WISCONSIN FAMILY ACTION’S STATEMENT REGARDING SENTENCING OF INDIVIDUAL WHO FIREBOMBED ITS OFFICE

MADISON – Yesterday, Federal Judge William Conley of the Western District of Wisconsin, sentenced Hridindu Roychowdhury to seven and half years in a federal prison. On December 1, 2023, the defendant pled guilty to federal charges in the May 8, 2022 firebombing attack on the Madison office of Wisconsin Family Action. Roychowdhury also graffitied a threatening message on the exterior of the building: “If abortions aren’t safe, then you aren’t either.”  The federal charges required a minimum of five years and a maximum of twenty years.

Wisconsin Family Action president emeritus Julaine Appling and president Christine File both submitted written Victim Impact Statements and were allowed time to speak during the sentencing hearing.  The following is WFA’s response to the judge’s decision.

Julaine Appling commented, “May 8, 2022, is forever emblazoned on my mind. It was a very visual reminder that people who disagree with us can and will use violence to try to silence us. We recommended the defendant receive 15 years imprisonment. We based that on justice—on the punishment fitting the crime, not on retribution or vengeance. This was a serious, premeditated crime that was the first of nearly 100 attacks on prolife organizations across the country.  In light of this, we are disappointed in the judge’s decision regarding a crime the judge called ‘terrorism’ multiple times. The US Attorney’s office had also recommended 12-15 years imprisonment. A civil society does not exist if violence is the default reaction to disagreeing with people.”

Christine File noted, “We are disappointed. The court missed an opportunity to strengthen the protection of constitutional rights like free speech and free exercise, rights that have themselves been under assault in recent years. The defendant’s act of domestic terrorism to threaten our people, our families and friends, our neighbors, and our greater pro-life community is unconscionable.  Ultimately, the defendant—and others who attacked pro-life groups they disagree with—attacked our civil society and the constitutional rights foundational to it.

“It is notable that nearly 60 people filled the courtroom to support this person who committed a violent, unprovoked, and hate-filled crime. Will the society-of-tomorrow support terrorism intended to silence people with whom we disagree? But perhaps most concerning, in the two years since the attack the defendant did not at any point express remorse to the people he targeted and harmed—until the judge asked him. We would’ve expected the court to have weighed this callousness towards us more significantly. Given the severity of his crime and the charges he pled guilty to, the sentence lacks proportionality.  However, as we’ve said since the day of the attack, no act or threat of violence or terrorism will deter us from our mission—being a voice for the voiceless.”

Wisconsin Family Action would like to thank the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin, the FBI and ATF agents, and the Madison Police Department detective assigned to this case for their professionalism and tireless work bringing this case to a resolution. That the judge did not take their sentencing recommendation nor weigh their arguments more heavily is regrettable. Civil discourse should never include violence, but our nation is at a boiling point, encouraged by a lack of law and order.

Responsibility and Choice In Education

Responsibility and Choice In Education

Parents, do you know what your educational options are in Wisconsin? You should; the education of your child is not anyone else’s responsibility. It is yours.

Wisconsin parents are very fortunate. They have several educational options from which to select a partner to work with them—not in place of them—in the education of their child. For some of the options, the application window closes this month.

Like every state, Wisconsin has the standard public schools. In fact, we have over 420 school districts, ranging from large ones such as Milwaukee and Madison to very small ones with fewer than 300 students. These schools are governed by local school boards and are funded by local, state, and federal taxpayer money. The State Department of Public Instruction, or DPI, has oversight of these schools for such things as compliance and distribution of funds.

Additionally, while every child in Wisconsin lives in a specific public school district, parents may choose to use open enrollment to enroll their child in another public school district that better fits them and their child. Parents can apply for open enrollment in another district from February through April 30th.

The third option is also within the public school arena. Many districts have started charter schools. Charter schools have typically become something of specialty schools—or schools that cater to a certain group or have a particular philosophy. They have a separate school board from the main school district, as well as a completely separate administration. However, they are funded with tax dollars, are still accountable to DPI, and must meet all the rules and laws for public schools. The first phase of the application process for charter schools in Wisconsin is from March 1st to July 1st.

The fourth option is virtual charter schools, which allow parents to keep their children home and use an online curriculum approved by the charter school board. While students are educated from their homes, technically this is not what most people consider “homeschooling” because students are enrolled in the public school district and are still subject to the rules and requirements of the state and the district.

Another option for Wisconsin families is private schools. Wisconsin is blessed with an excellent private school law and many excellent private schools, most of them affiliated with a church or a religious college. Private schools are exempt from many of the rules and regulations that govern any type of public school.

The sixth option is a mix between public and private schools. In 1991, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program began. This program allows low-income students living in the Milwaukee school district to attend a private school using a voucher. Private schools apply to become part of the voucher program and must agree to certain requirements such as audits and testing. Enrollment for the voucher program is open now through April 18th. 

And finally, Wisconsin parents have the option of homeschooling. Wisconsin has one of the best homeschooling laws in the country. Signed in 1984, the law has remained unchanged for 40 years. Applying to homeschool in Wisconsin is as simple as submitting a one-page form from DPI. Parents who take advantage of this educational option have great freedom. They choose the curriculum, the hours, and essentially everything about the education they provide for their children.

We are not wanting for educational options in Wisconsin. That said, expanding some of the options so more parents can take advantage of them would be good. However, Wisconsin parents have true choice when it comes to how they will educate their children. Now is the time for parents to explore these options for next year, all the while remembering that they are still accountable for the success or failure of their child’s education. That’s a responsibility that cannot be delegated.

Vote on Key Election Integrity Referenda on April 2!

Vote on Key Election Integrity Referenda on April 2!

Every election is important, and unfortunately, in recent years we’ve had reason to believe our elections are not always fair and transparent. Remember the infamous Zuckerbucks from the 2020 fall elections? Millions of dollars came into Wisconsin from liberal outside groups and went to a number of our most liberal communities to supposedly “help” with not just the 2020 elections but also elections in 2021 and 2022.

In-depth research has revealed that more than $10 million of these Zuckerbucks poured into Wisconsin and went to 216 Wisconsin municipalities involving 39 of our 72 counties since 2020. Our five most populous cities, each considered a Democrat stronghold—Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Kenosha, and Racine—received $8.5 million alone.

In addition to money, liberal organizations also employed people to, again, supposedly “help” the election clerks conduct the elections. These were outsiders who had no official authority whatsoever to be directly involved with the conduct of our elections.

Thankfully, this spring “we the people” of Wisconsin get to vote on two referenda related to the outside money and the outside people impacting our elections. On every ballot across Wisconsin, voters will see two questions, both related to the Zuckerbucks situation.

Question one deals with outside money and asks voters if they want to amend our state Constitution to prohibit “private donations and grants” from being applied for, accepted, expended, or used in the conduct of any of our elections. A “yes” vote means the voter wants to stop outside money from coming into our municipalities during elections.

Question two asks Wisconsin voters if they want to amend our state Constitution to make it clear that only “election officials designated by law” can be involved in conducting our elections. A “yes” vote means the voter wants only legally authorized Wisconsin election officials to be involved in conducting our elections.

The legislature is looking to amend the state Constitution for these provisions rather than just passing a regular bill because the governor has vetoed every election reform bill presented to him. The only way the legislature can get any meaningful election reform done is to bypass the legislature and go directly to “we the people,” which amending the Constitution does.

While these two Constitution-amending questions are on everyone’s ballot, this election is mostly about local government, as all across the state, citizens will be voting for school board members, mayors, city council members, town and village supervisors, and municipal, county, and appellate judges. These are critically important offices because local government is the level of government that most directly impacts our lives.

Our spring nonpartisan general election culminates on Election Day, next Tuesday, April 2. This week is the last week for early in-person voting, which ends in most municipalities at the close of business this Friday.

Every election has consequences; this one is no different. Voters have the opportunity to have their voice heard on the two referenda questions regarding outside money and outside people impacting our elections as well as on who represents them in their local government. There’s no such thing as an unimportant election.

April 2nd’s Statewide Referenda Explained

This spring election, April 2, there will be 2 statewide referendums on your ballot. These referendums would amend the Wisconsin Constitution if you vote yes on them. The legislature is attempting to stop a repeat of the “Zuckerbucks” debacle from 2020 with these referendums. Both of them deal with the “Zuckerbucks” issue.

These referenda are the legislature’s only way to get serious election reform done right now. They’ve passed many election reform bills in the last 5-1/2 years, and Evers has vetoed all of them. Amending the constitution is only way to bypass the governor.

Question 1 deals with stopping the outside money from coming in, being requested, or being used to help with any of our elections.

A “Yes” on question 1 means you don’t want a repeat of 2020 and the millions of dollars that came in from liberal organizations and were given to select municipalities: Green Bay, Eau Claire, Kenosha, Milwaukee, and Madison. You don’t want that money coming in, being applied for, or being used in ANY WI municipality.

A “no” on question 1 means you were just fine with the “Zuckerbucks” in 2020 and don’t care if that happens again in WI community/municipality.

Question 2 deals with stopping outside people—unauthorized people—from “helping” with our elections. It would only duly authorized election officials to deal with our elections—in any municipality.

A “yes” on Question 2 means you do not want unauthorized people involved with our elections. Period. You want duly authorized election officials only.

A “no” on Question 2 means you don’t care if outsiders with no official authorization come in and supposedly offer help to election officials.

Be sure to vote in your local elections and for these referendums this Tuesday, APRIL 2.

To see if there are any candidate rankings for your local races visit Ivoterguide.com.

To find out what’s on your ballot, where your polling place, and more visit MyVote.WI.gov .

WI Supreme Court Decision ‘Entangles Gov. in Spiritual Affairs’

WI Supreme Court Decision ‘Entangles Gov. in Spiritual Affairs’

Last Thursday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that Wisconsin Catholic Charities, run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, are not operated primarily for a religious purpose and therefore are not exempt from participating in the state’s unemployment tax system.

The Court decided that while the Superior-based Catholic Charities Bureau is motivated by Catholic doctrines to assist the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals, the nature of the services they provide is considered non-religious.

Justice Rebecca Bradley, voting with the minority, wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she said, “The majority’s misinterpretation also excessively entangles the government in spiritual affairs, requiring courts to determine what religious practices are sufficiently religious under the majority’s unconstitutional test. The majority says secular entities provide charitable services, so such activities aren’t religious at all, even when performed by Catholic Charities.”

The legal counsel for the Catholic group has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Should the high court decide to review the case, its decision could potentially set a precedent with widespread effects across the nation.

Wisconsin Family Council was part of a friend-of-the-court brief filed in this case, urging the Court to protect the rights of religious organizations. Unfortunately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court got this case wrong. This decision is pure judicial activism. Having any court determine for a religious entity which of its purposes are sufficiently religious is so obviously in violation of the First Amendment.

The implications of this decision are far-reaching, not just for Catholic entities but for all faith-based organizations that could find their religious missions scrutinized and secularized by poor judicial interpretation. This case underscores the importance of continuing to defend religious liberty at all levels of the legal system, as the fundamental right to live out one’s faith in all aspects of life — including acts of charity — is a cornerstone of the principles our nation was founded on.

Gambling: A Bad Bet for Families

Gambling: A Bad Bet for Families

The Wisconsin Council on Problem Gambling recognizes March as National Problem Gambling Awareness Month, a time dedicated to increasing public awareness of problem gambling and the availability of prevention, treatment, and recovery services. Problem gambling is defined as all gambling behaviors that compromise, disrupt, or damage personal, family, or vocational pursuits. This month serves as an important opportunity to highlight gambling’s destructive impact on families and society in general.  

As gambling has grown and evolved in Wisconsin, we’ve witnessed increased problems. In 1993, coinciding with the expansion of gambling in the state, especially casinos, the Wisconsin Council on Problem Gambling was formed and funded. Ironically, funds for this organization now come almost exclusively from Indian casino profits.

As the state agrees to expand gambling, they know they are asking for trouble; so, they create an organization specifically to help problem gamblers and appropriate money. Remember that the state gets money from the casinos by virtue of the compacts we have entered into with the tribes. As the casinos increase their take, the state gets more money for its budget, making the state the “winner” and its citizens the “losers”

Wisconsin Council on Problem Gambling estimates that over 333,000 Wisconsin residents have a gambling problem, which is defined as affecting their finances, their families, and their employment. This number is conservative but still represents almost 6% of Wisconsin’s total population and over 7% of our population over the age of 18.

Calls to the Council’s 24-hour Helpline have increased 343% since 1996, the first year the line was implemented. According to the 2022 report, the average debt of callers contacting the Helpline was over $45,000. Experts seem to agree that in this challenging economy, more people are trying to get out of economic difficulties by gambling; and instead of improving their situation, they are making it significantly worse.

To make matters worse, 65% of compulsive gamblers commit crimes to finance their gambling, 6 to 20% of adolescents develop gambling problems, suicide rates are 20 times higher among pathological gamblers compared to non-gamblers, and people who have other addictions are at a higher risk of becoming addicted to gambling.

None of these statistics are good for families. Studies continue to show that gambling increases the likelihood of family breakdown through divorce and increases the likelihood of child abuse and neglect as well as domestic violence. The National Library of Medicine reports that “Disordered gambling in one individual is estimated to affect six others on average, among whom spouses/partners report the most distress. This includes a wide range of psychological and emotional difficulties, alongside higher prevalence of divorce.” Talk about high stakes. Families are the ones who end up being the biggest losers, which becomes a significant loss for everyone since fragmented families cost taxpayers millions of dollars every year, not to mention the long-term non-financial costs communities endure.

Problem gambling is growing in Wisconsin. The Internet is becoming more and more of a means for people to gamble—in private, without leaving their homes. Casinos, thanks to former Governor Jim Doyle, have increased their games and their hours. Governor Evers has approved the first off-reservation casino, which is scheduled for Beloit; and Kenosha authorities earlier this month approved an off-reservation casino there. Governor Evers also unilaterally approved sports betting here a couple of years ago when he allowed for such gambling on casino property.

Here’s the stark reality: those who run gambling enterprises are in it for one reason—to make money. The odds are stacked against those who play the games—always. The “house” wants people to lose. The “house” needs people to lose in order to make money. What gamblers don’t understand is that they stand to lose a lot more than money when they play this very high-stakes game. That’s why gambling is a very bad bet for families. The best thing families can do is to warn their children about this vice that is so very present via the internet. Remind them that a dollar doesn’t buy hope, but it can result in addiction.

Pro-Life Groups Intervene to Prevent Abortion From Becoming a “Constitutional Right” in Wisconsin

Pro-Life Groups Intervene to Prevent Abortion
From Becoming a “Constitutional Right” in Wisconsin

Today, Wisconsin Right to Life, Wisconsin Family Action, and Pro-Life Wisconsin filed together to block Attorney General Josh Kaul’s pursuit to find a right to abortion in the Wisconsin Constitution. The Pro-Life organizations are petitioning the Wisconsin Supreme Court to accept them as intervenors and are being represented by The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) and the Thomas More Society.

Attorney General Josh Kaul’s original case raised various arguments as to why Wisconsin Statute 940.04 no longer applies as an abortion prohibition. Importantly, the Attorney General did not raise any constitutional challenges in his original filing. Only upon appeal, in his recent supplemental bypass petition, Attorney General Kaul seeks to inappropriately insert a constitutional claim into his own case in order to create a constitutional right to abortion in Wisconsin. This is procedurally improper.

The claim is also without merit. There is no right to abortion in the Wisconsin Constitution.   Further, the Supreme Court of the United States in Dobbs recently and properly returned this issue to the duly elected state representatives in the legislative branch. That the Attorney General is attempting to take this issue from the people of Wisconsin is unjust and unwise. Yet there are those who support abortion at all stages and take every opportunity to find a path to full legal abortion.

All three pro-life organizations have been working for years to offer alternatives to abortion and help Wisconsin women make life-affirming decisions.

Attorney General Kaul is attempting to bypass the legislative process to settle the issue of abortion in Wisconsin by enticing the Wisconsin Supreme Court to accept a procedurally unfit case to find an unfounded constitutional abortion right.

Heather Weininger, Executive Director of Wisconsin Right to Life, stated, “The purpose of three branches of government is to ensure each one remains in their appropriate role. Regrettably, those who support taking the lives of our preborn children are now taking it right to the top of our state judicial system to find a right to abortion in our constitution. This is dangerous to our other laws that are in place to protect and inform those who are making life and death decisions about their preborn baby; this is not a precedent that should be set in our state.”

Christine File, President of Wisconsin Family Action stated, “The Attorney General’s attempt to turn his own statutory case into a constitutional abortion case on appeal disregards basic procedural principles. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin should not allow it. Further, under our constitutional republic, creating laws is reserved for the legislative branch, and there are many Wisconsin laws that protect women, girls, and unborn children from the lucrative abortion industry. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should not allow this case to create a purported constitutional right that strips the legislature’s lawfully enacted protections for Wisconsin’s most vulnerable.”

Dan Miller, State Director at Pro-Life Wisconsin stated, “If the Wisconsin Supreme Court were to find a ‘right to abortion’ in our state constitution, it would be the most grotesque form of legislating from the bench in Wisconsin’s judicial history. For Attorney General Kaul and Planned Parenthood to petition the Court to do this demonstrates their total disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of unrestricted abortion until birth.”

###
Wisconsin Family Action, Inc. is a statewide organization engaged in strengthening, preserving, and promoting marriage, family, life, and religious freedom in Wisconsin.

Read online here.

WILL Secures Victory Against Racial Discrimination

WILL Secures Victory Against Racial Discrimination

Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) has achieved a historic legal victory against the Biden Administration. U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled the racially discriminatory federal laws creating the Minority Business Development Agency are unconstitutional. Specifically, the agency’s practice of assuming minority-owned businesses are inherently disadvantaged breaches the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

As WILL notes, this agency “was designed to help Americans of some races, but not other races.” Its “very design” “punishes” those of certain racial groups, said Pittman. The federal government is now prohibited from using the agency to discriminate against businesses based on race.

The court declared that the MBDA “can still operate its Business Centers, [but] it must simply do so without vetting applicants based on race.” This ruling is a serious blow to affirmative action initiatives and aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision last year that upended race-based admission policies at universities.

The Minority Business Development Agency was formed under the left’s new religion of “equity,” along with Critical Race Theory (CRT) and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The left is intent on ensuring equality of outcome rather than the equality of opportunity that our country was built on. This dangerous ideology undermines the importance of merit and of treating every person as an individual with unique, God-given talents rather than a member of a group with certain immutable characteristics.

Racial equality is a worthy goal, but it can’t be a one-way street. All students at all levels of education, all business entrepreneurs, all employees, and all athletes need to be judged on their ability to meet the standard, do the work, accomplish the task, and fill the need, not based on their race. Federal agencies should never be permitted to cater to one race over another, as it only sows more division and perpetuates racism.

This ruling underscores a return to principles that value individual merit and the inherent dignity of every person. It reaffirms the importance of ensuring opportunities are based on one’s abilities and character rather than race and serves as a reminder that true justice and equality are achieved through upholding these timeless values. Thanks, WILL, for another victory for all Americans.

Missouri Court Excludes Christians from Jury Duty 

Missouri Court Excludes Christians from Jury Duty 

Last month, the US Supreme Court declined to review a Missouri case involving the dismissal of potential jurors who, despite affirming their ability to adhere to the law, were removed because they attended a “conservative Christian church” with teachings against homosexual acts. 

The case started when Jean Finney, a lesbian woman, claimed she was dismissed from the Missouri Department of Corrections due to her masculine appearance, violating anti-discrimination laws. This incident reflects broader legal debates influenced by the Obama administration’s interpretation of civil rights laws extending protections to LGBT individuals. During jury selection, Finney’s lawyer probed potential jurors on their religious beliefs about homosexuality, leading to discussions on sin and morality.

Finney’s lawyer asked whether any jurors attended a “conservative Christian church” with teachings against homosexuality. Responses from jurors, including a pastor’s wife, affirmed such teachings but also noted that everyone sins, and it is irrelevant to the case’s context. Still, Finney’s attorney claimed that “there’s no way…somebody [who] looks at a gay person and says…‘You are a sinner’” could impartially apply the law. As a result, he denied the Christians their right to fulfill their civic duty.

The Missouri Court of Appeals ruled that the dismissal of Christian jurors was justified, not due to their Christian faith, but because their church’s traditional views on same-sex behavior could compromise their impartiality in a case related to alleged harassment over homosexuality, despite assurances they could remain unbiased. This is a deeply concerning and chilling decision. A judge ruled that three individuals were unfit for jury service simply due to their belief in the sanctity of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Then, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case between the Missouri Department of Corrections and Jean Finney. Justice Alito, while concurring with the decision based on procedural issues, still expressed his concerns about the case. 

Jordan Lorence, writing for the Daily Signal, reported that Alito harkened back to the risks he foresaw in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage in 2015. He said then that people who opposed homosexuality and same-sex marriage would eventually risk being unfairly “labeled as bigots and treated as such” and expressed skepticism towards the majority’s assurances that the rights and conscience of Christians would remain protected. “We will soon see whether this proves to be true,” wrote Justice Alito. “I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those views in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools.”

Unfortunately, his warning has come to fruition. “I see no basis for dismissing a juror for cause based on religious beliefs,” wrote Justice Alito last month in response to the Missouri case. “I am concerned that the lower court’s reasoning may spread and may be a foretaste of things to come.”

“When a court, a quintessential state actor, finds that a person is ineligible to serve on a jury because of his or her religious beliefs, that decision implicates fundamental rights,” Alito continued.

Alito is right. Religious beliefs shouldn’t exclude anyone from serving on a jury, just as sex and race can’t be the basis for exclusion. Thankfully, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey agreed and also spoke out against the ruling. “We’re not going to let radical left-wing progressives relegate Christians to second-class citizen status… We can’t let that happen,” Bailey said. “The right to participate on juries is codified in the United States Constitution. And that’s a right of citizenship…The only people being discriminated against when the states pass these anti-discrimination laws too often are Christians, Christians who believe in biblical truth.”

The Supreme Court’s decision not to revisit the Missouri courts’ judgment should not be taken as an endorsement of future discrimination against traditional viewpoints on gender and sexuality. Such a precedent could dangerously open the door for government officials to exclude individuals from public life based on their belief in the Christian principles on which our nation was founded.

Remember, what happens in other states is bound to make its way to Wisconsin. The freedom of religion and the right to participate fully in public life, including jury service, are cornerstones of the American republic. These rights must be protected fervently, not eroded subtly through court decisions. 

 

Gov. Evers Vetoes Tax Cuts Again

Gov. Evers Vetoes Tax Cuts Again

Last Friday, Governor Evers vetoed for the third time bills that would cut middle-class taxes, expand the married couple tax credit, and give retirees an incentive to stay in Wisconsin rather than leave the state. The Republican-majority state legislature passed the bills last month, in part, as an effort to deal with the nearly $4 billion surplus of taxpayer monies accumulated over the last several years.

Senator Duey Stroebel (R – Cedarburg) issued a statement in response to Evers’ veto saying, “Wisconsin’s current budget surplus is just under $4 billion. This surplus is a result of a decade-plus run of fiscal conservatism in both the Senate and the Assembly, which has allowed us to adequately fund our priorities while putting Wisconsin in a strong financial position. The nearly $4 billion budget surplus also tells us that we are over-taxing our residents.”

“This budget surplus belongs in the hands of the hard-working taxpayers of Wisconsin, not in the hands of Madison bureaucrats or far-left special interest groups. That is why the legislature has made repeated attempts this session to deliver tax cuts for families and return the surplus back to the people. It is unfortunate that Governor Evers has repeatedly blocked our efforts to provide necessary relief for middle-class families despite the legislature’s willingness to come to a compromise.”

He went on to say that the governor’s vetoes “deny the average middle-class filer $454 in tax cuts that could be used to help fight the costs of inflation from within their own homes, penalize married couples by rejecting the expansion of the married couple tax credit, and discourage seniors from retiring in Wisconsin and spending time with their grandchildren by making it more expensive to retire in our state.”

Putting more money in middle-class families’ pockets, incentivizing marriage, and giving tax relief to retirees, all ultimately help Wisconsin’s families. Further, individuals and families are better stewards of their earnings than the government. Empowering families to make decisions that best suit their needs regarding how they spend their money contributes to the overall prosperity of the state.

Strong and independent families, led by strong marriages, and bolstered by strong extended families make for a strong and prosperous Wisconsin. That should be the goal of every one of our elected officials.