bail - search results

(The Center Square) – A plan to renovate the Milwaukee Brewers’ American Family Field now could include $600 million of public funds, according to a report from CBS 58 Milwaukee.

The report says a new bill could be introduced early this week that would include $400 million in state funding along with $202.5 million in county and city funding for the $700 million project.

That included $5 million a year from Milwaukee County for 27 years along with $2.5 million annually from the city of Milwaukee over that same span.

“This is ridiculous and indefensible public policy,” said economist J.C. Bradbury of Georgia’s Kennesaw State University. “Any elected representative who supports this should be voted out of office, if not recalled. Remember George Petak.

"I am genuinely curious. What is the justification for spending $600 million of taxpayer money on renovating a 22-year-old stadium for a private business? What kind of person says, ‘Oh, that sounds reasonable?’ "

The plan comes a month after anonymous threats were published saying the National League Central-leading Brewers would pursue leaving Milwaukee for a different city if publicly funded renovations for the stadium were not approved.

A Milwaukee County supervisor recently discussed reviving a five-county sales tax to pay its portion of the deal.

The CBS Milwaukee report also said it was undetermined what developments would occur outside the stadium and any tax deals related to those developments.

"The Brewers are continuing to work with both sides of the aisle to find a creative solution to ensure that the Stadium District can meet its obligations," Rick Schlesinger, the team's president of business operations, said in a statement to CBS Milwaukee. "And sign a generational lease extension at American Family Field.”

(The Center Square) – Milwaukee Brewers’ owner Mark Attanasio is getting criticized in Wisconsin for his reported plans to boost his investment in an English soccer club.

The BBC reported that Attanasio is looking to increase his stake in the Norwich City club to 40%. Attanasio bought a 16% stake in the club last year.

Attanasio didn’t comment in the BBC piece, or in a follow-up in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

His decision to spend more on Norwich City comes as he is asking Wisconsin taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars to repair the Brewers’ ballpark, American Family Field.

“And at the same time begging Wisconsin taxpayers to bail him out for lavish stadium upgrades...? Weird,” Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin Director Megan Novak said on social media Tuesday. “Also – the Brewers paid half a million dollars in 6 months for lobbying but apparently couldn't afford a PR consultant to tell the owner that this story probably doesn't help his bailout cause?”

State Sen. Chris Larson, D-Milwaukee, made the same point about Attanasio’s reported investment.

“So he can afford to upgrade his own @Brewers stadium? Great! That settles that,” Larson said in a Tweet.

Larson has been a longtime critic of the idea Wisconsin taxpayers should pay for renovations and upgrades at American Family Field.

Attanasio said the stadium district, which owns the ballpark, is running out of money and will need an infusion of cash soon.

The latest plan would tax the ballplayers, both from the Brewers and other teams, to pay for about $400 million in repairs.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, last week said the details on that plan may come this week.

Without taxpayer money, both Vos and Attanasio say American Family Field may go to rot.

The ballpark is owned and run by the public Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, which means the stadium would continue to cost taxpayers even if the Brewers were to eventually leave.

House Republicans voted 218-203 Wednesday to overturn President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness even as the U.S. The Supreme Court considers the legality of the measure.

Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., led the effort to overturn Biden’s loan cancelation via the Congressional Review Act, a provision that allows Congress to overturn recently enacted federal rules. The Government Accountability Office recently said that the student loan rule fell within Congress’ authority to overturn under the CRA.

“President Biden’s student loan transfer scheme shifts hundreds of billions of dollars of payments from student loan borrowers onto the backs of the American people,” Good told The Center Square. “I am proud to lead the fight against President Biden’s reckless, unilateral, and unauthorized action that would unfairly penalize those who worked hard to pay off their loans or who never took them out in the first place. I am pleased that my Republican colleagues overwhelmingly supported my legislation on the House Floor this week.”

Biden announced last year his administration would “forgive” $10,000 in federal student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 per year. For Pell Grant recipients, the debt cancelation would total $20,000, and the plan would allow debtors to to cap repayment of their loans at 5% of their income.

"Whether you want it or not—and you don't—thanks to Biden’s student loan bailout every man, woman, and child in America will be taxed $3,527 to foot the bill for someone else’s debt," Rep. Aaron Bean, R-Fla., said Wednesday.

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated the provision would cost taxpayers about $400 billion.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget Senior Vice President and Senior Policy Director Marc Goldwein testified before Congress in March, raising the alarm about runaway federal spending, inflation, and the rise of the national debt.

“Unfortunately, the Administration’s policies have contributed to this inflation and cancellation could further exacerbate inflationary pressures if allowed by the Supreme Court to go forward,” Goldwein testified before the House Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development. “This in turn puts more pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, which disrupts the financial, housing, and labor markets and risks pushing the economy into a recession.”

Biden has defended his plan, saying it is helping Americans struggling to pay back their debt. Student loans have been deferred several times because of the COVID-19 pandemic, first by former President Donald Trump and then by Biden. The House bill would also put an end to that delay and restart repayments for borrowers.

Critics of Biden’s plan say it unfairly punishes poorer Americans who could not afford to go to college, forcing them to subsidize wealthier Americans with degrees and more earning potential.

“President Biden is not forgiving debt, he is shifting the burden of student loans off of the borrowers who willingly took on their debt and placing it onto those who chose to not go to college or already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said after introducing the Joint Resolution of Disapproval earlier this year in conjunction with Good.

“It is extremely unfair to punish these Americans, forcing them to pay the bill for these irresponsible and unfair student loan schemes," he added.

Whether the measure can get traction in the Senate, especially before the Supreme Court issues their ruling, is unlikely. A favorable court ruling, though, could push the issue for some Senate Republicans in particular.

Biden has made clear he opposes the House's move to overturn his Department of Education rule, meaning it would almost certainly be vetoed.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on the debt forgiveness in the coming weeks.

Americans’ views of the housing market have plunged as interest rates continue to rise because of government-fueled inflation.

Gallup released new polling data showing that only 21% of Americans say now is a good time to buy a house, down 9 percentage points from the previous year. This year and last year during the Biden administration are the only times that fewer than half of Americans said it was a good time to buy a house since Gallup began asking in 1978.

Even during the housing market crash of 2008, numbers did not drop nearly as low as they are in this latest survey.

“Gallup first asked Americans about their perceptions of the housing market in 1978, when 53% thought it was a good time to buy a house,” the group said. “Thirteen years later, when the question was asked again, 67% held that view. The record high of 81% was recorded in 2003, at a time of growing homeownership rates and housing prices.”

The change in perspective comes as the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates nearly a dozen times during the Biden administration, making borrowing money to buy a home far more expensive.

The problem is further complicated by the fact that millions of Americans currently have mortgages with an interest rate below 3%, pushing many to decide now is not the time to sell their house and lose that lower rate.

“In the past two years, as housing prices have soared and the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to try to tame inflation, houses have become less affordable for many Americans, and views of the housing market have tumbled,” Gallup said.

The higher inflation rates are driven in large part by a surge in the money supply and federal debt spending to the tune of several trillion dollars in recent years.

The federal government also recently enacted controversial policies to punish home buyers with good credit and help those with poor credit, akin to policies enacted ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, fueling fears first sparked by several bank collapses earlier this year.

All these factors have helped to contribute to Americans’ banking fears hitting the worst point since the 2008 financial crisis. Gallup released the survey data earlier this month, which showed that 19% are “very” worried about the safety of their funds in banks and another 29% are “moderately” worried.

The survey shows nearly half of Americans are concerned about the safety of their money in banks, a figure that is reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis.

“The latest readings are similar to those in 2008,” Gallup said. “In September of that year, shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which remains the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, 45% of U.S. adults said they were very or moderately worried about the safety of their money. Several months later, in December, after Congress’ Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailed out other banks in danger of failing, Americans were slightly less concerned about the safety of their personal financial accounts, as 41% said they were very or moderately worried.”

Americans are worried about the safety of their money in the banking system after multiple banks have collapsed in recent weeks, according to a new poll.

Gallup released the survey data, which showed that 19% are “very” worried about the safety of their money in banks and another 29% are “moderately” worried.

That means about half of Americans are concerned about the safety of their personal funds in banks, numbers that are reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis.

“The latest readings are similar to those in 2008,” Gallup said. “In September of that year, shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which remains the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, 45% of U.S. adults said they were very or moderately worried about the safety of their money. Several months later, in December, after Congress’ Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailed out other banks in danger of failing, Americans were slightly less concerned about the safety of their personal financial accounts, as 41% said they were very or moderately worried.”

The poll was conducted April 3-25, after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed but before news broke about the failure of First Republic, which regulators took over and sold to JP Morgan earlier this week.

The concern varies by demographic and political affiliation.

“Whereas majorities of Republicans (55%) and independents (51%) say they are at least moderately worried, a 36% minority of Democrats are,” Gallup said. “Similarly, 54% of U.S. adults with no college degree are very or moderately worried, while 36% of college graduates are. About half of Americans with an annual household income under $100,000 express worry about their money, while 40% of those with higher incomes do.”

A new federal rule that would charge higher fees to home buyers with good credit to help subsidize those with poor credit goes into effect Monday.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced in January it would increase Loan-Level Price Adjustment fees for mortgage borrowers with higher credit scores to help keep fees lower for those with worse credit.

Director Sandra Thompson of FHFA said the plan will “advance their mission of facilitating equitable and sustainable access to homeownership.”​​

The loan-level price adjustment is a fee assessed after bankers evaluate the risk of lending them money. The FHFA rule could cost those with better credit scores thousands of dollars on their loans, effectively punishing them for paying their bills.

Critics argue the rule shifts risk costs onto borrowers with better credit and will leave taxpayers on the hook if the plan leads to major economic issues.

The rule has sparked a wide array of controversy, especially as critics point out Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac engaged in similar policies in their role in the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis put billions of dollars in financial burden on taxpayers via government bailouts.

Critics called the rule a "bailout” for those with poor credit, comparing it to student loan forgiveness.

“Rather than saddle those with scores 680 or lower with more debt, it’s far better to encourage them to re-establish credit,” Joel Griffith, an economic expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The Center Square. “Most people find themselves financially strapped at some point. A few years of consistent timely payments and debt paydown can help someone even emerging from bankruptcy attain scores at 680 or worse with a near 0% loan from FHA.”

Griffith also said the plan would drive up home prices, especially for starter homes, which are already experiencing the highest housing inflation.

Other critics argue this is part of a pattern in the Biden administration of using regulations to take from some and give to others.

“This mortgage rule is part of a pattern of Biden administration policies that force responsible consumers to subsidize irresponsible ones – from blanket student loan forgiveness that disregards those who already paid to the CFPB’s price controls on credit card late fees that would force those cardholders who pay on time to pay more,” John Berlau, director of Finance Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Center Square.

In response, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the the Responsible Borrowers Protection Act last week. Biggs' measure would block the rule from going into effect, but will almost certainly not be passed before Monday if at all.

“The FHFA – led by a President Biden appointed director – is punishing financially responsible mortgage borrowers,” said Biggs, who has more than 30 lawmakers backing his bill. “Their agenda of equity over equality defies common sense and will endanger the stability of the housing market.”

(The Center Square) – There was one group at Wisconsin's budget hearing pushing for less. Americans for Prosperity warned Wisconsin lawmakers about spending too much of the state's record $7.1 billion surplus.

Americans For Prosperity Wisconsin this week waited through hours of requests for more money at the legislature’s public budget hearings to make the simple case to spend less.

AFP’s Megan Novak told The Center Square Wisconsin cannot afford to recklessly spend over $100 billion like Gov. Tony Evers has suggested.

“From tax hikes, to spending increases in every section of the budget to handouts for professional sports teams, Governor Evers’ proposal was a fantasy budget from the start. The Joint Finance Committee was right last time to scrap Governor Evers’ tax and spend wish list budget, and we are glad to see they will be doing the same this time around,” Novak explained.

The Joint Finance Committee, which will actually write Wisconsin's new two-year spending plan, hosted two budget hearings this week. Both saw a cavalcade of local government leaders, local school leaders, and advocates press lawmakers for more money.

Novak said the Republican-controlled JFC needs to keep a lid on state spending.

“AFP’s grassroots activists showed up at budget hearings across the state to make sure the Joint Finance Committee knows there are hardworking taxpayers out there who support their efforts to return the surplus to the taxpayers, expand education freedom, and stop handouts to out-of-state millionaire sports team owners,” Novak added.

JFC members have been relatively silent about the Brewers’ ballpark finding deal. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said last week that he wants a separate vote on the American Family Field plan, saying he wants to keep it out of the state budget.

Novak also warned lawmakers about spending Wisconsin’s record $7 billion surplus too quickly, or too frivolously.

“Gov. Evers’ proposed budget would recklessly and irresponsibly spend our state’s record surplus, somehow managing to turn a $7 billion surplus into a deficit in two years,” Novak said. “[We] strongly support reining in this proposed out of control spending, and instead focusing the state’s next budget on meaningful tax reform, smart government spending, preventing stadium bailouts for out-of-state millionaires, and education freedom.”