Podcasts

Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production. You’re watching “Here & Now” 2024 election coverage.

Lorenzo Sewell:
There have been a lot of threats to democracy. I don’t believe he’s one of those.

Charlie Sykes:
Trump 2.0 would, I think, be substantially more dangerous than Trump 1.0.

Frederica Freyberg:
Wisconsin weighs in on the big question. Is democracy hanging in the balance? And Kamala Harris plans yet another visit to the swing state, this time joined by her vice-presidential pick.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” Wisconsin weighs in on whether democracy really is at stake in the presidential election. A court ruling removes barriers for people with disabilities voting in November, and two constitutional amendment questions will be on the ballot in the August primary. We explain what they mean. Finally, what the trend of for-profit nursing homes means for future quality of care. It’s “Here & Now” for August 2.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
In presidential election news, by now, most people have heard of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint to fundamentally reshape the federal government. The plan especially came into focus in recent weeks as Democrats ramped up attacks against Donald Trump. Even though the head of Project 2025 stepped down this week amid intense criticism, conservative leaders say that work isn’t yet done. “Here & Now reporter Nathan Denzin describes the conservative action plan and why opponents are warning a second Trump term could be a threat to democracy.

Nathan Denzin:
Opponents’ messaging against Donald Trump has been clear. He’s a threat to democracy.

Kamala Harris:
Ours is a fight for the future. [cheers] And it is a fight for freedom.

Charlie Sykes:
Trump 2.0 would, I think, be substantially more dangerous than Trump 1.0.

Daniel Patrick Hodges:
He’s told us that he wants to be a dictator on day one.

Nathan Denzin:
But Republicans disagree.

Lorenzo Sewell:
I don’t believe he’s a threat to democracy.

Terrence Wall:
That was not his original statement. That was made by the Democrats.

Linda Walters:
I want him to be a dictator.

Nathan Denzin:
Kamala Harris, now the presumptive nominee as the Democratic candidate for president, talked about the perceived threat in her visit to Milwaukee.

Kamala Harris:
Do we want to live in a country of freedom, compassion and rule of law or a country of chaos, fear and hate?

Nathan Denzin:
Fears like Donald Trump becoming a dictator.

Sean Hannity:
You would never abuse power as retribution against anybody.

Donald Trump:
Except for day one.

Sean Hannity:
Except for?

Donald Trump:
He’s going crazy. Except for day one.

Sean Hannity:
Meaning?

Donald Trump:
I want to close the border and I want to drill…

Sean Hannity:
That’s not…

Donald Trump:
Drill, drill.

Sean Hannity:
That’s not…

Julia Azari:
It’s just not — it’s just not language that you kind of ideally want somebody to use.

Nathan Denzin:
Julia Azari is a professor of political science at Marquette University.

Julia Azari:
What he’s sort of saying is, even for a day, we’re going to eliminate the kind of guardrails and other takes and perspectives.

Linda Walters:
My response is, “Are you that dumb? I mean, how can you be that gullible and believe what the media and pundits are making up?”

Nathan Denzin:
Linda Walters is a Republican from Florida who visited Milwaukee for the Republican National Convention.

Linda Walters:
For one day, I want him to be like every other — like, just like Biden was on the first day, all the executive orders that he put in place to ruin this country.

Nathan Denzin:
Walters, like many Republicans, say Democrats are blowing Trump’s comments out of proportion or taking him out of context.

Lorenzo Sewell:
I don’t believe everything that people say. The Bible says a foolish man believes everything he hears. I would be curious to have that conversation with him in terms of what he meant. What’s the context of those comments?

Nathan Denzin:
Pastor Lorenzo is a Republican from Detroit who came to Milwaukee to speak at the RNC.

Lorenzo Sewell:
You can’t deny the power of God on this man’s life. You can’t deny that God protected him. There have been a lot of threats to democracy. I don’t believe he’s one of those.

Julia Azari:
Our evaluation of the evidence and our evaluation of how this has played out in other contexts has led us to be pretty, pretty alarmed.

Nathan Denzin:
Azari pointed out Trump’s rhetoric has already led to violence in the past on January 6th.

Donald Trump:
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Harry Dunn:
He has encouraged and continues to encourage political violence. Not only does he encourage it, he supports it. He endorses it. He condones it.

Daniel Patrick Hodges:
It’s up to us, the people, to make sure that he doesn’t get that chance.

Nathan Denzin:
Harry Dunn and Daniel Patrick Hodges were police officers in the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on January 6th. They came to Madison in May to campaign for President Biden. Both say they were attacked by the angry mob.

Daniel Patrick Hodges:
I’d call January 6th a dry run, except it wasn’t. It was a real attempt.

Harry Dunn:
The people that were there told us they were there because Donald Trump sent them. That’s not my opinion. Those are their words as they were attacking officers.

Nathan Denzin:
Thirteen Wisconsinites have been indicted for their role in the insurrection. While federal prosecutors continue to work through cases.

Julia Azari:
Especially when it comes to giving up power and leaving office, that seems to be a real sticking point.

Nathan Denzin:
Those fears have been inflamed by Project 2025. The sweeping proposal by ultra-conservative allies to Trump would radically change the federal government. Project 2025 includes proposals to restrict abortion nationwide, allow for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, use the FBI to go after political enemies, suspend immigrants’ due process, and proceed with mass deportations, eliminate the Department of Education and all environmental protections and the list goes on.

Donald Trump:
On day one, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding of any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity [cheers] and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the lives of our children.

Julia Azari:
It just takes it in a much more radical and ideological direction and consolidates that presidential power.

Nathan Denzin:
Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025 in recent weeks, saying on social media, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it.” But over 200 people affiliated with his campaign were also involved in the creation of Project 2025.

Charlie Sykes:
I think Donald Trump manifestly poses a threat to the American political system, and I don’t think that’s theoretical any longer.

Nathan Denzin:
Charlie Sykes is an author and former host of a popular Milwaukee conservative talk radio show.

Charlie Sykes:
He tried to overturn a fair and free election. He incited a mob to attack the Capitol.

Nathan Denzin:
Sykes said that he voted with Republicans for more than 20 years but broke with the party in 2016 after Trump secured the nomination.

Charlie Sykes:
Donald Trump has said that his next presidency would be a presidency of retribution. He’s openly talked about using the power of the federal government to go after and punish his opponents.

Julia Azari:
It’s sort of hard to escape that he’s had this sort of impact on the tone of politics.

Charlie Sykes:
It’s very unlikely that the Republican Party, in either the House or the Senate, would serve as any sort of a bulwark against those kinds of extreme measures.

Nathan Denzin:
Republicans at the RNC had a different response to the Project 2025 proposals.

Terrence Wall:
Republicans, we want to have the American dream. We want everybody to live that American dream.

Nathan Denzin:
Terrence Wall was a Republican delegate at the RNC from Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District.

Terrence Wall:
They project their own storyline onto others so they are the threat to democracy.

Nathan Denzin:
In fact, Wall said of Trump’s time as a real estate developer, he’s participated in democracy more than just about anybody else.

Terrence Wall:
He sponsored the democratic process to get projects approved. You know, dealing with neighborhood associations, plan commissions, hundreds of commissions and committees in cities, you know, councils.

Nathan Denzin:
More recently, a jury convicted Trump of 34 felonies for falsifying business records in May.

Charlie Sykes:
I don’t think that there’s any question after January 6th what he is capable of doing.

Daniel Patrick Hodges:
Trump has shown us who he is. He’s shown us what he stands for, and he’s shown us that he wants to be president for life.

Julia Azari:
Regardless of whether people voted for and regardless of who the president is, if they consolidate power in a certain way, that’s still anti-democratic.

Harry Dunn:
Hopefully we can move forward and continue to preserve our democracy and our constitution.

Nathan Denzin:
For “Here & Now,” I’m Nathan Denzin in Milwaukee.

Frederica Freyberg:
Late this week, a Dane County judge refused to put on hold his ruling that allows disabled people in Wisconsin to be emailed absentee ballots at home for November’s presidential election. Republicans asked the judge to not enforce his ruling, while their appeal of a lawsuit brought on behalf of voters with disabilities is pending. But the Dane County decision now allows clerks to email ballots to voters who self-certify that they can’t read or mark a paper ballot without help. Disability Rights Wisconsin was among those who brought the lawsuit. Kit Kerschensteiner is director of legal and advocacy services and she joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Thank you for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what is your reaction to the judge now granting voters with disabilities the ability to cast ballots electronically?

Kit Kerschensteiner:
It’s a good first step. It’s not the total solution because this was a temporary injunction, we didn’t ask for all the relief. We don’t have the time to fix what needs to be fixed between now and November. So the suit will continue past November. We’re hoping to get a way for people with print disabilities, which can be either due to vision issues or physical disabilities, that need help casting a ballot. We’re hoping that they can get a way to get an absentee ballot electronically sent to them. They can mark it with their devices, and it can be electronically returned.

Frederica Freyberg:
That’s the piece that’s missing.

Kit Kerschensteiner:
That’s for another day when we go through to the final trial, which will be some time off in the future, certainly far past November.

Frederica Freyberg:
So why was the suit brought in the first place?

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Because it’s fair. It’s a fair playing field for people of the state, no matter if they have a disability or not, to be able to cast a private ballot. And the state we’ve — we at DRW and others as well have been asking for this for a long time, and we haven’t made any progress. So it was time to bring the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the state Constitution, and the federal Constitution, all of which led to this result.

Frederica Freyberg:
How many voters in Wisconsin could this affect?

Kit Kerschensteiner:
No one really tracks that exactly, but there’s people with disabilities generally in the nation, 15 or 20, 25% of the population. Now that’s all types of disabilities. So it narrows down when you’re talking about people with print disabilities, but it’s tens of thousands.

Frederica Freyberg:
And what concerns are there that the Wisconsin Elections Commission will actually be able to get this up and going so that voters can access this?

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Well, with this first step that only requires them to email the ballot to the individual, that should not be that difficult because they already do it for – excuse me – for individuals who are in the military or living abroad. We’re expanding — as a matter of fact – excuse me – up until recently, in the last 10, 12 years, everybody could ask for a ballot to be emailed.

Frederica Freyberg:
And so do voters know that they can do this now or how is that kind of messaging going to go out?

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Because we are a local system, all the individual clerks have to be involved and are going to be in charge of this. WEC is only going to be able to provide them the guidance and the support, but it’s the clerks that have to do this.

Frederica Freyberg:
So we spoke about the fact that another prong of what you’re looking for is the ability for voters who need this kind of access to be able to email it back to the clerk.

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Well, return it. There — different states are already doing it in different ways. Some require you to email it back. Some have a portal and you can actually cast your ballot online through a secure portal and it’s there. So what that remedy will look like in the end is still something we need to explore what will work in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
But in the meantime, the status quo now until potentially an appeal gets in the way, is that the voters will have to have it hand-delivered to the clerk.

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Well, or put in the mail, or put in a drop box. They will have to print it out, but they will be able to mark it privately if they have some sort of readily available software that’s out there for folks who need screen readers or all sorts of different things that you can use nowadays to take the printed word and be able to manipulate it so you can deal with it.

Frederica Freyberg:
All right. Well, we will be watching this as it moves forward. Kit Kerschensteiner, thanks very much.

Kit Kerschensteiner:
Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:
You will see two questions on the fall primary ballot that you may not know how to answer. A “yes” vote on them would amend the state Constitution. “Here & Now” reporter Steven Potter explains.

Poll worker:
Hello.

Steven Potter:
Usually only about 20% of voters cast a ballot in primary elections, like the one coming up in mid-August. Voters in that election will not only choose candidates, but they’ll also see two questions that will require a “yes” or “no” answer. These two questions are about amending the state constitution and need to be approved by more than 50% of voters. Constitutional amendments approved by voters become state law, but they differ from regular bills passed by the state Legislature because the governor cannot veto them. The two constitutional amendments on the August 13th ballot specifically address how federal money given to the state of Wisconsin is spent. More specifically, it’s about who decides how federal money is spent by the state. The most prominent example of this is the billions of dollars the federal government gave to Wisconsin related to COVID-19 relief. Currently it’s the governor who decides how such federal money is spent but Republicans want to change that. Like other proposed constitutional amendments, the language voters will see on the ballot is about as clear as mud.
The first question asks delegation of appropriation power: Shall section 35 (1) of article IV of the constitution be created to provide that the legislature may not delegate its sole power to determine how monies shall be appropriated? The first question would ensure that the state legislature has power over appropriating money. The second question asks allocation of federal monies: Shall section 35 (2) of article IV of the constitution be created to prohibit the governor from allocating any federal monies the governor accepts on behalf of the state, without the approval of the legislature by joint resolution or as provided by legislative rule? That second and separate question establishes the process of legislative approval before federal money can be spent. Given the ambiguity and complexity of these amendments, legal experts say it’s possible they may be taken up in court for clarification. Republicans want a “yes” vote on both questions, and Democrats are urging voters to vote “no” on both questions.

Bob Wittke:
So to put it in the constitution the way that we need it, it has to be worded that way.

Steven Potter:
Republican Representative Bob Wittke is one of the lead authors of these two constitutional amendments. He says that the Republican-controlled state Legislature saw the need for this change during the beginning of the pandemic.

Bob Wittke
$5 billion was transferred where the governor has sole discretion over how to spend it. We don’t believe that that’s good governance. We always consider the legislative branch, whether it be the Assembly or Senate, to be closest to the people.

Steven Potter:
Democratic governor Tony Evers and other Democrats in the state Legislature oppose the amendments.

Tony Evers:
For Republicans in the Legislature want to take more power for themselves. The consequences of this power grab are even worse than that. If these amendments pass, me and any other future governor will be left without the tools they need to make during, especially during times of crisis.

Steven Potter:
Wisconsin was able to act swiftly during the early days of the pandemic because there weren’t political disagreements delaying the allocation of these federal funds.

Tony Evers:
It will cause more problems with fighting between legislators and governors than we have right now, and there’s plenty of it now.

Steven Potter:
Representative Wittke disagrees and says that the Legislature can work with the governor to get federal funds out the door fast. He also acknowledges that taking it directly to voters as a constitutional amendment, instead of a regular piece of legislation, is to avoid a veto by Governor Evers.

Bob Wittke:
I think it just shows the hyper-partisan nature that it’s in. You’re looking at different tools that you can use to try to make what we would think are reforms that benefit all of Wisconsin residents.

Steven Potter:
Reporting from the state Capitol for “Here & Now,” I’m Steven Potter.

Frederica Freyberg:
Turning to health news, the SSM Health system recently announced plans to sell three of their non-profit nursing homes in Wisconsin to a for-profit company based in New Jersey. An employee at one of those facilities shared with “Here & Now” a letter from the staff to management saying, “They did not lead this process with integrity or transparency, and the residents, families and staff suffered the brunt of the consequences as a result.” Now the sale may be part of a larger nationwide trend of non-profit nursing homes being sold to for-profit entities. The uptick is concerning for health workers and patients as the centers for Medicare and Medicaid say for-profit facilities, on average, have lower staffing and worse quality of care. Joining us to discuss this is Barbara Bowers, founding director of the UW-Madison School of Nursing’s Center for Aging Research and Education. And thanks very much for being here.

Barbara Bowers:
Sure.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what do you think about the trend of for-profit entities buying not-for-profit facilities?

Barbara Bowers:
Yeah, there’s a lot involved in that. There have always been a majority of for-profit facilities. But as you’ve said, the trend is increasing. There’s more and more for-profit and fewer and fewer not-for-profit. So one of the issues I mean, part of the question is, why the not-for-profits are getting out of the business. And there is an issue, I think, with general reimbursement from state and federal agencies. And that would be mostly Medicare and Medicaid. There’s simply not enough money put into the system to provide the kind of care, both quality of care and quality of life for people. That’s part of it. So if you want to take an organization that doesn’t have enough money to begin with, in terms of the reimbursement level, and make a profit, you’ve got to get it from somewhere. And what we’ve seen is that where it comes from is largely labor. And as you’ve said, the staffing is lower in for-profit organizations. And I think for — the staffing level is vital, not just for the quality of care, the outcomes that we measure on a regular basis, but also quality of life. Do you have people who answer a call light? And how long does it take them? Are there people to talk to? Can you — are there activities that are interesting and engaging to you? Or is it sort of the bingo for everybody every night?

Frederica Freyberg:
So staffing shortages have been described by people, including yourself, as a crisis. How bad is it and what are the effects even over quality of life?

Barbara Bowers:
Yeah. Several things that contribute to this. I always say to people, recruitment, which is what tends to be the focus. We need more staff. We need to find more staff. There’s not enough people available. All of that is true. But if we retained staff at a higher rate, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about recruiting. National averages for turnover rates for the direct care workers, the CNAs is about 70%. For nurses, it’s about 40%. Directors of nursing come and go very quickly as well. Any business and people who are out there who run businesses know that if you have a turnover rate of 70%, your organization is in trouble. So it causes huge disruptions. It’s also really important issue for the residents because they get to know people. They get to know the staff. These become their surrogate families. And when it’s constantly turning over, they’re losing these connections, these important relationships. So I think we need to really focus a lot more on retention. What does it take to keep staff there? And there’s actually been a fair amount of research on that. And I don’t think it’s very widely used.

Frederica Freyberg:
So just late this week, Governor Tony Evers announced the state will invest nearly $260 million of COVID relief money to fund wage increases to direct care workers in places like this.

Barbara Bowers:
That’s right and for nursing homes. I think there is a huge and I have to say that home care workers tend to get less pay even than nursing home workers, and their benefits are less, which is also another distinction between, in general, for-profit and not-for-profit homes is the for-profit have generally lower levels of benefits. So, I — that’s wonderful that he’s putting money into that. If you look at the research on staff turnover, it’s not exclusively or even primarily money. I mean, people know what money they’re getting when they go into it. It’s not great. They could get more money probably at a fast-food restaurant. These are people who are really committed to what they’re doing. They believe in what they’re doing. They love what they’re doing, and so the money is not the most important thing. I’m certainly not saying they shouldn’t get an increase. They certainly need a wage increase. On the other hand, there are a lot of other things that drive people out. Part of it is supervisors, people who supervise them who don’t have supervisor training. And that doesn’t sound like a big deal, but it is. I mean, I know in the research has been done on turnover in every industry shows that the direct supervisor is the most important factor for whether or not people stay in their job. So that, I think we need more, more of better quality. And also training of the staff. Staff are not always well, well enough trained to take care of the people they’re taking care of. People leave because of the low staffing level. I’ve had so many CNAs tell me that the reason they left is at the end of the day, when they went home, they felt really bad about, I left. I mean, I remember one woman who said, “I put Edith on the toilet, and I said, ‘I’ll be back in five minutes’ and I never went back.” I got so busy, distracted, I never — and she woke up in the middle of the night horrified, not knowing what had happened to this person. Those are the sorts of things that drive people out.

Frederica Freyberg:
What is your advice to families needing long-term care in this current landscape?

Barbara Bowers:
I would look at turnover rates in the nursing home. If the retention rate, the turnover rates are low, the retention rates are high, that says something about the quality of the entire environment.

Frederica Freyberg:
Good advice. Barbara Bowers. Thank you so much.

Barbara Bowers:
Okay.

Frederica Freyberg:
A Wisconsin icon of many firsts has made history again. The Vel Phillips statue was unveiled at the state Capitol in recent days. The first Black woman to be so memorialized. Phillips was the first woman and Black person elected to the Milwaukee Common Council. The first Black woman elected as a judge and as the Wisconsin Secretary of State. A civil rights pioneer and powerhouse, Phillips advocated for fair housing, education, and women’s equality. Phillips died in 2018.
For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. To see all of our election coverage, visit WisconsinVote.org. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.