>> I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW," HOW
TAX CUTS PASSED IN WASHINGTON
WILL IMPACT WISCONSIN.
A CLOSER LOOK AT DANGERS AT
MEXICAN RESORTS.
AND AN INTERVIEW WITH STATE
SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE JUDGE
MICHAEL SCRENOCK.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR
DECEMBER 22.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED, IN PART, BY FRIENDS OF
WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
>> A FIRST LOOK TONIGHT AT THE
TAX CUT PLAN PASSED BY CONGRESS
AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT THIS
WEEK.
SURROUNDED BY FELLOW REPUBLICANS
AND PRESIDENT TRUMP AT THE WHITE
HOUSE, HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN
SAID THE PLAN SENDS A STRONG
MESSAGE TO AMERICANS.
>> IT IS REALLY SIMPLE.
THE MESSAGE TO THE HARD-WORKING
TAXPAYERS OF AMERICA IS YOUR TAX
RELIEF IS ON ITS WAY.
THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
THE MESSAGE TO THE FAMILIES IN
AMERICA WHO HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING
PAYCHECK AND PAYCHECK, YOUR TAX
RATES ARE GOING DOWN AND YOUR
PAYCHECKS ARE GOING UP.
THIS IS THE KIND OF RELIEF THAT
AMERICANS DESERVE.
THIS IS THE KIND OF TAX REFORM
AND TAX CUTS THAT GET OUR
ECONOMY GROWING TO REACH ITS
POTENTIAL.
THIS GETS US BETTER WAGES,
BIGGER PAYCHECKS, A SIMPLER TAX
SYSTEM.
THIS GETS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
COMPETITIVE IN THE GLOBAL
ECONOMY.
>> HOUSE SPEAKER PAUL RYAN.
ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE,
U.S. SENATOR HAD THIS TO SAY.
THIS IS A GIVEAWAY TO THE
WEALTHIEST FEW WHILE MILLIONS OF
MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES WILL FACE
TAX HIKES.
CORPORATIONS GET PERMANENT TAX
BREAKS.
THE TOP 1% WILL SEE 83% OF THE
BENEFIT.
THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT AND IT'S
NOT FAIR.
WE SHOULD HAVE WORKED TOGETHER
ON BIPARTISAN REFORM THAT WAS
FOCUSED ON THE MIDDLE CLASS.
SO THOSE ARE THE POLITICAL
PERSUASIONS AROUND THE TAX CUTS
AND CHANGES PASSED THIS WEEK IN
WASHINGTON.
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN ON THE
GROUND HERE IN WISCONSIN WHEN
YOU SIT DOWN TO FILE YOUR TAXES?
WE TURNED TO TODD BERRY,
PRESIDENT OF THE WISCONSIN
TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> GOOD TO BE BACK.
>> SO THE $10,000 DEDUCTION CAP
FOR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES, WILL
THAT HURT THE MAJORITY OF
WISCONSIN TAX FILERS?
>> NO.
THE AVERAGE WISCONSINITE MAYBE
PAYS $2500 TO $3,000 IN INCOME
TAXES.
PROPERTY TAXES, MAYBE $3,000 OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW, HOME VALUES ARE NOT
HIGH IN MOST OF WISCONSIN.
SO WHEN YOU PUT THAT TOGETHER,
THE AVERAGE WILL BE WELL BELOW
THE CAP.
WHERE THINGS ARE GOING TO GET
INTERESTING IS NOT IN THE
MIDDLE.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE UPPER
MIDDLE.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE $150,000
RANGE, $200 RANGE, WHERE YOU MAY
HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INCOME,
STATE INCOME TAXES AND A LARGER
HOUSE AND LIVE IN AN EXPENSIVE
COMMUNITY.
>> AS FOR THE KIND OF NEW TAX
BRACKETS, PEOPLE WHO MIGHT
EXPERIENCE A CUT, WOULD THEY
START SEEING THOSE OUT OF THEIR
PAYCHECKS RIGHT AWAY?
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS ON WHEN THEY
CHANGE THE WITHHOLDING TABLES
AND THAT WILL MEAN THE IRS WILL
HAVE TO TALK TO EMPLOYERS, ET
CETERA.
BUT THEY SHOULD SEE IT EARLY IN
THE YEAR.
>> NOW, YOU SAY THAT FAR FEWER
PEOPLE WILL END UP ITEMIZING
BECAUSE THE STANDARD DEDUCTION
NEARLY DOUBLES, $12,000 FOR A
SINGLE FILER, $24,000 FOR
MARRIED.
HOW MANY FEWER?
>> RIGHT NOW SOMETHING LIKE
ONE-THIRD OF WISCONSINITES
ITEMIZE, GIVE OR TAKE.
AFTER THIS, I THINK IT WILL BE
MORE LIKE ONE IN TEN.
I MEAN, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A
GUESS.
BUT -- AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE,
BEING AN OLD TAX GUY, TO ALLOW
TAX PREPARATION AND FILING TO BE
EASIER IS A GOOD THING.
WE MAKE IT WAY TOO HARD.
>> WELL, THAT IS GOOD, BECAUSE
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WANTED TO
DO WAS SIMPLIFY IT.
>> YEAH.
AND IT'S NOT -- THERE IS SOME
STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.
>> SO WE'VE SAID THAT THIS SALT
CAP WON'T AFFECT MOST
WISCONSINITES, BUT WITH THE
STANDARD DEDUCTION NOW DOUBLING,
YOU'RE SAYING TWO-THIRDS OF
PEOPLE IN WISCONSIN PROBABLY
WON'T ITEMIZE OR MORE.
BUT YOU ALSO SAY THAT THAT COULD
MEAN THESE PEOPLE WOULD SEE A
STATE TAX INCREASE.
>> YEAH.
I DON'T MEAN TO EXAGGERATE HERE,
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT ITEMIZING AT
THE FEDERAL LEVEL, SOOND YOU'RE AND SO YOU'RE
GOING TO BECOME A STANDARD, YOU
DON'T CARRY OVER YOUR ITEMIZED
DEDUCTIONS TO YOUR WISCONSIN
TURN, THEN YOU MAY NEED A BUMP
IN THE STATE STANDARD DEDUCTION
IN ORDER TO AVOID PROBLEMS.
NOW, I -- YOU KNOW, THERE WILL
BE SOME KIND OF STATE
ADJUSTMENT, RATE REDUCTION, AND
THERE REALLY PROBABLY SHOULD BE
SOME SORT OF STANDARD DEDUCTION
INCREASE AS WELL.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS GOING TO
BE WIDESPREAD.
YOU GET UP INTO THIS $100,000
RANGE IT GETS INTERESTING.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THE
INDIVIDUAL CUTS SUNSETTING?
>> IT'S THE WAY THE PROCEDURE
WAS SET UP AND CERTAIN DEBT
RULES AND SO FORTH.
I THINK IN REALITY BOTH ARE
PERMANENT, ONE FOR LEGISLATIVE
REASONS, ONE FOR POLITICAL
REASONS.
CONGRESS DOESN'T UNDO TAX CUTS
USUALLY.
>> THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT.
BUT DO YOU EXPECT BUSINESSES TO
GIVE HIGHER WAGES OR HIRE MORE
PEOPLE GIVEN THEIR WINDFALL?
>> WELL, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE
BIG DEBATE.
ECONOMIC THEORY SUGGESTS THAT,
YOU KNOW, BUSINESSES PASS ON
TAXES TO WORKERS OR CONSUMERS OR
PERHAPS SHAREHOLDERS, SO, YOU
KNOW, THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT
SOME OF THE BENEFITS WOULD SHIFT
TO PEOPLE AND THERE IS SOME
INDICATION IN THE EARLY NEWS
THAT THERE ARE BONUSES
HAPPENING, AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF
SOME KIND OF INVESTMENT
ACTIVITY.
BUT WE'LL HAVE TO SEE.
>> NOWRKS TODD, WE DO NOT NT TO TO LET YOU GO
WITHOUT SAYING YOU ARE RETIRING
AFTER HOW MANY YEARS?
>> ALMOST 25.
>> SO YOU'RE MOVING ON TO DO
WHAT?
>> WELL, I AM AN AVID PAINTER AS
A HOBBY.
I'M GOING TOI'M AN AVID GARDENER.
I COLLECT LEARNING FOREIGN
LANGUAGES.
I HAVE KIDS AND MY WIFE PRAYS
FOR GRANDKIDS, SO WE'LL BE BUSY.
>> YOU HAVE BEEN ON WISCONSIN
PUBLIC TELEVISION FOR JUST ABOUT
AS MANY YEARS.
>> IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.
I ALWAYS HEAR GOOD THINGS FROM
YOUR LISTENERS.
>> TODD BERRY, CONGRATS.
>> THIS TIME OF YEAR, THOUGHTS
TURN TO THE WARMING SUN OF
BEACHFRONT RESORT VIE
INDICATIONS, BUT THE DANGERS OF
SOME RESORTS AND POPULAR
DESTINATIONS IN MEXICO RESULTED
IN SENATOR RON JOHNSON CALLING
FOR A FEDERAL INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE DOZENS OF PEOPLE
REPORTED BEING ROBBED, SEXUALLY
ASSAULTED AND INJURED AFTER
DRINKING ALCOHOL AT
ALL-INCLUSIVE RESORTS IN MEXICO.
IN TONIGHT'S CLOSER LOOK,
MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL
REPORTER RAQUEL RUTLEDGE, WHO
BROKE THE STORY AND CONTINUES TO
REPORT ON IT, JOINS US WITH
DETAILS.
AND THANKS A LOT FOR BEING HERE.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME.
>> SO WHAT IS THE STATUS, IF YOU
KNOW, OF THE U.S. INSPECTOR
GENERAL'S INVESTIGATION?
>> WELL, IT'S EARLY.
THEY JUST ANNOUNCED IN THE LAST
TEN DAYS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO
TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THE STATE
DEPARTMENT HANDLES THESE
COMPLAINTS BECAUSE, AS WE
REPORTED BACK IN JULY AND
AUGUST, THEY WEREN'T KEEPING
TRACK OF INJURIES AND ASSAULTS
IN MEXICO.
THEY DO KEEP TRACK OF DEATHS.
BUT EVEN THAT DATABASE IS NOT
INCLUSIVE.
SO WHEN THE YOUNG WOMAN, ABBY
CONNER, DROWNED IN A RESORT
POOL, HER DEATH WAS NOT INCLUDED
IN THE TALLY BECAUSE SHE
TECHNICALLY WAS TAKEN OFF OF
LIFE SUPPORT IN FLORIDA.
SO IT'S EARLY.
IT'S HARD TO SAY WHERE THAT
INVESTIGATION IS GOING TO GO.
>> SO IF THE STATE DEPARTMENT
HERETOFORE WASN'T TRACKING THESE
NUMBERS, WHAT YOU DID DISCOVER
ABOUT THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS AT THESE RESORTS?
>> GOSH, IT'S HARD TO SAY THE
SCOPE OF THIS THING.
SINCE WE WROTE THAT FIRST STORY,
WHICH JUST RAISED QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, I HAVE
GOTTEN DOZENS AND DOZENS --
RIGHT NOW I'VE HEARD FROM ABOUT
150 PEOPLE THAT HAVE TOLD OF
DRINKING SMALL TO MODERATE
AMOUNTS OF ALCOHOL, BLACKING
OUT, BEING SEXUALLY ASSAULTED,
ROBBED, OTHERWISE ENCOUNTERING
TROUBLE THERE AND THOSE ARE JUST
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE READ OUR
STORIES AND TOOK THE TIME TO
REACH OUT.
IT'S HARD TO SAY.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF
DEATHS AND SPECIFICALLY VICTIMS
FROM WISCONSIN?
>> WELL, WE KNOW OF, GOSH -- I
KNOW OF ABOUT AT LEAST SEVEN OR
EIGHT DEATHS.
AND, AGAIN, THESE ARE PEOPLE
THAT ARE DROWNING IN RESORT
POOLS, SOMETIMES DURING THE DAY,
AND SOME OF THESE POOLS ARE
WAIST-HIGH WATER.
THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE HEARD FROM
THEIR LOVED WNS, THEY ONES, THEY'RE FROM
ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY.
I MAY HAVE HEARD FROM SOMEONE
FROM CANADA AS WELL.
>> RESORTS KEEP SAYING THAT THEY
USE ONLY PREMIUM ALCOHOL AND YET
MEXICAN AUTHORITIES I UNDERSTAND
ACKNOWLEDGE PROBLEMS WITH
TAINTED ALCOHOL.
LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE
ALCOHOL BEING SERVED AT THESE
RESORTS?
>> YEAH.
WELL, THEY DENY THE TAINTING.
WHAT THEY DO ACKNOWLEDGE IS THAT
THEY HAVE A VAST PROBLEM WITH
ILLICIT ALCOHOL AND ILLEGAL
ALCOHOL.
SO WHETHER IT'S COUNTER FIT, COUNTERFEIT,
MADE WITHOUT TAX STAMPS, IT'S
UNDER THE RADAR OF REGULATORS.
THAT'S ABOUT 36% OF ALL THE
MEXICO, FALLS INTO THAT
CATEGORY.
NOW, A PERCENTAGE OF THAT IS
THOUGHT TO BE TAINTED.
SO THEY'LL DENY THAT THEY FOUND
ANY EVIDENCE OF CONTAMINATED
ALCOHOL, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU
IS THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE TALKED
TO, MANY, LIKE I SAID, DOZENS,
THEY REPORT DRINKING ONE,
SOMETIMES TWO, THREE DRINKS AND
THEN BLACKING OUT, SOMETIMES
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THEIR SPOUSE
AND THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE
ALL DIFFERENT SIZES.
YOU HAVE MEN THAT ARE 6'3" AND
THESE PETITE WOMEN AND THEY WILL
BLACK OUT AND COME TO AT THE
SAME TIME.
THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS JUST
YET.
>> ADDITIONALLY YOUR REPORTING
SHOWED THAT THE RESORTS OFTEN
WERE NOT ONLY NOT HELPFUL IN
THESE EMERGENCIES, BUT
SPECIFICALLY UNHELPFUL.
DESCRIBE SOME OF THAT.
>> YEAH.
THAT IS A THEME, A COMMON THEME
THAT I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHEN
THEY -- WHEN THEY SEEK HELP,
WHEN THEY ARE INJURED OR, YOU
KNOW, OTHERWISE FACE TROUBLE,
THE RESORTS ARE NOT COOPERATIVE
IN TERMS OF SUPPLYING ANY KIND
OF SURVEILLANCE VIDEO.
THEY OFTEN HAVE REFUSED TO CALL
THE POLICE.
YOU KNOW, AS AMERICANS WE THINK,
OH, YOU KNOW, YOU GET INTO
TROUBLE, CALL THE POLICE.
THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT WORKS IN
MEXICO.
OFTEN IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO
YOU, IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO
GET TO THE POLICE.
SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE A TAXI TO GO
TO THE POLICE OFTEN AND EVEN
THERE THEN WHAT PEOPLE HAVE
ENCOUNTERED IS A HESITANT POLICE
FORCE THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, HEY,
WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE
DRUNK, LOOKS LIKE YOU -- YOU
KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING HERE TO
INVESTIGATE.
THE DROWNING WAS ACCIDENTAL, FOR
EXAMPLE.
SO THEY'RE NOT GETTING --
THERE'S NO RECOURSE WHEN
SOMETHING GOES WRONG.
>> KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW -- AND
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS LIKE A
FAIR QUESTION TO A REPORTER, BUT
KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW, BRIEFLY,
WHAT'S YOUR BEST ADVICE FOR
THOSE TRAVELING TO THESE MEXICAN
RESORTS?
>> YEAH.
I MEAN, THAT IS A TOUGH QUESTION
BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A LOT YOU
CAN ACTUALLY DO TO TOTALLY
PROTECT YOURSELF.
I MEAN, SOME OF THE SAFETY TIPS
THAT HAVE COME OUT ARE NOT
HELPFUL.
I MEAN, SUGGESTING THAT YOU
WATCH -- YOU KNOW, WATCH WHAT'S
BEING POURED INTO YOUR CUP.
THAT'S NOT HELPFUL BECAUSE WE
KNOW IN MEXICO THAT SOME OF THE
ALCOHOL IS COUNTERFEIT, SO IT
MIGHT LOOK LIKE IT'S IN AN
AUTHENTIC BOTTLE, BUT THEY HAVE
A PROBLEM WITH COUNTERFEIT
ALCOHOL MAKING ITS WAY INTO
AUTHENTIC-LOOKING BOTTLES.
SO YOU CAN'T TELL THAT.
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS TO GAUGE
THEIR OWN RISK.
YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY HAS A
DIFFERENT COMFORT LEVEL WITH
WHAT SORT OF RISK THEY'RE
WILLING TO TAKE.
SO IT'S REALLY HARD TO SAY
BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY STICK WITH
BEER, BUT I HAVE INTERVIEWED
SOME FOLKS THAT HAD TAP BEER AND
BLACKED OUT SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
SO MAYBE CANNED BEER MIGHT BE
BETTER THAT YOU OPEN YOURSELF?
AGAIN, THAT'S JUST SORT OF ME
SPECULATING FROM TALKING TO
DOZENS OF PEOPLE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, I NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE,
BUT THANK YOU, RAQUEL RUTLEDGE,
VERY MUCH FOR YOUR REPORTING ON
THIS.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST
IN IT.
>> WE SHIFT GEARS NOW INTO
ELECTORAL POLITICS AND AN INSIDE
LOOK AT THE RACE FOR STATE
SUPREME COURT.
LAST WEEK WE INTRODUCED YOU TO
SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE TIM
BURNS.
ON OUR JANUARY 5 PROGRAM WE WILL
TALK WITH CANDIDATE REBECCA
DALLET.
TONIGHT WE SPEAK WITH SUPREME
COURT CANDIDATE AND SAUK COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, MICHAEL
SCRENOCK.
BEFORE ENTERING THE FIELD OF LAW
HE SPENT OVER A DECADE IN LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING A STINT AS
THE WASHBURN CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
AS A PRIVATE PRACTICE ATTORNEY
HE DEFENDED LEGAL CHALLENGES TO
ACT 10.
IN 2015 GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER
APPOINTED HIM TO THE SAUK COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT.
HE RETAINED HIS SEAT IN THE 2016
ELECTION.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHY DO YOU BELIEVE YOU WOULD
BE BEST AMONG THE CANDIDATES
RUNNING TO SERVE ON THE
WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT?
>> THANK YOU.
I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT
THING, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE
MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THE
SUPREME COURT, IS THAT I BELIEVE
STRONGLY IN THE RULE OF LAW AND
I BELIEVE THAT THE ROLE OF THE
COURT IS TO INTERPRET AND TO
APPLY THE LAW, BUT NOT TO
REWRITE THE LAW OR TO TRY TO
LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH.
I THINK THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO
OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AND I
THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE
JUSTICES ON OUR SUPREME COURT
UNDERSTAND THE LIMITED ROLE THAT
THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN BY THE PEOPLE
THROUGH OUR CONSTITUTION.
AND AS I WATCHED MR. BURNS AND
JUDGE DALLET ANNOUNCE THEIR
CANDIDACIES, I WEAND WASN'T SATISFIED
THAT EITHER ONE OF THEM SHARE
THAT VIEW OF THE ROLE OF THE
COURT AND I THINK IT'S
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
SO I THINK MY JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHY FIRST AND FOREMOST IS
A REASON THAT THE ELECTORS
SHOULD BE INTERESTING IN HAVING
ME ON THE SUPREME COURT.
NOWRKS INOW, I HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT
EXPERIENCE THAN MY OPPONENTS.
WHAT I BRING TO THE POSITION IS
A BROAD EXPERIENCE ON THE TYPES
OF ISSUES THAT THE SUPREME COURT
REGULARLY HEARS.
SO AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL, I WAS INVOLVED HEAVILY
IN MATTERS OF ZONING AND
PLANNING, PROPERTY TAX
ASSESSMENT, BUDGETING.
AS AN ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE
PRACTICE, I REPRESENTED PRIVATE
INTERESTS IN THOSE SAME AREAS.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND THOSE
MATTERS OF LAW THAT PEOPLE
INTERACT WITH ON A DAY-TO-DAY
BASIS AND THAT DO END UP IN OUR
SUPREME COURT.
>> CANDIDATE TIM BURNS SAYS THAT
THE NOTION THAT JUDGES ARE
APOLITICAL IS A FAIRYTALE.
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
>> I THINK THAT HE BELIEVES THAT
PASSIONATELY.
I THINK HE REALLY DOES BELIEVE
THAT.
I THINK HE'S WRONG.
AND I CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE I
DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY.
EVERY DAY WHEN I SIT ON THE
BENCH, I APPROACH CASES BASED ON
THE FACTS AS THEY COME TO ME AND
THE LAW AS I FIND IT.
AND IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR ME TO
HAVE A CASE IN FRONT OF ME THAT
I HAVE A PERSONAL FEELING ABOUT
OR AN EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT ABOUT
ONE WAY ORT OR THE OTHER AND I MUST
SET ASIDE THOSE FEELINGS,
PERSONAL OPINIONS AND EMOTIONS
AND NOT LET THEM GET IN THE WAY
OF MY ROLE AS A JUDGE IN
APPLYING THE LAW TO THE FACTS AS
THEY COME TO ME.
>> YET YOU DEFENDED THE STATE IN
ACT 10 AS A PRIVATE LAWYER AND
YOU ALSO HELPED REPUBLICAN
LAWMAKERS DRAW THE VOTING MAPS.
NOW, THAT SUGGESTS KIND OF AN
INCLINATION, A CONSERVATIVE GOP
INCLINATION.
WHAT ABOUT THAT?
>> WELL, I DIDN'T DRAW THE MAPS.
AND I KNOW THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
PEOPLE THINK FROM ONE ARTICLE
THAT PATRICK MARLEY WROTE.
BUT THE WORK THAT I DID ON ACT
10, I'M PROUD OF BECAUSE OF THE
ISSUES THAT WERE IN FRONT OF THE
COURT.
THERE ARE MANY CASES -- THERE
WERE SIX DIFFERENT CASES THAT
WERE FILED OVER ACT 10,
CHALLENGING IT.
AND THE FIRST ONE DEALT WITH THE
WAY THAT IT WAS ADOPTED.
AND THEN A NUMBER OF CASES DEALT
WITH THE MERITS.
THOSE ISSUES RAISED FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS OF THE SEPARATION OF
POWERS AND THE ROLE OF THE COURT
IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER TWO
BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.
AND THAT'S HOW THOSE CASES WERE
DECIDED.
THEY WEREN'T DECIDED BECAUSE A
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE AND
GOVERNOR PASSED ACT 10.
AND WE SEE THAT WITH JUSTICE
CROOKS IN HIS CONCURRENCE IN ACT
10.
HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS A GOOD
LAW.
HE DID NOT THINK IT WAS A GOOD
IDEA.
HE THOUGHT IT WAS BAD PUBLIC
POLICY.
BUT AS A MATTER OF LAW IT'S NOT
EVEN A CLOSE CALL.
SO THE FACT THAT I WORKED ON
THAT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT I
HAVE ANY SORT OF REPUBLICAN
LEANINGS OR THAT I WOULD BE
INCLINED TO RULE ON CASES BASED
ON THE POLITICAL PREFERENCES OF
THE PARTIES IN FRONT OF ME.
IT DEMONSTRATES THAT I HAVE THE
ABILITY TO REALLY RESEARCH THE
LAW ON COMPLEX ISSUES OF
CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS AND
IDENTIFY WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT
THOSE QUESTIONS.
AND THAT'S THE ROLE OF THE
JUSTICE ON OUR SUPREME COURT.
>> WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON LACK
OF RECUSAL RULES WHEN IT COMES
TO CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS WHO
COME BEFORE THE HIGH COURT?
>> WELL, THE FIRST THING, I
THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THE WAY
THE ISSUE HAS BEEN FRAMED SO FAR
IN THIS CAMPAIGN, WE HAVE A
RECUSAL RULE.
AND THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN
SHOULD KNOW THAT AND SHOULD NOT
BE MISLED INTO THINKING WE DON'T
HAVE A RECUSAL RULE.
IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR A
LONG TIME.
IT WAS A QUESTION THAT JUSTICE
ABRAHAMSON ADDRESSED IN 2009
DURING HER REELECTION BID AT
THAT TIME.
AND WHAT SHE SAID THEN IS TRUE
NOW.
AND WHAT SHE SAID THEN WAS THAT
WE -- JUDGES LOOK AT THE
QUESTION OF RECUSAL ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BASED ON ALL
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE
CASE.
AND THERE COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF
REASONS WHY A JUDGE OR A JUSTICE
WOULD FEEL THE NEED TO RECUSE
THEMSELVES THAT COULD HAVE
NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRIBUTIONS
OR SUPPORT DURING A CAMPAIGN.
AND I DO THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERY
CASE THAT COMES IN FRONT OF ME.
I HAVE TO THINK IS THERE A
REASON WHY I NEED TO GET OUT OF
THIS CASE?
NOW, WE HAVE AN ELECTED
JUDICIARY.
THAT'S THE SYSTEM THAT PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN WHICH CHOSEN.
AND AT THE VERY CORE OF THAT
SYSTEM IS THE BELIEF AND THE
EXPECTATION THAT JUDGES
INDIVIDUALLY WILL NOT SIT ON
CASES WHEN THEY CAN'T BE FAIR
AND IMPARTIAL.
AND THE RECUSAL RULE THAT WE
HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW ALLOWS
AND REQUIRES JUDGES TO MAKE THAT
ANALYSIS.
AND I HAVE DONE IT ON THE
CIRCUIT COURT.
I WOULD CONTINUE TO DO IT ON THE
SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THAT'S
FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT.
>> MICHAEL SCRENOCK, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF
ATTENTION PAID TO THE
UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF
DEMOCRATS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR
IN WISCONSIN, BUT WHAT OF THIRD
PARTY CANDIDATES?
WE TALK WITH LIBERTARIAN
CANDIDATE PHIL ANDERSON, CHAIR
OF THE WISCONSIN LIBERTARIAN
PARTY, A FORMER U.S. ARMY COMBAT
MEDIC, HE'S A REALTOR AND RAN
FOR U.S. SENATE IN 2016.
HE JOINS US NOW.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> EL WITH, WE'VE ASKED ALL THE DEMOCRATS
WHICH SETS THEM APART FROM EACH
OTHER, BUT WHAT SETS YOU APART
FROM CANDIDATES OF EITHER PARTY?
>> WE HAVE A RADICALLY DIFFERENT
VISION FOR WHAT GOVERNMENT
SHOULD BE.
WE BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE HAVE THE
RIGHT TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS
THEY CHOOSE, AS LONG AS THEY
DON'T INTERFERE WITH OTHER
PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO LIVE THE SAME
WAY.
BUT HOW THAT PLAYS OUT IN STATE
GOVERNMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, IS WE
BELIEVE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RETURN
TO BEING MORE LOCAL, MORE
ACCOUNTABLE AND TRANSPARENT.
SO RIGHT NOW BOTH REPUBLICANS
AND DEMOCRATS GO TO MADISON TO
REPRESENT THEIR PARTIES AND
CONSTITUENTS AND THEY FIGHT OVER
HOW THEY'RE GOING TO CONTROL
PEOPLE'S LIVES.
WE WANT TO TO RETURN THAT CONTROL
TO PEOPLE BY GETTING RID OF
MANDATES THAT REQUIRE LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES TO PASS CERTAIN
LAWS TO COMPLY WITH STATE
GOVERNMENT.
>> YOU HAVE RUN FOR ELECTED
OFFICE BEFORE, NOT GARNERED VERY
MUCH OF THE VOTE.
WHY DO YOU THINK YOUR MESSAGE IS
RESONANT?
>> WELL, WHEN WE TALK TO PEOPLE,
WE GET A REALLY POSITIVE
RESPONSE.
BASICALLY, THE FIRST STATEMENT
THAT I MADE IN MY LAST QUESTION.
PEOPLE DO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE
THE RIGHT TO LIVE THEIR LIVES AS
THEY CHOOSE TO AS LONG AS THEY
DON'T INTERFERE WITH OTHER
PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO DO THE SAME
THING.
WE'RE NOT A GOOD INVESTMENT FOR
THOSE ENTITIES, INTERESTS THAT
LIKE TO INVEST IN POLITICIANS
HOPING TO HAVE INFLUENCE AFTER
THE ELECTION.
DEMOCRATS ACCUSE THE WALKER
ADMINISTRATION OF THAT.
IF THERE WERE A DEMOCRAT IN THE
GOVERNOR'S MANSION, THEY'D GET
THE SAME ACCUSATION.
WE STAND FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW.
WE WANT TO GET RID OF THAT
INFLUENCE THERE.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE DON'T
GET A LOT OF CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THOSE BIG
OUT-OF-STATE DONORS THAT YOU
HEAR FOR REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS.
AND THAT MANIFESTS ITSELF IN HOW
MUCH COVERAGE WE GET AND HOW
MUCH MEDIA WE CAN PAY FOR.
>> LET'S MOVE TO THE ISSUES.
WHAT IN YOUR MIND IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT THING THAT WISCONSIN
NEEDS TO DO FOR ITS EDUCATION
SYSTEM?
>> WE NEED TO ALLOW LOCAL UNITS
OF GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THEIR OWN
DECISIONS.
THERE'S WAY TOO MUCH CONTROL
EXERTED FROM WASHINGTON AND
MADISON.
GOVERNMENT USED TO BE AN IDEA
WHERE PEOPLE WOULD COME TOGETHER
FROM VARIOUS PARTS OF THE STATE
OR THE COUNTRY TO MAKE
DECISIONS, BECAUSE ALL OF THE
EXPERTISE, THE KNOWLEDGE, THE
BOOKS WERE ALL IN ONE PLACE.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE.
PEOPLE HAVE TREMENDOUS ACCESS TO
ALL KINDS OF RESOURCES,
EXPERTISE AND I BELIEVE THAT
PEOPLE IN WHATEVER MUNICIPALITY
IN WISCONSIN, WHATEVER SCHOOL
DISTRICT IN WISCONSIN, SHOULD
HAVE THE ABILITY TO RETAIN THEIR
FUNDS LOCALLY, THEIR TAX MONIES
NOT FLYING OFF TO MADISON OR
D.C., AND TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT
BEST FIT THEIR COMMUNITIES.
>> WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GROW
GOOD-PAYING JOBS IN WISCONSIN?
>> BY GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF
THE WAY.
FOXCONN IS A DISASTER FOR TWO
REASONS.
NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK IT'S
PRODUCTIVE TO PICK WINNERS AND
LOSERS IN THE ECONOMY BECAUSE
PEOPLE DO THAT EVERY DAY WHEN
THEY DECIDE WHERE TO WORK, WHO
TO HIRE, HOW TO SPEND THEIR
MONEY.
EVEN IF YOU THINK THAT'S A GOOD
IDEA, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE
INVOLVED IN MANIPULATING THE
ECONOMY, FOXCONN IS A
PARTICULARLY BAD DEAL.
IT SPENDS $3 BILLION PLUS OF
TAXPAYER MONEY AND WE'RE
UNCOVERING EXCEPTIONS EVERY DAY.
IF WE JUST LET WISCONSIN GROW
FROM WITHIN, IF WE BELIEVE THAT
THE PEOPLE OF WISCONSIN ARE GOOD
AT DOING BUSINESS, ARE GOOD
CEERMS, GOOD PRODUCERS, GOOD
EMPLOYERS, THEN LET'S GET
GOVERNMENT OUT OF OF THE WAY AND
LET THEM DO THAT.
>> HOW DO YOU THINK STATE
GOVERNMENT SHOULD SORT OF CREATE
A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING SOURCE FOR
WISCONSIN HIGHWAYS?
>> WELL, IT NEEDS TO BE TIED TO
USE, I THINK.
RIGHT NOW THE GAS TAX IS PRETTY
MUCH TIED TO SUPPOSEDLY TIED BUT
HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN TIED VERY
WELL TO ROADS.
BUT WE SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT
WE'RE APPROACHING THAT WHERE WE
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE COSTS ARE,
WHERE THE BIDS ARE OPEN, WHERE
WE'RE NOT DOING BUSINESS WITH
ONLY CERTAIN ROAD-BUILDING
COMPANIES AND WHERE WE CAN HAVE
THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK IN
TERMS OF WHAT MONEY WE HAVE TO
SPEND FOR ROADS.
IF WE HAVE DEVOLVE THAT TO THE
MORE LOCAL OR COUNTY LEVEL,
LET'S DO THAT.
>> TIED TO USE, DOES THAT MEAN
TOLLS?
>> I WOULD BE OPEN TO TOLLS.
THEY DO REFLECT PEOPLE PAYING
FOR WHAT THEY USE.
LET'S NOT FOOL OURSELVES.
IF PEOPLE PAY TOLLS TO USE THE
ROADS, THAT SHOULD BE GOING
DIRECTLY TO THE ROADS.
IF COMPANIES, SHIPPERS, ARE
PAYING TOLLS AND THAT ENDS UP IN
THE CONSUMERS' POCKETS AS WELL,
BUT THAT ENABLES AN ADVANTAGE
FOR LOCAL PRICE AND SERVICES
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PAYING AS
MUCH TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE.
MORE LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT USE
THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM LESS
WILL HAVE A PRICE ADVANTAGE
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR
TRANSPORTATION THEY'RE NOT
USING.
>> WITH LESS THAN A HALF MINUTE
LEFT, WHY DO YOU THINK YOU COULD
UNSEAT SCOTT WALKER?
>> I THINK THAT OUR MESSAGE
RESONATES.
YOU MENTIONED THAT WE DIDN'T GET
A TON OF VOTES LAST ELECTION.
BUT WE GOT 90,000.
WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ON THAT AND
DO BETTER.
AS LONG AS WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY ON PLATFORMS LIKE
THIS TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT,
PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO EMPOWER THEM
AND THEIR COMMUNITIES TO MAKE
GOOD DECISIONS AND WE TRUST
THEM.
WE DON'T NEED A CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT THAT MICROMANAGES
EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES AND
THE ECONOMY.
>> PHIL ANDERSON, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> TENTH SENATE DISTRICT
REPUBLICAN PRIMARY WAS WON BY
ADAM JAR CHOA, ONE OF TWO
REPUBLICANS WHO VOTED AGAINST
THE FOXCONN BILL THIS FALL.
HE WILL FACE ST. CROIX COUNTY
PATTY SCHACHTNER IN THE GENERAL
ELECTION ON JANUARY 16.
IN THE 66TH ASSEMBLY DISTRICT,
DEMOCRAT GRETA NEUBAUER WILL RUN
UNOPPOSED.
RICK GUNDRUM WILL FACE DENNIS
DEGENHARDT IN THE 58TH.
NEWS OUT OF WASHINGTON, WHERE IT
WAS ANNOUNCED THAT FORMER
WISCONSIN DNR SECRETARY CATHY
STEPP WILL BECOME A REGIONAL EPA
ADMINISTRATOR FOR MUCH OF THE
GREAT LAKES REGION, INCLUDING
OVERSIGHT OF SOME OF THE
CHEMICALS THAT WILL BE USED BY
FOXCONN IN LCD MANUFACTURING.
AND NEXT WEEK WE END THE YEAR
WITH A FORECAST OF ALL THINGS
POLITICAL FOR 2018.
OUR POLITICAL PANELIST BILL
MCCOSHEN AND SCOT ROSS MAKE
PREDICTIONS ON THE RACES AHEAD
FOR GOVERNMENT AND U.S. SENATE.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW"
IS