>> Once in a while I think it's worth it for us to take that
kind of big leap to do something to get Wisconsin on the front
page of every single paper in the country and around the world
as a place to open up your business.
>> Assembly Speaker Robin Vos predicting big things for the
future of Wisconsin and Foxconn.
I'm Frederica Freyberg.
Tonight on "Here and Now," a first look at the Assembly's
version of the Foxconn bill as it heads to the Joint Finance
Committee next week.
Committee members from both parties are here.
Then in our closer look, a new study on the time line for
taxpayers to break even on the Foxconn deal.
Then in our look ahead, what's next for race relations
in the aftermath of Charlottesville?
It's "Here and Now" for August 18.
>> Funding for "Here and Now" is provided, in part, by Friends of
Wisconsin Public Television.
>> In our first look tonight, the Foxconn bill clears the
Assembly with two Republicans voting against the plan and
three Democrats, all representatives from the area
projected to land the factory voting for the bill.
That includes Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca of Kenosha.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said the bill creates a bright future
for the region and the state.
>> It's a field of dreams just beyond the interstate when
you're driving down I-94 between Milwaukee and Chicago.
It's a field of American dreams.
It's careers that people can buy a home
and send their kids to college.
And when they graduate from college, they don't have to
leave and go to another state.
They can stay right here in Wisconsin.
>> If you look at the last six years, slashing taxes
disproportionately for the wealthy at the expense of our
schools and local communities seems to be the operating
principle both this legislature's majority and
Governor Walker.
And now we've got a governor six and a half years later with a
weak economic record, crumbling transportation infrastructure
and an out-migration of working-aged people and we're
proposing the largest ever subsidy to a foreign company.
Sounds like a double-down on the trickle-down.
>> Again, Kenosha Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca
along with Racine Democrat Cory Mason and Kenosha Democrat Tod
Ohnstad voted in favor of the bill.
The plant could be located in Racine or Kenosha County.
The bill will now be taken up in the Senate where it will get a
public hearing before the Joint Committee on Finance which is
expected next week.
Will there be changes?
Will it be dropped into the budget bill?
In a few minutes we'll hear from Democratic committee member
Senator Jon Erpenbach.
But first, we go to Milwaukee to talk with Joint Finance Co-Chair
Republican Senator Alberta Darling.
Thanks very much for being here.
>> Thank you for having me.
>> So next week the Joint Finance Committee is expected to
take up this Foxconn bill as we've just said.
But as a member of the Senate, which one do you want to work
from, the version passed out of the Assembly or the original?
>> I think we should probably work off the one that just
passed the Assembly, but we still have the option to start
clean with the Senate version.
But I would imagine we'd start with the Assembly because they
did amend the bill.
>> So what are you hoping to learn from the public hearing on
the bill that will precede the Finance Committee vote?
>> I think that we are going to hear from people who actually
live in the area who can most directly benefit from this $10
billion investment by Foxconn what they really think about it.
From my point of view, it represents a landmark
opportunity for Wisconsin to be put on the map as a tech
manufacturing state.
We were chosen over several states
that were also very competitive.
But because of all of the reforms we did and because we've
gone from 41st to the top ten in terms of business climates we
were chosen because we've gone through a lot of blood, sweat
and tears to get our house in order in Wisconsin and to become
a business-friendly state and a business-friendly environment.
>> Still, what issues or concerns, if any, might you have
in connection with the bill?
>> Well, the biggest concern is we have to make sure that it's
going to be a good deal for our taxpayers.
And in my opinion it is because
there are two parts of this bill.
One is a capital investment.
It's a $3 billion investment over all.
Half of it probably goes to capital projects
and half goes to jobs.
But the important part of this is, it's performance-driven.
Nothing will be handed out.
No money will be transferred unless there are jobs created.
For the capital you could say,
well, that isn't directly tied to jobs.
But it is because it's the building of the facility which
will take a lot of workers, a lot of construction and will be
one of the bigger construction projects in our state.
It's the size of 11 Lambeau Fields.
So in my opinion there are safeguards for the taxpayer
because it's a performance-based tax credit.
If they get a job that's worth at least $30,000,
they will get the tax credit.
So for me it's a tremendous opportunity.
And I've been hearing from people in my district
that they see it the same way.
Not everybody.
Of course there are people who are concerned
about other issues.
But let's say what if we passed it up?
We would be giving up the ability to be recognized
around the country as a high-tech manufacturing state.
And the ripple effects, the Greater Milwaukee Chamber of
Commerce said there will be $78 billion of spin-off revenue to
the state over the next 15 years.
And on top of that, there will be a ripple effect as well.
I've heard that Sharp, the technology company, is talking
to other community leaders in that area to see if they can
possibly come to our state.
And that's very exciting.
I've heard that there are many Chinese companies, that kind of
are groupies with Foxconn that want to be a part of the action.
So we are going to get a lot of interest, a lot of jobs and a
lot of economic development.
>> So you -- >> I know that people like in housing are
saying how are we going to relocate a lot of these people
and how are we going to have room to house a lot of the new
labor that we're going to have?
And that's going to be another boon to our economy.
>> So just super quickly on the Foxconn deal, you don't see that
you might have any amendments in Joint Finance
that would change it?
>> I can't say that right now because the Assembly
put in several amendments. >> Right.
>> I don't anticipate that there are going to be a lot of
changes, but there could be.
I assume that the Democrats are going to put forward amendments.
We're very interested in working with them.
I hope that our vote in Finance is a bipartisan vote.
And I hope that the vote in the Senate is a bipartisan vote.
I think it's going to be very hard for Senator Wirch not to
vote for this bill because of the acceptance
in the Assembly in his area.
>> Let me ask you very quickly because unfortunately we have
less than a half a minute left.
You've still got the budget out there to finish.
>> Yes.
>> Would you drop the Foxconn bill kind of into the budget and
pass them together, or what's that going to look like?
>> No. We're not going to have a separate Foxconn component
to the budget.
That will be a separate bill.
That we have agreed to.
We are looking at meeting in Finance on Thursday of this
coming week to take up-- start to take up the rest of the items
that we have in our docket and we've been negotiating.
And I think the biggest sticking points were what were
transportation and education.
So you'll be seeing a lot of progress on all those issues and
we will get the bill out by the middle of June to the third week
of June to make the deadline of the 28th for Foxconn.
>> September.
>> We have to get a budget done. Yeah.
We need to let the schools know what their investment can be.
So we'd like to get that out by the August 28.
So they'll know what they have to deal with in their budgets.
>> All right.
>> We meet in Finance on the 28th.
>> Senator Alberta Darling, thanks for joining us.
You have a lot of work ahead.
>> You bet. Thank you.
We do, but it's all good stuff.
>> We go now to the other side of the aisle
and to the State Capitol to hear from a Democratic member
of the Joint Finance Committee, Senator Jon Erpenbach.
Thanks a lot for joining us. >> My pleasure.
>> First out of the gates, I want to ask you what is your
reaction to the Assembly Minority Leader voting
in favor of the Foxconn bill?
>> Representative Barca has to do what he feels he needs to do
for his district that he represents which rumor has it
Foxconn would be locating in that part of the state.
So I understand why he did what he did.
I would just hoped the bill would have been better.
Would have been safer for taxpayers
coming out of the Assembly.
And would have been better for the environment as well.
But there are those of us who have done this for a while
who understand why Peter did what did he.
>> There's some talk of Foxconn siting
some location in Dane County.
Do you favor it at this juncture?
>> I don't favor the bill at this juncture to begin with
which I'm sure we're going to get into in a little bit.
But Foxconn right now could be looking up at the Fox Valley
for a satellite-type of a situation or Dane County for a
satellite-type of a situation.
But it does sound like the bulk of what we're talking about
and what the governor is talking about
would be in southeastern Wisconsin.
>> So as to the bill, Joint Finance is expected to take it
up next week.
What kind of changes would you be looking for?
>> Well, there's two aspects to this bill.
We're giving away a lot of our taxpayers' money
here in the state of Wisconsin.
We're going to foot about 15% of their cost to build,
which is about $1.5 billion.
And then another $1.5 billion down the line in tax credits.
So I'm concerned about that, first of all.
And that's assuming that they reach the 13,000 job goal and
that's assuming that there are no changes whatsoever in the
market that they happen to be in through 2045 I believe it is
until we start getting some of our money back,
which really is unrealistic.
And the second aspect and just as important, it's a total
environmental giveaway by the state of Wisconsin.
Just the idea of no environmental impact on a
project this size is staggering along with some
of the other environmental issues.
There needs to be better protections for taxpayers
in this legislation.
And there needs to be better
environmental protections in this legislation.
Then you also have to bring in something that I don't know if
the governor considered or not, is the Army Corps of Engineers
as to whether or not they need to sign off on this.
And we're also involved in the Great Lakes Compact and whether
or not that becomes an issue.
And to be honest with you Fred,
this reminds me a lot of Gogebic.
Remember the mining legislation that passed through the
legislature that the governor signed into law?
Promised thousands of jobs.
Governor never reached out to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Never reached out to the tribe either.
And as a result, that law passed
but the mine was never built because of that.
I fear that the governor is getting people's hopes up and
isn't really crossing all of the T's and dotting all of the I's
in other agencies that we need to work with right now.
>> Do you think Democrats might see some of their changes in the
Senate as opposed to the Assembly where 23 of their
amendments were rejected?
>> I would hope there would be changes.
Everybody wants these jobs.
Democrats want the jobs.
Republicans want the jobs.
To be honest with you, politically,
the governor needs these jobs.
But at the same time, you can't have a project at this size and
this scope without an environmental impact.
That's just unbelievably irresponsible.
You also cannot let Foxconn basically walk away without
really paying any corporate taxes whatsoever in the end
because what we haven't talked about is they would be eligible
for other tax breaks outside of what the governor is giving them
already.
So in the end, their tax liability to the state
could be absolutely zero.
That's not fair either.
>> Meanwhile, the budget is still hanging out there and the
Republican Senate Leader-- >> Oh, yeah, the budget.
>> -- wants to finish that at the same time
or very close to this Foxconn bill.
How do you think it should be handled?
>> Well, I'm not certain you can do one without the other because
there's going to be about $15 million for Foxconn in this
budget that hasn't passed yet.
Obviously the budget is moving forward.
There's going to be checks written for a couple hundred
million dollars in each year moving forward.
So we need to look at that in the future.
But in the meantime, school districts right now are trying
to figure out how much money they're going to have.
When it comes to staffing levels in our correctional
institutions, which are desperately needed, they don't
know what they're looking at.
Obviously the transportation builders
are wondering what the hell's going on.
They don't want to put projects on hold.
If they put them on hold because we haven't passed the budget,
that's going to cost taxpayers more money down the line.
So ideally we'd get the budget done and then we would deal with
Foxconn because there's no rush on Foxconn.
We need to be slow.
We need to be deliberate.
We need to make sure we get this right.
Because if we don't get this right, taxpayers are on the hook
for a tremendous amount of money and there's no turning back.
>> All right, Senator Jon Erpenbach, thanks very much for joining us.
>> All right. Thanks.
>> And now for a closer look at the price tag that could come
with the Foxconn deal.
A study released Thursday by the Wisconsin Budget Project shows
it's possible Wisconsin may never break even on the deal.
Jon Peacock is the lead researcher with the project and
joins us to explain.
Thanks for being here. >> Thanks for having me on.
>> So the best case scenario for the Foxconn deal according to
reports is that it breaks even in 25 years.
What is the worst case?
>> Well, the worst case scenario is it doesn't break even ever
because Foxconn could conceivably leave the state
within 10 or 20 years after getting tax credits or really
cash payments from the state of about $200 million a year for 10
or 20 years.
And the possibility of their leaving in that period of time
is very real for a manufacturer of technology devices like this
that could be obsolete five, ten years from now.
>> So are people talking about that?
>> I think that certainly came up in the debate, but I don't
think it's gotten as much attention as it should.
Both with respect to the risk for state taxpayers and the
local taxpayers who will have to incur
huge infrastructure spending costs.
>> Another thing, you looked at this
from kind of many different angles.
You have the best case.
You have the worst case.
And then you have kind of these cases in between.
What other numbers did you run?
>> We looked at a couple less rosy scenarios where Foxconn--
In one scenario, we analyzed that they would hire 6500 jobs,
which I think would be a boon to that area.
And that there would be ancillary employment or indirect
employment of 16,500, so a total of 23,000 new jobs.
And then a second scenario where there would be 3,000, which is
at the bottom end of the range the governor's been talking
about and 11,000 new jobs, indirect jobs.
>> There's also this matter of automation or robotics that I
understand from experts Foxconn is really kind of all about.
How would that affect tax revenue
and this break-even point?
>> We were essentially assuming in our two scenarios quite a bit
of automation or use of robotics.
In the sort of basic best case scenario and the other two that
we looked at, we assumed that they would spend at least $9
billion on capital investments and qualify for the maximum
credits on that side.
But we just varied the number of people that they employed.
So we were assuming higher degrees of automation.
>> So that's where those kinds of scenarios came from, from
13,000 to 6500 to 3,000.
But as you said, in the near term, Foxconn is going to build
this $10 billion plant in whatever location it decides to
site in.
And that results in this 16,000 construction or related jobs and
nearly $200 million in state taxes then.
So regardless of the numbers created, at least there's that
constant, right?
>> Well, not necessarily, no.
We did assume in each of our scenarios,
we said we'll give you that.
Let's just assume that.
But actually we did that for the sake of simplifying things
and focusing just on the changes in the employment.
But a key thing to understand is that the way this deal is
structured, there are two credits.
One where they get 17% of their payroll reimbursed by the state
and the other where they get 15% of their capital investment.
And kind of the more negative scenarios for state taxpayers
are that they qualify for the maximum on the capital side by
going heavily into robotics and don't have so many employees, in
which case the state's subsidy per new employee could be
upwards of $570,000 a year.
>> Which is obviously huge.
And then there's the matter of will these employees actually
all be from Wisconsin, because it's right there on the border.
>> Sure.
>> And so what implication does that have?
>> Well, there's been a lot of confusion about that.
And I'm assuming many of them will be in Illinois.
But the Secretary of the Department of Revenue says we'll
be able to collect income tax revenue for Illinois residents
who are commuting into Wisconsin.
So we assumed he is right when we did the modeling.
On the other hand, especially for the more automated
scenarios, most of the new jobs are going to be with suppliers.
And many of them will be in Illinois.
And those workers at those supply companies, their income
will be taxed in Illinois.
And so we assumed pretty conservatively that 5% to 10% of
the new tax revenue would end up in Illinois tax coffers,
not Wisconsin's.
And that lengthens the payback period.
>> Well, thank you for looking at the details.
Jon Peacock.
>> Thanks for having me.
>> The debate over jobs in Wisconsin has taken place
this week against a backdrop
of racial unrest across the country.
Specifically in Charlottesville at protests over confederate
monuments, where neo-Nazi and other white supremacists groups
caused violence resulting in the death of three people.
President Trump's "both sides to blame" response sparked national
concern and sent many in his own party reeling in disbelief.
In cities across the country, monuments came down, including
in a Madison cemetery by order of Mayor Paul Soglin.
Where can the American conversation on race
go from here?
For that we turn to someone who facilitates community
conversations on race relations full-time.
Tracey Robertson is the executive director
of Fit Oshkosh.
She's in Green Bay tonight.
Tracey, thanks very much for being here.
>> Thank you so much for having me again.
>> First I want to ask you what this past week
has been like for you?
>> You know, that's a great question.
And when I think about -- in reflection about what this week
has meant to me, it's been a week like every other week I've
had in America as a black person, black-identified person
in this country.
This is a typical week.
Really emboldened racialized behavior is not unique to me.
>> What's your reaction to President Trump's remarks?
>> You know, I fully expect President Trump to be exactly
who he told us he was going to be.
He's been very clear about who his political agenda is supposed
to advantage and that certainly was not people of color, people
who identify as Muslim, people who identify as LGBTQ.
So I'm not as disappointed in him as I am
in the people who voted for him.
>> Have you be heartened or not by other people's reaction to
President Trump?
>> It's been very day-dependent.
We had a vigil in Oshkosh for the victims at Charlottesville.
And while we were there,
someone drove past and used the "n" word.
And people at the vigil ran up and said
how do you feel about that?
I said, you know, I'm not surprised.
You're surprised. I'm not surprised.
A lot of the engagement that I have on a day-to-day basis
is people certainly inferring that I'm the "n" word,
if not out rightly calling me that.
Again, it's just part of everyday life as a person of
color in this country.
>> So this week is like all other weeks.
Does it make you sad then that suddenly this gets so much
attention, when this is the daily life?
>> It doesn't make me sad.
It makes me hopeful.
I think it, sadly, takes these kinds of national incidents
to raise awareness
for people who don't identify as people of color.
It's not news to us.
But it's news to lots of other people.
And it's sad that people have to lose their lives
and we have to see so much hatred and disdain
in order for some people to move.
But for many people that's exactly what it takes.
So I'm hopeful that we'll be better because of this incident.
>> The mission statement of your organization is this, quote, to
promote social transformation through color-brave
conversations, education, advocacy and research in order
to achieve race equity and justice within your community.
What are color-brave conversations?
>> Well, historically what we've been taught about race is to
pretend like we're color blind.
That we don't see race.
When I show up in a room, I show up fully as a black woman.
So people's opportunity to pretend like they don't see me
really is a racialized narrative.
What we're asking people to do is flip that script and really
think about race in a very analytical way.
Do some analysis around it.
An example I love to use is about--
let's say a grandmother is in a grocery store.
A grandmother who identifies as a white American,
as a white person, is in a grocery store.
And the grandchild says to them, oh, look, grandma,
that person is really dark.
What being color blind has taught us to do is pretend
like we don't see that.
So that would look like, shhh, please don't talk about that.
We don't talk about that.
It's not polite to talk about that.
Although that grandmother has not said to that child, I have a
problem with people of color, what they've said is A) we
should never talk about it.
B) I don't have enough information to even engage you
in a discussion.
So we teach those children that talking about race is a problem.
And I just like to ask do we think that worked?
It hasn't.
Being color blind is what's gotten us here today.
So what we ask people to do is be really color-brave, to think
about race, to consider race, to study race, to learn about race.
An example of a color-brave grandmother in that same
scenario would be, yep, that person really is dark.
What do you think that means about that person?
Where do you think that person would have come from?
What do you think life in that place
where they've come from looks like?
How does that -- what does that mean for us as white-identified
Americans in this country?
So really doing some critical analysis around race.
Thinking about it from an historical perspective,
recognizing that our country has not been great for people of
color and really having some deep, valuable discussions
around that to move us to a place of change.
>> Why do you think there might be the reluctance or the fear on
the part of people to have these color-brave conversations?
>> I think it's like anything.
I think we just haven't had the tools.
I think it requires us to be really introspective and to
acknowledge that the country has really done some damage and has
created some trauma for people of color in this community.
And that's really hard to face.
It's really hard -- as I continue to learn myself to see
some of the pain and read about some of the pain
that my ancestors experienced.
It's tough work.
It's easy to pretend like these issues don't exist.
It's easy to go about your everyday experience and pretend
like you don't recognize all the things that are happening.
It's a lot easier to pretend like it doesn't exist.
>> As for the removal of statutes or monuments, what's
your reaction to that?
>> That's a great question.
I think what we're seeing, people are really-- an analogy
I like to use is if you continue to kick your animal,
at some point your animal is going to bite back, right?
It's kind of the same idea.
I think people are incredibly frustrated.
I think that the United States of America has not apologized
for the oppression of many of the communities.
I think people are incredibly frustrated.
I think that holding these people up as heroes
is a mistake.
It's problematic.
It goes on to reinjure people who are really experiencing
trauma around the issues of race.
So I understand why people are angry and feel like that this --
taking down the statutes is part of our journey to healing, to
making our country really a racially inclusive place.
We can't do that if we have statutes of people who have
been, you know, emboldened in their oppression against people
of color.
>> With really just about a half a minute left, does what has
happened in the last week in your belief set us back or move
us forward?
>> I think with our current political administration it's
certainly going to be a battle to move, but I think it's
certainly empowered some people to recognize that it's important
we work together to be the change that we want to see.
>> All right.
Tracey Robertson from Green Bay, from Oshkosh out of Green Bay
tonight.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
>> And finally tonight, a look ahead to next week, when we take
you to Richland County, where we check in with locals in Richland
Center, a small city halfway between Madison and La Crosse.
We asked them what they think of the Foxconn deal.
>> I know it's highly political.
I know that there are strong opinions on both sides.
But I think if something like that, maybe not as big,
obviously, but something like that came to Richland Center,
that would be a huge boost to us.
>> Business owners and residents in one western county
weigh in on Foxconn.
That's next week.
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.