Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

One absentee ballot per voter is enough, Wisconsin decides

Madison, Wisconsin

Wisconsin has complex laws around absentee voting.

Coy St. Clair/Getty Images

Wisconsin has abandoned its plan to send voters two different absentee ballots for the presidential primary, deciding that minimizing confusion is more important than potentially violating state law.

The Wisconsin Elections Commission, with three members from each party who have deadlocked for months during an intense legal fight over culling the voter rolls, was unanimous in its decision Wednesday.


The decision reverses a plan unveiled last month by the commission staff for managing the state's unusually complex 2020 election calendar — with primaries for state and local offices before the Democratic presidential primary April 7, followed by congressional and legislative primaries Aug. 11 — in light of state laws' especially precise (and frequently skirted) deadlines for seeking and receiving absentee ballots.

The initial plan involved hundreds of town clerks printing and sending "A" ballots" (with just the presidential contenders) and "B" ballots (with the other offices and the presidential names) to 81,000 people statewide who've asked to vote absentee — then counting only the "B" forms if both of them got returned.

"This is insanity," said Democratic commissioner Ann Jacobs.

Now all the winter and spring contests will appear on one ballot — except for military and overseas voters, who will still get two to comply with federal law. The state law was similarly ignored in the last two presidential election years.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Read More

Lawmakers Press USDA Secretary on ‘Illegal’ Freezing of Funding & Disaster Relief Grants

A person walking through a cornfield in Wisconsin.

Getty Images, Per Breiehagen

Lawmakers Press USDA Secretary on ‘Illegal’ Freezing of Funding & Disaster Relief Grants

WASHINGTON—Members of the House Appropriations Committee questioned USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins last Wednesday over the freezing of $20 billion in federal funds.

President Trump signed several executive orders at the beginning of his term, halting funds that require agriculture officials to review the budget to eliminate waste.

Keep ReadingShow less
Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, people who earned more than $400,000 a year paid a top tax rate of 92%. Today's top rate is 37%.

Adobe Stock

Taxing the Rich To Pay for Trump Priorities Wouldn’t Slow Economic Growth

Reports of the Trump administration considering taxing wealthy Americans to pay for mass deportations and other priorities come on the heels of a new study showing how the move could generate significant revenues without slowing economic growth.

Mary Eschelbach Hansen, associate professor of economics at American University and the report's co-author, said raising tax rates for people who earn more than $609,000 a year to 44% would add 3% to the nation's tax coffers, enough to stave off cuts to popular programs serving low-income Coloradans.

"In current budget proportions, that's about enough to pay for some of the biggest, most important programs like food stamps SNAP, Children's Health Insurance Program, and also Temporary Assistance for Needy Families," Eschelbach Hansen outlined.

While 44% may seem high compared to today's top rate of 37%, it is a lot less than the 92% paid by people who earned more than $400,000 a year under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower. Republicans have long argued tax cuts create economic benefits for all, and leaders in Congress, including Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., the House Speaker, have said they would oppose any tax hikes.

Eschelbach Hansen argued raising the top tax rate would also increase how much of the national income pie most Americans get to keep, compared to how much the wealthiest get, by about 2%. She added years of trickle-down economics have shown only the wealthy benefit from low tax rates.

"If lowering top tax rates was going to trickle down, then you and I would be much richer than we are now," Eschelbach Hansen pointed out. "Because we have had an era of low top tax rates for decades."

Eschelbach Hansen stressed higher personal tax rates have virtually no impact on long-term economic growth, and lower personal tax rates lead to less economic growth, because people tend to take advantage of the lower rate by moving their income.

"Instead of reinvesting it in your business, where it will grow your business and grow the economy, you'll be more likely to just take it as personal income, which is not going to stimulate growth," Eschelbach Hansen explained.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Chicago Head Start Programs Face Uncertainty After Regional Office Closure

Morning drop-off at the Carole Robertson Center for Learning.

Claire Murphy

Chicago Head Start Programs Face Uncertainty After Regional Office Closure

ALBANY PARK – The laughter of preschool children permeates the hallways of the Carole Robertson Center for Learning on a sunny Thursday morning in Albany Park.

Teachers line their students up outside classrooms, counting names off one by one. Children congregate by their playmats and colorful rugs, about to be served breakfast.

Keep ReadingShow less
Man looking at stocks on his phone. Stock market.

As Trump pushes disruption, the markets push back.

Getty Images, Alistair Berg

The Markets Strike Back: Why Trump’s Economic Fantasies Keep Crashing into Reality

Trump may have won the election, but he’s losing the markets. In just 100 days, Wall Street has erased nearly $6 trillion in global equity value, according to Bloomberg data cited in The Guardian. The S&P 500 has logged one of its worst openings to a presidential term since the Nixon years. And fund managers—the real-world referees of economic confidence—are sending a message Congress seems unwilling to deliver: enough.

While Trump’s second term has been marked by a tsunami of executive orders, tariff threats, and regulatory purges, the financial markets are refusing to play along. From panicked sell-offs to jittery consumer sentiment and retreating business investment, U.S. capital is staging its own quiet rebellion. Consumer confidence has dropped to its lowest level since 2020, with Americans’ outlook on jobs, income, and business conditions sinking to a 13-year low, according to The Conference Board.

Keep ReadingShow less