Here & Now

In Wisconsin, the unemployment rate fell to 3.1%, according to numbers from the Department of Workforce Development released Thursday. That's the lowest since 1999. With companies saying they struggle to fill skilled positions, President Donald Trump Thursday signed an executive order to expand apprenticeships with Governor Scott Walker looking on. Earlier in the week the president came to Wisconsin and toured Waukesha County Technical College to highlight his $200 million expansion of apprenticeships and job training. The plan cuts some government programs and increases private partnerships. An organization called the Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership runs a program called "Big Step," which trains about 800 people a year to get apprenticeships in the building trades. Its president, Mark Kessenich, joins us from Milwaukee with his reaction to the executive order. Thanks very much for being here. Good evening, great to be with you. What is your reaction to the president's push to expand apprenticeships? Well, first of all, we applaud the president for highlighting apprenticeship as one of the nation's key training and education infrastructures. It is something that has been somewhat of lost or forgotten part of our economy. But for those that don't know, in the building and construction trades, apprenticeship has been the stalwart of how we built most of the infrastructure across the country. It's been the bedrock. What we're seeing now is kind of an extension of President Obama's challenge to double the number of apprenticeships by 2020. Many don't remember that push at the end of his administration, but this is a bit of a continuation, as well as a recognition that apprenticeship can be applied across many sectors, including the industrial service sectors, information technology future we are going to have. So we have to find a way to better educate and train our workforce. And frankly, as the economy begins to really catch fire, the best way to do that is to give people an opportunity to earn while they learn. That's kind of what we say in apprenticeship. You get to work. You get to earn a living and you're going to school at the same time. So it's the best of both worlds in an environment where employers really need a workforce and they need it now. Describe what your organization does toward preparing people for these apprenticeships. Sure. The primary focus of our organization is really to recruit and attract individuals to careers, not just jobs. So, in order to do that, we provide apprenticeship-readiness programming that provides tutoring, hands-on training, as well as that kind of career advising and mentoring that's necessary for someone to get into a particular career and then ultimately succeed. The most important part of the work though is really connecting those individuals to where the opportunities are. Since we're a very demand-driven organization, meaning we prepare people for jobs that exist, not jobs that we wish existed. So part of this work is really connecting contractors and businesses directly to the work force in a more meaningful way. At the same time that the administration is pushing for this expansion, the proposed executive budget would cut the U.S. Department of Labor's budget by I understand about 20%, including some employment services, saying that they're duplicate programs that can be trimmed. What's your reaction to that? In general, you know, the diminishing investment in workforce development efforts is always troubling. Any time there's a cut to one program, it impacts other programs. So while we don't know the full extent to which this budget will be adopted by Congress, we do know that we need to continue to push the president and our elected officials to understand that these aren't programs. These are actually investments in the future of the American workforce. While we would support and applaud making sure that we have the most efficient, best practices in workforce development, we know that cutting programs isn't necessarily the way just to get there. Why is there what many regard as a skills gap between people who need jobs and employers who need workers? Well, that's a complicated question on some levels. But I think the short answer is there's both a skills gap and a wage gap. In other words, right now we have people looking for work who really are looking to make more money. And so how do we bridge between a lower end of the labor market and upper end of the labor market requiring more skills. How do people who are working actually gain the skills they need to advance in the labor market? But the other part is, we're going through a demographic shift. It's been discussed in academia for ten, twenty years now that at some point the baby boom is going to come to an end. And the real question is, who is going to replace that highly-skilled workforce. And we are beginning to see that problem. You know, layered in with that, we do have certain areas around the country and pockets around the country where, you know, the social challenges of education and poverty have really left a large number of people not only not prepared for the world of work, but they're not prepared for the world of high-skilled work. So, we're working on strategies to try to bridge those gaps as well. All right. I guess we need to leave it there. This is great stuff. Mark Kessenich, thanks very much. My pleasure, thank you. This news this week. Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gable man has announced will not run for re-election, saying he feels he has done everything on the court that he set out to do. Gable man was lead author on opinions upholding the Act 10 law that effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers. A spokesman says it is Justice Gable man's intention at this point to finish his term and not leave early. Three candidates have announced their plans to run for the seat that is up in April. They are Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Rebecca Dalit, Madison attorney Tim Burns and Sauk County Circuit Court Judge Michael Screnock. The legislator's budget writing committee Thursday voted unanimously to reject Governor Walker's proposal to switch to a self-insurance plan for state employees. The committee did vote to increase health insurance premiums for state workers by as much as 10%. Employees at Wisconsin Public TV are covered under those plans. The state Assembly this week passed a resolution demanding a convention of states to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The vote now goes to the state Senate. Under the resolution, Wisconsin would become the 28th state of 34 states needed to force a convention, to add the budget amendment. Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows a convention for proposing amendments to be held if two-thirds of the states, or 34 states, call for one. Now to take effect, any amendments passed at convention would have to be approved by three-quarters of the states, or 38 states. Opponents worry this could lead to all kind of revisions to the Constitution. In tonight's Closer Look, we have both sides of this issue, starting with a lead sponsor of the resolution, Republican Representative Kathy Bernier of Chippewa Falls. Thanks very much for being here. You're very welcome. My pleasure to be here. First we want to ask, why do you want to do this? Well I think the federal government and the $20 trillion in debt along with all of the money they've taken from our Social Security benefits is the primary reason. It is to get the federal government to stop utilizing dollars for the futures of our children and our grandchildren, and to get a grasp of our finances so that we have a more secure future. This plan, though, is certainly without historic precedent. No constitutional convention has been held since the Constitution was framed in 1787. Amendments since then have been proposed by Congress and approved by the states. Why do you need to buck history on this and go this route? Well, I don't see it as bucking history. I just see it as a provision in the Constitution that has not yet been utilized. James Madison and George Mason had a significant discussion about why this provision should be a part of Article V. And that is when the states, the representative of the state see that the federal government is out of control and that there is one mechanism to change the Constitution, to assist in that process. And so it has not yet been done. And it took three years for George Washington and James Madison to gather the states back in 1787, to get to that point of amending the Articles of Confederation. So with 50 states clearly it's going to be a lot more effort and a lot more energy. And yet, once we reach a certain point, say, 30 states or 32 states, then potentially Congress will act. And that is what happened with many of the other amendments to the Constitution. Ok. So, you view this as kind of pushing them toward that. A big push. Well, what about the concerns on the part of critics that this opens the door to all kinds of revisions of the Constitution? Well, my colleagues and I, and the Assembly of state legislators, is a group of legislators from as many as 34 states over the last four and a half years have worked on this particular issue. Setting up the rules, making sure that there is a process in place, and trying to figure out what the concerns are of a run-away convention, to determine that if that is the real legitimate concern and we have determined it is not. The checks and balances were built in by the founding fathers just in the provision of having the amendment, whatever comes out of the convention, having to be ratified by 38 states. And in all but one state, there are two houses in each state. If something comes out of there that is not specific to the petition, which is a balanced budget amendment, likely it will not be ratified by the states and it will be -- it will go nowhere. Democrats on the floor of the Assembly this week though said that there are actually not legal provisions preventing other additions. And if that's true, what if additions included things liberals might push like reversing "Citizens United." We had that discussion, too. We have worked really hard to get both Democrats and Republicans involved in ASL, and that is a potential. But, once again, we are a nation of laws and rules. And for the most part, most of the citizens in the United States follow the rules and follow the laws. And when they're sent by their state to do just a balanced budget amendment and they are a group that go off and do something else, there is nothing that I would -- I can only speculate, but I think that if you're a member of an organization and you have a group of people that go off and do something that they are not specifically there to do, then you adjourn the convention and just stop it right then and there. Very quickly with less than half a minute left, as for the resolution calling for this balanced budget, does that tie the hands of the federal government in spending decision, some of which might be needed for, say, national security or other needs? No, it is a general provision calling for a convention to balance the budget. A budget can be balanced with still allowing to borrow, to pay off long-term debt. It also can allow for emergencies, such as for defense, and various other emergencies. So, that is what the delegates would hammer out. The actual wording of how and why the federal government between the time that they balanced the budget and they go to the next budget that they can have provisions. I foresee there would be provisions in case of emergency. We need to leave it there. Representative Kathy Bernier, thank you very much for joining us. You're welcome. Opponents of the move to revise the U.S. Constitution to add a balanced budget amendment say it could lead to a runaway train of revisions to the most hallowed document of the American government. Jay Heck is executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin. He joins us with his position on this. Thanks for being here. Great to see you again, Fred, thanks. As to your concern about this resulting in a runaway train of these kinds of revisions to the Constitution, the plan approved in the Assembly, and in other states would limit the purpose, though, to this balanced budget amendment, so why isn't that iron clad? You know, we have had one constitutional convention in the history of the country, 1787. They gathered in Philadelphia. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin. These were the people that laid the foundation for the country and for the Constitution. They violated the rules of the Articles of Confederation when they gathered in Philadelphia. The article said that all of the states, all 13 colonies had to agree to the Constitution. And when Rhode Island refused to do so, they changed the rules. They said, "Well, ok, maybe three-quarters of the colonies have to agree." 9 of 13. There's nothing to prevent once you assemble a constitution convention, from changing even the rules that states like Wisconsin have made going into it. That's the reason why we have not used this method to amend the constitution since 1787. Every other time we've gone through the process by which two-thirds of each house of Congress, three-quarters of the legislature approve it. And look, the Republicans control both Houses of Congress. They control the presidency. They control most of the state legislatures. An overwhelming majority in Wisconsin. If they want a balanced budget amendment, put one forward and let's have a vote on it. As to the Constitution being opened up this way to revisions and new amendments, what kinds of revisions do you envision and are you concerned about? Well, there's no telling. I mean, that's the problem. Because there are no rules stipulated anywhere, which govern such a convention. Some people have suggested this would be a great opportunity to do, to go beyond a balanced budget amendment and take a look, and maybe revisit the 18-year-old vote. You know, that was actually the last constitutional amendment of any substance that was enacted, that was in 1971. Maybe there's a feeling now amongst conservatives that 18-year-olds are too young to vote. What's -- while we going to do the balanced budget amendment, let's change that. Hey, let's revisit a woman's right to vote. Prohibition was a good idea in 1918, wasn't it? Let's have prohibition. Do you really believe that, though? I don't know what they would do. The problem is that it has not been done since 1787. And I certainly respect Kathy Bernier and Robin Vos and Chris Kananga and all the others that are putting forth these ideas but they're not George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Those are the people that had a convention and I don't think we ought to mess with the product they concocted. As for a balanced budget amendment how concerning is that to you on its face? It's concerning in the sense that again, if you -- it's a dodge, for one thing. If you want to balance the budget, put forth a balanced budget and stipulate how you are going to, what you are going to cut in government. They can't even do that in Wisconsin. They're trying right now to come up with resolutions to funding for schools, K-12, and for roads. And Governor Walker wants to put it on the credit card. The Assembly wants to raise revenues. So, if you want a balanced budget, first of all, you have to, I think, lay out what that balanced budget would look like. Secondly, there's no question that in times of economic recession, 2009, for instance, an infusion of money on the part of the federal government into the economy, protected the country from plunging into a depression. That couldn't happen under a balanced budget amendment. But you know the other thing that's most concerning is there's no popular support for this. If you look at who registered for these measures in the Wisconsin Legislature before the public hearings, only two entities registered in favor of it. Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and a Republican state senator. Dozens and hundreds of people called and registered against this measure. And Representative Todd Milaca, a Republican from Dodgeville said he heard from Republicans and Democrats. They both said to him, "Don't mess with the Constitution." All right. We'll see where it goes. Jay Heck, thanks very much. - Thank you. The state senate still has to vote on that resolution. Now to Milwaukee, where in one 3-day period this month, the medical examiner saw 12 drug overdoses. The county projects Milwaukee could see more than 400 overdose deaths in 2017. Between 2005 and 2014, deaths due to heroin increased by 495%. Those are lots of numbers that represent the human toll that opioids, including a new and powerful sedative used for large animals call Carfentanil, is taking in Milwaukee. The city's health commissioner is leading a new city-county task force on heroin, opioids and cocaine. Bevan Baker joins us now. Thanks very much for doing so. Thank for having me. The numbers suggest an explosion of this problem in Milwaukee. How do you rank it in terms of public health issues in your city? Certainly the crisis is hot on our list at this time. We are seeing this explosion not only here in Wisconsin, but across the nation. So, this is indeed something that we've got to get our arms around and we need a public health approach to do it. Well, as you say, this is happening nationwide. What is fueling this? Well we have to go back a little bit. We know that prescription drug practices many years ago-- we're paying a dividend for it in terms of how people become addicted to over-the-counter medication. Heroin is cheaper. And some of the control measures have pushed us to this point. We need everyone, including physicians, to wrap their arms around the issue. The president this week declared the feds are going to come down hard on the massive drug problem, pointing to the borders and presumably interdiction, is that reassuring to someone in your position? I want to see federal support at any level. And law enforcement is good to be working on this. But this is just not a law enforcement issue alone. This is truly a public health epidemic we need to curl back. So, having Washington push forward and look at our borders is important. But we need other types of intervention from Washington. So speaking of other types of intervention, though, how will a task force that you're leading try to tackle this problem? I think we need to make certain everyone in our county and our city, and across our state, understands the true human toll here. This is indeed just like any other public health crisis. One that we need to go to the root causes and we need to be able to put resources where they need to be and look at prevention as our goal. I'm working with so many dedicated professionals on the task force. I believe we're going to make some effort here. And we have great support from the state of Wisconsin. I'm proud to say that. You, a moment ago, said that you needed more from Washington, like what? Well, what we need is -- Wisconsin recently was a recipient of about $7.6 million. We need more prevention dollars to come. We need them to loosen up some of the criteria in terms of billing where more helping professionals, mental health professionals, can actually get paid to do the work as it relates to counseling and intervention. Where do you start with prevention? I think we start upstream, way upstream. We need to make certain people respect the drugs in their medicine cabinet. We need to make certain that parents, guardians and others who have custody of children are talking to children about the concerns around medication management. And we need to make certain that medical schools and nursing schools and anyone that's going to be involved in making certain that individuals can prescribe medications understand the power they have. We have to go way upstream. Aren't medical professionals already doing that? Well, I think that they're starting to do it. They are -- here in Milwaukee, the Medical Society of Milwaukee County has made it one of their top priority issues. But still, there are people who go from provider to provider to get medications once they have an addiction. We've got to figure out a way to either do it through information technology, and through our the practices to make certain that we can help those individuals but not let them shop for over-the-counter prescriptions and then lead them to the road of heroin addiction. Very briefly, I understand you just had a task force meeting this morning and heard from members of the public. What did you hear? Well, those stories from the public at large are heart wrenching. And we're always inviting that at the task force level. They have skin in the game and they have vested interest. We want to make certain as a task force that we're inspired and we're also directed by the public to make certain that Milwaukee city and county and the state of Wisconsin are safe for us all. All right, Bevan Baker, thanks very much. In tonight's Wisconsin Look, at week's end, another dead-end for lawmakers seeking to solve the state transportation budget problem. Governor Walker and the state legislature still can't come to an agreement on transportation funding. Many legislators are open to raising the gas tax, but Governor Walker is strongly opposed to that idea. Among other approaches to new revenue, some lawmakers are now considering toll roads. We went to a rest stop on I-90 near Janesville to see what travelers think about putting tolls on Wisconsin roads. Well, I see toll roads, being from Illinois, they are maintained a little bit better than the roads that are not toll. And mainly I go probably in Milwaukee, 5, 6 times a year, and I-43 between Madison and Milwaukee is probably not the greatest. It's like a rumble strip for about 60 miles. Well, I think that's probably not a very good idea. Seems to me that the highways serve the public good and not just the people traveling on it. I have traveled on roads in Illinois and other places that have tolls and I find it quite annoying. I don't think it's a bad idea generally. I'm from Minnesota. And Minnesota could do that, too. As long as it's major highways, and the funds are dedicated for the highway. I don't think putting tolls is a good idea, because we already pay taxes, right so that money can be used to fund maintenance of the interstate and highways. So, it's extra burden on the public. And finally tonight, a Look Ahead to next week. That's when Zac Schultz will have a report on the median income tax in Wisconsin and how your tax dollars are spent. Until then, I'm Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend. Funding for "Here & Now" is provided in part by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.