Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

Up to 20 million Americans can have their student loan debt completely erased. And millions more have their burden eased under the president’s student loan plan. Ukraine celebrates its Independence Day on the same day it marks six months of war with Russia. And a more accessible lifeline shows the need for mental health support in Wisconsin.

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the significance of student loan debt relief, how the war in Ukraine wears on, 988 gives new hope to a not-so-new service and we hear from the Republican candidate for secretary of state. It’s “Here & Now” for August 26.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

It’s not without controversy, but this week by executive order, the U.S. Department of Education will wipe away hundreds of billions of dollars of student loan debt for some 47 million borrowers. Up to $20,000 of debt cancellation will be given to Pell Grant recipients. Those are grants given to those with exceptional financial need. Up to $10,000 of federal student loans will be forgiven for other borrowers. Only those earning $125,000 or less are eligible. Additionally, the pause on federal student loan repayment remains in place until the end of this year. Another prong of the order caps monthly payments for undergraduate loans at 5% of a borrower’s income. In Wisconsin, according to the U.S. Department of Education, more than 687,000 student loan borrowers owe more than $21.4 billion, with an average student loan balance of just more than $31,000. To understand the impact, we go to Nick Hillman, a professor at the UW Madison School of Education and director of the Student Success Through Applied Research Lab. Thanks very much for being here.

Nick Hillman:

My pleasure, thank you for the invitation.

Frederica Freyberg:

The controversy comes from those who think it’s too big a giveaway and those who think it’s too little. As an expert in this area, what’s your reaction to the student loan order?

Nick Hillman:

That’s right. The politics of this — so the agreement of whether it’s too big or too small cuts across Republicans and Democrats, where typically Republicans are saying it’s too big. We shouldn’t be doing this at all, even within the Democratic Party, Biden’s own party, there is disagreement on whether it was big enough or small enough. And so certainly that is debated right now and I think the research evidence says $10,000 in cancellation can do a lot of good for a lot of borrowers.

Frederica Freyberg:

So you think that this could meaningfully help Wisconsin borrowers?

Nick Hillman:

Yes, and they’re two reasons. One is that a lot of times the borrowers who have small loans, they have small loans because they only enrolled in school for a little while and then left without a degree, and struggle because they now don’t have a degree that pays off in the labor market. Those debts are often times less than $10,000. So that could have a direct impact for a lot of struggling borrowers who have relatively small loans. On the other side of this, there are a lot of borrowers with that size of debt. 30% of Wisconsin borrowers have less than $10,000 in debt and so the impact here — that $10,000 threshold has a couple of different reasons to have been chosen.

Frederica Freyberg:

The worst case of that, though, is a borrower who has just a whole lot of debt and didn’t get that degree.

Nick Hillman:

That’s right. That’s right. And that’s a big problem that this cancellation can help a little bit but doesn’t necessarily prevent from happening again in the future.

Frederica Freyberg:

How has the student loan debt load ballooned over the decades?

Nick Hillman:

Probably two big factors contribute and they work together. One is that tuition has risen, but it’s not just tuition. It’s the tuition, the fees, the room and board, all the other expenses that it takes to stay in college have been rising rapidly. Doubling since the 1990s, even after adjusting for inflation. That’s one side. The other side is family incomes have either plateaued or declined or barely even moved, and the incomes that we have just aren’t keeping pace with the expenses of going to college and as a result, more individuals are having to share that responsibility or carry that responsibility themselves through the loan system to pay for college.

Frederica Freyberg:

In your mind, is that debt worth it in terms of educational opportunity?

Nick Hillman:

It is worth it on average. There are always going to be situations that just don’t fit that average story, but on average, there’s really strong evidence that not only for the individual does the education pay off in the labor market but for your community. We’re better off when we have well-educated plumbers or healthcare workers or you name it. There are a number of reasons why the pay-off is still there but it’s — the value proposition is being questioned and this is kind of tapping into that question right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

People we know can take decades to pay off their school loans. What role do interest payments play in the long pay off schedule?

Nick Hillman:

They make it more expensive. Your loan — say you took out $10,000, in several years, it might actually still be higher then. You might owe $12,000 or even $13,000 if those payments are only going to interest. The Biden administration is also proposing to cap some of those interest rates on — in repayment plans and there are some conversations around how to remove some of those interest rates or make them lower, but they are still there. They’re still part of the network and the infrastructure of our student lending system.

Frederica Freyberg:

Part of the plan also cuts undergrad payments to 5% of income. How meaningful is that for folks?

Nick Hillman:

I think that should be pretty meaningful. These income-driven repayment plans are what they’re called. I don’t know. There may be 7 or 8 different ones now and borrowers have to opt into these plans and their monthly payments are then tied to how much they earn. So 5% of your discretionary earnings — that’s basically your income you have above the poverty line, so it’s supposed to be a way to just make payments, you know, less burdensome for individuals.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kind of student gets most hurt by taking out big student loans?

Nick Hillman:

That’s a great question. You know, there are so many different stories and so many different problems that happen in our loan system. And in many cases, this debt can’t be discharged in bankruptcy or it’s very difficult to navigate the repayment system itself. In those processes, you can be harmed, the administrative processes, the complexity of our loan system. And other ways, loans can really help students stay enrolled in school. It’s really this double-edged sword where without loans people might not have gone to college in the first place and now you have them and they can create big problems. It’s really a hard, hard public policy problem to solve.

Frederica Freyberg:

In your mind, should paying for college be reenvisioned?

Nick Hillman:

I think it will be reenvisioned. I think this is a big moment in that reimagination, and I think that our loan-based system, it originated in the 1950s and 1960s and it was really designed to meet a very small need at the time. And over the years, we just kind of accepted that model and have just used that model as our current model, and I think it’s being questioned on whether that works today.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah, indeed. Nick Hillman, thanks very much. Thanks for your expertise.

Nick Hillman:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

This week marked the celebration of Ukraine’s independence in 1991. And came on the same day that marked six months since Russia invaded Ukraine. In Green Bay, dozens gathered to show support and solidarity. The U.S. has sent more than $10 billion of military aid to Ukraine with billions more to come. But the human toll in death and displacement and the ravaging of Ukraine’s landscape beg the question, when and how will it end? Tonight, we check in with Professor Andrey Ivanov, whose specialty is Russia and the Soviet Union at UW-Platteville. He is also Ukrainian. His family made harrowing escapes to safety when war broke out. Professor joins us now and thanks very much for being here.

Andrey Ivanov:

Thank you very much for hosting me.

Frederica Freyberg:

First, I do want to ask, how is your family doing?

Andrey Ivanov:

They are fine. Some of them are here and others are still waiting to come from Germany. So I’m awaiting their arrival.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is it like for civilians still inside Ukraine at this time?

Andrey Ivanov:

It is very difficult. The economic part is very difficult, the logistic part, the transportation part. The panic of February and March has largely subsided in parts of western Ukraine and parts of northern Ukraine, but in the south and in the east, the situation has worsened considerably with a lot of destruction and shelling and active military campaign that’s still going on. So we are talking about essentially now the situation inside Ukraine, you have kind of two Ukraines. You have Ukraine that has largely been sort of not affected by the destruction. It’s still affected by the missiles, but then the east and in the south, you have people losing their homes, people losing their loved ones, people losing their lives and massive evacuations are still continuing from the east and the south as we speak right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’ve read that Russia now occupies 20% of Ukraine. I think when Russia first invaded observers thought they’d roll in and capture Ukraine in full. What did you think at the time?

Andrey Ivanov:

Well, when the — when the invasion happened, I was — I couldn’t believe what was going on, frankly. I was — my family was affected and they were in the midst of the area that suffered bombardment and they had to escape. So for me, this was something that affected me personally, and I expected Ukraine to put up very fierce resistance. Either through kind of insurgency guerilla campaign if Russians were to take parts of the territory or active war efforts, and it’s been a combination of both, and I’m very glad that the resistance campaign has been successful in many parts of Ukraine but I’m also very disheartened that the Russians were able to make so much progress in other parts of Ukraine in the south and the east in particular.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you think this will progress?

Andrey Ivanov:

I don’t have a crystal ball. I’m not a Nostradamus. It’s very hard to tell. The long-term scenario with western support, with western and especially American help looks very good for Ukraine. And it looks very bad for Russia. The short-term scenario, talking about the next several months with winter coming and the gas and oil crisis and energy crisis, the short-term scenario looks very difficult for Ukraine, and sort of favors Russia. And so we have a long-term and a short-term scenario. The question is can the west remain steady in its help to Ukrainian fight for independence, and for how long. And that will really decide the outcome of the war.

Frederica Freyberg:

More broadly, why does Vladimir Putin want Ukraine when it so clearly does not want him?

Andrey Ivanov:

Well, it’s kind of a post imperial syndrome, you know. Empires collapse and then you have new entities emerge. I’m a historian, so I talk like this. So you know, there are a lot of people in Russia who support Putin’s neo imperial ambitions. They want the empire back. Whether this is the old Soviet Union or this is the Russian empire, but this is something that has happened before in world history, with Germany after World War I, or Hungary after World War I and so on. And so that is something — that is one of the reasoning that I think that, you know, Putin wants to recreate an empire or imperial space that was lost after 1991, and some may argue lost after 1917.

Frederica Freyberg:

So, reportedly at this point in the destruction, it will cost $200 billion to rebuild Ukraine’s infrastructure and housing. What is it like to see the devastation of your homeland and its people?

Andrey Ivanov:

It’s very — very disheartening. It’s very difficult to see those pictures. I’ve seen pictures of house of my sister that received a shell in one of the areas of that apartment house, and so when I see that, of course this is something that I, you know, that relates personally and it’s, you know, a mixture of grief and anger and questions and so on. But I — I think that Ukraine, which has endured destruction during World War I and World War II will rise again like a phoenix from the ashes and from the rubble of this horrible assault, this horrible invasion. And so yes, it will be, you know, the destruction is there and it will take a while to rebuild Ukraine, but you know, somebody who has come from there and you know, hearing stories of my parents and grandparents and great grandparents who endured World War II, yes, destruction is horrible but it is possible to rebuild after destruction.

Frederica Freyberg:

Professor Ivanov, thank you. Thank you very much for joining us.

Andrey Ivanov:

Yeah, thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Since it launched in mid-July, thousands of people have dialed in to the new suicide and crisis lifeline in Wisconsin reached by calling 988. Family Services of Northeast Wisconsin manages the call center with counselors on the other end of the line for people dialing 988 seeking help. Shelly Missall is the program manager of Family Services of Northeast Wisconsin. She joins us now from Green Bay. Thanks very much for being here.

Shelly Missall:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

So, what is the volume of calls right now at the 988 call center?

Shelly Missall:

We are seeing about 4,000 calls a month coming in.

Frederica Freyberg:

And how does that compare to previous hotlines?

Shelly Missall:

So prior to 988 launching, it was pretty similar. We’ve seen continued growth over the years, so we look back just about a year and a half to January of 2021, we were taking about 1100 calls a month, and so the last probably 3 or 4 months, we have been at that 4,000 mark. So we have just seen natural growth in the utilization of the line. We have seen a lot of growth in new callers with the launch of 988.

Frederica Freyberg:

What is it about the new call line that people are responding to?

Shelly Missall:

I think it’s an awareness and a curiosity. Some of the calls are about people just exploring that service, maybe not being connected in, not having known what the service was or that it existed previously. And a huge part of that is the easy access to obviously that three digit dialing with 988 is a lot easier to access and remember than the ten digit 800 number. Although that ten digit 800 number still does exist as a legacy and will continue to exist and be usable as well.

Frederica Freyberg:

So in fact, it’s called the suicide and crisis lifeline but you have told us that fewer than maybe a third of the calls are these emergency calls. What are they more so?

Shelly Missall:

Absolutely. Most of the calls that we are seeing are folks who are calling just because they have something to talk about, an individual crisis. It could be they are having some sort of relationships issues, job issues, financial issues. They are having some issues managing their mental health. Whatever that individual personal crisis is that they just need somebody to talk to right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah, so you’ve also said that sometimes it’s helpers themselves that call who seek the anonymity of this line. Describe that kind of caller.

Shelly Missall:

Yeah, so one of the really nice things about the lifeline is it is free and anonymous, so folks don’t even need to tell us their name when they call in. And that creates a great space and opportunity for those helpers that we have in our community, those first responders, those folks who are working in the local crisis systems, who are working in ERs, things like that, and they are immersed in this, and there’s a discomfort. I don’t want to reach out to a co-worker necessarily for help. I don’t want to reach out to somebody who is going to recognize me that I have to go work with tomorrow, and so we are a great opportunity for folks like that to have somebody to talk to with a little bit more anonymity and a little less concern about that recognition and how that impacts their day-to-day work relationships.

Frederica Freyberg:

But in a life-threatening situation, you do have a mechanism for referring on to emergency services?

Shelly Missall:

Absolutely. So, we collaborate with law enforcement across the state of Wisconsin as well as the public safety answering or 911 dispatch centers, so we are connecting in with those in those imminent risk situations when there is serious risk of harm to self or others. However, that is a very small amount of the calls that we actually take, and that we need to do that sort of intervention with, so it’s really about 1% of the calls we take where we are getting some sort of intervention like that happening.

Frederica Freyberg:

Some have wondered whether call volume is so high people might have to wait or get transferred to a national hotline. How well staffed up is the 988 call center to handle the load?

Shelly Missall:

So in Wisconsin, we are doing really well with our staffing and we have been able to manage and maintain that capacity of the calls and we do continue to build capacity by adding staff. I believe we are adding about two positions a month right now for the ongoing and foreseeable future. So we are continuing to hire additional counselors to build that staff and part of that has been strategic at a national level and within Wisconsin with that roll-out. We did see some media early on and so there was a little bit of sharing, but it’s been a more of a soft launch and building capacity across the state to support the people who are reaching out and we’ll see more coming facing the public as far as sharing more information about 988 next year.

Frederica Freyberg:

Does the popularity of 988 highlight how much people need a listening ear and just help figuring out where to go or what resources are available?

Shelly Missall:

I think that’s a really great observation. Yeah, there’s a lot of folks who could use some additional support but if they’ve never been connected in with the resources that exist, they might just not know what’s there. So 988 is great. It gives them an opportunity to explore what’s out there. It gives them an opportunity to learn more about the mental health resources that exist, about opportunities and places they can go to in a crisis, and it really builds upon the opportunities for them to get connected with the resources they need in a safe and comfortable environment.

Frederica Freyberg:

And easy number to call as well. Shelly Missall, thanks very much and thanks for your work.

Shelly Missall:

Thank you, thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Tonight we bring you the second of two interviews with the candidates for secretary of state. Last week, we talked with Democratic incumbent, Secretary Doug La Follette. Next, we hear from Republican State Representative Amy Loudenbeck of Clinton. She was first elected to the state Assembly in 2010 and serves as vice chair of the legislature’s Joint Finance Committee. Amy Loudenbeck joins us now. Thanks for being here.

Amy Loudenbeck:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

First, why do you want to be secretary of state?

Amy Loudenbeck:

Well, the office can be important and I believe it’s been neglected for too long. I’m excited to have the opportunity to really restore purpose and respect to an office that is constitutional, directly accountable to the voters and I see an opportunity to make that office work again for the people.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, you would like to move administration of elections to that office. Why?

Amy Loudenbeck:

I have suggested that an alternative to the Wisconsin Election Commission could include a secretary of state. I’m supportive of a new model and I think that when you look at what other states do, secretaries of state are responsible for certain duties and responsibilities with regards to administering elections. It’s a ministerial position. I’m not advocating for complete power or control over elections. I am advocating for a new model that utilizes this constitutional office in any way that it can add value to that role.

Frederica Freyberg:

Doesn’t moving election administration into that elected office politicize the function, though?

Amy Loudenbeck:

I’ve been really clear as I’ve been campaigning that I am not talking about unilateral power. I am proposing duties and responsibilities that are ministerial in nature, that could be transferred to that office. Local clerks in Wisconsin run elections. What I’m talking about is training or guidance or maintaining the voter rolls. Duties that, like I said, are ministerial in nature and not discretionary.

Frederica Freyberg:

Here’s what the incumbent challenger said about it last week. “Trumpite Republicans across the country are trying to take control of secretary of state offices so they can maybe fiddle with the election,” he said, “in 2024.” What’s your response to that?

Amy Loudenbeck:

Perhaps that’s happening in other states where secretaries of state do have more power than they have here, but that is not the case here. I am running because Doug La Follette does not think this office is important and I do. We don’t have a secretary of state that takes his job seriously. I will. That’s why I’m running.

Frederica Freyberg:

So the only way to move elections functions, I would think, to the secretary of state’s office is if a Republican is elected governor. I also see Speaker Robin Vos has endorsed you. But would he cede any kind of legislative oversight of elections to your office should you be elected, have you spoken with him about that?

Amy Loudenbeck:

He has stated he is not interested in transferring power to the secretary of state to oversee and administer elections. Like I said, I’m talking about duties and I think my relationship with the Republican legislature is — and the Democrats in the legislature, is a strong one and it’s one that is borne on mutual respect and my strong work ethic and record of results. When we have these conversations, let’s not forget we have this office that could add value to the process of election oversight and administration. That’s the first step. I think for a long conversation that is going to be part of the next legislative session. But at a minimum, if elected, my goal would be to modernize the office, to be responsive to request for authentication of documents, to be a billion dollar board member for the Board of Commissioners about Public Lands and actively engage in the role that currently exists for the secretary of state that I see as being neglected right now.

Frederica Freyberg:

What would you describe as your best accomplishments in your career in the legislature?

Amy Loudenbeck:

Well, of the over 50 bills that I have had passed and signed into law since I’ve been in office, it’s difficult, you can’t really choose among your children. But I’ve done a lot for public safety. Ive done a lot in regards to human trafficking and children and families. Been a really diligent member of the Joint Finance Committee to prioritize our expenses but also be fiscally conservative and turn a surplus that our state has never seen before. When I came into office, we had a significant deficit. So there’s a lot of things I can be proud of.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’ll ask why should voters elect you over the longtime incumbent?

Amy Loudenbeck:

Because I think this job is important. I want it to be important. I don’t think he takes this role seriously. I think he’s become complacent and I think he’s become arrogant and I think we deserve a secretary of state that has respect from both sides of the aisle and I intend to do that and do that well and with a consistent work ethic and diplomacy that the job requires.

Frederica Freyberg:

Amy Loudenbeck, thanks very much.

Amy Loudenbeck:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. 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.