay to support public schools.

“They were looking at it as fairness because [those families] shouldn’t have to pay for public schools and also pay for homeschooling or a private school as well,” he said.

As proposed, the tax credit would be non-refundable — meaning that a taxpayer would only collect up to the amount of their tax liability.

“What that means is if you are fairly well off, like middle class or rich, and you have a big tax liability at the end of the year, you’d get that back,” Clancy said. A lower-income family with a lower tax liability wouldn’t get as much, even if their school expenses were just as high.

He said another lawmaker suggested that in the name of fairness, the tax credit should be made refundable — paying the balance of the credit amount in cash to someone whose tax liability was less than the credit’s full value.

The lawmaker presenting the proposal rejected the suggestion, saying that “it was not supposed to be, quote, a wealth redistribution program,” Clancy said. The lawmaker called that “a bright line and she absolutely would never support that.”

Recycling — conservative or ‘woke’?

At the environmental task force session he attended, the principal topic was recycling — a subject that provoked conflicting opinions.

One participant advocating incentives for recycling disposable cans and bottles instead of sending them to landfills declared, “Conservation is conservative,” according to Clancy. “And then you have other people very angry about this saying no … recycling is ‘woke.’”

Still others countered in defense of recycling aluminum in particular, making the argument that “communist China is going to continue to get a leg up because we import aluminum from communist China all the time,” Clancy said.

Those arguments revolved around a model bill that would establish a deposit-based recycling system operated by the beverage industry rather than the state, with the deposit funds that consumers don’t collect staying with the industry, offsetting the costs for recycling initiatives and for marketing the system to consumers. “This would be a handout to corporations,” Clancy said.

Clancy said that throughout the meetings he kept his own reactions to the proposals to himself and listened to other lawmakers as they discussed the issues. He took notes and photographed information slides with his phone, something that he said he saw many other participants doing.

But he said he never spoke up during any of the presentations, raised questions or publicly engaged presenters or other participants.

“The extent of my behavior in both the task forces and the workshops was sitting there taking notes, holding up the [phone] camera and getting pictures of what was going on, just like all of the other participants who were not told to leave for that same behavior,” Clancy said.

Kicked out of the meeting

In the midst of the last session he attended on Thursday, however, a hotel security staff member came to him and escorted him from the room. Outside he was told that his registration had been withdrawn.

Clancy, who recorded the exchange with the security staff member, asked why he was being thrown out. The security staffer deferred the answer to ALEC officials, but Clancy said he’s never been told what violations he was accused of.

When registering, Clancy said he was directed to a code of conduct that ALEC has posted directed to media covering the event, but that he has seen no other such list of rules for participants. In any event, he said, he took pains to not draw attention to himself.

“I have recordings of all the things that I was in, and you can hear me not asking questions,” Clancy said. “That’s really difficult for me,” he added. “I mean, to be in those spaces, to hear them saying those things, and not to say what the hell is wrong with you people was an act of will on my part, and I succeeded. I managed not to say any of the things that a reasonable person would say in that situation, because I didn’t want to be, you know, accused of disrupting or anything else.”

Clancy questioned an unnamed ALEC representative whether he was being thrown out because he’d been identified as a Democrat or a socialist. He suggested that in doing so the organization would be running afoul of its 501(c)(3) tax-exemption and IRS rules under which “they can’t give undue influence to inside members of their group and exclude people based on partisan things.”

In response to the Wisconsin Examiner’s inquiry, ALEC’s communications director, Lars Dalseide, replied in an email message.

“All are welcome at ALEC events, where all attendees are asked to abide by our long-standing code of conduct. One that ensures a welcoming and productive experience for everyone in attendance. Sadly, the individual in question failed to adhere to these guidelines. On the final day of the conference, after several complaints, he was asked to leave,” Dalseide said.

In a subsequent email, Dalseide declined to clarify what actions of Clancy’s constituted conduct violations.

“We don’t release those kinds of details to the press,” he said. “If we did, then every speaker, member, and guest wouldn’t feel comfortable speaking freely at our events.”

While Dalseide said that attendees were reminded of the code of conduct at each session, Clancy denied that.

“They did not ever make reminders of any code of conduct at the beginning of any session, nor did I ever make a single comment or ask a question within any of them,” Clancy said. “I still don’t know what rules they’re accusing me of violating, or why speakers wouldn’t feel comfortable speaking if they knew the rules for attendees.”

Dalseide also relayed an additional statement from Leah Vukmir, a former Wisconsin state senator and former ALEC National Chair:

“The Wisconsin Socialist Party has been sending people to disrupt ALEC meetings for years, so it’s no surprise that the newest member of the Wisconsin Socialist Party would try to cause trouble at this year’s event. As a former National Chairman, I can attest to the fact that ALEC has always welcomed all views as long as individuals conduct themselves in a mature, professional manner.”

Clancy said he is a Democratic Party member and that, while he also identifies politically as a socialist, he is not a member of any Wisconsin Socialist Party, nor had he heard of any past actions by socialist-aligned groups to disrupt ALEC events.

Rep. Pocan was reached through his Congressional office and asked if during his years of attending ALEC he recalled any socialist groups attending or engaging in disruptive behavior.

“Nope,” Pocan replied in a text message.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

Is Wisconsin — or the country — really as divided as the maps make it look?

On the spreadsheet of unofficial election totals posted by each of Wisconsin’s 72 counties following the election Nov. 5, a handful showed a clear majority for the Democratic presidential ticket of Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. Many more counties were won by the winning Republican ticket of former President Donald Trump and Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance. Trump garnered enough votes to carry Wisconsin and enough states to return to the Oval Office in January.

A lot of those Trump-voting counties were rural ones, contributing to longstanding stereotypes about a monolithic body politic of deep blue cities and a bright red countryside.

But months before Election Day, on a mild August evening in a quaint round barn north of Spring Green, the writer Sarah Smarsh cautioned against oversimplifying the politics of rural voters — and against turning a blind eye to a part of the country that, she said, has too often been written off.

“I grew up on a fifth-generation wheat farm in south central Kansas,” Smarsh said that evening. It’s a place of “tall grass prairie, which happens to be the most endangered ecosystem … and simultaneously the least discussed or cared about or protected. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that that’s the ecosystem of the place and people that I also happen to believe have not been given fair attention and due consideration.”

Smarsh made her mark with the book “Heartland: A Memoir of Working Hard and Being Broke in the Richest Country on Earth.” As a journalist and author she has straddled the community of her upbringing and the urbane, academic world that she entered when she became the first in her family to pursue higher education.

The child of a carpenter and a teen mom, Smarsh has explored the socioeconomic divide in the U.S., mapping it to the destruction of the working class, the demise of family farms and the dismantling of public services from health care to public schools.

“I write about socioeconomic class and I write about rural issues, but that’s because I grew up in working poverty, and that’s because I grew up on a farm,” Smarsh said. And while those identities “are enormously consequential,” she added, she seeks to break down the assumptions that people carry about them. Her message: “You don’t know who my family is, and especially if what we assume is that they’re white trash, worthless.”

It’s a story that gives new context to the election results from 2016 on, and takes on new importance after the election of 2024. The residents of those places dismissed as “flyover country,” Smarsh said back in August, have many of the same concerns of urban and suburban voters, including reproductive rights, public schools, gun violence and other subjects. And understanding them in their diversity and complexity casts politics, especially national politics, in a more diffuse and complicated light.

Where ‘people don’t care about political affiliations’

Concern about climate change and a desire to live more sustainably led Tamara Dean and her partner to move to western Wisconsin’s Vernon County in the early 2000’s, where they built a homestead, grew their own food and became part of the local agricultural community.

Climate change followed them. In their county, extreme weather events became almost the norm, with a 500-year flood “happening every few years or every year,” Dean said in an interview.

“A rural community really coalesces when extreme situations happen and they help each other out,” Dean said. “And when we were cleaning up after a flood, helping our neighbors salvage their possessions or even getting people to safety, no one’s going to ask who you voted for, and people don’t care about political affiliations.”

Dean has written a collection of essays on the couple’s time in the Driftless region of Wisconsin, “Shelter and Storm,” to be published in April 2025 by the University of Minnesota Press.

Distrust of the federal government

Residents, she found, had something of an ambivalent relationship with the federal government.

For all the complexity of agricultural economics, the U.S. Department of Agriculture programs that provide financial farm support were familiar and well-understood by longtime farmers and easily accessible to them, she said. But when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) promised recovery assistance for flooding in 2018, “it just took forever to come, and it took a lot of bureaucracy to try to get it,” Dean said. For individual applicants, “getting any kind of assistance might be so daunting that they just wouldn’t think it’s worth it.”

For Dale Schultz, a former Republican state senator who has been thinking at length about politics and government in recent years, the election outcome has prompted contemplation.

Schultz left the Legislature a decade ago after splitting with Republican then-Gov. Scott Walker over legislation stripping public employees’ union rights and weakening Wisconsin’s mining laws.

Since then he has campaigned for redistricting reform and supported the overturning of Wisconsin Republicans’ gerrymandered legislative maps. iIn October he went public as a Republican supporting the Harris campaign for president.

In his part of the state, he saw a distinct contrast between the Democratic campaign and the Republican one.

“I saw an extremely good Democratic effort to talk to people face-to-face,” Schultz said in an interview. The GOP campaign along with allied outside groups such as American for Prosperity, however, appeared to him to focus almost entirely on mailings, phone calls and media.

“It became clear to me that politics is changing from the time I spent in office, being less people powered and more media powered,” Schultz said.

Ignored by both parties

Schultz said he’s observed a level of anger among some of his one-time constituents that has alarmed and surprised him, a product, he suggests, of having been ignored by both parties.

One target has been regulation, to the point where “they’ve lost track of why regulations are important and why they should support them,” he said. Yet he sees the direct answer to that question where he lives in Southwest Wisconsin.

“In the last 20 years there has been a renaissance in trout fishing, like I could not even have imagined 20 years ago,” Shultz said. He credits the Department of Natural Resources and its personnel for working with local communities to ensure conditions that would turn trout streams into suitable habitat to support a burgeoning population of fish. “That doesn’t happen without water quality and water quality regulations, and land use and land use regulations.”

Schultz has been spending time in conversation with friends “who are like-minded and similarly curious,” he said. “And then you just watch and wait and see what happens, and try to voice concerns that are real and that need to be dealt with, and [that] we’re not going to be able to hide from as a country.”

He hopes for the return of a time when people like him, who consider themselves “just to the right of center,” can again “talk to everyone and possibly craft a solution.”

Back in August, Sarah Smarsh offered a gentle warning about the coming election to her audience in the round barn north of Spring Green.

“Whatever happens in November, everybody else is still here — the other side is still here,” Smarsh said. “And so there’s going to be some caring to do, and that’s probably going to be for generations, because we didn’t arrive at this moment overnight.”

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and X.

The Wisconsin Assembly concurred in a Senate bill that would eliminate work permits for 15- and 16-year-old teenagers in a party-line vote Tuesday.

The vote followed a half-hour debate in which the Republican supporters said they were simply seeking to remove “red tape” and “bureaucracy” from teenage job seekers and their families. They noted that the state has already eliminated work permits requirements for older teens, under legislation enacted during former Gov. Scott Walker’s last term in office.

“I think this is something good to instill the work ethic in some of our youth that have kind of gotten away from it with their cell phones and their tablets,” said Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Schofield).

Democrats warned the measure would undermine child labor laws.

“This is not about creating opportunities for kids to build work ethics,” said Rep. Kristina Shelton (D-Green Bay), adding that it was demeaning and inaccurate to “talk about our kids as if they’re lazy and looking at their phones all the time.”

Work permits “ensure that we have oversight of our kids,” Shelton said.

Rep. Katrina Shankland (D-Stevens Point) noted notorious Wisconsin cases involving child labor violations, including a wood processing plant death last year.

The legislation “takes away an important layer of transparency and accountability, ensuring that our employers are following all the laws related to ensuring our kids serve safety in the workplace,” Shankland said.

Several Republican representatives emphasized that the bill, SB-436, wouldn’t change any regulations — only the permit requirement.

“Employers still need to follow all of Wisconsin’s child labor laws,” said Rep. William Penterman (R-Columbus). “This bill does not change that.”

Democrats noted, however, that the $10 fee for work permits goes to fund enforcement of child labor laws, provided by the Department of Workforce Development. The bill “takes away the funding for that,” Rep. Christine Sinicki (D-Milwaukee) said. “So now we’re going to have 14-, 15- 16- and 17-year-olds in the workforce with absolutely no way to monitor what is going on in their places of employment.”

The bill, which passed the Senate on a near-party-line vote in October, passed the Assembly 62-34 and now goes to Gov. Tony Evers, who has previously vetoed other bills relaxing child labor regulations.

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com. Follow Wisconsin Examiner on Facebook and Twitter.