School's out. And for many parents in Wisconsin, a big
concern looms. Funding for a child care subsidy is
about to run out, and the political backstories
behind a tuition hike at the University of Wisconsin
and a $10 million PFAS settlement. This is inside
Wisconsin politics.
I'm Shawn Johnson here with Anya van Wagtendonk Zac
Schultz and Rich Kremer in Eau Claire. Hey, everyone.
Hello. So, Anya, how do we get to this point with this
child care subsidy that is about to run out? Right at
a point in an election cycle, in a year where
costs are already this massive factor on
everybody's minds? >> Yeah. I mean, this is
like a story that we've all been covering incrementally
when I say incrementally, what I mean is people
ringing that alarm bell that we were heading
towards this cliff. So go back in time to Covid.
There were federal subsidies put in place for
the child care industry while everything else was
collapsing. This is one of these things. And so the
"Child Care Counts" program was initiated, which in
Wisconsin looked like about $300 million going to child
care providers for things like paying staff more to
retain them, infrastructure needs, material needs, and
also some amount of financial aid for families
that were struggling. And so that was due to expire.
And so then for years, we were all covering
legislative fights over what to do about this
funding that was going to go away. Program finally
sunset last summer, and then a bridge program took
over. And so now it is the bridge program that is due
to expire. So again, we've sort of been pushing off
this cliff for years and years and years. And now
the thing that advocates and providers have been
warning about is about to happen. This new report
came out last week saying that potentially up to a
quarter of child care providers could close their
doors, and almost certainly more than that are going to
raise tuition after all of these funds go away.
>> And rich, this is an issue where the Democratic
governor and Republican legislature definitely have
not seen eye to eye when it comes to subsidizing child
care. Refresh my memory a little bit on how they did
see eye to eye a year ago, and how they got this money
that is about to run out now.
>> So it goes back to this fight over $171 million.
Governor Evers had access to this money, which was
interest from those federal Covid era stimulus funds.
So the interest generated from that is Wisconsin
revenue in a sense. So there was this political
battle. Republicans said, well, that should be under
our control, or we should have a say in how you spend
that. The governor said, no, this is federal money. And
I remember watching a hearing on a bill that
would have essentially given the legislature a lot
more say over that money. And even an attorney with
the nonpartisan Legislative Council said, well, it's
kind of an open question. You know, they didn't
answer it specifically, but that was a political battle.
And and during that discussion on the bill, one
of the authors, Republican Eric Wimberger, you know,
toyed with the idea or he mused about impeaching
Governor Evers over this money. So that bridge fund
tapped into that interest from the Covid stimulus
funds. And that's how they were able to at least, you
know, keep this program going to some extent. The
providers were saying it's not enough. Democrats said
it's not enough. But here we are, and that's what's
been keeping the thing afloat.
>> So Tony Evers said, it's very important to me that
we keep this child care subsidy going. And
Republicans said, well, it's very important to us
that you get this money out of your bank account,
governor Evers. And so they found that agreement for a
year. But, Zac, it feels like now the money really
is going to run out. Are providers going to close?
What's going to happen? >> Well, you're going to
hear a lot of noise about it and that's for sure. And
there's there's a reality on the ground of what it
means for providers and for parents specifically who
have to figure out where their kids are going to go
if they can't afford this and still need to go work.
But in a political season like this, this is going to
be top line messaging, especially for the
Democrats running for the past in the legislature.
And we assume, Tom Tiffany's kind of in this
category have looked at, you know, the private
sector means of trying to fix this child care issue
of like, oh, let's lower regulations, let's find
some discounts or some savings elsewhere. But
instead of directly funding them, they've never liked
that welfare idea, as Robin Vos would constantly call
it. And so the we don't see Republicans coming back to
the table. This wasn't part of the grand bargain that
we talked about for a month straight. So this is a dead
issue politically. There's no one coming back in
special session to find money to fix this. They've
all known this date is here. The question is, what will
it mean going into the fall? How much damage will we see
leading up to September? And maybe because September
means schools back in session, it will be a
little less of a hot button issue, but there will still
be people talking about it. And there will be Democrat
Democrats campaigning on it, especially since they have
a forum coming up that's invited to all the
gubernatorial candidates, are going to appear to it,
and it's being held by these child care providers
and some of the groups that represent them, where
to keep raising the profile of this heading into into
the fall. >> And I mean, it's kind of
a subjective question here, but like, do you feel like
this particular cost will resonate with people at a
time when we're paying so much for gas and everything
else? Does childcare kind of, I guess, get people's
attention when they have all this noise.
>> If you have a child in your house that you have to
pay child care for. Yes, I remember 15, 20 years ago,
long before this was an issue, I had family friends
that said I would actually save money by staying home
and quitting my job and not making my truck payment,
and paying gas and insurance and taxes and not
having to pay child care. That was a long time ago,
and it's still the reality. Even more so. More people
than ever need to have two incomes to fund even a
modest lifestyle in Wisconsin. And if you have
small children, that means they need to go somewhere.
As more and more families have split apart from the
larger umbrella of grandma or grandpa or aunts or
uncles or around, you're relying on other people to
raise your kids. That is just the reality that
people are in right now. And if it's your reality,
it's one of the biggest realities facing you.
>> And Ana any sense that this might affect specific
races, whether it be the race for governor, you name
it? >> I mean, I think one of
the interesting things here is that child care as like
a need and as a household expense really spans. It
spans the state, it spans political backgrounds,
where that's not as much reflected is in the capital,
where you have a little bit more of these hard line
positions, especially within the Republican
caucus. In the Assembly, there is a small but
significant enough number of lawmakers who do believe
in a more traditional family structure, who don't
want to be subsidizing other people, raising your
children, and they are really trying to kind of
legislate around that. And so it's not just about
those sort of market solutions. And so I think
that at that level, at the legislative level, we might
really see this issue come to the fore because people
who kind of don't care about some of those more
cultural fights, they just want a little bit more
money and a little bit more ease in their bank accounts.
Will those people be motivated by not just this,
but this in combination with gas prices and
inflation? And then also there's at least one
district where one of these child care providers turned
advocate is now running for a seat in the legislature.
I don't know that this will be her only issue, but this
will be one of her strongest issues, and
that'll be really interesting to watch. How
resonant this is through the summer.
Hendrickson, I believe, is the Democratic candidate.
She's in a primary with Lisa White and
Representative Jenna Jacobson against Howard
Marklein, the powerful co-chair of the
Legislature's Budget Committee.
>> One of the most hotly watched races, anyways.
>> And he has really been clear that he does not
support this. This is not an issue where there's kind
of gray between what Democrats support and what
Republicans support with this child care subsidy,
there are stark differences. And so if they want to have
that kind of debate out there, it would be
certainly a chance for for voters to see a difference
in the way that, you know, these two parties view this
issue in government. >> And that's why it was
probably really helpful to have Ritch's background of
how we got to this point, because some people may be
confused to think there was a bipartisan solution to
provide this funding from Covid on. It was all
federal money that Governor Evers directed into this
program. When the federal money ran out, with
Republicans fighting it every step of the way,
repeatedly passing bills. That said, we would like
oversight in how this federal money gets spent so
you can't make that decision unilaterally.
Governor Evers vetoed every one of those bills, and it
was this compromise in the last time was not a
compromise of, oh, we believe this should happen.
It was, how do we spend this other pot of money
that's still sitting here? So the Covid money is gone.
This is now on the state's back, or we will see the
consequences in households and businesses across the
state. >> And you alluded to this
earlier, but I was looking back through public
statements from the leaders as this big deal was
negotiated, the deal that fizzled. And I don't think
anybody was ever talking about putting some money
behind child care as much as the governor has said
it's a priority for him. So that kind of gives you a
sense of of the politics on that one. Rich, we've got
another cost going up here for some Wisconsin
residents or out of state residents who come here to
go to school. Tuition going up at the University of
Wisconsin. How much, first of all, and give us a sense
of like, you know, how this came to be.
>> Well, so the tuition increase specifically for
tuition that the Board of Regents has approved is 2%,
but there's another 3.5% increase with regard to
what are called segregated fees, you name it, fees for,
you know, facilities. ET cetera. ET cetera. So we're
talking 2%, which is below the the rate of inflation,
of course. And but the argument over tuition, I'm
not sure if it ever had a beginning or an end, but
this specifically goes back to 2013, when there was a
tuition freeze after Republicans found out and
loudly complained for years and years that the
University of Wisconsin system had something like 5
to $600 million in what are called fund balances,
tuition fund balances, essentially reserves. And
they had those reserves at a time when tuition had
increased by 5.5% year after year after year. So
that created a lot of heartburn among Republicans.
And that in 2013, there was the tuition freeze. Not
long after that, Republicans, when they had
both houses of the the legislature and Governor
Walker in the governor's mansion, they cut $250
million from the UW budget, essentially saying, you've
got those reserves, spend them down. So the
universities had these directions to spend down
their reserves, and they did. Over the years, the
reserves went down by 60%. Some universities wound up
in the red and had to do some some pretty, you know,
stark things to get their budgets under control. We
saw layoffs. We saw a lot of buyouts. You know, I
think of Oshkosh, you know, marathon. I mean, excuse me,
Stevens Point a number of universities did that. So
the tuition freeze was lifted officially in 2021.
The university system, the Board of Regents tread
carefully. At first, they didn't immediately ask for
a tuition increase. But since then, we've seen four
consecutive tuition increases from the Board of
Regents, and they haven't been the 5.5%. They've
generally been close to or below CPI, which, you know,
is pretty high. But Republicans don't like it.
And even when they lifted the tuition freeze in 2021,
some Republican lawmakers said, be careful if you,
you know, get out of hand with this, we will freeze
it again. So what we're seeing now is some
Republicans, Tom Tiffany running for governor,
saying we need another tuition freeze. That freeze
lasted for eight years. Universities said it was
harming, you know, quality of education. But on the
other hand, Republicans said this is about access.
This is about affordability. So, you know, the tuition
increase is back to back to back is just not good for
Wisconsin families. But also the university says
our tuition rates are lower than other states. So it's
a really complex issue. And it's just been years and
years since they've been complaining and arguing
over this. >> So certainly not
somebody might be forgiven to look at that increase 2%
and say, hey, what's the big deal? But this is
something that goes back, boy, 16 years or 13 years
at this point, now that they've been fighting over
this particular round of tuition. So I think it's
it's an open question on this issue like any other.
Is this going to be something that resonates in
the campaign for Governor Ana? How about you go first?
>> I mean, in some ways, I think that the arguments
that we're seeing from Democrats and Republicans
mirrors the property tax and K-12 funding thing,
right? Which is that you have these kind of levers,
and as you pull one, another, one goes up. And
so in this case, Democrats are saying, well, the state
has been defunding the UW system. What do you expect?
Of course, tuition is going to have to go up one of
those, you know, they're sort of in balance with one
another. I think another point of tension that's
going to be really interesting is the way that
this affects Madison. And in some ways, Milwaukee
compared to all the other schools, because Madison
especially has this international cachet, right?
And can bring in students from out of state and from
across the world who will pay full freight, and that
offset some of those costs in a way that Stevens Point
Oshkosh are much more kind of aimed at local Wisconsin
kids. You have Tom Tiffany now coming out and saying
he wants to see fewer international students. He
the UW. What will that do for this kind of other
revenue source that UW-Madison has and how that
feeds into the system? Lots to play with and to what
extent that motivates voters who, again, maybe
they face the daycare charge charges. Now they're
facing increased tuition on the other end, it's it's
expensive to raise a kid in Wisconsin.
Whether or not it resonates could just be a matter of
whether or not Tom Tiffany decides to put some
resources behind it and put it in front of people and
make it his message, or focus on other stuff.
>> There's a lot out there, and one of the things
that's interesting is a report just came out from
the center for report on the Wisconsin Economy,
which is Crowley, which is this conservative think
tank that was created by Walker in his
administration at the UW, with the goal of having a
little more conservative, friendly economics ideas
being floated out there, as from the UW, giving it that
that stamp of authenticity. And they came out and said,
actually, UW tuition is too low. It's below its peer
institutions. It's actually freezing. It is subsidizing
this private enterprise of kids that go to college and
get this degree and then are very successful making
their college tuition cheaper subsidizes them at
the expense of everyone else who's impacted by
these costs. So it's interesting, even some of
the conservative groups out there aren't supporting a
freeze or keeping it this low.
>> Zac, I want to turn to another issue with a long
political backstory. There was this settlement this
week or last week reached with Tyco, a PFAs
manufacturer, for $10 million with the state.
This is a big deal. Tell us why and then tell us kind
of the politics that led to this.
>> Well, these lawsuits have been out there about
PFAs contamination throughout. Tyco makes
firefighting foam and equipment, and so they've
contaminated the ground around there. As we've
learned more about what PFAs does and the forever
chemical. But the history of this is fascinating
because we talk a lot about elections having
consequences. This decision is a consequence of Supreme
Court elections. So you have to go back and look at
that slow transition transition that occurred
from Democrats and liberals taking over the court,
because there were two major decisions that they
issued in 2025 that allowed this to happen. The first
is that with the DOJ lawsuit, they said, you do
not actually have to create a new rule for each version
of PFAs, chemical or contamination that's out
there in order to put into place these kind of fines
or sue people over the Wisconsin Spills Act about
any things that spilled into our ground that can
harm our waterways. So that was a big win. The city
don't have to go back each time. But then another part,
another separate lawsuit, part of the Evers versus
Marklein lawsuit said, well, the state doesn't actually
have to go and worry about the Joint Committee for the
Review of Administrative Rules to promulgate new
rules for what the standards for PFAs are. And
so when that happened, the Evers administration was
able to push through new standards on PFAs
contamination that matched stricter federal standards.
Now, the DOJ doesn't have to worry about getting sign
off from the Republicans for settling these lawsuits,
and they can actually prosecute this spills act
for anyone that's out there that's contaminated the
ground, which allows settlements like this to
happen, creating money to help people that have been
impacted by this pollution. >> So you're not going to
see any of that in the settlement language,
legal environment that everybody is operating in
now under this Liberal majority on the court,
which we know is going to last until at least 2030.
>> Yeah, and it's not going to change anytime soon.
>> And on other issues perhaps as well, in subtle
ways. >> But the court matters.
That's why we watch the court.
>> The court always matters. That is very true. That's
all the time we have for today. Thanks for joining
us. This has been inside Wisconsin politics. Be sure
to follow us on PBS wisconsin.org. WPR.org,
YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.