Was Ronald Reagan perfect? No. But he was the perfect man for the time. Was...

First, I have to say a word to President Trump. Dude, the next time you’re...

A suspected Venezualan gang member who is not a U.S. citizen now has an ICE...

This is an opinion column. I do feel kind of bad for Gen Z. They’ve had...

Milwaukee police responded en masse after a caller stated that rioting students "have taken over"...

Milwaukee Police are looking for a suspect wanted for recklessly endangering safety and hit &...

Thank goodness for the Wayback Machine. It's captured the political website that leftist Wisconsin Congressional...

Wisconsin state Rep. John Macco is calling on the Green Bay Packers to move Friday's...

Unions see a clear path through the legislature to boost membership after several legal challenges saw workers leave in droves.

This, according to a new report released Wednesday that grades public sector labor laws across the nation. The data was compiled by the Commonwealth Foundation, a policy group that focuses on fiscal conservancy.

David Osborne, senior fellow for labor policy at the foundation, said during a media briefing that government privatization, changing demographics and a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, have caused membership rates across the nation’s four largest public sector unions to fall more than 320,000 over the last five years.

The decline represents $106.8 million in annual dues and fees, according to the report.

“The overarching theme is that the unions have really responded to the membership losses since JANUS to drive up union membership,” Osborne said.

In the JANUS decision, courts held that unions could no longer collect “fair share” dues from non-members who benefit from collective bargaining agreements. Follow-up litigation has challenged the cumbersome process many former members had to overcome to leave the union and recoup dues improperly withheld.

In the report, states known as union “strongholds” scored lower than others that have enacted collective bargaining reforms.

Illinois, Michigan and Maryland stood out for unprecedented reforms that, in some cases, have constitutionally rooted union protections and tipped the scales in favor of executives, according to the report.

Illinois, for example, enshrined collective bargaining rights into the state constitution, which extended unionizing rights to every workplace, including those once considered inappropriate. Osborne said the “experiment could have really disastrous implications,” such as raising taxes to fund “outrageous” union demands.

He pointed to recent collective bargaining negotiations with Chicago Public Schools, during which leadership asked for abortion care access, affordable housing, homeless shelters in schools and all-electric bus fleets.

“The legislature wouldn’t have any opportunity to overrule that behavior,” Osborne said. “It would take a constitutional amendment to correct that balance.”

California, Pennsylvania and Vermont have considered similar amendments – the latter two more seriously, he added.

In Michigan, which slipped from a “B” to a “D” over the last two years, lawmakers repealed the“paycheck protection” law – which prevents public payroll systems from deducting union dues and political contributions – as was the state’s Right to Work provision. The state also gives unions access to employees’ personal information.

Some 13 other states give unions the same data collection power. In Hawaii, unions even store Social Security numbers to verify workers’ identities. The report says the practice leaves information vulnerable to ransomware attacks – like one that happened earlier this year in California.

Maryland, Delaware and California also offer tax incentives for union membership as way to boost recruits. While Delaware’s labor laws earned a "D" in the report, Maryland and Delaware – along with Illinois, Oregon and Washington – earned an “F” grading.

The nation’s four largest public sector unions – the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the National Education Association; and the Service Employees International Union – collectively represent 6.6 million workers.

AFSCME, according to records submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, has lost 7.5% of its members since 2017, outpacing the other three unions between 2.8 percentage points and 4 percentage points.

“I do think JANUS is playing a big role in this,” said Andrew Holman, a policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation. “And I think after the decision, people are becoming more and more aware of what their dollars are being put toward and are saying, 'I don’t want to be a part of this.'”

Osborne said 60% of membership fees, albeit funneled through outside organizations, support political causes. Even though members may be aligned ideologically, many feel “uncomfortable” with resolutions that take positions on issues like the war in Gaza or abortion rights.

Unions have refuted this claim in the past, such as the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which is under review by several state agencies for alleged funneling of union dues to support Gov. Josh Shapiro's 2022 campaign. The state's labor laws scored a "D" in the report.

“None of the issues seem to relate to what it is to be a teacher, for instance, so many of the members come home feeling like my union has really taken a stance on these political matters that have divided the workplace rather than united it,” Osborne said.

Of the highest-ranking states, Florida “sets a new gold standard,” according to the foundation. The most impactful reform, Osborne said, requires unions to run for “recertification” once membership drops below 60%. This means workers can decide whether to keep representation.

“We’ve seen a bunch of unions fail to file for reelection because they know they’ll lose,” Osborne said. “This ends up removing a union that never had majority support to begin with.”

Wisconsin and Iowa also require recertification. Unions in other states – like Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York and California – have never run for “reelection” since organizing in the 1970s.

(The Center Square) – Former Independent party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission to remove his name from the state’s ballot this November, part of his ongoing battle to exit from races in swing states.

The case argues that, absent a compelling reason, different treatment for third party candidates violates the Equal Protection Clause and Kennedy’s First Amendment rights. It claims the different deadlines for ballot withdrawal for Democrat and Republican candidates versus third-party candidates–September 3 for the former and August 6 for the latter–are unlawfully discriminatory.

“Third parties can’t be treated differently and they can’t be discriminated against. Yet that’s what happened here. The Republicans and the Democrats have until today at 5 p.m. to withdraw their nominees and replace them with someone else,” the lawsuit argues. “But those rules don’t apply to independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr…He has not been treated fairly or equally with the other presidential candidates who declared and ran for the presidency and have since wanted to withdraw.”

In its certification of presidential candidates last week, the WEC voted 5-1 to put Kennedy on the ballot, despite his withdrawal and endorsement of Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump. Following the decision, county clerks were authorized to begin printing ballots.

But Kennedy has argued his request is not unreasonable since Wisconsin election law already provides exceptions for candidate removal post-certification, including in the case of candidate death or for personal and health reasons–provided the Democrat or Republican candidate meets the September 3rd deadline.

“Kennedy has (like President Biden) decided that for associational and expressive reasons, he does not want to run for President anymore. The deadlines prevent him from withdrawing, even though the Democratic and Republican Parties (at least in theory) could provide a different nominee to the Commission today,” the case says, arguing this proves “The Commission cannot claim any compelling state interest in forcing Independent candidates to file paperwork a month earlier.”

Due to these reasons, the lawsuit requests a stay on the WEC’s ruling and for Dane County Circuit Court to issue an order barring the agency from placing Kennedy’s name on the ballot.

We asked Amazon's Alexa device: "Why should I vote for Donald Trump? Why should I...

UPDATE: Chad Richards appeared in court Tuesday, where a judge set a bond of $1...

An American hostage, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, was horrifically executed by Hamas while America's President, Joe Biden,...

Kamala Harris and her emotional support governor, Tim Walz, sat down for her only interview...

In a mirror of national politics, California Republicans followed former President Donald Trump’s lead by proposing to end taxes on tips. While Vice President Kamala Harris, who formerly represented California in the U.S. Senate, embraced the measure, California Democrats said no, shooting down the proposed amendment in the California Senate.

“Even Trump and Harris both say we should eliminate the ‘tip tax,’” said the California Senate Republican Caucus in a statement.

Soon after Trump announced his proposal to a crowd in Nevada, which has the highest percentage of tipped workers in the nation, Harris also came out in favor of the proposal. The Budget Lab at Yale University reports there are approximately 4 million tipped workers — 2.5% of all workers nationwide. Many tipped workers earn less than the minimum wage, and thus earn the lion's share of their income from tips. Some higher-paid tipped professions such as barbers and hair stylists would also benefit from this rule change.

The bipartisan Committee for Responsible Federal Budget says this proposal would likely reduce government revenue by approximately $15 to $25 billion per year.

In the California Senate, Democrats — except for Senate President Pro Tempore Senator Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, who abstained, voted to put aside the amendment, while all nine Republicans voted for it.

With the legislature having narrowly closed a $47 billion budget shortfall this year through cuts, deferrals, and shifts, it's unclear what additional measures the state would need to take to offset revenue losses from a potential state-level exemption.

Vice President Kamala Harris was once anti-fracking and opposed to former President Donald Trump’s tough immigration policies.

Now, it’s apparently a different story.

In an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash this week, Harris was asked about the change in her stance on fracking. Fracking is a major industry and economic driver in the swing state of Pennsylvania, a state where Harris is up a slim 0.8%, according to Real Clear Politics’ polling average.

Harris said during a town hall in 2019 that there is “no question” she supports banning fracking. During the CNN interview, Harris said she does not want to ban fracking and that she “made that clear on the debate stage in 2020.”

“As vice president I did not ban fracking, and as president I will not ban fracking,” Harris said.

Harris has previously said she supports a ban on fracking, offshore drilling, and plastic straws. She also said she supports passing the Green New Deal, which includes a treasure trove of far-left energy policies.

Harris’ inconsistency on the fracking issue has drawn criticism.

”If Kamala Harris can so quickly reject her firm energy positions from the past, there is no telling how quickly she’ll renounce today’s positions in the future,” Daniel Turner, who leads the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future, said in a statement. “Just like Vice President Harris abandoned her support for Joe Biden after telling the American people he was perfectly fine, she will abandon any position she pretends to have now. Harris is bankrolled by green billionaires who want to ensure the funding of their pet projects continue, so it’s beyond clear that she doesn’t care about the truth of her energy positions, she cares only about keeping the tax dollars flowing.”

During the same CNN interview, Harris said those who illegally cross the border should face “consequences.”

“We have laws that have to be followed and enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally,” Harris said. “And there should be consequence. And let’s be clear, in this race, I’m the only person who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations who traffic in guns, drugs, and human beings. I’m the only person in this race who actually served a border state as attorney general to enforce our laws. And I would enforce our laws as president going forward. I recognize the problem.”

However, Harris posted on then-Twitter in 2017 that “an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal.”

Harris had also mocked Trump’s border wall during the Trump administration as a “vanity project” but has now expressed her support for a Senate immigration bill that allocates $650 million for building the border wall.

“Funding Trump’s unrealistic border wall would be a gross misuse of taxpayer money,” Harris wrote on Twitter in April of 2018.

A year earlier, Harris called Trump’s wall a “ stupid use of money” and pledged to “block any funding for it.”

It is possible the border wall funding was a concession Harris was willing to make rather than a policy goal.

However, any policy changes are notable since Harris has offered unusually few details on her platform if she were elected president.

Harris’ main campaign website offers no policy platform, and her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention largely avoided policy specifics.

Trump took a jab at Harris at a recent rally on this point.

“Now she’s saying ‘oh we want to build a strong border,’” Trump told his supporters. “Where has she been for three and a half years as we took in 20 million people, many of them horrible criminals?”

Harris is not alone in announcing new policy ideas, apparently to appeal to moderate voters. Trump announced at a recent rally that IVF treatments should be free to women, either paid for by insurers or the government.

(The Center Square) – A new Emerson College poll of likely voters reveals some changes in Midwest swing states.

Former President Donald Trump has a slim lead over Vice President Kamala Harris in Wisconsin, 49% to 48%, while Harris slightly widened her lead over Trump in Michigan at 50% to 47%.

Independent voters are largely veering towards Harris, with 46% of Michigan Independents choosing Harris, versus 43% for Trump. In Wisconsin, the divide is starker, with 52% choosing Harris and 43% Trump.

Defying previous trends, Republican U.S. Senate candidate for Wisconsin Eric Hovde has improved to 48%, only 1 percentage point behind incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, his opponent.

“We’ve had huge movement in the last 30 days,” Hovde said in a video on X following the poll’s release. “Wisconsin is the number one battleground. Whoever wins Wisconsin will control the White House, and if I win, we’ll not only take control of the U.S. Senate for the next two years, but potentially for the next four years.”

Support for the U.S. Senate candidates in Michigan remains relatively stable, with Democrat Rep. Elissa Slotkin still leading Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers 47% to 41%.

While the economy remains all respondents’ top concern in both states, the issue of immigration has fallen in importance, replaced by “threats to democracy” and housing affordability.

Results also showed voters under 30 overwhelmingly favor the Democratic presidential candidate, with Harris pulling 62% of support in Michigan and 54% in Wisconsin, compared to Trump’s 32% and 41%, respectively.

The survey, conducted August 25-28, included 800 Michigan voters with a +/-3.4% margin of error, and 850 Wisconsin voters with a +/-3.3% margin of error.

Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook is actively censoring criticism of Vice President Kamala Harris's CNN interview in...

A new poll by Emerson College/The Hill shows that Senate Democrat Tammy Baldwin's lead over...

(The Center Square) – State Sen. John Jagler is frustrated Milwaukee Public Schools seems to be ignoring the state law that requires police officers in the city’s schools. But, he doesn’t expect any changes either.

Jagler, R-Watertown, last week wrote a letter to the MPS board, asking when the city’s schools plan to follow the law and return school resource officers to their buildings.

Republican lawmakers included the school resource officer in 2023’s shared revenue deal. It required MPS to add 25 officers by Jan. 1. That didn’t happen.

“Now, I know it didn't get done fast enough last year. And to be honest, I kind of, to be fair, just kind of assumed it would be done in August of this year,” Jagler said on News Talk 1130 WISN on Tuesday.

Jagler said he realized that Milwaukee Public Schools may never return the officers to their buildings after hearing MPS school board vice president Jilly Gokalghandi dismiss a question about officers in schools during a question-and-answer session last month.

“We're going to continue to focus on restorative justice as the main lever of serving our kids,” Gokalghandi said. “So that is my commitment. I've said that. I've gone on record and said that over and over again. And so that is what I will focus on.”

Jagler said he was taken back by Gokalghandi’s dismissive attitude.

“Yeah, ‘chuckle, chuckle, chuckle, we're breaking state law, and we don't care.’ That just infuriated me. And not just the answer, which I guess I appreciate the honesty, but the just a flippant nature of it,” Jagler added.

There is no way for the legislature to force MPS to return school resource officers to its schools. The shared revenue law doesn’t include any punishments. Jageler said neither Gov. Tony Evers nor Wisconsin’s attorney general will “touch” the law to enforce it.

But, Jagler said, MPS may be creating a bigger problem by thumbing their nose at the law.

“What it's going to do, going forward, as we look at anything with MPS, [maybe a] bailout with new funding, how can we trust them to do anything?” Jagler asked.

Jagler said MPS responded to his letter with a promise to have an update on its school resource officer program at this week’s school board meeting. But he said the district isn’t promising to actually return officers to school anytime soon.

“‘We have been in discussions with stakeholders, including the teachers union, and the police department the goal to develop a plan in partnership with MPD which redefines the previous role of school resource officers,” Jagler read from MPS’ response to his letter.