Here & Now

Here & Now for April 21, 2017

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here and Now” a first look at President Donald Trump’s promise to help Wisconsin dairy farmers. After that a closer look at the legislature’s new “Right to Carry” bill. Then in our look ahead segment, potential impact of changes afoot for state Medicaid enrollees. And Shawn Johnson on the State Supreme Court recusal controversy in tonight’s Capitol Insight. It’s “Here and Now” for April 21.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided in part by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Donald Trump:

We're also going to stand up for our dairy farmers in Wisconsin.

[applause]

And I've been reading about it. I’ve been talking about it for a long time, and that demands really immediately fair trade with all of our trading partners and that includes Canada.

[applause]

Because in Canada, some very unfair things have happened to our dairy farmers and others. And we’re going to start working on that with Ron and with Scott and with Paul and with all of your representatives. What’s happened to you is very, very unfair. It’s another typical one-sided deal against the United States. And it’s not going to be happening for long. So Scott, you and Ron and myself and Paul and everybody else, we’re going to get together and we’re going to call Canada and we’re going to say, “What happened?” And they might give us an answer but we’re going to get the solution, not just the answer, okay? Cause we know what the solution is, all right?

[applause]

Frederica Freyberg:

President Donald Trump wades in trying to fix a problem that could put some Wisconsin dairy farmers out of business. The president made these comments during his trip to Kenosha this week after scores of farmers learned earlier this month that their processor would no longer buy their milk citing Canadian regulations preventing its export. The president brought welcome attention to the issue but how might he fair? We turn to Mark Stephenson with the UW-Madison Program on Dairy Marketing and Policy. Thanks for being here.

Mark Stephenson:

You’re very welcome.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s unpack some of what President Trump had to say about this situation. He made it sound like he would call Canada and get a quick solution. At least he would start working on this immediately. Is there an immediate or quick solution?

Mark Stephenson:

I presume there could be, but I doubt that that will be the case. Canada has a very highly protectionist dairy industry and they’ve never moved quickly on things in the past. And I think that foot dragging would be what is likely to be the case this time.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile for the farmers like those whom we visited last week out of Waterloo, they tell us this week that they think it’s great that the president has kind of gotten involved. But that they need this short-term solution because as of May 1, they lose their processor, their market for their milk. So then they say at least they’d be looking for a long-term solution. But for farmers like Jennifer and Shane Sauer that we visited with who have not yet found a processor to sell to, what can they do?

Mark Stephenson:

Well there’s a lot that’s being done on their behalf right now trying to find a processing home for the milk. One of the problems we have at this point in time is just that we have a tremendous amount of milk on the marketplace and there really doesn’t appear to be any dairy processor who is anxious to pick up more milk. So it would be almost altruistic for a dairy processor to pick up a few of these farms to help relieve some of that situation. It’s short-term, I think, an issue but farms cannot go without selling milk for a very long period of time before, you know, they’ve lost all the profit they would have for the year.

Frederica Freyberg:

For someone like yourself who knows so much about this, what is that like?

Mark Stephenson:

Oh, it’s a tremendous problem and an issue. As I said I think that farms are experiencing a great deal of stress right now because there is not an obvious answer to this. We have had a few of the farms picked up by a couple of plants and we hope that more will be. But the truth of the matter is we still have more than half of the milk that was originally lost their home that has not found a new home yet.

Frederica Freyberg:

What would be a long-term solution?

Mark Stephenson:

Long-term solution will find new markets for dairy products. It could be for exports overseas. Our domestic market has been robust and we can pick up a few of these items in the marketplace as well. But, you know, those are things that are going to take months and we’ve got maybe a few weeks that these farmers could go.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now President Trump described what Canada was doing as some very unfair things. Congressional leaders here in Wisconsin have also declared that Canada is practicing unfair trade practices. Is that true?

Mark Stephenson:

I think they can be viewed as being unfair. They’ve created a new class of milk or dairy product that is going to be priced at so-called competitive or world prices, which are much lower than their internal or domestic prices are. And this is clearly done as a strategy to help avoid, you know, the cross-border movement of these dairy products from the U.S. into Canada.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so as the U.S. has done in the past, could we sue Canada over this?

Mark Stephenson:

We can. In fact, our — the likelihood is that we will bring a lawsuit against the Canada through the World Trade Organization, the appellate court there but that’s years. That had happened back in 1990s and it took probably four years before that was settled.

Frederica Freyberg:

What role does the over-production of milk in the U.S. or globally play in all of this?

Mark Stephenson:

It certainly plays a role and locally right here at home, it plays a substantial role. We’ve had farms that have been dropped from a processing home in the past and usually that’s no headline at all because there’s some other processor waiting to pick that farm up. The difference right now is that in my 30 years of working in the dairy industry I've never seen this kind of thing happen when you can’t even cajole people into thinking about a little bit longer term use of this milk and dairy product for their plants.

Frederica Freyberg:

Canada says the U.S. itself is to blame because it doesn’t manage its dairy production. What about that?

Mark Stephenson:

There are very few countries that do manage their dairy production. Canada is certainly one of those. They have a quota-based system that allows each dairy farmer the privilege of selling a certain amount of kilograms of butterfat into the marketplace every day. We don’t have that. Most countries with substantial dairy industry doesn’t have anything like that.

Frederica Freyberg:

So this is kind of what happens when the market comes to bear?

Mark Stephenson:

The market comes to bear. We’ve had very good season for producing milk. The cows are doing very well. Farmers are responding to coming off of two years of low milk prices with now moderate milk prices and they are producing more milk.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Mark Stephenson, thanks very much.

Mark Stephenson:

You're welcome.

Frederica Freyberg:

In tonight’s closer look, Wisconsin could become the next state to allow people to carry concealed guns without a permit. A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers is being called “Right to Carry” and if passed would mean a person would no longer have to go through the process of applying for a state license which requires a background check and training. The legislation would also allow carrying guns in places like schools and police stations as long as they’re not posted against it. A violation of that posting order would result in a misdemeanor, not a felony. Wisconsin has issued more than 300,000 concealed carry permits since that law went into effect in 2011. Before that, it was already legal to openly carry a gun. Authors like to call their new bill “Right to Carry.”

Mary Felzkowski:

Let's talk about what state law is right now. State law right now says you can walk into a gun shop, you can purchase a gun, I can slap it on my hip and I can walk wherever it’s legal to carry. What I can’t do is put a sweater on. We’re taking that out and saying now you have the legal right to put that sweater on. We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t say you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms if the government gives you permission to do so.

Frederica Freyberg:

Because under the proposed legislation, the state permitting process that requires a background check and training to carry a concealed weapon would go away.

Mary Felzkowski:

It's $40 for the permit. The classes can range from anywhere from $50 to $100. I mean this is just–I don’t want the right to defend yourself to be a financial burden, either.

Frederica Freyberg:

Opponents say they’re surprised by the bill.

Peter Barca:

When we passed concealed carry back about four, five years ago it was sold on the basis that you would have to have a permit. You would have to be trained and we would do a background check. So this flies in the face of those two major provisions. It would be permitless so you wouldn’t need training. But you also wouldn’t have a background check anymore, either.

Frederica Freyberg:

This gun shop and shooting range is owned by a local police officer.

Scott Whiting:

The problem with a firearm is there’s so much involved in it. It’s not just having a firearm. There’s the fundamentals of knowing how to efficiently use the firearm. Are you safe with a firearm? Do you know how to shoot the firearm? But more importantly do you have to know how to justify the use of force? You have to make sure that you know what deadly force is.

Frederica Freyberg:

Even now under the current concealed carry law there is no training requirement to actually handle a gun before getting a permit.

Brett Fankhauser:

Up with your right hand. Index finger going to go alongside the frame, not on the trigger.

Frederica Freyberg:

Basic mistakes stand out to expert trainers.

Scott Whiting:

Most people the first time they come in they handle a gun, you can just see it the way they handle it. Their finger is out on the trigger right away. The direction of their muzzle is poor.

Brett Fankhauser:

Okay, so fingers off the trigger. You’re good.

Scott Whiting:

As a person who’s a second amendment supporter, everybody should own or have a gun but I don’t think that you should be able to just carry just because you have the right to do it. I think there should be some requirement for training purposes.

Brett Fankhauser:

Press, press, press, bang.

Frederica Freyberg:

The National Rifle Association disagrees.

Amy Hunter:

The NRA really believes that training should be left up to the person and the individual. I mean people know that’s what they need. A lot of people in Wisconsin have grown up in a hunting tradition. They’ve had firearms as part of their lives since they were children and to have to jump through government hoops to have to pay fees, to sit in classes that are really unnecessary for them just to exercise a constitutional right, we think that should be left to the person.

Frederica Freyberg:

Wisconsin’s so-called “Right to Carry” legislation is based off what the NRA calls “Constitutional Carry.”

Peter Barca:

This bill goes even way beyond even “Constitutional Carry” in that there is a presumption now that you can carry guns on school grounds and schools and police stations and secure mental health facilities.

Frederica Freyberg:

Under the bill bans against carrying firearms in those places are eliminated but would allow locations to be posted as prohibiting guns.

Mary Felzkowski:

So what we did in this legislation is we took the state out of it. Where we repealed the state’s gun-free school zone law. The federal gun-free school zone law is still in effect and all school districts, all schools, municipalities, government entities, universities, mental healthcare facilities and private landowners still have the right to post their property.

Peter Barca:

It reduced the penalties for carrying a gun into these dangerous places and it would no longer be a felony if you are violating that law. It would only be a misdemeanor.

Frederica Freyberg:

We asked Governor Scott Walker this week if he supported the proposed legislation.

Scott Walker:

I did sign a right to carry. Concealed Carry is one of the most popular in the country and I think it works just fine the way it is right now. We’ve got a program where we’ve had one of the largest numbers of any state in terms of people signing up for Concealed Carry and I think it works fine the way it is right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

The bill has been referred to the Committee on State Affairs. A look ahead now to proposed changes to the state Medicaid program. Changes Governor Walker forecast in his February budget address.

Scott Walker:

For all who are able, we want to enable them to work. “Wisconsin Works for Everyone” builds off of the positive welfare reform started by my friend and yours, former Governor Tommy Thompson under what was then called “Wisconsin Works” or W2. We want to ensure that people who are able to work actually enter the work force. For starters, that means that able-bodied adults will need to be employed at least 80 hours a month to receive benefits like food stamps. If not, they’ll need to be enrolled in our job training program. On top of that, we’re working with the new administration and Congress to get approval to expand drug testing for people seeking public assistance. If they fail the test, we provide treatment to get them healthy and back into the workforce.

Frederica Freyberg:

This week the Walker administration released a draft of the application to the federal government requesting a waiver to make changes to the state’s Medicaid or BadgerCare Plus program. This is healthcare for able-bodied childless adults aged 19 to 64 who are at or below the poverty level. Wisconsin is asking to require drug screening to be eligible, limit benefits to 48 months if the person isn’t working or training for work, establish premiums up to $10 a month, reward healthy behaviors and increase co-pays for ER visits. The waiver wants to allow for full coverage of inpatient substance abuse treatment. The administration expects to submit its application next month. No one from the administration would join us to talk about the sought after changes. Medicaid advocate Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen Action of Wisconsin is here. Thanks for being here.

Robert Kraig:

Great to be with you Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

In particular I understand you don’t like the drug testing piece of this. Describe why not.

Robert Kraig:

Yeah, we’re opposed to most of it, by the way. The drug testing part, forced drug testing, has gotten the most attention. In general we think this is designed to set up barriers in order to force people off of BadgerCare at a time when more people need healthcare, not fewer. And the drug testing provision will do that as well but also the work requirements do that. The premium increases do it as well. Quite frankly the motive is to force people off healthcare and spend less money. We think that’s clear. But as far as the drug forced drug testing part it’s the opposite of what medical experts and medical science tells us we should do about the scourge of the opioid epidemic in this state and other substance use. It plays well politically. It may be good for the governor’s re-election in some circles but actually sets us back as far as understanding the causes of drug addiction and how best to address it.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to ask you a little more about that in a moment. I understand at least 15 states have laws requiring drug testing of people on public benefits. More states are proposing it. Is there a large number of people who have lost benefits as a result of these drug testing requirements as you have suggested is the motivation?

Robert Kraig:

They’re relatively new and have not been approved for Medicaid before. But in a lot of states that have tried them, actually they’ve not even caught very many people with drug addictions. In fact medical experts say it’s fairly easy to avoid these things and the only people who really get caught are people who are so addicted they can’t even not use the drug for a couple of days in order to avoid detection. So they’re not even effective. They’re also very expensive.

Frederica Freyberg:

For people who might have a drug addiction, a piece of this is the state says it wants to help them get clean and is asking for fully funding inpatient treatment. That sounds like a good piece of this.

Robert Kraig:

We’d go even further as far as treatment. There are huge waiting lists right now that the governor could have, over the whole term, actually done something about. But in particular forcing someone, even if they go through this whole process, to get treatment is not the way to go. The way to go as far as medical experts concerned is to make treatment and everything else, prevention. It’s better to prevent the addiction before it happens and catch it early. It’s just like a medical disease like flu. That’s what the medical science says – or cancer or anything else – you prevent it. You try to catch it early. Then if it’s far along you do heroic intervention which is treatment. We should certainly do that but the way to do that is to make it available, publicize it and make sure people who are doing it are motivated to do it want to be cured. Not a forced drug testing regime which sounds like red meat to people who think that those on BadgerCare are doing the wrong thing and just are immoral when in fact, someone with a substance abuse problem has a disease. It’s that simple.

Frederica Freyberg:

Other elements of Wisconsin's waiver request limiting Medicaid to 48 months if the person isn’t working or training for work. What is your reaction to that?

Robert Kraig:

We think it’s appalling because it again plays off the idea that people on BadgerCare are people who just are refusing to work when we don’t have enough family-supporting jobs. When so many jobs don’t provide health benefits at all or people work part-time and want to work full-time can’t find a good full-time job when in fact medical care and health insurance is so expensive even middle and upper middle class people can’t afford it on their own which is clear in the current health care debate. It’s a way to force people off quite frankly and it’s not looking at reality of the economic economy we have right now for people and the cost of healthcare, which even middle and upper middle class people can’t afford, let alone very low income people.

Frederica Freyberg:

Just briefly in a few seconds left, if people are forced off Medicaid, then what?

Robert Kraig:

Well, it costs us a lot of money, quite frankly, because their only recourse is to wait until they’re very, very sick and then go to the emergency room where they’re stabilized and sent on their way. Whereas giving them access to primary care prevents the diseases in the first place and is much cheaper in the long term. They’ll be a lot of uncompensated care at hospitals which will raise everyone else's health insurance premiums and quite frankly something like a substance abuse issue for example, better they’re seeing a primary care physician who helps them deal with it and gets them to want to deal with it rather than having this punitive approach where you force them to take a drug test then you throw them off BadgerCare if they don’t comply with each part of the standard.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Robert Kraig, thank you very much.

Robert Kraig:

Always great to join you, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Public hearings on the proposed Medicaid changes start next week. On Wednesday, April 26th at 11:00 a.m. the Department of Health Services will hold a hearing at Northcentral Technical College in Wausau. Monday, May 1, a second hearing will be held in Milwaukee at the Milwaukee Center for Independence. That one starts at 4:00 p.m. Now to tonight’s Capitol Insight and State Supreme Court news. Some tense moments at the high court yesterday as justices rejected on a 5-2 vote a proposal that would have required them to recuse themselves because of a certain level of campaign contributions. We look into this issue now with Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin Public Radio. Thanks for being here.

Shawn Johnson:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

This was a group of retired judges that brought this recusal proposal before the court, right?

Shawn Johnson:

Right. Essentially what it would have done is change from the system we have now where it’s up to judges and justices to decide when or if they recuse themselves from cases and that by the way is a recusal standard that says campaign contributions are not a factor that they have to weigh when it comes to whether or not to step down from a case. This would have set a dollar standard and it said in the case of Supreme Court candidates somebody gives the candidate $10,000 or more and is a lawyer or a party to a case before the court, that a Supreme Court justice would have to recuse themselves from that case.

Frederica Freyberg:

So we described tense moments on the court as part of all of this. What was that about?

Shawn Johnson:

That's pretty accurate. You had among those who voted against the proposal, the proposal recusal rules was Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley who made it very clear she was against them. She expressed being personally affronted by the rules. Here’s what she said.

Rebecca Bradley:

Every judge and justice in the state of Wisconsin should be highly offended by this petition because it attacks their integrity and their character. And I today defend every justice and judge in the state in rejecting this petition.

Frederica Freyberg:

Those opposed to such recusal say it is a violation of the U.S. Constitution because campaign donations are free speech. The two justices in favor said that’s not so and we have some more sound. This time from Justice Shirley Abrahamson.

Shirley Abrahamson:

I find nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution or the United States Constitution that says this court cannot make reasonable rules for recusal.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile the U.S. Supreme Court said the states could set recusal rules because of donations from parties before the court.

Shawn Johnson:

And that’s what you heard alluded to a couple of times during this discussion this week from Justice Abrahamson is that you have cases that have been before the court where the court has said it’s up to states if they want to set stricter recusal standards, they can.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, kind of the mega money that has poured into Wisconsin Supreme Court races is pretty staggering according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last seven elections cost more than $1 million. Four races cost more than $3 million and the 2011 race that saw Justice Prosser re-elected cost more than $5 million. But money coming from these outside interest groups also doesn’t factor into any judicial recusals in Wisconsin.

Shawn Johnson:

No. And the judges who asked for these recusal standards did allude to that outside money becoming a bigger factor in Wisconsin. They said especially in light of a recent State Supreme Court case and a new law in Wisconsin that basically allowed for near unfettered coordination between candidates for office and interest groups that run issue ads. They said this is a different playing field than it was in 2010 which is the last time they talked about recusal standards. That was alluded to briefly in this discussion before the court this week and essentially conservative justices said that’s not the issue in this situation.

Frederica Freyberg:

Alluded to and rejected. So is this the end of it then for recusal rule changes?

Shawn Johnson:

I think you can say it’s the end of it with these justices. We went into this thinking the five conservatives on the court would probably vote against these recusal standards. They did it. It was a 5-2 vote with conservative/liberal blocks sticking together on this one. We do have a few elections coming up, though. You have Justice Michael Gableman is up for re-election in 2018. Justice Shirley Abrahamson is up for re-election in 2019. Justice Daniel Kelly up for his first election in 2020. You’re going to see this issue of money in the court coming up again and again. Whether elections change the outcome of the court could determine whether or not they actually revisit recusal standards.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there Shawn. Thanks very much.

Shawn Johnson:

You’re welcome.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now for an update away from the state capitol. The Stockbridge-Munsee tribe asked a federal judge Wednesday to block the HoChunk from expanding an existing casino saying the expansion violates the HoChunk’s compact with the state. The HoChunk Nation is looking to add slot machines to its Wittenberg gaming facility in Shawano County. But the Stockbridge-Munsee have a casino nearby and they say the expansion would have a crippling impact on its revenues. The tribe filed a lawsuit against the HoChunk and the state but state officials say a 2003 deal that former Governor Jim Doyle reached allows the expansion. And finally tonight, a look ahead to next week when Zac Schultz will have an in-depth look at the manufacturing and agriculture tax credit. Does the credit create jobs or is it just a big giveaway? That’s next Friday on “Here and Now.” Until then I'm Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided in part by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.