An Act to create 66.0601 (1) (d) of the statutes; Relating to: local guaranteed income programs.
Summary
AB165 creates a new state law limiting how Wisconsin local governments may fund guaranteed income programs. The bill defines a “guaranteed income program” as one that provides regular, periodic cash payments to individuals that are unearned and may be used for any purpose, while excluding programs that require work or training. It also defines “political subdivision” to mean a city, village, town, or county.
Under the bill, no political subdivision may use its own money, shared revenue payments, tax levy revenue, or fee revenue to make payments to individuals under a guaranteed income program. In practical terms, the bill bars local governments from spending public funds on unconditional cash-transfer pilot programs or similar initiatives, even if those programs are locally designed and locally approved.
Impact
AB165 adds a new restriction to Wisconsin statutes governing local government finance and authority, specifically creating s. 66.0601 (1) (d). It preempts cities, villages, towns, and counties from using public funds for guaranteed income programs, including funds from shared revenue, taxes, and fees. The bill does not ban private or nonprofit-funded guaranteed income efforts, but it removes local public funding as an option and limits municipal and county discretion over social policy spending.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have had enough legislative support to pass both chambers, with the Assembly approving it 53-42 and the Senate concurring 18-15. That suggests a generally favorable but closely divided sentiment, with support likely concentrated among lawmakers concerned about local spending limits and opposition from those supportive of local experimentation with cash-assistance programs. The fact that it ultimately failed to override the governor’s objections indicates that the measure remained politically contested even after legislative passage.
Contention
The central point of contention is whether local governments should be allowed to use public funds for unconditional cash assistance programs. Supporters likely view the bill as a necessary guardrail against local spending on programs they see as outside core government functions or fiscally risky, while opponents likely argue that cities and counties should retain flexibility to address poverty, housing instability, and economic insecurity through guaranteed income pilots. The dispute also reflects a broader tension between state preemption and local control, with the bill limiting local policymaking authority over social welfare initiatives.