Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” in the aftermath of mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton, Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul is here to talk about gun laws and public safety. New research at UW-Madison shows what Twitter reveals about mass shootings and the American gun debate. A new study requested by the state on the viability of the Foxconn deal. The author of that report joins us. It’s “Here & Now” for August 9.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

In the wake of mass shootings in Texas and Ohio, Wisconsin leaders are expected to meet to talk about what can be done. In tonight’s first look, Governor Tony Evers is pushing for universal background checks and what’s known as a red flag law. These are measures Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald have opposed. But the governor and the Republican legislative leaders have agreed to talk next week. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul supports both gun control measures. He joins us now. Thanks for being here.

Josh Kaul:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

You have said that whenever mass shootings happen there are calls for action. What are your expectations that this time will be different in terms of putting in place some of these gun control measures?

Josh Kaul:

I think we’ve really seen a shift when it comes to the response from states and from the federal government after some of these shootings. We saw that in the wake of the tragedy at Parkland. And I think we are again seeing real action and real movement. President Trump has come out in support of a red flag law and he’s been talking about background checks. The Republican governor of Ohio has supported measures like that. I’m hoping we can see progress here in Wisconsin now because we have had just far too many of these tragedies and I think we need to take this opportunity to make change that’s going to help keep people in Wisconsin safer. I don’t want to be having this conversation again after another tragedy here in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Universal background checks are what most people most often talk about in the wake of these kinds of mass shootings. What in your mind should such checks entail?

Josh Kaul:

I think everybody who is purchasing a firearm should go through a background check process. The vast majority of firearm purchases go through a background check now and that’s to make sure that the person who is trying to buy the firearm isn’t prohibited from doing so. But there are some firearm purchases take place without that kind of background check. I think if somebody has committed a felony, there should be no loophole that allows them to purchase a gun without going through a check. I want to make sure that they’re being prevented from buying a gun if they’re prohibited from doing so under the law.

Frederica Freyberg:

Another measure being discussed, as we’ve discussed, is this red flag law. Now, what would that look like?

Josh Kaul:

So there are I believe 17 states right now that have so-called red flag laws. And the basic concept is if somebody has been shown to a judge to be a danger to themselves or to others. And there’s a limit in who can make that showing. It’s usually law enforcement and a family member. The judge would have the ability to issue an order that temporarily removes firearms from that person. If you have somebody who is going through a mental health crisis and is perhaps suicidal or you have somebody who has threatened to commit one of these horrible mass shootings, this gives a tool to law enforcement or to the people who know that person best, their family members, to try and get an order to prevent a tragedy from happening. And a lot of these laws were adopted fairly recently. But Connecticut’s law has been in place for about 20 years. The studies of that law indicate that it has reduced the suicide rate there. So I think that this law would make our community safer and I think it’s one we should move forward with.

Frederica Freyberg:

Here’s what Speaker Robin Vos tweeted about red flag laws. He said, “I will not entertain proposals to take away Second Amendment rights or due process.” He says, “Hopefully we can find common ground on the real problem by addressing the mental health issues facing Wisconsin.” There’s obviously a lot of controversy around this idea that people think this would just mean that people would not be able to exercise their Constitutional rights to have guns.

Josh Kaul:

That’s just wrong. There is — first of all, there’s really broad public support for red flag laws and for universal background checks because they’re frankly common sense. They’re about preventing people who are a danger to themselves or others from having access to a firearm that can be used for gun violence. And these laws are in place, as I said, in 17 states. There’s not a single state where these laws have found to be a violation of due process or Second Amendment rights. I certainly don’t think the speaker would suggest that Donald Trump is trying to violate people’s Second Amendment rights. So I’m hopeful we can make progress. Now, when it comes to mental health, there are a few things I would say. First, there are millions of people who face mental health issues and I think it’s really important that we not stigmatize those people. They’re no more likely to be a danger than anybody else. But if you do have somebody who is going through a crisis, that’s why we need this sort of method for intervening so that we can take action. And if the speaker does want to address mental health, one of the best ways we can do that is by expanding Medicaid here in Wisconsin so more Wisconsinites have access to mental health treatment.

Frederica Freyberg:

You have said that you believe that a red flag law would have to be carefully targeted. How so?

Josh Kaul:

Well, I think you want to make it first of all so that a limited group of people can report to get that sort of order in place, which is why I think you limit it to family members or law enforcement who can see those signs of concern, those red flags. And then secondly, you want it to be a temporary order so that the person who’s not able to have a firearm is able to challenge it. That’s where those due process protections are and that’s why this is consistent with Second Amendment rights because it is limited.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Attorney General Josh Kaul, thanks very much.

Josh Kaul:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

A closer look now at the gun debate and for that we go to Milwaukee. That’s where Wisconsin Carry is based, a nonprofit that educates and lobbies for Second Amendment rights. Nik Clark is president of Wisconsin Carry. Thanks very much for being here.

Nik Clark:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what is your reaction to renewed calls for universal background checks?

Nik Clark:

Unfortunately every time there’s a situation in the news with the mass shootings, these proposals keep getting regurgitated. So I think it should be clear to people that it’s politically motivated. In these situations — the example most recent being in El Paso, that gentleman passed a background check to purchase firearms. In the situation in Parkland, Florida last year, he passed a background check. So when people keep introducing proposals after these situations that wouldn’t have even addressed the situation that’s prompting their coverage in the news, I think people should understand that this is more about a political posturing than it is about solving a problem.

Frederica Freyberg:

I want to get to that in a minute, but why in your mind would a universal background check be onerous?

Nik Clark:

So there’s a couple things. Universal background check sounds great and of course most people when they purchase their firearm, they go to a retail store, they’re passing a background check. If you go to a gun show and there’s someone there who’s selling guns for a living, you have to pass a background check. What there is is a private party exception. So if I want to buy from a grandfather, from a brother, from a friend, we don’t have to go transact that. In order to enforce a universal background check, they would have to have a universal gun registry. How else would you know that every gun that a person had they passed a background check in order to purchase that gun? So that’s why a universal background check would do two things. First, it would necessitate a cost because no one’s going to run that background check for free. So even amongst friends who want to sell a gun to each other, you’d have to then incur a cost. And there would have to be universal gun registry which a lot of people have a great issue with.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why?

Nik Clark:

Because quite frankly there’s a lot of people that don’t trust the government. I mean even Wisconsin’s former attorney general said himself that he was part of government. He didn’t even want the government to know which guns he had. We’ve seen in California where they passed a law requiring certain guns to be just registered. You could still have them. They just need to be registered. And then a few years later they passed a law to outlaw those guns and then they had a list of people who had them, went right around and went to those people to round them up. So the clich in the gun industry is that registration leads to confiscation and that was true in California and we worry about that in other places. So why should we burden millions of law-abiding citizens for something that a few criminals are doing, a few lunatics are doing in these mass shootings. And again, I don’t think that would solve the problem. I don’t think that if the gun in Florida had been registered at Parkland, Florida. If the gun in El Paso had been registered, it would still shoot people. So registration wouldn’t solve the problem.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now President Trump is saying he wants “intelligent background checks” and he says that he has spoken with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who says he’s totally onboard. What’s your reaction to that?

Nik Clark:

I’m a little bit scared by the word intelligent background checks because how that would be implemented. I’ve heard him talk about wanting social media to be involved. If the thought is here is we’re going to go through social media and try to create an algorithm that would identify people who Facebook or other social media thinks are high priorities for being a mass shooter, that’s some pretty Orwellian stuff. People that I’ve talked to that really makes their skin crawl thinking that they’d have to worry that something they put on Facebook, again, that for them is innocuous would somehow flag them to be a potential mass shooter. I think that sounds like the thought police to me. Now we don’t know the specifics but I don’t know — I know how background checks work right now and I can’t think of how they want to have more intelligent background checks unless they’re going to try to do something like that. Again, President Trump even said, he used the words social media and thinks that they can be part of this flagging of potential mass shooters. I think how that would work would be pretty infringing on civil liberties.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of flagging, what’s your opinion of red flag laws?

Nik Clark:

Red flag laws, in my opinion, would be an exact reversal of Constitutional principles in this country. We’ve got innocent until proven guilty. We’ve got the right to private property and those can’t be taken from you without due process. Now, the red flag laws flip those around and basically say look, we can come take your property first and then you can go get a court hearing down the road. Some say two weeks and we don’t have a specific proposal here in Wisconsin and it varies — the current red flag laws vary by state. But that’s troubling as well. I think that all of the — all of the incidents that we’ve had so far, these individuals committed crimes. They could have been in jail, but people were lenient on them. Here in Milwaukee we’ve got a massive crime problem and all the people, virtually all the people committing crimes already have a background — excuse me, a criminal background and are allowed to own firearms. When we see the vast majority of crime committed by people who aren’t even allowed to own guns, I have to ask myself why are we trying to focus on another segment of society? There’s millions of people that have mental health issues in this country. Do we want to be able to say to someone, look, I’m worried about talking to my counselor. I’m worried about talking to a psychologist because someone’s going to red flag me? Do we want to give local police departments all across the state, even in small towns, the right? Do we want to give the government the right to come and just take your guns? That’s again, a reversal of civil liberties and we have a huge issue with that. I think if President Trump pushes something nationally, I think — you know he got away with the bump stock ban. People kind of wrote that off, turned the other check. I don’t think people will turn the other cheek if they have something like a red flag law that starts to infringe. What’s going to happen there is someone’s getting divorced, their spouse is going to red flag the other one. That’s how these things always work out.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there, but Nik Clark, thanks very much for the discussion.

Nik Clark:

It’s good to be with you. Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Response and reaction to yet more mass shootings is the subject of research out of the UW-Madison. In tonight’s inside look, how researchers looked at social media and specifically Twitter because of how it provides “an important window into the nature of public mourning and policy debates in the wake of these tragedies.” Results of the study appear in the Journal of Computer-mediated Communication and the authors say may add to our understanding why there is so little legislative success with gun control policies. The study’s lead researcher, Yini Zhang is here. And thank you very much for joining us.

Yini Zhang:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Your team analyzed about one million tweets about mass shootings over two years and you broke these tweets into three theme groups. Those being thoughts and prayers, gun control and defense of gun rights. How did the three themes stack up in terms of number of tweets in each category right after mass shootings?

Yini Zhang:

So depending on the method we used to analyze those tweets, I would say so the most tweets we saw was thoughts and prayers, because as you might see right after each shooting, there were like an outpouring. There was an outpouring of expression of sympathies in the form of thoughts and prayers. I would say that’s kind of like as intense as they were fleeting. Because they just peaked right after the mass shootings. But disappeared within one day. And then I would say the next would be the gun control and the gun rights. But depending on the method we used, so it varies.

Frederica Freyberg:

So I want to get deeper into that issue of the kind of the longevity in the Twittersphere and system of these different kinds of themes. You’re saying that the thoughts and prayers was kind of fleeting.

Yini Zhang:

Yes.

Frederica Freyberg:

Like one or two days?

Yini Zhang:

Yes. Surprising. So they just spiked immediately after the shooting, after a particular shooting, and then it stayed in the system, stayed in the Twitter system for just one day. And then kind of like disappeared.

Frederica Freyberg:

And then how does that compare to the gun control tweets?

Yini Zhang:

For gun control tweets, they lasted for about 35 days. So much longer period. However, this gun control dynamic, temporal dynamic, is eclipsed by the gun rights dynamic, which lasted for about 40 days.

Frederica Freyberg:

And you’re also saying in your report that not only did the defense of gun rights have lasting power in the Twitter system, but that it would kind of cycle back as well, where the other themes didn’t. Where if there was an anniversary or some kind of action or some kind of other news spike around the particular mass shooting?

Yini Zhang:

Yeah. The gun control tweets, we observed a cyclical pattern, for the gun control tweets. Probably due to the anniversary effect or weekly pattern of tweets. We observed more tweets during the weekdays and less during the weekends.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you explain the difference in kind of the what I’m calling the longevity of these themes in the Twitter system? You know, how do you explain why the thoughts and prayers is so fleeting compared to the defense of gun rights.

Yini Zhang:

Mass shootings are tragedies. So the public tends to forget them really quickly. Also public attention tends to have really short span. So it’s unsurprising that those events can be forgotten very soon because other events will come up and people will shift their attention to those events.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, the researchers in this report say the signal about this sent to journalists and politicians is that the passion of gun rights supporters merits more attention and action. Is this why there is so little legislative success with gun control policies in the author’s mind?

Yini Zhang:

Yes. This is what we think kind of like social media explanation for the legislative stalemate for gun control. As you can see, the gun rights advocates have been really active on Twitter. They kept their voice loud and strong. And then that impression lead to the politician is that they’re resistant to change. So it might send a signal to politicians that we’re super resistant to change. We’re paying attention to any legislative actions. So here we are and you should pay attention to our concerns and listen to our voices. This is different from the gun control side, which is less organized and less — lasts shorter.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. Yini Zhang, thanks very much for joining us. I know there’s more work around this research project going forward, but thank you very much.

Yini Zhang:

Thank you for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:

In tonight’s look ahead, a new economic analysis of the costs and benefits of the Foxconn deal in Wisconsin shows the incentive package was so outsized even if the contract is renegotiated, Wisconsin will still be on the losing end, potentially to the tune of costing the state $290,000 per job created. The state Department of Administration requested the study because the size and scope of the facility has changed since Foxconn promised a $10 billion investment and 13,000 jobs from flat panel screen production in Racine County. The company stands by its original promise for jobs, but Governor Evers has said the plant would employ only 1500 people by next year. We check in now with the author of the study, senior economist with W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research Timothy Bartik. He joins us from Kalamazoo, Michigan. Thanks very much for being here.

Timothy Bartik:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How is it if the Foxconn deal is renegotiated it actually gets worse for Wisconsin taxpayers, that $290,000 per job created?

Timothy Bartik:

Well, if you have a new contract but you use the same credit rates, the cost per job actually can go up because the discussion now is that the new project with fewer jobs will be more capital intensive. It will have a higher ratio of robots to workers. And part of the credits is an investment tax credit so would end up actually being a higher credit rate per worker. Originally it was over $170,000 per job. Now we’re talking about something that might be as much, as you mentioned, $290,000 per job.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what kind of renegotiation would help level the cost benefit ratio here?

Timothy Bartik:

Well, I think the state should explore looking at lowering the cost per job to what is more normal in the U.S. which is somewhere between $20,000 and $30,000 per job. Even the Amazon New York deal was only about $40,000 per job. When the Foxconn deal was originally announced, people who analyze economic incentives around the country were kind of freaked out by the whole thing because it’s so far outside what we usually see in economic development. It’s at least six to seven times typical incentives. It’s even much greater than what the incentives offered to Amazon by New York.

Frederica Freyberg:

According to your analysis, under best-case scenarios for a renegotiated deal, how much could Wisconsin save?

Timothy Bartik:

Oh, well, you could save an awful lot. You could go — as I said, you could go from maybe $290,000 per job to down to $25,000 per job and then the deal might actually pay off for Wisconsin residents. The problem in paying so much per job, it’s not that new jobs aren’t worth something. They are worth something. They raise employment to population ratios. They bring in some tax revenue. But there are economic costs to these things too. You have to pay for these things. They come out of the state budget somewhere. And whether or not you raise taxes on households or raise taxes on other Wisconsin businesses or cut spending, cut public school spending, cut university spending, there’s an economic cost to that. There’s not a free lunch.

Frederica Freyberg:

Implications all around either way.

Timothy Bartik:

Right. I mean, basically, you know, creating jobs is valuable. And states are actively engaged in this. We need to think about what are the best ways to create jobs. Do we need to offer tax incentives? Do we need to offer businesses various types of services? Customized job training, manufacturing extension services, small business development centers, small business incubators. All these things cost money. Some of them are more effective than others. If you spend a huge amount per job, if you end up spending $290,000 per job, it’s very hard to have that pay off because although there are benefits, you have to pay for the incentives and that ends up costing you more than the jobs are worth.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what is your response to the outgoing CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation who disputes your numbers and says you make assumptions that could not occur under the existing performance-based contract, namely, that the company wouldn’t be eligible for jobs payments with 1500 or 1800 employees and that the company would default on the contract if it doesn’t have 5,850 jobs by the end of 2023?

Timothy Bartik:

I think it’s a weird defense of the Foxconn deal to say the best-case scenario is that the company defaults and we then claw back all the incentives and then we assume Foxconn still keeps all the jobs there. That’s kind of a weird best-case scenario, that somehow 1500 jobs are created, we pay out a huge amount upfront. We essentially provide Foxconn with a no-interest loan for a number of years. Then we go to court and try to claw that back. Is that going to occur legally or politically? Would that actually occur? That’s the best-case scenario. On the other hand, if for some reason all the jobs went away, we could still do that. We’d have a cost of making this no-interest loan and then we’d have no jobs in the end. There’s a variety of scenarios but claiming that defending a deal by saying that default is the best option for residents of Wisconsin is a somewhat strange defense of the deal.

Frederica Freyberg:

For its part, Foxconn says that you misread the important multiplier effect of economic development projects like theirs. Did you misread the multiplier effect?

Timothy Bartik:

I used the multipliers that were used by the various consulting firms that advised both Foxconn and the state and the likely multiplier. People always like to claim magic multipliers. If you assume a large enough multiplier, any incentive package can pay off. If you say, we think for every job directly created there’s going to be five, six, ten other jobs. But usually when people look hard at multipliers, it’s pretty hard to get multipliers much greater than two or three. You know, I assumed a multiplier between two and three, which was the multiplier assumed by the consulting firms that both the state and Foxconn relied on.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there. Thanks for talking with us about your analysis.

Timothy Bartik:

Thank you for having me again.

Frederica Freyberg:

Coming in the next week, we are kicking off some collaborative reporting with our colleagues at WisContext on the topic of climate change and flooding. In recent years, torrential rains and floods have caused millions of dollars in damage in northwest Wisconsin. And most experts say 500-year flood events are becoming more common. “Here & Now” reporter Zac Schultz traveled to Sawyer County to find out what’s being done to prepare. In this preview, we’ll hear why high water and minor flooding are permanent fixtures in Sawyer County.

Sandy Okamoto:

I did have carpeting down here but that all rotted.

Zac Schultz:

Sandy Okamoto feels like most of the water in Sawyer County comes through her basement.

Sandy Okamoto:

This whole area floods and it comes in everywhere.

Zac Schultz:

She says after heavy rains, the groundwater sprays into the basement in her house and her rental property next door.

Sandy Okamoto:

It’s like someone’s standing with a squirt gun behind the walls and just, it comes through everywhere.

Zac Schultz:

When the forecast calls for heavy rains, Sandy can’t sleep.

Sandy Okamoto:

Very overwhelming. All I do is run back and forth between the two houses and move pumps and move hoses.

Zac Schultz:

But Sandy says it wasn’t like this when she bought these houses. This creek and neighboring Shue’s pond would occasionally dry up.

Sandy Okamoto:

Like I say, there wasn’t even water in this creek. I mowed. It was bone dry. I mowed across it.

Zac Schultz:

The water level in places around Sawyer County is just higher than it’s ever been.

Don Hamblin:

It’s at the bottom of the drainage system so it has nowhere to go from here.

Zac Schultz:

Don Hamblin is both the fire chief and the public works director for the town of Hayward so he’s been monitoring this road.

Don Hamblin:

Now that it’s underwater, there’s definitely going to be some structure issues that will have to be addressed.

Zac Schultz:

When the water recedes, he can fix the road, but the bigger question is how soon will he have to do it again?

Don Hamblin:

Are we going to be addressing these problems continually for the next 20, 50 years?

Frederica Freyberg:

You can see the full report next Friday followed by an interview with State Transportation Secretary-designee Craig Thompson. Our partners at WisContext.org dig into this topic next week as well. Will Cushman reports how other northwest Wisconsin communities are grappling with rebuilding after repeated flooding and storms. That story will be posted on Thursday at WisContext.org.

That is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Frederica Freyberg:

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