Here & Now

Here & Now for Dec. 14, 2018

Zac Schultz:
Good evening, I’m Zac Schultz. Frederica Freyberg is on assignment. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the governor sign the lame duck bills in Green Bay in the same week he announces a deal to keep Kimberly-Clark jobs in Wisconsin. After that the health care industry says the new laws will have unintended consequences. And we’ll look at the return of the Pardon Advisory Board and finally, columnist and author David Maraniss joins us from Washington. It’s “Here & Now” for December 14th.

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

Zac Schultz:
Earlier today Governor Scott Walker signed into law the three bills passed in a lame duck extraordinary session. Despite his comments this week that he was considering some partial vetoes, he signed all bills in full. Critics call the bills a power grab taking authority away from incoming Governor Tony Evers and giving it to the Republican-controlled legislature but Walker defended the moves as increasing accountability and protecting the taxpayers. Democratic groups have already threatened lawsuits and Tony Evers said today he is exploring his options. The bill signing comes just one day after Governor Walker used some of the powers he’s taking away from future governors to strike a deal between the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation and the Kimberly-Clark company in order to keep open a paper manufacturing facility in Fox Crossing. The agreement provides up to $28 million in tax incentives. In return Kimberly-Clark will retain 388 jobs at their Cold Springs facility for five years. During the extraordinary session, Republicans in the State Senate failed to take up a bill that would have provided the company $100 million in tax credits to keep the jobs for 15 years. Joining us now to talk about the deal is Senate President Roger Roth. Thanks for your time today.

Roger Roth:
Glad to be here.

Zac Schultz:
Do you still wish the Senate would have passed the original proposal or is this deal better?

Roger Roth:
At the end of the day, the primary objective of both the governor and myself was to get a deal done to protect those jobs, protect that Wisconsin supply chain. So I’m just thrilled that we were able to do that here and quite honestly just very excited for the families and for everyone here in northeast Wisconsin that we were able to get that done.

Zac Schultz:
So the deal that gets done is the deal that’s best?

Roger Roth:
Yeah, well, you know, politics is a process. When we first introduced that bill the company was almost 11 months ago now, they made that announcement January 31st. The governor and I were very decisive coming out immediately with a bill that we thought would help keep that company open. And through that conversation it was great. We went from a company saying they’re leaving to they’re considering. And then of course you know there were many evolutions in that process over the course of the spring, the fall, to where we’re at right now. It took all of that, I believe, to keep that conversation open to move all parties in the right direction to get the deal that we were able to get.

Zac Schultz:
Do you think the possibility of a deal through the WEDC made it easier for some Republicans in the Senate to say no to your bill?

Roger Roth:
I guess I don’t know. This was kind of a late breaking development here. We had looked at all things, of course, from the beginning. But it didn’t become apparent until later in this process. How much the company was looking to reinvest into this facility, which opened up other avenues through statutory authority that WEDC already has to put together the deal that was signed by the governor or signed by his folks and revealed yesterday. So it really took all of that and that process to just figure out really the best way to come about it. That’s why, again, it wasn’t exactly the road we started down but the destination is the same and we’re very excited about that.

Zac Schultz:
Due to the manufacturing and agriculture tax credit, Kimberly-Clark already pays almost no corporate income taxes in Wisconsin and now we’re giving them these extra tax credit to keep the jobs. What happens when the next paper mill in Wisconsin threatens to leave? Are they going to get the same deal?

Roger Roth:
Yeah, well, I can tell you just going through this process here that it’s not something that we do lightly. The contract that we put forward, that WEDC put forward is performance-based, meaning that the company has to prove that they are retaining those jobs and they have to prove that they’re making those investments in order to receive the tax credits. But the reason we do it is because this is an iconic business, an anchor business in an anchor industry. And it’s not just protecting one company that employs 400 people. This is protecting a supply chain of 237 other Wisconsin businesses where they purchase $57 million a year. So there are thousands of other jobs as you spread a — small businesses as you spread across the ecosystem that we’re able to protect with a bill that the governor signed — or with the deal that the governor signed rather.

Zac Schultz:
Yeah, and the governor and the WEDC were able to reach this deal without final input from the legislature — final approval — but one of the bills you just voted for in the lame duck session would strip that power from incoming Governor Tony Evers. Does that make sense that he wouldn’t have been able to do the same deal?

Roger Roth:
That’s actually not accurate and I think a lot of people have been mentioning that but it’s a little overblown. The state legislature empowered WEDC with 30 enterprise zones a number of years ago and they’re almost maxed out at that right now. Well, they had one left that we were able to use here for Kimberly-Clark. But what was passed a week and a half go said that instead of being capped at 30 which we currently would be now, that going forward in the future, we could create new enterprise zones if WEDC brought that before the Joint Finance Committee. So this is actually empowering future governors. They’re not going to be capped at 30. They’re going to have the power and the flexibility to exceed that. And the only thing they need to exceed that is to create that new enterprise zone is to go before the Joint Finance Committee.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Senator Roth, thank you for your time today and work on this legislation.

Roger Roth:
Appreciate it, thank you.

Zac Schultz:
The lame duck bills include dozens of changes to state law. “Here and Now’s Marisa Wojcik tells us about a few more in this week’s edition of “Fast Facts.”

Marisa Wojcik:
Last week Wisconsin’s legislature passed three bills during an all-night lame duck session. A lot of attention has been focused on where the legislation gives more power to the Republican-controlled legislature. But there was plenty more put in that eventually passed both chambers. Among the many measures tucked into the three bills, one would eliminate the Office of the Solicitor General. A high-level position within the Department of Justice that’s appointed by the State Attorney General. Additionally the legislature could intervene when the Attorney General challenges the constitutionality of a law. And they can hire separate attorneys at taxpayer expense. Another measure would change how federal dollars are distributed for major highway projects and potentially bypass wage requirements for certain project labor. Another measure limits early voting in Wisconsin to two weeks prior to an election. Early voting in this year’s mid-term elections hit record levels. In a year where there were Democratic gains. Because of this, many are viewing it as a political maneuver. And courts found past attempts to limit early voting by Wisconsin Republicans as unconstitutional on grounds of discrimination. One large provision in these bills would eliminate the governor’s authorities to make changes to federal waivers without legislative approval. Specifically, a waiver Wisconsin was recently approved for that will require adults making less than $12,000 a year to pay monthly premiums and work 80 hours a month in order to receive Medicaid benefits. Governor Walker signed all three bills into law without any vetoes earlier today. For these and other fast facts, visit wpt.org.

Zac Schultz:
The changes to the Medicaid program have more than 30 healthcare groups from around the state saying the bill could, “impact healthcare delivery in Wisconsin.” The groups range from hospitals, insurance companies and member associations representing doctors, nurses and dentists. Joining us now to talk about these concerns is Dr. Molli Rolli, president of the Wisconsin Medical Society. Thanks for your time today.

Molli Rolli:
Thank you.

Zac Schultz:
So Republicans in the legislature have said these bills just codify existing practice, putting Governor Walker’s executive orders into law and you’re saying this goes much beyond that.

Molli Rolli:
Yes. In addition to the way that they’re codifying, what’s already the bills that Governor Walker had presented in the legislature past, is that they limit our ability to modify those bills. So, for example, the waiver program that’s going into effect soon related to co-pays for people on Medicaid is something we’ve never done here in Wisconsin before. There may be logistical problems for other reasons why that needs to be modified but in order to modify it now, instead of just going to the Offices of Medicaid Services, we have to actually go back and convene the legislature and pass a bill to modify it. So we feel like there is a big impediment to the ability to change and do things on the fly, to be nimble.

Zac Schultz:
In your letter to the legislature, the group’s voicing direct opposition to the changes in theory but more to the speed of the process, the lack of input. Because of some of these issues. Now that we’ve had some time with the bill language, have you found more things you’re concerned about?

Molli Rolli:
Well, I think there are specific areas where we are concerned. For example, there’s the provision to require community service from Medicaid recipients. So Medicaid recipients are now required or will be required to put in 80 hours of work or job search or community service. That is philosophically something that we were opposed to but also something that has never really been tested. In June of 2018, Arkansas started making this requirement of their Medicaid recipients and unfortunately about 12,000 Medicaid recipients lost their Medicaid coverage because they didn’t properly report the 80 hours of service. What we are concerned about then is that we suddenly have a large amount of uncompensated care and that’s always a bad thing for us.

Zac Schultz:
Now, if these changes do create unintended consequences or when some of those things pop up, do you have any confidence in the legislature and governor-elect Evers being able to work together in good faith to figure out a solution?

Molli Rolli:
Well, we don’t have any signals that things are going to go well. I mean I guess it’s hard for me to predict what’s going to happen. I certainly hope that they find a way to work together. But that is not in evidence at this point that they have a working relationship. Things have not gone well from the start, I think. So we’re concerned about that.

Zac Schultz:
Now, the lame duck bills also restrict the ability of the governor to directly negotiate with the federal government on waivers. They now need legislative approval. What do you see as far as a concern in that area?

Molli Rolli:
Well, what if there was a great program that was introduced in another state that was working really well and had good benefits for patients? It just slows us way down. We can’t get in line to try new programs as quickly as we could have before because we can’t even start to apply until everybody has deliberated about it and approves it.

Zac Schultz:
Currently the negotiation is between the administration and Washington. Do you think the best method now is going to be an internal deliberation about whether they even want to ask for it or would you want the Evers administration to talk to Washington and then bring an idea back here? What’s the best way to even do that?

Molli Rolli:
I don’t know that I have a really good answer to that. I think that the idea of discussing and having a decision before there’s even an inquiry just seems backwards to me and like it’s gonna slow things down. And take us out of the running for things that we could do, you know, innovations that we could implement faster.

Zac Schultz:
We had Governor Doyle on the program last week. And he talked about how in some cases, the federal government may not even want to work with Wisconsin because it’s such an encumbered process. They may say if we’re going to try something out, we’ll go to somewhere where we know we can actually put it in place.

Molli Rolli:
Yeah, and he would be the person in the know about that. I’m just a doctor. But you know, I understand his concern. And I would echo that concern personally that I think why would the federal government choose to do something with a state that takes a long time to make a decision versus one that could decide fairly quickly if they were going to put resources toward a decision?

Zac Schultz:
We’ve only got a few seconds left but do you expect this coalition of healthcare groups to stay together to keep working with the legislature on these issues?

Molli Rolli:
Definitely. Definitely. We — this is a group of — this coalition is a group that has worked on a number of issues related to the health of the people of Wisconsin, which is our primary concern. And so definitely I believe that we will continue to work together to try to improve the health of the citizens of Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:
Dr. Molli Rolli. Thank you.

Molli Rolli:
Thank you.

Zac Schultz:
In just three weeks, Governor-elect Tony Evers will take the oath of office and when that happens, there will be some changes at the capitol. One change will be the return of the Governor’s Pardon Advisory Board which Governor Walker disbanded because he didn’t believe in issuing pardons. Here to explain what the Pardon Board does is Susan Crawford, who served as chief legal counsel to Governor Jim Doyle, chaired his Pardon Advisory Board and currently serves as a Dane County judge. Thanks for your time today.

Susan Crawford:
Thank you for having me.

Zac Schultz:
Let’s start with what is a pardon? Because there’s a lot of confusion over whether that lets people out of prison.

Susan Crawford:
Right. A pardon does not let people out of prison. It is a form of clemency or forgiveness that the governor and only the governor can grant to a person who has been convicted of a crime. Each governor has to decide how to handle that constitutional authority and in most cases, historically, governors have required that persons applying for pardons be a number of years after having completed all aspects of their sentence. So what a pardon does is grants relief to the person from the collateral consequences of a conviction such as being barred from obtaining certain kinds of licenses, being barred from running for public office and things such as that. It does not actually remove the fact of conviction from the person’s record but it relieves the person from any ongoing effects of that conviction.

Zac Schultz:
So what was the criteria under Governor Doyle? What was he looking for in when deciding to issue a pardon?

Susan Crawford:
Right, so the governor, through an executive order, first of all created a Pardon Advisory Board. The Board was made up of individuals from different walks of life. Different parts of the state, and who had played different roles in the criminal justice system. So, for example, there was a prosecutor, a criminal defense attorney or public defender, I believe a retired judge, people from the faith community, and other citizens who together would review pardon applications and advise the governor on whether they believed the person should be granted a pardon. The executive order signed by Governor Doyle also set up criteria or rules for pardon applicants to follow, including requirement that they be, I believe, at least five years post completion of all aspects of their sentence at the time of application. They were required to give notice to the district attorney, the judge and any crime victims that were involved in their case and, you know, meeting a number of other criteria.

Zac Schultz:
So is the decision to issue a pardon a political act? Because we see a lot of governors wait until the end of a term to issue a lot of pardons. Governor Doyle issued more in his final year, than the seven prior to that. Obviously Governor Walker didn’t issue any. Is there a political calculation in doing this?

Susan Crawford:
Well, the governor can apply whatever criteria the governor wants to apply in determining whether to pardon someone. As I mentioned, it’s an authority that’s granted under the state Constitution. It’s granted broadly. There are no criteria stated in the Constitution that the governor has to consider. So any governor has to decide number one, whether to grant pardons and number two, what criteria to apply to that decision. And certainly if the governor thinks that there may be political consequences for a particular pardon decision, the governor is going to consider that. It is really up to the individual.

Zac Schultz:
Now, there is one item in the recent lame duck extraordinary session that dealt with pardons and it requires the Department of Corrections to post a list of all people who receive pardons or commuted sentences including their original crimes and track them and post it if they commit a crime later on in life. What is the value in that that you could see besides being a political list of access of who pardoned whom?

Susan Crawford:
Right. Well, the records of a pardon have always been public records. They have always been accessible to the public, to anyone who wants to obtain copies of such records or a list of the pardons. My recollection is that at least in the Doyle administration that the administration did prepare and publish a list annually of the people who had been published so I don’t believe there’s really any function served by shifting that responsibility to the Department of Corrections.

Zac Schultz:
All right. Susan Crawford, thanks for your time today.

Susan Crawford:
Thank you very much for having me.

Zac Schultz:
From Wisconsin to Washington, we’re looking ahead to the impact of a new Democratic majority in the House of Representative. And we’re joined by author and Washington Post associate editor. David Maraniss. Thanks for your time today.

David Maraniss:
Absolutely Zac.

Zac Schultz:
Now right after the election you wrote this on Facebook about the Democrats returning to power in the House. “The infusion of women and young diverse representatives brings new energy to the capitol that will transform it in ways we can’t fully appreciate yet. We’ve seen the house change hands twice in the last decade. What makes this time different in your opinion?

David Maraniss:
I think it was magnitude of the change which reminded me of 1994 from the opposite end of the spectrum. You know, history might not repeat itself but it rhymes and I think people underestimated then 22, 24 years ago what a vast difference it would be when Gingrich and the Republicans took control of the House. I think this one will be comparable. A lot of people on election night — a lot of Democratic supporters were depressed that Andrew Gillum lost in Florida and Stacy Abrams lost in Georgia and Beta O’Rourke lost in Texas. But I was trying to point out that what was going on in the House was really the key in so many ways. As not just a check on the Trump administration and its foibles but also in terms of where the energy would be in Washington from then on, starting in January.

Zac Schultz:
We’ve already heard some of these young Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. Some of these have already become household names and we’ve never even heard of them before some of these primaries.

David Maraniss:
Well that’s true but the biggest household name is the one that some people were hoping would go away. Others knew would stay for valid reasons, and that was Nancy Pelosi. I think she exerted herself in a way in a last three weeks that showed how you can accommodate both the new voices and the people that know how to get things done in Washington at the same time. So it’ll be an interesting to watch that transition. So far she’s handled it very successfully. Not only with her own Democratic colleagues, but in her visit to the White House the other day.

Zac Schultz:
We definitely saw her putting on a show in the White House with Trump and with Chuck Schumer. Now, most people are thinking about the Democrats in the House focused solely on their ability to provide a check on Donald Trump. But what should we be looking for beyond that that won’t maybe be the banner headline in the newspaper?

David Maraniss:
Well I think there will be not just — on the whole Trump administration. You have to remember that the Russia scandal and all of the things surrounding that are just really one sort of grievous part of what’s been going on in this administration. And so you will find for the first time, actual checks on a wide range of environmental and regulatory policy that the Trump administration has tried to roll back. You will find investigations in all those other areas and ways to push back on the deregulation of the environment essentially. So I think that’ll be very important. They will also, of course, pass their own bills on things related to campaign finance and things like that. Those won’t go anywhere for at least two years but it will be more of an initiative at least to talk about those issues again.

Zac Schultz:
And that’s what’s interesting. I think we’re going to hear a lot about scandal over the next couple of years and that will dominate headlines but laying the ground work of what they actually want to do if they came to complete power again is almost just as important in the long run.

David Maraniss:
It is. I think the House will be the voice of that. At least for this first session of this new Congress. Then as the 2020 campaign unfolds, it will be the candidates who want to be the Democratic nominee who will sort of takeover that voice. But below the surface or at the surface of actual policy, I think you can’t underestimate what this Democratic-controlled House will be able to do to push back on what’s been going on in Washington.

Zac Schultz:
Now you’ve talked about the importance of the Republican wave of 1994 but that was preceded by 1992’s “year of the woman” and Bill Clinton. And 2018 has also been called the “year of the women.” So what’s to say there isn’t another Republican wave coming in two or four years that could wipe out this class?

David Maraniss:
It could happen. Probably not in two years but possibly in four years, if a Democrat becomes president. But as the — I think this is the century of the women, not just the year of the women. So — and the century of a very diverse population in America take — finally grabbing some more power. And so I think as the years progress, the retrograde actions of conservative Republicans have really boxed themselves into a corner by refusing to allow diversity of any sort and pushing on issues that sort of confine them to this one group of aging white people. The possibilities for a real retrograde or backlash to that diminish year by year, decade by decade over this century, I think.

Zac Schultz:
All right. David Maraniss in Washington, thanks for your time.

David Maraniss:
Thank you, Zac.

Zac Schultz:
Now for an update to a story we’ve been following at UW-Stevens Point. The UW Board of Regents has given their support to the Chancellor of UW-Stevens Point over the plan to cut majors to fill a budget deficit. Last month, faculty at the campus signed a letter of no confidence against Chancellor Bernie Patterson and Provost Greg Summers. Regents President John Behling said at last week’s meeting that Patterson and Summers have his full support as the plan moves forward. The plan to cut half a dozen majors is expected to be finalized as early as next spring.
Before we leave you tonight a quick program note. We’re in production on a special edition of “Here & Now.” On Friday night, December 28, we take up the topic of teen homelessness in Wisconsin. We’ll hear the story of one young man who was homeless during his high school years and we’ll hear from an expert about ways state and local officials as well as community members can address the problem. That’s Friday, December 28th. Finally, some sad news. A Wisconsin political icon passed away today. Among many other things, Bill Kraus was a key player in the campaigns of former Governor Warren Knowles. He then help plot the successful political future of Governor Lee Dreyfus. Longtime viewers also came to know Kraus for his sharp wit and political analysis during appearances on WPT’s news program “WeekEnd.” Bill Kraus was 92.
That’s our program for tonight. Frederica Freyberg will be back next week. I’m Zac Schultz. Have a great weekend.

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