It's a wake-up call in more ways than one.
Time for some sh** you need to know.
You ever had something that's a good idea but done for the wrong reasons?
Well, you're gonna hear one now, I think.
The Senate, the U.S.
Senate, said Wednesday they unanimously voted to advance a resolution sponsored by Senator John Kennedy, the Republican from Louisiana, who sounds suspiciously like Foghorn Leghorn, to suspend senators paid during a government shutdown.
Something that could give lawmakers a powerful incentive not to shutter federal departments because of funding disputes in future years.
We have all said this.
Oh, they still get paid while everybody else doesn't.
I applaud this.
I think this is right, but Hold on for a second.
The resolution only applies to members of the Senate and does not need to be approved by the House or signed by President Trump.
So good on the Senate
We're looking at you, House of Representatives.
It would take effect after the midterms, so it would not apply to a possible government shutdown this fall, which Republicans think is likely to happen because of the deep animosity between Trump and Democratic senators.
The Senate voted 99 to nothing on the motion to end debate on proceeding with the resolution, signaling that it will easily have enough support to pass the upper chamber.
Kennedy said he wanted to make the resolution effective immediately because he's, quote, very concerned that my Senate colleagues on the Democratic side are going to try to shut down government yet again right before the elections to try to create chaos to affect the midterm elections.
With all due respect to the Republican senator from Louisiana, it was your Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate that refused
to bring a vote.
Now the Senate finally did bring a funding vote to try to end the shutdown, but the House, you got to go talk to Mike Johnson because he wouldn't even bring the bill that you guys in the Senate had voted on and passed on a bipartisan basis to fund DHS without ICE.
Remember all this?
This wasn't that long ago.
If I remember it, you should remember it.
You were part of it.
It's the house so to but it's a good thing I like the I like it that the senators have said listen if we're shut down We'll shut down too.
You'll still still get their money.
Don't cry for a senator senators still get paid just like just like TSA agents and everybody else during a shutdown they get their pay retroactively but please don't and I know you have to John Kennedy from Louisiana you have to put everything on the Democrats but
Just do the right thing and then don't try to qualify it with just misleading information.
All right, a conservative law firm has sued to block Wisconsin's ban on conversion therapy, arguing it amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty
or will, a very conservative law firm has announced a litigation yesterday saying it filed suit on behalf of licensed counselors who both provide Christian faith-based counseling services.
Now the governor, the Department of Safety and Professional Services Secretary, and members of the Wisconsin Marriage and Family Therapy Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board are named as defendants in the suit.
A state administrative rule declares it
As unprofessional conduct for licensed therapists and counselors to promote interventions or methods meant to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity, Will argues the rule essentially prohibits counselors from providing counseling in accordance with a Judeo-Christian worldview to clients seeking services that align with that viewpoint.
Deputy counsel for will in a statement said Wisconsin's rule is virtually identical to a Colorado law the US Supreme Court found may violate First Amendment in an 8-1 ruling in March sending the case back So we will go on I I applauded The governor and the state when they when this rule went through I applaud Colorado I think conversion therapy is a tool from the past that has proven to not be effective
because a person is who they are.
You can like it or you cannot like it.
I don't know why you wouldn't like it, but that's on you.
But we'll see what happens as this goes forward.
All right, we go from the law conservative law firm, we go from the U.S.
Senate, and we turn to our big story of the morning, which is, of course,
the wisconsin state senate rejects the bipartisan deal on school funding and tax rebates now usually we don't do do this during as you need to know but i got to open this up to you now what do you think of this are you are you happy that this thing is dead in the water are you upset are you frustrated because of the perceived politics of it all what are your thoughts on this eight five five seven five seven eight five five seven five two four eight four two so
We've been following this story all week as we should have a 1.8 billion dollar bipartisan deal to infuse millions in funding in K to 12 schools and alleviate property tax increases through rebates will not get to the governor's office to be signed because the state Senate failed to pass it late last night by a vote of 15 to 18 the bill
As you know, was described as a blockbuster bipartisan deal by the governor and assembly speaker Robin Voss from Rochester and Senate Majority Leader Devin Lamehu.
So in that bill, the schools would have given would have gotten $850.
No, sorry.
850 million would have gone back to taxpayers through income tax rebates.
That would have been 300 for an individual, 600 for a family, or a couple.
It would have raised the reimbursement rate for special education to 50%.
It's at 40-some percent now, an increased state aid to reduce pressure on property taxes.
Republicans told reporters prior to Wednesday's session they hoped the bill would lead to fewer referendums in coming years.
That was the big thing.
to schools, we're going to stop asking people.
And again, it was based on the surplus, the $2.5 billion surplus, and not touch the $2 billion rainy day fund.
That was how it was pitched.
That was how it was decided.
But as you know, there were a lot of people coming out against this, and we're actually going to talk to two groups later in the show at 830 who were very vocal.
about their opposition to this bill.
So we'll see what they think and where they think we go next.
All Senate Democrats and a handful of Republicans, including Senators Steve Nass of Whitewater, Rob Hutton of Brookfield, Chris Campenga of Dellafield, they all voted no, citing a projected budget deficit in future years, the lack of refunds going to lower wage people, and the fact that the money lawmakers were trying to spend had not actually hit the state's bank account yet.
See, a lot of the people who talk about this surplus had never brought up that it's not there.
It was always painted as, oh yeah, we've got this extra money.
We don't have to worry about this.
Well, now actually, the projected surplus is...
Projected, the projected surplus, is projected to reach nearly 2.4 billion.
The state announced the tax collections through April are on track to be more than 300 million above those previous estimates.
So, okay, we won't quibble about the money right now.
We'll go back to what Senator Nass said.
He said, quote, the money we're talking about this evening, so the people back home and even possibly here understand that the 2.3 billion we speak of has not come in yet.
It is a projected balance for the future.
So we are sending out checks and money on what we think and hope may come in.
We're hoping it will come in.
I hope it does too.
I hope we get more.
We could get less because of the economy, which is already kind of tipsy."
End quote.
That from Senator Steve Nass of Whitewater.
