The leaders of the Wisconsin State Legislature are creating the first ever legislative commission, the Blue Ribbon Commission on School Funding. Under the leadership of co-chairs Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay) and Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), the commission will examine how tax dollars are distributed to schools and make recommendations to better meet the needs of students across Wisconsin.

“The school funding formula was first created in the 1970’s and a review hasn’t been done in 20 years,” said Speaker Vos. “Times have changed, state demographics have changed, and of course, schools have changed; it’s time to examine the way we pay for schools.”

“Every child should have access to a quality education in Wisconsin,” said Sen. Fitzgerald. “With declining enrollments in more than half of the state’s school districts, a thorough analysis is necessary to ensure the process is transparent, equitable and delivers excellent schools today
and in the future.”

The Blue Ribbon Commission on School Funding involves members of the legislature and experts in the field of education. The commission will hold its first meeting this month. Beginning next year, the commission will travel around the state conducting public hearings to learn more about school funding issues in Wisconsin. Recommendations will be given to legislative leaders before the end of the session.

Wisconsin’s overall state-local tax burden again declined last year, though the drop was due mainly to two specific events, according to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WISTAX). In a new report—“A Glass Half-Empty or Half-Full?”—WISTAX cites as primary reasons for the drop a 19% decline in unemployment insurance taxes due to a strengthening economy, and the elimination of the 0.5% Brown County sales tax that paid for renovations of Lambeau Field.

The combined state-local tax burden for 2017 was 10.7% of personal income, down 0.1 percentage points from 10.8% in 2016. State-local taxes relative to personal income have declined six consecutive years since reaching 11.9% of income in 2011.

State tax collections totaled $18.8 billion in 2017, a 1.7% increase over 2016. With state personal income increasing at a similar rate (1.9%), the state tax claim remained unchanged at 7.0% of income. The largest one-year change in state taxes during 2017 was an 18.6% decline in unemployment tax collections, from $922.6 million in 2016 to $751.3 million in 2017. This was the fifth consecutive decline and one to be expected in an expanding economy with little unemployment.

The largest state tax—the individual income tax—increased 3.9% last year, from $7.7 billion to $8.0 billion. Unlike those that fund unemployment compensation, income taxes increase during economic expansion and generally decline during contractions. State sales tax collections increased 3.1% in 2017, from $5.1 billion to $5.2 billion. Over the past five years, sales taxes increased 21.8%, more than any other major state tax.

While corporate income taxes typically rise with the economy, state collections have fallen over the past two years. They dropped 4.4%, from $963.0 million in 2016 to $920.9 million in 2017. The decline was partly due to the multi-year phase-in of an agricultural and manufacturing tax credit which, when fully implemented, would nearly eliminate corporate income taxes for manufacturers and farmers.

The state’s two main transportation revenues—the gas tax and vehicle registration fees—continued sluggish growth. Gas tax collections rose 0.7%, to $1.04 billion in 2017. Vehicle registration fees inched up 0.1% to $692.3 million.

Local tax collections totaled $10.2 billion in 2017, a 1.8% increase over 2016. The property tax is the main local funding source for local governments. Net collections (after accounting for state credits) increased 2.7% in 2017, from $9.5 billion to $9.6 billion. Since 2011, the state has essentially frozen municipal and county tax levies, except for increases tied to new construction and borrowing. It has restricted school revenue growth since 1994, initially allowing inflationary increases. That ended in 2010, and since 2012, increases have been small to none.

More than a dozen states banded together Monday to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block a California law requiring any eggs sold there to come from hens that have space to stretch out in their cages.

In a lawsuit filed directly to the high court, the states allege that California’s law has cost consumers nationwide up to $350 million annually because of higher egg prices since it took effect in 2015. The lawsuit argues that California’s requirements violate the U.S. Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and are pre-empted by federal law.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley is leading the lawsuit. Other plaintiff states are Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

The California attorney general’s office said Monday that it was reviewing the lawsuit.

California produced about 5 billion eggs and imported an additional 4 billion from other states in 2012, according to the lawsuit. Thirty percent of those out-of-state eggs came from Iowa, the nation’s top egg producer. About 13 percent of California’s egg imports came from Missouri, the second highest percentage cited in the lawsuit.

The number of eggs produced in California dropped to 3.5 billion last year despite rising nationally, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Missouri’s egg production was up 60 percent since 2012 to 3.2 billion last year.

Hawley asserted in a statement that California’s egg law is “a clear attempt by big-government proponents to impose job-killing regulations” on other states.

Republicans will try Monday to urgently reconcile the tax overhaul bills they passed in the House and Senate, entering a delicate period where they have to retain the support of their party’s conservative and moderate members. Discussions are expected to continue throughout the week and could conclude as early as next week with the drafting of a so-called “conference report” that constitutes the final legislation. That bill must pass each chamber before Trump can sign it into law.

The most delicate discussions will probably take place over how to tax so-called “pass-through” businesses. There are millions of these firms in the United States, and they can range from small businesses to large real estate companies and professional sports franchises. They are often owned by a single entity or partnership, and their income is passed through to the owners, who pay taxes on that money through the individual income tax code.

The two bills take markedly different approaches to the taxation of pass-through business income, with the House bill providing a much larger tax cut.

There are several other issues that need to be resolved.

The Senate bills begins lowering the corporate tax rate in 2019, and the House bill begins lowering it in 2018. The House and Senate bills take different approaches to the individual tax brackets: The House bill has only four brackets, and the top rate remains unchanged at 39.6 percent; the Senate bill keeps seven brackets but lowers the top rate to 38.5.

The House bill creates a five-year “family flexibility credit” that aims to help families lower their taxes. The Senate bill doesn’t have such a measure.

The House bill entirely eliminates the estate tax — a tax paid on inheritances that is limited near exclusively to the very wealthy — beginning in 2024, while the Senate bill scales it back dramatically without getting rid of it entirely.

The Senate moved to resolve one potential sticking point between the two chambers — moving to scale back, rather than eliminate entirely, the deduction for state and local taxes. The Senate bill adopts a House compromise that would allow individuals to deduct up to $10,000 in property taxes only.

The Senate bill allows almost all of the tax cuts for individuals and families to expire after 2025 — a step that was taken to make sure the bill didn’t add to the deficit beyond the levels permitted under complex Senate rules. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney insisted again Sunday that those cuts wouldn’t really expire because a future Congress would extend them.

Business groups across Wisconsin and the nation applaud the efforts of Reps. Born and Nygren and Sens. Tiffany and Craig that build on Wisconsin’s past tort reform successes. Among other reforms, their legislation addresses the most pressing civil litigation challenge – escalating transactional costs relating to discovery.

The heart of this litigation reform initiative is aligning Wisconsin’s civil procedures for discovery and class actions to the corresponding federal rules. The modernization of these court procedures, mostly aimed at costly discovery practices, will reduce litigation costs for small and large businesses, as well as state and local governments who must spend taxpayers’ dollars responding to abusive discovery practices.

Uniformity between the state and federal rules makes it easier for both plaintiffs and defendants. It enhances predictability and provides judges with a larger body of case law upon which to draw. This is particularly helpful to Wisconsin Circuit Court judges.

These common-sense discovery reforms will do the following:

• Make it clear that both courts and parties have an obligation to pursue the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of each case.

• Establish cost-benefit and proportionality requirements for discovery to prevent litigants from abusing the discovery process to leverage a
higher potential settlement or engage in a “fishing expedition.”

• Put on hold discovery and other proceedings pending the court’s decision on a motion to dismiss or other dispositive motions, protecting parties from costly discovery in cases that may be dismissed or where refinement of the pleadings may clarify the allegations and scope of relevant discovery.

• Provide notice of third-party litigation financing, if the financier has a right to receive compensation that is contingent on and sourced from
the outcome of the action. Such third party finance can increase the cost of litigation and cause suits to be brought that would not
otherwise have been financially justified.

• Limit discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) to address the escalating volume of ESI that is now one of the most significant
discovery-related costs.

• Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, limit discovery to 25 interrogatories, 10 depositions, none of which may exceed 7 hours
in duration, and a look-back period of not more than 5 years prior to the accrual of the cause of action.

Gov. Scott Walker wants to launch a nearly $7 million national marketing campaign to persuade millennials and military veterans to move to his state to help with a worker shortage.

Walker on Wednesday called on the Legislature to approve funding for the $6.8 million ad campaign before the end of the current session in early 2018. He said the marketing campaign would pitch Wisconsin as a more affordable place for millennials to live where they could be spending more time in a canoe, having a drink with friends or attending a concert, rather than sitting in traffic.

Walker said it was “critically important” to “get more bodies” in Wisconsin. The effort would include $3.5 million in ads targeting military veterans and their families and $3 million marketing Wisconsin as a destination for young professionals, particularly those already living in nearby Midwest cities of Detroit, Minneapolis and Chicago, Walker said.

The effort would likely start after an already-funded $1 million ad campaign targeting University of Wisconsin alumni and millennials living in Chicago, said Tricia Braun, chief operating officer of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. That’s slated to run January through March, and the hope is the expanded campaign Walker announced would begin shortly after that, she said.

Walker is also calling for an additional $300,000 would be used to develop a mobile job resource center that could provide services and recruitment in areas in rural Wisconsin with limited access to permanent services.

“It’s not enough to just give speeches and talks, we have to put a whole campaign behind this,” Walker said.

Part of the effort would be to woo back young adults who attended college in Wisconsin. The key time to reach them is four or five years after graduation when they start thinking about where they want to live long term and raise children, Walker said.

Business groups, federal lawmakers and public officials’ associations have signed on to support South Dakota’s legal bid to collect sales taxes from out-of-state internet retailers.

South Dakota is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review whether retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they lack a physical presence. The case could have national implications for e-commerce.

South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley’s office said this week that organizations ranging from the National Governors Association to the National Retail Federation have filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting South Dakota’s petition to the high court.

The state is seeking to overturn legal rulings issued mostly before the online shopping boom.

Thirty-six attorneys general from states including Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin have also filed a friend-of-the-court brief.

Ajit Pai, the Republican chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), announced on Tuesday that the FCC will vote to roll back Obama-era net neutrality rules that require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. Pai in a statement blasted the rules as “heavy-handed, utility-style” regulation of the internet imposed by Democrats.

Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades,” Pai said. “Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.”

“Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate,” he said.

The commission will vote on the proposal at its Dec. 14 meeting. With Republicans holding three of the FCC’s five seats, the repeal is expected to pass.

Pai said he would release the full text of his plan to the public on Wednesday, but he made clear that he believes the Federal Trade Commission is better equipped to police internet service providers than the FCC.

Two Democratic legislators, Rep. Melissa Sargent, D-Madison, and Sen. Bob Wirch, D-Somers, introduced a bill Friday to increase the state minimum wage to $15 over the next five years.

Under this bill, the minimum wage would gradually increase to $15 each year over a five-year time period. After the five-year period ends, the bill will require the Department of Workforce Development to adjust minimum wage income annually to match the trends of the current economy.

The two Democratic lawmakers introduced a similar bill together in the last legislative session, but it did not pass.

Sargent admits the bill faces a partisan legislature, but she argues introducing these types of bills can “change the fabric of the state” even though they might not pass because it allows people to think and talk about issues that matter to them.

“The people of Wisconsin are asking for this [minimum wage] bill to be introduced,” Sargent said. “Folks are overwhelmingly saying ‘It’s time to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour.’ It’s my job as a legislator and people’s servant to hear the voices of the people and bring what is that they find important [into] the building to discuss.”

The co-sponsorship period for this bill ends Dec. 1. The bill has not yet been scheduled for a committee hearing.