>> FUNDING
FOR "HERE & NOW"
IS PROVIDEDN
PART, BY
LE PHILLIPS
FAMILY FOUNDATION AND
FRIENDS OF
WISCONSIN PUBLIC TELEVISION.
>> I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE & NOW,"
WHILE THE WISCONSIN
BUDGET PROCESS
STALLS OUT,
THE U.S. SUPREMECOURT
GOES INTO
OVERDRIVE. TWO
MONUMENTAL HIGH
COURT DECISIONS THIS
WEEK, ONE
THAT UP
HOLDS OBAMACARE, THE
OTHER THIS
MORNING GUARANTEES GAY
COUPLESTHE RIGHT TO MARRY.
IN JUST A
MOMENT I'LL
TALK WITH
WISCONSIN'S U.S. SENATORS
BALDWIN AND JOHNSON.
ALSO TONIGHT,
THE CONTINUING
CONTROVERSIES AT
WEDC. SHAWN JOHNSON
AND I
WILL SHOW
YOU WHY
THE BUCKS
ARENA IS A
DEJA VU. BUT
FIRST, GAY
COUPLES WHO WISH
TO MARRY
ASK FOR
EQUAL DIGNITY
IN THE EYES OF
THE LAW.
THE CONSTITUTION GRANTS THEM
THAT RIGHT.
EARLIER TODAY,
I SAT
DOWN WITH
WISCONSIN'S TAMMY BALDWIN, THE ONLY
OPENLY GUY
U.S. SENATOR
AND STARTED
BY ASKING
HER REACTIONTO THE
HIGH COURT
RULING MAKING
GAY MARRIAGE THE
LAW OF THE
LAND. YOU
KNOW, IT WAS SO
EXCITING TO
HEAR THE
OPINION, AND
I'VE ALWAYS SAID
LOVE IS
LOVE AND
FAMILY IS
FAMILY AND
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOVE OR
FAMILY IS
WRONG, BUT
NOW WE HAVE
THE SUPREME COURT SAYING
IT'S ALSO
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE
14TH AMENDMENT
EQUAL PROTECTION
CLAUSE. AND THIS
IS A HUGE
MILESTONE IN
THE MARCH TOWARDS
FREEDOM AND
EQUALITY FOR
THE LGBT
COMMUNITY.>> WHAT IS THIS
DAY LIKE FOR
YOU PERSONALLY?
KNOW, I HAVE
BEEN A PART
OF THIS
FIGHT, THIS
EFFORT FULL
FREEDOM, FULL EQUALITY, AND
I JUST -- I CAN'T
TELL YOU
HOW HUGE
OF A MILESTONE THIS IS.
AND THE MARCH
GOES ON,
TOO.>> DID
YOU EVER
ENVISION THAT
THIS DAY,
THIS DECISION
WOULD COME,
JUST A FEW
SHORT YEARS AGO?
KNOW, I
ALWAYS BELIEVED
THE RIGHT WOULD
BE WON
FOR MARRIAGE
EQUALITY DURING
MY LIFETIME,
BUT I DIDN'T KNOW
WHEN, OBVIOUSLY.
YOU KNOW,
THE PROGRESS
IN MY
EARLY YEARS
OF INVOLVEMENT
IN THIS CIVIL RIGHTS
MOVEMENT SEEMED
ELUSIVE, IT SEEMED
SLOW. AND
NOW WE'VE
SEEN SUCH CHANGE
IN RECENT
YEARS. THIS IS
JUST A VERY,
VERY EXCITING
DAY.>> AS TO
THE HIGH
COURT RULINGON
THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT, YOUR
REACTION TO THAT AS
WELL THIS
WEEK. KNOW, I
WAS VERY
PLEASEDTO SEE A
6-3 DECISION
IN THESUPREME
COURT, AGAIN,
UPHOLDING THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
IT'S THE
SECOND RULING
THE COURT
HAS MADE AND IN
THIS CAS
E CONFIRMING THAT
TAX CREDITS
ARE AVAILABLE TO
CITIZENS THROUGHOUT
THE UNITED STATES REGARDLESS O
F THEIR ZIP
CODE, REGARDLESS
OF WHAT STATE
THEY RESIDE
IN. THE
CHIEF JUSTICE
ROBERTS --
AND I'M NOT
QUOTING HIM
PRECISELY HERE, BUT
SAYING THIS WAS CLEARLY AN EFFORT BY
CONGRESS TO
EXPAND ACCESS TO THE HEALTH
CARE MARKETPLACE.
THEY CLEARLY DID
NOT INTEND
TO CONSTRICT
IT OR
SEND IT
INTO DISARRAY, AND
STRONGLY UPHOLDING
THE AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT. AND
IT HAS
GREAT CONSEQUENCE
FOR WISCONSIN,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY
OUR GOVERNOR
DECIDED NOT
TO CREATE A
STATE MARKETPLACE, BUT
INSTEAD A FEDERAL
MARKETPLACE. 166,000
WISCONSINITES WILL BE ABLE TO
KEEP THEIR
TAX CREDITS,
WILL NOT
HAVE TO SEE THEIR
TAXES RISE BECAUSE
OF THIS
GREATSUPREME COURT DECISION.>>
SPEAKING OF
GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER,
HE SAYS
IN REACTION
TO THIS
RULING THAT IT IS A
SIGNAL THAT
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS
MUST, QUOTE,
REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS TO
REPEAL AND
REPLACE THIS
COSTLY AND
DESTRUCTIVE LAW.WHAT IS
YOUR REACTION TO
THAT? >>
WELL, IT FLIES
IN THE
FACE OF THE FACTS.
FIRST OF ALL,
HE'S SPEAKING
IN DIRECT OPPOSITION
TO THE
BEST AND
WELL-BEING OF THE CITIZENS
OF THIS
STATE, 166,000
WISCONSINITES HAVE
AFFORDABLE, QUALITY HEALTH
CARE COVERAGE
BECAUSE OF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT. AND
ALL OF THE GOVERNOR'S
PREVIOUS EXCUSES FOR EXAMPLE NOT
TO EXPAND
MEDICAID BECAUSE HE
DIDN'T BELIEVE
THE LAW
WOULD LAST
ARE EVAPORATING
AND IT'S
NOW TIME FOR
HIM TO
TAKE THE
NEXT STEP,
NOT ONLY ESTABLISH
I HOPE A
STATE EXCHANGE,
BUT TO
EXPAND MEDICAID,
BECAUSE IT'S
CLEAR THAT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
IS HERE TO STAY. IN A
MOMENT, WE
WILL ALSO BE
HEARING FROM
U.S. SENATOR
RON JOHNSON
WHO SAYS
THIS LAW
HAS HARMED
MILLIONS OF
AMERICANS AND
HAS COST
THEM HEALTH
PLANS AND
DOCTORS THAT
THEY CHOSE.
DO YOU
DISPUTE THAT?
>> I
ABSOLUTELY DO.
IT, AGAIN,
FLIES IN
THE FACE OF
THE FACTS. FIRST OF
ALL, THE
AFFORDABLE CARE
ACT HAS
RID OUR
COUNTRY OF
INSURANCE ABUSES
THAT PREVENTED
PEOPLE WITH
PREEXISTING HEALTH CONDITIONS FROM
EVEN GETTING
INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE. IT
HAS CUT
AND ELIMINATED
ABUSIVE PRACTICES RESULTED
IN WOMEN BEING
CHARGED MORE
FOR
PREMIUMS THAN
MEN. AND IT
ALLOWS YOUNG PEOPLE
TO STAY ON
THEIR PARENTS'
INSURANCEUNTIL THEY'RE
AGE 26.
THERE'S ALL SORTS
OF IMPORTANT
PROVISIONS THAT WOULD BE REVERSED IF
THIS WERE TO BE
REPEALED. AND SO
MANY MORE
PEOPLE NOW
HAVE COVERAGE.
THIS IS
SO SIGNIFICANT
OF A STEP
FORWARD. WE
NEED TO BE FIGHTING
TOIMPROVE IT. BUT
THE 50
SOME ATTEMPTS
IN THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO
GUTOR REPEAL
THIS, YOU
KNOW, ARE
DESTRUCTIVE, AND WE NEED
TO WORK
TOGETHER AND
MOVE FORWARD
TOGETHER. I
HOPE THE
REPUBLICAN PARTY
AND THE
GOVERNOR AND
SENATOR JOHNSON BEGIN
TO WORK CONSTRUCTIVELY TOWARDS THAT
END.>> AS
THIS WEEK
COMES TO A
CLOSE, YOUR
O VERALL
RESPONSE TO
WHAT HAS HAPPENED I
N THE
HIGHEST COURT OF THE
LAND THIS
WEEK.>> WELL,
THIS HAS BEEN A
REMARKABLE SESSION FOR
THESUPREME COURT. THERE'S OTHER
CASES THAT HAVE
BEEN DECIDED THAT
WE HAVEN'TEVEN
GOTTEN TO
THAT ARE
VERY, VERY
CONSEQUENTIAL, BUT
THESE LAST
FEW DAYS HAVE
I THINK
REALLY BROUGHT
US FORWARD
TO A MORE
JUST SOCIETY.>>
SENATOR TAMMY BALDWIN, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH.>> THANK
YOU.>> I
SPOKE WITH
SENATOR BALDWIN EARLIER
TODAY. JOINING US NOW
TO REVIEW
THIS BUSY
WEEK AT THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT, REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATORRON JOHNSON.
THANKS VERY
MUCH FOR BEING
HERE.
>> HELLO, FREDERICA.
HOW YOU DOING?>> GREAT.
TO THE HIGH COURT OPINION THATGAY COUPLES CAN MARRY IN ALL THINK THIS
IS KIND OF
THE DIRECTION
THINGS HAVE BEEN
HEADING.
THERE'S BEEN A REAL PROBLEM WITHDIFFERENT LAWS IN DIFFERENT
STATES, AND SO I THINK THESUPREME COURT WAS GOING TO RULE AND I'M
JUST HOPING THAT
WE AS A
NATION CAN
MOVE FORWARD
WITH SOME REAL
CIVILITY, BUT ALSO ACOMMITMENT TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
MAKE S
URE WE
RESPECT THAT AS
WELL.>> SO
THE HIGH
COURT SAYS
THAT MARRIAGE
IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT
AND THAT
GAY COUPLES
CANNOT BE
DEPRIVED OF IT.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT AS
WELL? >>
I CERTAINLY
BELIEVE IN
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN
ONE MAN
AND A WOMAN,
BUT THE SUPREME
COURT HAS SPOKEN.
AND, AGAIN,
I REALLY DO
HOPE THAT THIS IS
NOW GOING TO BE
BEHIND US AND LET'S MOVE
FORWARD WITH
CIVILITY, BUT,
AGAIN, A REAL
COMMITMENT TO
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
AND FREEDOM. I
THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE AN
ISSUE AND I
HOPE WE CAN
MOVE FORWARD PROPERLY.
OKAY. AS FOR
THE HIGH
COURT RULING ON
THE AFFORDABLE
CARE ACT,
YOU DESCRIBED THIS
AS INCREDIBLY
DISAPPOINTING. HOW
SO? >> IT
WAS. IT WAS
SHOCKING. I DON'T
KNOW HOW TRAINED
LAWYERS AND
JUDGES THAT
HAVE RISEN
TO THE SUPREME COURT CAN
LOOK AT A
LAW, READ IT
WHEN IT
SAYS SUBSIDIES
CAN FLOW
THROUGH EXCHANGES ESTABLISHED BY THE
STATE AND CHANGE THAT LAW.
ALL YOU HAVE TO
DO IS
READ JUSTICE
SCALIA'S !
! SCALIA'S
SCATHING DISSENTING OPINION AND I
THINK IT
LAYS OUT
HOW FLIMSY
THE MAJORITY
OPINION WAS.
SO I'M
HIGHLY DISAPPOINTED BY
IT. MAJORITY
OPINION, HOWEVER,
SAID THAT
THEY DID
NOT THINK THAT WAS
THE INTENT,
THATTHE INTENT WAS
TO ALLOW
THIS.>> WELL,
LISTEN. THIS
IS A VICTORY
FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.
I THINK IT'S A
STUNNING DEFEAT
FOR THE RULE
OF LAW
BECAUSE IDON'T THINK THERE'S
ANY WAY
YOU CAN
TAKE A LOOK AT
THE LEGISLATIVE
HISTORY, LISTEN
TO PEOPLE
THAT --
LIKE JOHNSON GRUBBER, WHO
WAS FAR
MOREINVOLVED IN THE DRAFTING
OF THISLAW THAN
THE ADMINISTRATION ISWILLING
TO ADMIT.
IT WAS
TO ALLOW
THE SUBSIDIES
TO FLOW
THROUGH THE STATE
EXCHANGES TO
COERCE THE
STATES TO
ESTABLISH AN EXCHANGE. I
THINK THE
INTENT WAS
RATHER CLEAR.
YOU'VE GOT TO GO
THROUGH -- AND
THE MAJORITY
DID GO
THROUGH SOME
REAL MENTAL
GYMNASTICS TO REACH
THEIR CONCLUSION. BUT,
AGAIN, I
WOULD REALLY
REFER PEOPLE
TO JUSTICE
SCALIA'S DISSENT.
I THINK
THAT'S CERTAINLY
THE MORE
COGENT ONE.>>
BUT WHAT ABOUT
THE UP TO
180,000 PEOPLE
IN WISCONSIN
WHO ARE
ENROLLED IN
THAT FEDERAL
MARKETPLACE IN PLANS IN
THAT MARKETPLACE?
WHAT DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD DO FOR HEALTH CARE IF NOT THAT?
MEAN, I
KNOW THAT'S NOT
THE QUESTION
NOW, TODAY,
AFTER THAT
RULING, BUT WHAT
ABOUT THOSE
180,000 PEOPLE WHO
DID SIGN UP?
>> WELL,
THAT'S THE
WHOLE REASON THAT
I INTRODUCED A
PRETTYSIMPLE PIECE
OF LEGISLATION
CALLED PRESERVING
FREEDOM AND
CHOICE IN HEALTH
CARE A COUPLE
OF MONTHS AGO
THAT RECOGNIZEDTHAT THE
TURMOIL, THE
CHAOS THATWOULD
HAVE ENSUED IF
THE SUPREME COURT
HAD RULED A
S THE LAW
WAS WRITTEN.
BASICALLY WHAT
I SAID
IF YOU
LIKE YOUR HEALTH CARE
PLAN, YOU
CAN KEEP IT,
EVEN OBAMACARE,
EVEN YOUR SUBSIDY,
THROUGH AUGUST OF
2017. THAT WOULD
HAVE SET
UP THE
2016 ELECTION AS A
DISCUSSION, A DEBATE,
HOPEFULLY A MANDATE.
ALLOW THE AMERICAN PEOPLE,
ALLOW THE
PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN INPUT
INTO WHAT
OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
WOULD LOOK LIKE
BEYOND THE
2016 ELECTION.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS
FAIR. ALL
I WOULD
ASK IN
EXCHANGE IS
PRESERVING FREEDOM, ELIMINATE
THE INDIVIDUAL
MANDATE, GET THE
IRS OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF
FINING AMERICANS. LET'S STOP
FORCING AMERICANS
INTO PART-TIME
WORK. WE WOULD
HAVE ELIMINATED
THE EMPLOYER
MANDATE. LET'S STOP
DRIVING UP
THE COST OF HEALTH
CARE WITH THESE
EXPENSIVE MANDATED
COVERAGES. I
REALLY DON'T
NEED MATERNITY
COVERAGE. I WOULD
HAVE TURNED THOSE
DECISIONS BACK TO INDIVIDUALS AND
THE STATES. THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN AREASONABLE PROPOSAL.
LISTEN, REPUBLICANS
WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE
ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE CARE. THE
PROBLEM WITH OBAMACARE,
BECAUSE OF THE NATURE
OF IT,
INSURANCE RATES
ARE SKYROCKETING.
THE ONLY PEOPLE
BENEFITING FROM OBAMACARE ARE
THOSE PEOPLE
WITH TAXPAYER
SUBSIDIES. THIS
IS A VICTORY
FOR BIG
GOVERNMENT, A STUNNING DEFEAT TO
THE RULE
OF LAW,
AND IT'S
NOT GOING TO BE
GOOD FOR HARD-WORKING WISCONSIN
TAXPAYERSWHO ARE GOING TO
BE FOOTING
THE BILL.
WHAT'S YOUR POSITION
ONWISCONSIN ACCEPTING
THE EXPANDED
MEDICAID DOLLARS THAT ARE
PARTOF THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT?
>> I
SUPPORT GOVERNOR WALKER'S
DECISION NOT
TO ESTABLISH A
STATE EXCHANGE.
SO NOW WE HAVE THE
FEDERAL EXCHANGE.
AND I
THINK ANYBODY
HAS TO BE
CONCERNED ABOUT MORE
PEOPLE MOVING
INTO MEDICAID WHERE
WE DON'T
HAVE ADEQUATE
REIMBURSEMENTS AND AS A
RESULT DOCTORS --
NOT ENOUGH
DOCTORS ARE EVEN
SEEING MEDICAID
PATIENTS. SO
THESE GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS
ARE A REAL PROBLEM. IF ANYBODY
WANTS TO
REALLY ENVISION
WHAT OUR HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM IS GOING TO
LOOK LIKE,
THEY NEED
-- THEY
DON'T HAVE TO
GO ANY FURTHER
THAN LOOK AT
THE VA
SYSTEM. THAT'S A
GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
IT'S NOT DOING A
VERY GOO
D JOB.>>
GOVERNOR WALKER
CALLS ON
CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS T
O REDOUBLE THEIR EFFORTS TO
REPEAL OBAMACARE.
THE NEXT CHALLENGE TO
THE LAW
? >>
WELL, THAT'S
GOING TO BE HARDTO SAY.
WE REALLY
CAN'T REPEAL
IT THROUGH RECONCILIATION PROCESS.
I THINK THERE'S
MISINFORMATION ABOUT
THAT. OBAMACARE
WAS NOT
PASSED IN
BUDGET RECONCILIATION. IT WAS
PASSED WITH
60 VOTES.
THE PERSON
THAT REPLACED
SENATOR FEINGOLD
WAS ONE OF
THOSE 60
DECIDING VOTES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
TO TAKE A
LOOK AT
WHAT PARTS OF
THE LAW WE
COULD PASS ON
RECONCILIATION,PUT THOSE
REPEALS --
ELIMINATE SOME OF THE
BAD THINGS,
GET THAT
ON PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
DISESK. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
-- DESK.
BUT IT IS GOING TO
BE INCUMBENTON
THE REPUBLICAN
NOMINEE TO
LAY FORWARD
WHAT IT WILL
LOOK LIKE
AND LET THE PEOPLE OF
WISCONSIN DECIDE
WHAT DIRECTION
THEIRHEALTH CARE SYSTEM WILL
TAKE. >>
SENATOR RON
JOHNSON, THANKS
VERY MUCH
AGAIN FOR JOINING
US. >>
HAVE A GREAT
DAY.>> TODAY
GOVERNOR SCOTT WALKER
ALSO WEIGHED
IN ON THE
HIGH COURT
SAME-SEX MARRIAGE RULING. HE
SAID, QUOTE, I
BELIEVE THISSUPREME COURT
DECISION IS A
GRAVE MISTAKE.
AS A RESULT OF THIS
DECISION, THE
ONLY ALTERNATIVE LEFT FOR
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
IS TO
SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION TO
REAFFIRM THE
ABILITY OF THE STATES
TO CONTINUE
TO DEFINE
MARRIAGE. NO
ONE WANTS
TO LIVE,
HE SAYS,
IN A COUNTRY WHERE THE
GOVERNMENT COERCES
PEOPLE TO
ACT IN OPPOSITION
TO THEIR
CONSCIENCE. NOW
TO STATE
CAPITOL NEWS. THIS
WEEK TWO
DEMOCRATS ON THE
WISCONSIN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
BOARD CALLED FOR THE
WEDC SECRETARY AND
CEO TO
STEP DOWN.
SENATOR JULIE LASSA AND
MINORITY LEADER
REPRESENTATIVE PETER BARCA'S CALL
TO REMOVE
REID HALL
COMES AFTER
RECENT INVESTIGATIONS
AND NEWLY-RELEASED DOCUMENTS SHOW
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
OF STATE
MONEY WAS
AWARDED TO COMPANIES
WITHOUT FORMAL
REVIEW.>> TO
PUT IT
SIMPLY, I DO
NOT HAVE
CONFIDENCE I N
REID HALL'S
ABILITY TO
LEAD OUR
STATE'S JOB
AGENCIES AND PROTECT
THE TAXPAYERS OF WISCONSIN.
AND I HAVE
NO SENSE
IF BOARD
MEMBERS WILL BE GIVEN ALL
THE INFORMATION
NEEDED FOR
US TO
PERFORM OUR
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.
SO THERE ARE SO
MANY REASONSTHAT HE
MUST RESIGN.
THE AUDIT
BUREAU REPORTS POINTS
OUT THAT WE'RE
NOT FOLLOWING THE
LAW AT
WEDC, THAT
WEDC IS
NOT EVEN
FOLLOWING BOARD
POLICIES. THIS
IS UNACCEPTABLE.
IN HIS
PUBLIC REMARKS, HE
DOES NOT
SEEM TO APPRECIATE
THE
CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING
THE LAW
AND FOLLOWING
BOARD POLICY.
REID HALL DID
NOT RESPOND
TOA REQUEST
FOR AN INTERVIEW.
HERE'S WHAT SCOTT WALKER SAID
ABOUT THE
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF
THE WEDC
BOARD. QUOTE, THE
PRESS CONFERENCE HELD
BY REPRESENTATIVE
BARCA AND SENATOR LAST
IS IS
BOTH DISINGENUOUS AND TROUBLING.
HE SAID
THEY BOTH
HAV E
TAKEN PART
IN IN-DEPTH
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
LOANS AND
AUDITS AT BOARD
MEETINGS AND HAVE
BEEN PROVIDED
NEARLY 1,000
PAGES OF
DOCUMENTS WHICH
REREQUESTED RELATED
TO THESE
LOANS. TO
SAY THERE IS A
LACK OF
TRANSPARENCY, HE SAYS, IS
BLATANTLY FALSE. ADDITIONALLY,
THE DECISION
DATES ON
ALL THESE
LOANS WERE
PRIOR TO
REED HALL'S
APPOINTMENT TO CEO.
THE AWARD-WINNING
JOURNALIST REPORTING
THAT BLEW
WEDC'S PROCESS OF
AWARDING FUNDS
IS WIDE OPEN
IS HERE
TONIGHT. DEE HALL
IS NOW
MANAGING EDITOR AT
THE WISCONSIN CENTER
FOR INVESTIGATIVE
JOURNALISM, OF
WHICH WPT
IS A PARTNER.
THANKS VERY MUCH
FOR BEING
HERE.>> THANKS A
LOT.>> CONGRATULATE
ON THIS
REPORTING. REALLY
IMPORTANT STUFF.>> THANKS.
APPRECIATE IT.
>> FIRST
TELL US
WHAT IT WAS
YOU UNCOVERED
CONCERNING THIS
.5 MILLION THAT
WEDC AWARDED
TO BUILDING
COMMITTEE INC.>>
MATTHEW WAS
MY PARTNER IN
THE REPORTING
I DID FOR
THE STATEJOURNAL AND HE
DID A LOT
OF SOURCE WORK
TO COME UP WITH
THIS PARTICULAR LOAN
THAT APPARENTLYWITHIN
WEDC AND
OUTSIDE OF
WEDC WAS SEEN
AS A TROUBLESOME
LOAN. WE
DIDN'T KNOW
MUCH MORE
ABOUT IT THAN THAT.
WE BEGAN
LOOKING INTO T.
HE TOOK
THE LEAD
AT LOOKING
AT SOME
ASPECTS OF THE LOAN AND I
LOOKEDAT WHO
WAS BUILDING
COMMITTEE INC.
IT WAS A
COMPANY THAT WAS O N
ITSWAY DOWN. IT
WAS FAILING.
IT HAD
PRETTY MUCH
LAID OFF MOST
OF ITS STAFF.
THE STAFF THAT
REMAINED HAD
BEEN ON
HALF PAY
FOR SOMETHING
LIKE A YEAR
AND A HALF
WHEN THEY
GOT THE MONEY.
THERE WERE OTHER
ALLEGATIONS WE
RAN IN OUR
STORY BASED
ON OUR SOURCES THAT
INDIVIDUALS WERE URGED
TO GIVE
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS TO
TRY TO
GET EITHER FEDERAL
OR STATE
MONEY FOR
THIS ENERGY
RETROFIT PROJECT,
WHICH THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO
BE DOING. IN
THE END,
IT DOESN'T
APPEAR -- IT'S
UNCLEAR HOW MUCH WORKS
ACTUALLY WAS D
ONE ON THAT.
IT IS
CLEAR THEY
NEVER PAID BOOK
ANY OF THE MONEY.
>> I
KNOW THAT AT
THIS PRESS
CONFERENCE, REPRESENTATIVE BARCA
AND SENATOR
LASSA BROUGHT
OUT A BIG PHOTO
OF A MASERATI.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT
THAT? >> DURING OUR
REPORTING ONE
THING WE
DISCOVERED WAS
THE COMPANY
WAS BEING
SUED LEFT
AND RIGHT
BY A VARIETY
OF PEOPLE
WITH WHOM
IT HAD
DONE BUSINESS
AND ONE OF THEM WAS A
LEASING COMPANY THAT
LEASED SOM
E VERY
HIGH-END CARS TO SOME OF
THE EMPLOYEES,
INCLUDING THE
OWNEROF THE
COMPANY, AND
SO THAT WAS
HIS PERSONAL
BUSINESS CAR,
WAS THE
MASERATI. WHAT REPRESENTATIVE
BARCA AND
SENATOR LASSA
WERE REFERRING
TO IS THERE ARE
DOCUMENTS THAT
CAME OUT ON
FRIDAY THAT
INDICATE THAT
IN FACT THE
PEOPLE WITHIN
WEDC WERE
AWARE THAT
THE PRESIDENT
WAS TELLING SOME OF
HIS CREDITORS, DON'T
WORRY, I'LL
PAY YOU
BACK WHEN
I GET
THE MONEY FROM THE
STATE. SO
THE NOTION
THAT HE
WOULD USE
THESE ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS THAT WERE
SUPPOSED TO B E
GOING OUT THERE
TO CREATE
JOBS TO
INSTEAD PAY
OFF, YOU
KNOW, A LOAN OR
THE MONEY
THAT H E
OWEDTHIS LEASING
COMPANY WAS
PRETTY NOXIOUS
TO THE
DEMOCRATS.>> HAS
YOUR SUBSEQUENT
REPORTING UNCOVERED SIMILAR
PARTIES? >>
THAT'S A PRETTY
UNBELIEVABLE STORY.
THE MAXIMUM
DONOR TO
WALKER. THE
DAY OF THE
ELECTION THE
SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF ADMINISTRATION, WHO
IS THE
RIGHT-HAND PERSON FOR ANY
GOVERNOR, TOOK THE
LEAD IN
TRYING TO GET THE
MONEY FOR
BUILDING COMMITTEE INC. SO
WE DID FIERCHED
!
FIND THAT.
WE DID A
STORY ABOUT
MORGAN AIRCRAFT.
THEY GOT
ALMOST $700,000
IN
STATE LOANS, DID
NOT CREATE
THE JOBS THEY
SAID THEY WERE
GOING TO
CREATE, ARE REALLY
SORT OF
ON LIFE
SUPPORT, WOULD BE A
GENEROUS WAY TO PUT
IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT
THE COMPANY
HAS MUCH GOING
ON RIGHT
NOW.>> SO
LAST FRIDAY'S
DOCUMENT RELEASED
FROM WEDC
SHOWED THIS
$124 MILLION IN
LOANS THAT WERE NOT
REVIEWED BEFORE
GOING OUT
THE DOOR. WHAT DO YOU KNOW
ABOUT HOW
SUCCESSFUL THESE AWARDS HAVE
BEEN TOWARD JOB
CREATION? >>
WELL, LOOKING AT THAT
RIGHT NOW,
ACTUALLY, THERE'S SO MANY
COMPANIES AND WE'RE
TRYING TO
SQUARE THE NUMBERS THAT WEREGIVEN TO
US BY
WEDC ON
FRIDAY WITH WHAT'S
ON THEIR
WEBSITE AND
WHAT'S BEEN
PUBLICLY REPORTED
ABOUT THESE COMPANIES
AND HOW
WELL THEY'RE DOING.
SOME OF THEM
CLEARLY ARE DOING
GREAT. THEY'RE DOING
FINE. SOME OF
THEM IT'S KIND
OF QUESTIONABLE WHETHER
THEY EITHER CREATED
THE JOBS THEY
SAID THEY WERE GOING
TO CREATE
OR WHETHER
THEY CREATED
JOBS AND
THEN LATER
PERHAPS LAID OFF SOME
PEOPLE OR
LOST JOBS. WE'RE STILL
TRYING TO
GO THROUGH ALL OF
THOSE COMPANIES.
BUT THE REASON
THAT THOSE
DOCUMENTS WERE
RELEASED, BUILDING COMMITTEE
WAS ANEXAMPLE OF AN
AWARD THAT WAS GIVEN WITHOUT
FINANCIAL REVIEW.
AND SO THE
QUESTION THAT
THE DEMOCRATS HAD --
AND OF COURSE
REPORTERS HAVE
-- IS
ARE THERE MORE
OF THESE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS
RELATED TO,
A BUNCH
OF DOCUMENTS
ABOUT BUILDING COMMITTEE AND
LAYING OUT
THESE OTHER
24 COMPANIES
THAT RECEIVED A TOTAL
OF 127
AWARDS FOR
WHICH THERE WAS
NOT APREVIOUS FINANCIAL REVIEW OF
THE COMPANIES.
THE NUMBER
OF JOBS ATTACHED
TO THAT
$124 MILLION?
>> IT WAS IN THE
THOUSANDS. THE
OTHER THING
THAT'S A LITTLE HARD ABOUT
ALL THIS
IS THESE
WERE GIVEN OUT
IN 2011,
2012. SOME
OF THEM
DON'T REALLY
HAVE TO
MEET THAT
JOB GOAL
UNTIL 2017.
SO SOME
OF THEM
MAY APPEAR TO
BE BEHIND,
BUT IT'S HARD TO TELL.
I MEAN, IF
YOU OPEN A
NEW
FACILITY, THEN ALL OF A
SUDDENYOU HAVE 200
MORE JOBS. SO I
WISH I
COULD SAY IT'S AN
EASY THING TO
LOO K
AT, BUT
I T'SA LITTLE
DIFFICULT TO
FIGURE OUT.
MAYBE THEY HAVE CREATED
NO JOBS
NOW, BUT MAYBE
BY 2017
THEY'LL HAVE
500 JOBS.>>
INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED
STUFF. ARE
YOU GOING
TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON
IT? >> YES.
I'M WORKING
WITH ONE OF
THE INTERNS THERE AND
LOOKING AT THE
COMPANY AND
TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT
WHAT'S BEEN GOING
ON WITH
THESE AWARDS.
WERE THERE THINGS
THE STATECOULD
HAVE DISCOVERED
HAD THEY DONE A
FINANCIAL REVIEW.>> ALL
RIGHT.
DEE HALL, THANKS
VERY MUCH FOR
YOUR WORK.>>
ANOTHER WEEK
LAPSES WITHOUT A
MEETING TO
FINISH UP
THE STATE
BUDGET. AS
WE'VE REPORTED,
THE STICKING
POINTS INCLUDE FUNDING FOR STATE
HIGH WAIST
AND THE
PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES A NEW
BUCKS ARENA.
THE THREAT
OF LOSING
THE
FRANCHISE MADE US
RECALL A SIMILAR
SITUATION A DECADE
AGO,MILLER PARK FOR
THE MILWAUKEE BREW ERLS.
I MET
WITH WITH SHAWN
JOHNSON T O
COMPARE AND
CONTRAST THE TWO.>>
THROUGHOUT THE
WRANGLING OVER THE NEW
BUCKS ARENA
AND HOW
TO PAY FOR
IT, A CERTAIN
DEJA VU COMES
OVER WISCONSIN.>>
20 YEARS
AGO, 1995,
STATE LAWMAKERS
WERE CONFLICTED OVER
HOW TO
PAY FOR A
NEW BREWER
STADIUM. TAXES
COME FROM
MILWAUKEE AND WAUKESHA.
STICK IT
TO THEM.>>
TOMMY THOMPSON
TELLING A NORTHWOODS
CROWD TO
LET THE
MILWAUKEE REGION PAY FOR MILLERPARK.
SO REMEMBER
ALL THAT?
MANY OF
US JUST KIND OF
REMEMBER THE
BROAD OUTLINES
OF THIS,
WHETHER THERE WAS A
REGIONAL TAX
TO PAY
FOR THE
BREWER STADIUM.
AND THEN THERE
WAS A VERY
POPULAR REPUBLICAN
STATE SENATOR
WHO VOTED
FOR SAID
TAX, VOTED IN
FAVOR OF IT,
AND LOST
HIS JOB.
BUT ARE WE
REALLY BACK
THERE AGAIN?
>> YEAH. WE
DID A DEEP DIVE
INTO THE
ARCHIVES TO
RELIVE SOME OF
THE DEBATE
FROM 1995.
HERE'S A LITTLE
CLIP FROM
BREWERS OWNER
BUD SELIG.>>
PEOPLE KEEP
TALKING ABOUT
THE ADDITIONAL
COST, BUT
I WANT
TO SUBMIT THAT ONE
THING THAT'S
DISAPPOINTING, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT
WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN, THE
HUGE SHORTFALL,
IF WE WERE GONE.>>
SO AGAIN THAT
WAS FORMER
BREWERS' OWNER
BUD SELIG
TALKINGIN KIND OF
THE TODAY
TERMS WOULD BE IT'S
CHEAPER TO
KEEP THEM,
WHICH IS
WHAT GOVERNOR SCOTTWALKER WAS SAYING ABOUT
TRYING TO
KEEP THE
BUCKS IN
WISCONSIN BY
HELPING TO
FUND A NEW
ARENA.>> RIGHT.
BUT WHEN WE LOOKED
AT THE
ARCHIVES, WE
DID FIND
SOME KEY
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BREWERS
DEBATE OF 1995
AND THE
BUCKS DEBATE
OF 2015.
NUMBER ONE,
THE BREWERS DEBATE
WAS A STAND-ALONE BILL.
IT WASN'T PART OF
THE BUDGET.
NUMBER TWO,
MAJORITY REPUBLICANSAT THE TIME WERE
ALWAYS LOOKING
FOR A BIPARTISAN DEAL. THEY
WANTED DEMOCRATIC VOTES
FROM THE BEGINNING.
THREE, BUD
SELIG WAS
ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE
PR PUSH
FOR THE
BREWERS DEAL,
WHILE THE
BUCKS' OWNERS
BASICALLY HAVE BEEN OUT
OF SIGHT.
THEY'VE LET
OTHER PEOPLE PUSH
FOR THIS DEAL.
TOMMY THOMPSON,
THE GOVERNOR ATTHE
TIME, WAS
ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING FOR
THE BREWERS
DEAL, MUCH
MORE ACTIVELY
THANGOVERNOR WALKER, WHO'S
BEEN OUT OF STATE
QUITE A BIT
THIS YEAR
IN WISCONSIN. AND
THEN NUMBER
FIVE IS
REALLYHARD TO
QUANTIFY, BUT
IT'S APPARENT A
S YOU
WATCH THESE
ARCHIVES, THE
BREWERS' DEBATE
TUGGED AT THE
HEART STRINGS
MORE. THE
BREWERS GO
ANYWHERE, NO
MATTER WHERE IT IS,
WHEN THEY
SAY MILWAUKEE
OR MILWAUKEE BREWERS, WHATEVER IT
IS, THAT
MEANS THAT THAT TEAM
IS YOURS.>>
AND HOW
WOULD WE
ALL FEEL
IF NEXT
YEAR IT WAS
CHARLOTTE BREWERS?
THE BUFFALO
BREWERS? OR
SOME OTHER
NAME? EACH
OF US WOULD
BE DEPRESSED.>>
SO, YOU
KNOW, WE
D ON'T
REALLY HEAR
THAT SAME KIND
OF EMOTIONALLOBBY FOR
THE MILWAUKEE BUCKS AS WE
DID IN
199 5
TO KEEP
THE MILWAUKEE
BREWERS. WHERE'S THAT
LEAVE US THEN?
>> YEAH. IT REALLY
RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION.
MEAN, ANOTHER
OBVIOUS BUT IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
THE BREWERS' DEAL
AND THE
BUCKS' DEAL
IS THAT
20 YEARS HAVE
PASSED. A
LOT'S HAPPENED
IN THAT
PAST. THERE HAVE
BEEN A LOT
OF SPORTS
STADIUMS AND
ARENAS AROUND THECOUNTRY THAT HAVE
BEEN SUBSIDIZED
BY ONE
GOVERNMENT OR
ANOTHER. RAISES
THE QUESTION
MAYBE IF
PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN MORE
USED TO
THAT AND THEY'RE
MORE OKAY WITH
IT, COULD BE ALSO
THAT PEOPLE ARE MORE TIRED
OF IT.
WE'LL FIND
OUT HOW
THAT PLAYS
OUT. THANKS,
SHAWN.>> THANK YOU.>>
AS IT
HAPPENS, LATE
THIS WEEK,
SHAWN SAW
BUCKS OWNERS
HEADING INTO A
MEETING AT THE
STATE CAPITOL,
CLEARLY INTENT
ON PUTTING
THIS DEAL
TOGETHER. THIS
IS WHAT
OWNER WES
EDENS SHOALD SHAWN.
WELL, THE
CLOCK IS RUNNING
DOWN. IT'S A
SERIOUS TOPIC
FOR US.
IT'S A SERIOUS TOPIC
FOR THE
STATE, OBVIOUSLY.
AND WE THINK THAT THE
DEAL THATHAS BEEN
STRUCTURED IS,
FRANKLY,A VERY FAVORABLE ONE FOR
THE STATE.
WE WANT
THE BUCKS
TO STAY IN
MILWAUKEE. WE
WANT TO BE A
PART OF THE
COMMUNITY. GETTING
THIS THING
DONE AND
GETTING IT
DONE NOW
IS ACTUALLY
QUITE IMPORTANT.>>
WITH JOINT
FINANCE NOT
MEETING TODAY,
GETTING THE
BUCKS DEAL DONE
STILL AWAITS.
AND A COUPLE
OF NONBUDGET
ITEMS THIS WEEK IN
THE NEWS.
THE DNR
HAS GRANTED
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
FOR LAKE MICHIGAN
WATERTO BE
DIVERTED FOR
USE IN
WAUKESHA. THE
DIVERSION OF GREAT
LAKES WATER THAT
FAR INLAND
IN WISCONSIN
IS UNPRECEDENTED AND
PART OF THE
ONGOING WORK OF
THEGREAT LAKES
WATER COMPACT.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE
DIVERSIONARE SCHEDULED.
AND FINALLY
TONIGHT, OAK CREEK
IS HOME
TO ONE OF
THE NATION'S
LARGEST MANUFACTURERS OF
FLAGS, INCLUDING THE PRODUCTION
OF CONFEDERATE FLAGS.
BUT NO
LONGER. THE
EDER FLAG
COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MOTIVATED
BY THE
CHARLESTON SHOOTINGS,
ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK
THAT THE
CONFEDERATE FLAG IS
P ULLED
FROM THEIR
PRODUCTION LINE
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GREAT
WEEKEND.
>> FUNDING
FOR "HERE & NOW"
IS PROVIDED, IN
PART, BY LE
PHILLIPS FAMILY
FOUNDATION AND FRIENDS
OF WISCONSIN PUBLICTELEVISION.