>> I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on "Here and Now" a first look at President Donald
Trump's promise to help Wisconsin dairy farmers.
After that a closer look at the legislature's new "Right to
Carry" bill.
Then in our look ahead segment, potential impact of changes
afoot for state Medicaid enrollees.
And Shawn Johnson on the State Supreme Court recusal
controversy in tonight's Capitol Insight.
It's "Here and Now" for April 21.
>> Funding for "Here and Now" is provided in part by Friends of
Wisconsin Public Television.
>> We're also going to stand up for our dairy farmers in
Wisconsin.
[applause]
And I've been reading about it.
I've been talking about it for a long time, and that demands
really immediately fair trade with all of our trading partners
and that includes Canada.
[applause]
Because in Canada, some very unfair things have happened to
our dairy farmers and others.
And we're going to start working on that with Ron and with Scott
and with Paul and with all of your representatives.
What's happened to you is very, very unfair.
It's another typical one-sided deal against the United States.
And it's not going to be happening for long.
So Scott, you and Ron and myself and Paul and everybody else,
we're going to get together and we're going to call Canada and
we're going to say, "What happened?"
And they might give us an answer but we're going to get the
solution, not just the answer, okay?
Cause we know what the solution is, all right?
[applause]
>> President Donald Trump wades in trying to fix a problem that
could put some Wisconsin dairy farmers out of business.
The president made these comments during his trip to
Kenosha this week after scores of farmers learned earlier this
month that their processor would no longer buy their milk citing
Canadian regulations preventing its export.
The president brought welcome attention to the issue but how
might he fair?
We turn to Mark Stephenson with the UW-Madison Program on Dairy
Marketing and Policy.
Thanks for being here.
>> You're very welcome.
>> Let's unpack some of what President Trump had to say about
this situation.
He made it sound like he would call Canada and get a quick
solution.
At least he would start working on this immediately.
Is there an immediate or quick solution?
>> I presume there could be, but I doubt that that will be the
case.
Canada has a very highly protectionist dairy industry and
they've never moved quickly on things in the past.
And I think that foot dragging would be what is likely to be
the case this time.
>> Meanwhile for the farmers like those whom we visited last
week out of Waterloo, they tell us this week that they think
it's great that the president has kind of gotten involved.
But that they need this short-term solution because as
of May 1, they lose their processor, their market for
their milk.
So then they say at least they'd be looking for a long-term
solution.
But for farmers like Jennifer and Shane Sauer that we visited
with who have not yet found a processor to sell to, what can
they do?
>> Well there's a lot that's being done on their behalf right
now trying to find a processing home for the milk.
One of the problems we have at this point in time is just that
we have a tremendous amount of milk on the marketplace and
there really doesn't appear to be any dairy processor who is
anxious to pick up more milk.
So it would be almost altruistic for a dairy processor to pick up
a few of these farms to help relieve some of that situation.
It's short-term, I think, an issue but farms cannot go
without selling milk for a very long period of time before, you
know, they've lost all the profit they would have for the
year.
>> For someone like yourself who knows so much about this, what
is that like?
>> Oh, it's a tremendous problem and an issue.
As I said I think that farms are experiencing a great deal of
stress right now because there is not an obvious answer to
this.
We have had a few of the farms picked up by a couple of plants
and we hope that more will be.
But the truth of the matter is we still have more than half of
the milk that was originally lost their home that has not
found a new home yet.
>> What would be a long-term solution?
>> Long-term solution will find new markets for dairy products.
It could be for exports overseas.
Our domestic market has been robust and we can pick up a few
of these items in the marketplace as well.
But, you know, those are things that are going to take months
and we've got maybe a few weeks that these farmers could go.
>> Now President Trump described what Canada was doing as some
very unfair things.
Congressional leaders here in Wisconsin have also declared
that Canada is practicing unfair trade practices.
Is that true?
>> I think they can be viewed as being unfair.
They've created a new class of milk or dairy product that is
going to be priced at so-called competitive or world prices,
which are much lower than their internal or domestic prices are.
And this is clearly done as a strategy to help avoid, you
know, the cross-border movement of these dairy products from the
U.S.
into Canada.
>> And so as the U.S.
has done in the past, could we sue Canada over this?
>> We can.
In fact, our -- the likelihood is that we will bring a lawsuit
against the Canada through the World Trade Organization, the
appellate court there but that's years.
That had happened back in 1990s and it took probably four years
before that was settled.
>> What role does the over-production of milk in the
U.S.
or globally play in all of this?
>> It certainly plays a role and locally right here at home, it
plays a substantial role.
We've had farms that have been dropped from a processing home
in the past and usually that's no headline at all because
there's some other processor waiting to pick that farm up.
The difference right now is that in my 30 years of working in the
dairy industry I've never seen this kind of thing happen when
you can't even cajole people into thinking about a little bit
longer term use of this milk and dairy product for their plants.
>> Canada says the U.S.
itself is to blame because it doesn't manage its dairy
production.
What about that?
>> There are very few countries that do manage their dairy
production.
Canada is certainly one of those.
They have a quota-based system that allows each dairy farmer
the privilege of selling a certain amount of kilograms of
butterfat into the marketplace every day.
We don't have that.
Most countries with substantial dairy industry doesn't have
anything like that.
>> So this is kind of what happens when the market comes to
bear?
>> The market comes to bear.
We've had very good season for producing milk.
The cows are doing very well.
Farmers are responding to coming off of two years of low milk
prices with now moderate milk prices
and they are producing more milk.
>> All right. Mark Stephenson, thanks very much.
>> You're welcome.
>> In tonight's closer look, Wisconsin could become the next
state to allow people to carry concealed guns without a permit.
A bill introduced by Republican lawmakers is being called "Right
to Carry" and if passed would mean a person would no longer
have to go through the process of applying for a state license
which requires a background check and training.
The legislation would also allow carrying guns in places like
schools and police stations as long as they're not posted
against it.
A violation of that posting order would result in a
misdemeanor, not a felony.
Wisconsin has issued more than 300,000 concealed carry permits
since that law went into effect in 2011.
Before that, it was already legal to openly carry a gun.
Authors like to call their new bill "Right to Carry."
>> Let's talk about what state law is right now.
State law right now says you can walk into a gun shop, you can
purchase a gun, I can slap it on my hip and I can walk wherever
it's legal to carry.
What I can't do is put a sweater on.
We're taking that out and saying now you have the legal right to
put that sweater on.
We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't say you have a constitutional right to keep and
bear arms if the government gives you permission to do so.
>> Because under the proposed legislation, the state
permitting process that requires a background check and training
to carry a concealed weapon would go away.
>> It's $40 for the permit.
The classes can range from anywhere from $50 to $100.
I mean this is just--I don't want the right to defend
yourself to be a financial burden, either.
>> Opponents say they're surprised by the bill.
>> When we passed concealed carry back about four, five
years ago it was sold on the basis that you would have to
have a permit.
You would have to be trained and we would do a background check.
So this flies in the face of those two major provisions.
It would be permitless so you wouldn't need training.
But you also wouldn't have a background check anymore,
either.
>> This gun shop and shooting range is owned by a local police
officer.
>> The problem with a firearm is there's so much involved in it.
It's not just having a firearm.
There's the fundamentals of knowing how to efficiently use
the firearm.
Are you safe with a firearm?
Do you know how to shoot the firearm?
But more importantly do you have
to know how to justify the use of force?
You have to make sure that you know what deadly force is.
>> Even now under the current concealed carry law there is no
training requirement to actually handle a gun before getting a
permit.
>> Up with your right hand.
Index finger going to go alongside the frame,
not on the trigger.
>> Basic mistakes stand out to expert trainers.
>> Most people the first time they come in they handle a gun,
you can just see it the way they handle it.
Their finger is out on the trigger right away.
The direction of their muzzle is poor.
>> Okay, so fingers off the trigger.
You're good.
>> As a person who's a second amendment supporter,
everybody should own or have a gun
but I don't think that you should be able to just carry
just because you have the right to do it.
I think there should be some requirement
for training purposes.
>> Press, press, press, bang.
>> The National Rifle Association disagrees.
>> The NRA really believes that training should be left up to
the person and the individual.
I mean people know that's what they need.
A lot of people in Wisconsin have grown up in a hunting
tradition.
They've had firearms as part of their lives since they were
children and to have to jump through government hoops to have
to pay fees, to sit in classes that are really unnecessary for
them just to exercise a constitutional right, we think
that should be left to the person.
>> Wisconsin's so-called "Right to Carry" legislation is based
off what the NRA calls "Constitutional Carry."
>> This bill goes even way beyond even "Constitutional
Carry" in that there is a presumption now that you can
carry guns on school grounds and schools and police stations and
secure mental health facilities.
>> Under the bill bans against carrying firearms in those
places are eliminated but would allow locations to be posted
as prohibiting guns.
>> So what we did in this legislation is we took the state
out of it.
Where we repealed the state's gun-free school zone law.
The federal gun-free school zone law is still in effect and all
school districts, all schools, municipalities, government
entities, universities, mental healthcare facilities and
private landowners still have the right to post their
property.
>> It reduced the penalties for carrying a gun into these
dangerous places and it would no longer be a felony if you are
violating that law.
It would only be a misdemeanor.
>> We asked Governor Scott Walker this week if he supported
the proposed legislation.
>> I did sign a right to carry.
"Concealed Carry" is one of the most popular in the country
and I think it works just fine the way it is right now.
We've got a program where we've had one of the largest numbers
of any state in terms of people signing up for "Concealed Carry"
and I think it works fine the way it is right now.
>> The bill has been referred to the Committee on State Affairs.
A look ahead now to proposed changes to the state Medicaid
program.
Changes Governor Walker forecast in his February budget address.
>> For all who are able, we want to enable them to work.
"Wisconsin Works for Everyone" builds off of the positive
welfare reform started by my friend and yours, former
Governor Tommy Thompson under what was then called "Wisconsin
Works" or W2.
We want to ensure that people who are able to work actually
enter the work force.
For starters, that means that able-bodied adults will need to
be employed at least 80 hours a month to receive benefits like
food stamps.
If not, they'll need to be enrolled in our job training
program.
On top of that, we're working with the new administration and
Congress to get approval to expand drug testing for people
seeking public assistance.
If they fail the test, we provide treatment to get them
healthy and back into the workforce.
>> This week the Walker administration released a draft
of the application to the federal government requesting a
waiver to make changes to the state's Medicaid or BadgerCare
Plus program.
This is healthcare for able-bodied childless adults
aged 19 to 64 who are at or below the poverty level.
Wisconsin is asking to require drug screening to be eligible,
limit benefits to 48 months if the person isn't working or
training for work, establish premiums up to $10 a month,
reward healthy behaviors and increase co-pays for ER visits.
The waiver wants to allow for full coverage of inpatient
substance abuse treatment.
The administration expects to submit its application next
month.
No one from the administration would join us to talk about the
sought after changes.
Medicaid advocate Robert Kraig, executive director of Citizen
Action of Wisconsin is here.
Thanks for being here.
>> Great to be with you Frederica.
>> In particular I understand you don't like the drug testing
piece of this.
Describe why not.
>> Yeah, we're opposed to most of it, by the way.
The drug testing part, forced drug testing, has gotten the
most attention.
In general we think this is designed to set up barriers in
order to force people off of BadgerCare at a time when more
people need healthcare, not fewer.
And the drug testing provision will do that as well but also
the work requirements do that.
The premium increases do it as well.
Quite frankly the motive is to force people off healthcare and
spend less money.
We think that's clear.
But as far as the drug forced drug testing part it's the
opposite of what medical experts and medical science tells us
we should do about the scourge of the opioid epidemic
in this state and other substance use.
It plays well politically.
It may be good for the governor's re-election in some
circles but actually sets us back as far as understanding the
causes of drug addiction and how best to address it.
>> I want to ask you a little more about that in a moment.
I understand at least 15 states have laws requiring drug testing
of people on public benefits.
More states are proposing it.
Is there a large number of people who have lost benefits as
a result of these drug testing requirements as you have
suggested is the motivation?
>> They're relatively new and have not been approved for
Medicaid before.
But in a lot of states that have tried them, actually they've not
even caught very many people with drug addictions.
In fact medical experts say it's fairly easy to avoid these
things and the only people who really get caught are people who
are so addicted they can't even not use the drug for a couple of
days in order to avoid detection.
So they're not even effective.
They're also very expensive.
>> For people who might have a drug addiction, a piece of this
is the state says it wants to help them get clean and is
asking for fully funding inpatient treatment.
That sounds like a good piece of this.
>> We'd go even further as far as treatment.
There are huge waiting lists right now that the governor
could have, over the whole term, actually done something about.
But in particular forcing someone, even if they go through
this whole process, to get treatment is not the way to go.
The way to go as far as medical experts concerned is to make
treatment and everything else, prevention.
It's better to prevent the addiction before it happens and
catch it early.
It's just like a medical disease like flu.
That's what the medical science says - or cancer or anything
else - you prevent it.
You try to catch it early.
Then if it's far along you do heroic intervention which is
treatment.
We should certainly do that but the way to do that is to make it
available, publicize it and make sure people who are doing it are
motivated to do it want to be cured.
Not a forced drug testing regime which sounds like red meat to
people who think that those on BadgerCare are doing the wrong
thing and just are immoral when in fact, someone with a
substance abuse problem has a disease.
It's that simple.
>> Other elements of Wisconsin's waiver request limiting Medicaid
to 48 months if the person isn't working or training for work.
What is your reaction to that?
>> We think it's appalling because it again plays off the
idea that people on BadgerCare are people who just are refusing
to work when we don't have enough family-supporting jobs.
When so many jobs don't provide health benefits at all or people
work part-time and want to work full-time can't find a good
full-time job when in fact medical care and health
insurance is so expensive even middle and upper middle class
people can't afford it on their own which is clear in the
current health care debate.
It's a way to force people off quite frankly and it's not
looking at reality of the economic economy we have right
now for people and the cost of healthcare, which even middle
and upper middle class people can't afford, let alone very low
income people.
>> Just briefly in a few seconds left, if people are forced off
Medicaid, then what?
>> Well, it costs us a lot of money, quite frankly, because
their only recourse is to wait until they're very, very sick
and then go to the emergency room where they're stabilized
and sent on their way.
Whereas giving them access to primary care prevents the
diseases in the first place and is much cheaper in the long
term.
They'll be a lot of uncompensated care at hospitals
which will raise everyone else's health insurance premiums and
quite frankly something like a substance abuse issue for
example, better they're seeing a primary care physician who helps
them deal with it and gets them to want to deal with it rather
than having this punitive approach where you force them to
take a drug test then you throw them off BadgerCare if they
don't comply with each part of the standard.
>> We need to leave it there.
Robert Kraig, thank you very much.
>> Always great to join you, Frederica.
>> Public hearings on the proposed Medicaid changes start
next week.
On Wednesday, April 26th at 11:00 a.m.
the Department of Health Services will hold a hearing at
Northcentral Technical College in Wausau.
Monday, May 1, a second hearing will be held in Milwaukee at the
Milwaukee Center for Independence.
That one starts at 4:00 p.m.
Now to tonight's Capitol Insight and State Supreme Court news.
Some tense moments at the high court yesterday as justices
rejected on a 5-2 vote a proposal that would have
required them to recuse themselves because of a certain
level of campaign contributions.
We look into this issue now with Shawn Johnson of Wisconsin
Public Radio.
Thanks for being here.
>> Thanks for having me.
>> This was a group of retired judges that brought this recusal
proposal before the court, right?
>> Right.
Essentially what it would have done is change from the system
we have now where it's up to judges and justices to decide
when or if they recuse themselves from cases and that
by the way is a recusal standard that says campaign contributions
are not a factor that they have to weigh when it comes to
whether or not to step down from a case.
This would have set a dollar standard and it said in the case
of Supreme Court candidates somebody gives the candidate
$10,000 or more and is a lawyer or a party to a case before the
court, that a Supreme Court justice would have to recuse
themselves from that case.
>> So we described tense moments on the court as part of all of
this.
What was that about?
>> That's pretty accurate.
You had among those who voted against the proposal, the
proposal recusal rules was Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley
who made it very clear she was against them.
She expressed being personally affronted by the rules.
Here's what she said.
>> Every judge and justice in the state of Wisconsin should be
highly offended by this petition because it attacks their
integrity and their character.
And I today defend every justice and judge in the state in
rejecting this petition.
>> Those opposed to such recusal say it is a violation of the
U.S.
Constitution because campaign donations are free speech.
The two justices in favor said that's not so and we have some
more sound.
This time from Justice Shirley Abrahamson.
>> I find nothing in the Wisconsin Constitution or the
United States Constitution that says this court cannot make
reasonable rules for recusal.
>> Meanwhile the U.S.
Supreme Court said the states could set recusal rules because
of donations from parties before the court.
>> And that's what you heard alluded to a couple of times
during this discussion this week from Justice Abrahamson is that
you have cases that have been before the court where the court
has said it's up to states if they want to set stricter
recusal standards, they can.
>> Meanwhile, kind of the mega money that has poured into
Wisconsin Supreme Court races is pretty staggering according to
the Brennan Center for Justice.
The last seven elections cost more than $1 million.
Four races cost more than $3 million and the 2011 race that
saw Justice Prosser re-elected cost more than $5 million.
But money coming from these outside interest groups also
doesn't factor into any judicial recusals in Wisconsin.
>> No.
And the judges who asked for these recusal standards did
allude to that outside money becoming a bigger factor in
Wisconsin.
They said especially in light of a recent State Supreme Court
case and a new law in Wisconsin that basically allowed for near
unfettered coordination between candidates for office and
interest groups that run issue ads.
They said this is a different playing field than it was in
2010 which is the last time they talked about recusal standards.
That was alluded to briefly in this discussion before the court
this week and essentially conservative justices said
that's not the issue in this situation.
>> Alluded to and rejected.
So is this the end of it then for recusal rule changes?
>> I think you can say it's the end of it with these justices.
We went into this thinking the five conservatives on the court
would probably vote against these recusal standards.
They did it.
It was a 5-2 vote with conservative/liberal blocks
sticking together on this one.
We do have a few elections coming up, though.
You have Justice Michael Gableman is up for re-election
in 2018.
Justice Shirley Abrahamson is up for re-election in 2019.
Justice Daniel Kelly up for his first election in 2020.
You're going to see this issue of money in the court coming up
again and again.
Whether elections change the outcome of the court
could determine whether or not
they actually revisit recusal standards.
>> All right. We leave it there Shawn.
Thanks very much. >> You're welcome.
>> Now for an update away from the state capitol.
The Stockbridge-Munsee tribe asked a federal judge Wednesday
to block the Ho Chunk from expanding an existing casino
saying the expansion violates the Ho Chunk's compact with the
state.
The Ho Chunk Nation is looking to add slot machines to its
Wittenberg gaming facility in Shawano County.
But the Stockbridge-Munsee have a casino nearby and they say the
expansion would have a crippling impact on its revenues.
The tribe filed a lawsuit against the Ho Chunk and the
state but state officials say a 2003 deal that former Governor
Jim Doyle reached allows the expansion.
And finally tonight, a look ahead to next week when Zac
Schultz will have an in-depth look at the manufacturing and
agriculture tax credit.
Does the credit create jobs or is it just a big giveaway?
That's next Friday on "Here and Now."
Until then I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Have a great weekend.
>> Funding for "Here and Now" is provided in part
by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.