Zac Schultz:

I’m Zac Schultz, filling in tonight for Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” a conversation with the Health Services Secretary-designee, including back to school questions about immunizations. Then an inside look at a new bill that aims to help keep family farms within the family. A closer look at the toll the Foxconn project has taken on Mount Pleasant area property owners and results from the latest Marquette Law School poll. It’s “Here & Now” for September 6th.

Announcer:

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

Zac Schultz:

A first look tonight. It’s back to school week in Wisconsin and while kids are making new friends, they’re also sharing germs and numbers from the State Department of Health Services show an increasing number of parents are opting out of immunizations for their children. More than 8% of all school children did not meet the minimum immunization standards, a number that has increased in recent years. County by county records show the number of kids who are protected from the measles varies from 70% to 90% and nowhere does it reach the recommended level of 95% immunization. Earlier this week, our guest on “Noon Wednesday” was Dr. James Conway. He explained why below 90% immunization puts Wisconsin at a greater risk for a measles outbreak.

James Conway:

The difference between 80% immunization coverage and 90% immunization coverage is enormous. And so that’s really what when we talk about vaccine initiative, for most diseases we want to be over 90%. For some diseases that are highly contagious, I mean measles which is what everybody’s talking about lately, is one of the most contagious diseases on the planet. And so for measles, you really want more than 95%, even 97% of the population protected because otherwise you’re very likely if cases get introduced that you will start into an outbreak situation.

Zac Schultz:

Joining us now is the Secretary-designee of the Department of Health Services Andrea Palm. Thanks for your time today.

Andrea Palm:

Thanks for having me.

Zac Schultz:

How much at risk is Wisconsin of a measles outbreak?

Andrea Palm:

So I think, like all states who don’t currently have a measles case in their state, it just takes one exposure to start an outbreak. So I think our folks at the Department of Health Services in partnership with our local health departments are very focused on making sure we are tracking and tracing any suspected case so if it ends up here in Wisconsin, we are prepared to limit its spread as quickly as possible.

Zac Schultz:

Democrats in the Legislature proposed a bill that would eliminate the personal exemption clause for parents. Republicans are not on board. How do you feel about a bill like that?

Andrea Palm:

So I think we need to use all the tools in our toolbox to increase immunization rates. I think one of the biggest challenges we face and it’s part of why you’re seeing an increase in personal exemptions is misinformation on the internet. So what we know about immunizations are that they are some of the safest and most tested medicines in the marketplace and they keep us safe. As Dr. Conway said, measles is highly contagious. The safest way to protect your family and to protect your community at that 95% rate is to get the measles vaccine.

Zac Schultz:

Given the importance of herd immunity and given the increasing number of personal exemptions, is that something that the state can risk or should we remove the exemption for public safety?

Andrea Palm:

So as you mentioned, there is a bill moving through the Legislature. We, like with all pieces of legislation, are absolutely interested in working with the Legislature to make sure it is as workable as possible. We obviously want to make sure that kids and families who have members who can’t be vaccinated because of medical conditions or other things, that those protections remain in place. But I think the more we lower the rate of personal exemptions, the more protected we all are.

Zac Schultz:

Speaking broadly about your department, Governor Tony Evers’ budget was originally built around a Medicaid expansion. That didn’t happen. What does that mean for DHS?

Andrea Palm:

It’s a great question. Medicaid expansion is a really important thing for us to do here in Wisconsin. 36 other states, 37 other states have done it. It would bring down, as you saw in our budget, a whole lot of new federal money that would allow us to make really important investments in other parts of the health care system. Not just in Medicaid, but in other parts of the system that would benefit all Wisconsinites. So we will continue to prioritize it, to push it. To bring that money home, that taxpayer money back to Wisconsin to spend on important things here. In the meantime, we’re very focused on making sure that folks who are eligible for BadgerCare know that they are, that they’re enrolled. That they get the services that they need and that we’re continuing to make improvements in the program so that it serves Wisconsin the best that it can.

Zac Schultz:

With the transition to a Democratic administration, we’ve seen other state agencies shift some of their priorities. Is that happening at DHS?

Andrea Palm:

So I think, as you suggest, all agencies are taking a look at where they’ve been, where they want to head to. I think we have a number of priorities at DHS. Things we will certainly continue to be working on are the opioid epidemic. The meth epidemic that we’re seeing in the northern part of the state. Those are really important things for us to continue to prioritize and try to get in front of. Reducing deaths from opioid overdose is a really important thing for us to do. I think we also are looking at things like the long-term care system, aging population, aging workforce. We know it’s coming. How are we making sure that we are responsibly and strategically ready to serve seniors as they age in their homes and their communities in the least restrictive setting that honors the choices they want to make about their aging. So that is a place we will be spending some time. As well as behavioral health. I mentioned the opioid and meth problems we have. I think mental health and behavioral health, substance abuse disorders, more broadly, are places where Wisconsin can really take a leadership role nationally. Integrating those kinds of services into health care so we’re reducing stigma. We’re encouraging people to seek the help they need and really making our health and wellness of our people better all the way around. So that’s another place where you’ll see some focus from us.

Zac Schultz:

Now we’ve seen news reports talk about Purdue pharma being in settlement talks with states over their role in the opioid crisis. How would you want to see Wisconsin spend any settlement dollars?

Andrea Palm:

The science on this is actually pretty good. We know, for example, medication-assisted treatment is the most effective method of treatment. So we’ve done, with federal and state dollars we’ve received over the last number of years, made real improvement in access to medication-assisted treatment but I think any sort of settlement that Wisconsin and other states might see, we’ve got to do more to increase access to treatment and medication-assisted treatment particularly. I think you see a lot of improvements in access to naloxone, which is the opioid overdose reversal drug. So if you’re actively in an overdose situation, administration of that will save your life. So while we need to get you into treatment, you got to make it through the overdose first. So increased access to naloxone would certainly be another place where we would want to see some ability to expand our resource allocation in that space. But I think there’s lots of work that can and should be done on the prevention side. That’s the ball game. If we can keep people from becoming addicted to these substances, you got less of a fight on the back end. So focus on prevention, on youth, on the demographics of folks who are more likely to become addicted. We need to focus prevention efforts there. And then once you make it through treatment, it’s a lifelong commitment and there are always moments where you need a little support. And so recovery and the services and the support that is necessary to help people maintain their sobriety over time are also important parts of the system that we could and should be focusing on to help people remain healthy and well once they get there.

Zac Schultz:

Under the lame duck laws, the Joint Finance would have to approve any settlement and they’d also have some control over how many of dollars were spent, whether they went back to the general fund. Have you had any preliminary conversations with Republicans about any potential use for those dollars?

Andrea Palm:

I have not, but again, I think there’s a really strong science base for the kinds of things that we could do to actually have real impact and that is certainly where I would want to start any conversation we have with them.

Zac Schultz:

So no member of the governor’s cabinet has had a confirmation vote by the Republican-controlled Senate. How has that impacted your ability to do your job?

Andrea Palm:

Different from the federal level, which is where I came from and am familiar with, I can serve in this role without being confirmed, without any sort of time limit. So I get up every day and I’m so happy to be at DHS and I’m grateful to have been nominated by the governor. I’ve tried really hard to build relationships with my colleagues in the Legislature, to be transparent, to be responsive, to make sure we’re doing good casework services for their constituents and talking to them about their policy priorities. So I am certainly hopeful that I will be confirmed and just get up every day and try to do my job the best that I can for the people of Wisconsin.

Zac Schultz:

In just a few seconds, do you think holding off confirmation gives Republicans any leverage over you?

Andrea Palm:

Well you know it’s never any fun to be called up in front of the Legislature to be accountable for x or y, but they have the ability to do that any day of the week. So I think building those relationships and having an open and transparent working relationship with them is the key to all of this.

Zac Schultz:

Andrea Palm, thank you for your time today.

Andrea Palm:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

Now to agriculture news out of the Capitol. A bipartisan package of bills has been introduced aiming to help family farmers of all ages, including reducing student loan debt for new farmers and helping older farmers plan for the next generation to take over. One of the cosponsors of one of the bills is Republican Senator Patrick Testin, who joins us now from Stevens Point. Thanks for your time today.

Patrick Testin:

Great to be on.

Zac Schultz:

What’s difference about handing down the family farm than in the past and how will this bill help that?

Patrick Testin:

Well, farm succession, it’s a really tough discussion, and currently right now when you take a look at the average age of our farmers, it’s approaching around 56, 57 years old. We don’t have that next generation taking up the mantel to take over that family farm. As a result of that, we’ve seen a record number of bankruptcies of our small family farms. We certainly don’t want those to disappear in rural Wisconsin. They have served as a backbone in our state’s economy since the founding of our state. We want to be able to make sure our farmers have the ability to start those conversations. And we think the Farm Succession Bill is going to do just that so we can ensure small family farms remain a staple in our rural communities.

Zac Schultz:

In the past, in older generations it was usually the oldest son or one of the sons would take over the farm and work on it and eventually inherit and a lot of the other children might be off on their own. Nowadays it seems like the parents want to split it up evenly and that often causes issues with one child not being able to afford to buy out the rest. Will this help address that?

Patrick Testin:

We hope so. As you just mentioned, today’s agricultural economy, I mean, it is really big business. And the amount of capitol that you to even operate a farm, it’s intensive. I think that’s one of the main reasons why you’re seeing less and less people take up the issue of farming and taking over the family farm just because it’s rigorous work. We are in a five-year low farm economy. We have low commodity prices. With the trade war going on, hopefully we can get new trade deals put in place but in the meantime, we need to make sure there are resources available for that succession. That when farmers are nearing the end of their career and they’re going to hang up their boots, that when they sit down, have these discussions, it’s not so difficult. This is really what this bill aims to do is start that process, lay out a plan and ensure that when they hand down the farm to either a family member or someone else, that it’s a smooth transition.

Zac Schultz:

You mentioned the trade war. How have Donald Trump’s agriculture tariffs affected farmers in your district?

Patrick Testin:

Yeah, I mean I’ve had a lot of conversations with farmers throughout the 24 Senate district. Some of them are feeling the pinch, there’s no question about it. But I think many of them are trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. They want free trade. They want fair trade. And hopefully they’re optimistic. Many of them are holding out that we can get new deals put in place for the USMC and new trade deal with China that hopefully address some of these issues and ensure that it’s equitable across the board.

Zac Schultz:

Do you support this path of introducing tariffs to force this issue?

Patrick Testin:

Well, really, I mean, it’s a — for me, I’m a free trade guy, but this is one of those issues where I think for years countries like China have taken advantage of the U.S. And so in this particular instance, I’m trying to give the president the benefit of the doubt to go to the negotiating table, hopefully have the Chinese government come to the table. And hopefully we can come to an agreement on some new deals that are going to be in the best interest of not only Wisconsin, but the U.S. as well as China.

Zac Schultz:

Now, other bills in this package, include a proposal to help student loan debt for new farmers. Do you support that bill? Is there really student loan debt that’s preventing farmers from getting into this industry?

Patrick Testin:

Well, student loan debt’s a big issue. I just read an article yesterday that I believe student loan debt here in the state is pushing around $23 billion. When you take a look at just the simple cost to get into agriculture, when you take a look that a harvester or combiner can cost upwards of $300,000, $400,000, $500,000. That is a significant amount of cash. So this bill is going to help alleviate some of the hurdles of entry into farming. It’s certainly worth having that conversation and see if there’s going to be enough support for it in the legislature.

Zac Schultz:

There’s been a push for looking at student loan debt for all borrowers, not just agriculture. Would you look at the entire student loan pack industry?

Patrick Testin:

It’s really tough because a lot of this is now dictated by the federal government. But if there were ways that we can try and refinance loans, I’m certainly open to that conversation. The tricky part is is that student loan debt, it’s a risky business because when you’re 18, 19 years old, you don’t have a long live credit history. And for financial institutions, that’s a huge risk. If we could find a proposal that if there’s been a fiscally responsible borrower who has had a strong credit history, maybe they should be able to refinance their student loan debt and pursue options. I know there’s been discussions that we should create an authority here within the state of Wisconsin, but the tradeoff is is that if we were to go to a state option, borrowers would have to look at what that would mean if they took that option because it could mean your lose your income-based repayment plans and other plans provided through the U.S. Department of Education.

Zac Schultz:

Senator Testin, thank you for your time today.

Patrick Testin:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

There are more changes to the proposed Foxconn operation in Wisconsin. The company put out a statement that Louis Woo, the executive who led much of the project, is stepping down for personal reasons. It’s just the latest development that has officials wondering whether Foxconn will ever deliver on their promise to deliver 13,000 jobs to Wisconsin. It’s not just officials. Homeowners who lost their property to make way for the proposed factory are not happy either. Joining us now is Wisconsin Public Radio’s Corrinne Hess, who has new reporting on the topic posted with our partners at the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism. Thanks for your time today.

Corrinne Hess:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

Now, who are these homeowners that sold their land away to make way for Foxconn and why are they not happy now?

Corrinne Hess:

Well, from the beginning of the project, Mount Pleasant said that they would acquire all of this property for Foxconn. It’s about 3,000 acres. So what they did was they began sending letters to homeowners letting them know that their property would be taken through a process called eminent domain. And some of these homeowners have realized that the road projects that they were told about are not happening. And so they’re pretty upset.

Zac Schultz:

Now, for the people — there are still people staying there that have refused to move. Do they want a better deal to move out or are they looking to stay there permanently?

Corrinne Hess:

There is a woman who has refused to move. Her name’s Kim Mahoney. She has been looking for a better deal. She’s since been told they don’t want her property anymore. They’re going to put a fence around her home. There is another couple, Cathy and Rodney Jensen. Their property, they were told that the village wanted .13 acres for a road project, but they were going to take all three acres of the property. They did not move. The village has since bought their land and they’re in a federal lawsuit right now.

Zac Schultz:

So are there people that actually want to go back there or is this about money at this point?

Corrinne Hess:

Well, the thing is is that they can’t go back. All of these homes have been bulldozed. So there’s nothing to go back to. And it’s really not about money. The people that I’ve talked to are pretty happy with what they’ve gotten. They got well above the assessed value of their homes. It’s more about how the village went about acquiring the property and what they believe they were told in relation to what’s going on down there.

Zac Schultz:

Do you get a sense that the Department of Transportation or Administration under Tony Evers is handling this any differently than when Scott Walker was in charge?

Corrinne Hess:

No. I really don’t. I reached out to the Department of Transportation. They really did not talk to me at all. I was given documents under the open records law. But they did not agree to any interviews.

Zac Schultz:

And will any of these connector roads ever get built or will DOT be waiting until Foxconn actually starts manufacturing something?

Corrinne Hess:

You know, there is some road work being done, but definitely not to the extent that was originally planned.

Zac Schultz:

So is the end result of this mostly just ill will between the people that live there and the village that went about working for Foxconn and the state?

Corrinne Hess:

Unfortunately, yes. The people that I talked to and others, they’ve been packing these village meetings and there is a lot of ill will down there right now. I’m not sure how that gets repaired.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Corrinne Hess reporting from Milwaukee, thanks for your time.

Corrinne Hess:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

Now to politics and the results of the latest Marquette University Law School Poll. Here with the results of the new survey is the director of the poll, Charles Franklin. Thanks for your time again.

Charles Franklin:

Good to be here.

Zac Schultz:

So we’re 14 months out from November of 2020 and Donald Trump is either trailing or tied with the top four Democrats in your poll.

Charles Franklin:

That’s right. We see Joe Biden with a nine-point lead, followed by Bernie Sanders with a four-point lead. But then Elizabeth Warren ties at 45 and Kamala Harris ties at 44. We asked about those four candidates because they’ve been in the top four in national polling averages. We’ll change that as the polling averages change or the candidates change.

Zac Schultz:

In regards to the neither category, that’s pretty consistent with what we saw in 2016. You’ve told us in the past, as we get closer to the elections, those people do actually make a choice.

Charles Franklin:

I think that’s generally right. Now, in 2016 we saw an unusually large third-party vote here. And we also saw nearly 100,000 fewer voters going to the polls in 2016 compared to 2012. So there are multiple ways that you can choose to vote for one of the two parties anyway, vote for a third party or stay home. We saw all of that at work in 2016.

Zac Schultz:

Now, Trump’s approval rating is also upside down and not changed since April. So is Wisconsin still the proverbial swing state that the national media is focusing on?

Charles Franklin:

I think we are the swing state. And the way to think about this is of the last five presidential elections here, three of them have been divided by less than one percentage point. The governor’s race was decided by just over one percentage point last year. So the idea that we are anything other than a swing state I think is just wrong. President Trump’s favorability ratings are a bit better here now than they were in ’16, though they are still under water, as is his job approval. So he’s in some ways in better shape now than he was then, but in other ways, he’s still falling short of that 50% approval which he’s never hit in our polling.

Zac Schultz:

And you mentioned the Democratic primary. Wisconsin comes in April, pretty late in the process. How much should we take into those numbers now and how much will be changed by what happens before then?

Charles Franklin:

All of these numbers, the primary and the general, should be thought of as we’re in the middle of the second inning of the ball game. It’s a long ways to the bottom of the ninth and a final score. But we want to watch how the game progresses. Which teams rally and which fall off throughout the course. So I think that’s the way to look at it. Not as these are predictions. In the Dem, we saw Biden in first place at 28, followed by Sanders at 20 and Warren at 17. So that’s in line with what we’re seeing in national polling. But again a long time to go. And they’ve been busy paying attention to Iowa. We haven’t seen as much of those candidates yet.

Zac Schultz:

Meanwhile, thinking about the economy, people think it’s doing okay now, but they’re not very optimistic about the future.

Charles Franklin:

They’re more pessimistic about the future than we’ve actually ever seen in our poll since January 2012. A net negative 11 say the economy will get worse over the next year rather than better. And the average for 2019 across three polls is negative three. At no point in the time that we’ve been doing the poll has any individual poll been net negative and certainly not the average for a year. Now, that’s three polls taken since January here and opinions of the economy can fluctuate. We had an okay jobs report today, for example. But I think it is certainly a warning sign that the public that has been very positive about the economy since 2017, at least, is now beginning to see some concerns on the horizon.

Zac Schultz:

And in regards to polling and how people feel about this, consumer optimism does matter when it comes to how it plays out in the economy, whether people spend money.

Charles Franklin:

It absolutely does because you need to be optimistic about what’s coming before you go get that new car or refrigerator or buy a new house. You know, the good news is our unemployment rate is still exceptionally low. But this notion that people are feeling uncertain about the future is something to worry about. It means that President Trump does not have as high an approval on the economy here. It’s 49 to 50, as he has seen in some national polling earlier in the year, when he was getting 53 to 55% economic approval.

Zac Schultz:

I do want to touch on the issue of gun control legislation and universal background checks. In your notes on the poll, you mention which mass shootings came before the poll and which ones came over. But it doesn’t seem to matter anymore. One, they’re coming so often but two, it hasn’t changed.

Charles Franklin:

It hasn’t. I think that does reflect how many mass shootings over the last five or ten years there have been. We saw a little rise in support for background checks from the ’70s to the ’80s over the last few years, but for the last two or three years, it’s been around 80% or so. It’s was 81 last time we asked. It’s 80% this time. That includes over 75% of gun households and over 80% of non-gun households. And red flag laws are similarly high, 81% support. And again, in both gun and non-gun households. It’s banning assault weapons that’s more divisive. 56% or 57% still support that. But now gun households are evenly divided so there’s more division on that issue.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Charles Franklin, thanks for your time.

Charles Franklin:

Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

Now for some political comings and goings. Republican U.S. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner announced this week he will not seek another term in Congress. Sensenbrenner was first elected to his Waukesha area seat in 1978. His retirement is already setting up a large Republican primary for next year. To the east, in the city of Milwaukee, Democratic State Senator Lena Taylor announced she’s running for mayor. Incumbent Mayor Tom Barrett has yet to announce if he’s running for re-election.

Finally tonight, Governor Evers has made his final choice to round out his cabinet. The lame duck laws prevented him from choosing his own CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation until September. This week, Evers nominated Missy Hughes, who is coming from the Organic Valley Coop. That’s all for tonight. Frederica Freyberg returns 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.