ONGOING STAND-OFF BETWEEN THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE
LEGISLATURE.
WISCONSIN WAS NOT AMONG THE
MORE THAN 20 STATES THAT
REACHED A SETTLEMENT WITH THE
OPIOID MANUFACTURER PURDUE
PHARMA THIS WEEK.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH KAUL
SAYING WE'RE COMMITTED TO
GETTING JUSTICE AND IN MY VIEW
PURDUE'S CURRENT POSITION
DOESN'T ACHIEVE THAT.
IT COMES IN THE MIDST OF AN
IMPASSE WITH REPUBLICANS ON THE
JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE WHETHER
THEY SHOULD SIGN
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS TO
SEE AND APPROVE CASE
RESOLUTIONS UNDER THE SO-CALLED
LAME DUCK LAWS LIMITING KAUL'S
AUTHORITY.
THE CO-CHAIRS OF JFC STATED
THROUGH MEDIA REPORTS THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL STATED
WISCONSIN IS NOT ONE OF THE
STATES AGREEING TO SETTLE THE
PURDUE PHARMA CASE AT THIS TIME.
WE HOPE THOSE REPORTERS HAVE
SIGNED NON-DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE
GETTING CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION FROM THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL THAT HE REFUSED TO
SHARE WITH MEMBERS OF THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEY SAY,
SHOULD STOP PLAYING GAMES.
JFC COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP
DECLINED OUR INVITATION TO
APPEAR ON TONIGHT'S PROGRAM AS
THE HIGH STAKES DISPUTE
CONTINUES, WE SAT DOWN WITH
ATTORNEY GENERAL KAUL JUST
AHEAD OF THE ANNOUNCED
SETTLEMENTS AMONG OTHER STATES.
WE STARTED BY ASKING ABOUT THE
NEED FOR THOSE SECRECY
AGREEMENTS.
>> WHEN YOU ARE LITIGATING A
CASE, THERE IS CERTAIN
INFORMATION THAT NEEDS TO BE
KEPT CONFIDENTIAL IN A LOT OF
CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO TO PRESENT
POTENTIAL SETTLEMENTS TO THE
LEGISLATURE, WE REACHED OUT AND
SAID WE NEED TO REACH A PROCESS
THAT WILL ALLOW US TO DISCUSS
THESE MATTERS CONFIDENTIALLY SO
THE STATE'S INTEREST AND THE
INTEREST OF TAXPAYERS ISN'T
UNDERMINED BY HAVING
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION MADE
PUBLIC AND AVAILABLE TO THE
OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION.
WE'VE OFFERED A COUPLE OPTIONS
BUT THE PRIMARY ONE WE OFFERED
A CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR
THE LEGISLATURE TO SIGN AND
THEY HAVE DECLINED TO SIGN THAT
AND THE PROBLEM IS THE
SOLUTIONS THEY HAVE OFFERED
DON'T ACTUALLY PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY.
SO WE NEED THEM TO FIGURE OUT
SOME SORT OF SOLUTION TO THIS
MESS THAT THEY'VE CREATED SO
THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH
RESOLUTIONS FOR THE STATE.
>> ONE OF THOSE SOLUTIONS THAT
THEY OFFERED A COUPLE OF WEEKS
AGO WAS TO HAVE A LAWYER SIGN
IT ON THEIR BEHALF.
IS THAT STILL WHAT THEY'RE
TALKING ABOUT?
>> IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
THEY'VE OFFERED A COUPLE
SOLUTIONS THAT THEY SAID WOULD
MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY.
FIRST THEY SAID THEY WOULD GO
INTO CLOSED SESSION.
THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
BUREAU SAYS IT DOESN'T PROTECT
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THEY WOULD HAVE A LAWYER SIGN A
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT.
AGAIN THE LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE
BUREAU SAID IT DOESN'T BIND
INDIVIDUAL LEGISLATORS.
THEY HAVEN'T COME UP WITH
OPTIONS TO MAINTAIN
CONFIDENTIALITY.
THEY GAVE THEMSELVES THIS
SIGNIFICANT POWER BUT THEY NOW
NEED TO TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY THAT COMES WITH
THE POWER OR NEED TO CHANGE THE
LAW.
>> THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
SCOTT FITZGERALD SAID THIS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ALREADY
KNOWS OF NUMEROUS WAYS HE CAN
PRESENT CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT
INFORMATION TO THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE AND HE
CONTINUES TO DRAG HIS FEET.
HE CONTINUES TO SAY HE CAN WORK
WITH US OR BE PART OF THE
PROBLEM.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> WELL, HE IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG
ABOUT THAT.
AS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THERE
ARE OPTIONS THAT THEY PRESENTED
THAT DON'T WORK.
WE HAVE PRESENTED A WORKABLE
OPTION.
THIS IS A REALLY BAD SITUATION
AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE
BEST OF IT.
FOR MONTHS WE'VE TRIED TO WORK
WITH THE LEGISLATURE.
SO FAR THEY HAVEN'T BEEN
WILLING TO TAKE ON THE
RESPONSIBILITY THEY'VE GIVEN
THEMSELVES.
>> YOU SAY HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS COULD BE AT STAKE.
HOW SO?
>> THE STATE IS INVOLVED IN
SETTLING LOTS OF LITIGATION.
THERE ARE CASES THAT HAVE
SIGNIFICANT DOLLAR VALUES AT
STAKE.
OVER TIME IF THIS PROBLEM ISN'T
RESOLVED, THERE IS GOING TO BE
SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE STATE.
IF WE HAVE CASES, FOR EXAMPLE,
MULTI-STATE CASE WHERE MANY
STATES JOIN IN A SETTLEMENT BUT
WE AREN'T ABLE TO BE PART OF
THAT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE OUR
JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE CAN'T
GET ITS ACT TOGETHER AND FIGURE
OUT HOW TO REVIEW SETTLEMENTS,
IT'S THE TAXPAYERS IN WISCONSIN
WHO WILL BE HARMED BY THAT AND
IT WILL BE HARDER TO GET
JUSTICE WHEN CONSUMERS ARE
DEFRAUDED BY SOMEBODY AND WE
BROUGHT A CONSUMER PROTECTION
ACTION OR IF A POLLUTEOR
COMMITS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
VIOLATION WE'LL HAVE A HARDER
TIME RESOLVING THOSE CASES
BECAUSE THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE HAS CREATED THIS
SITUATION.
>> WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE
PURDUE PHARMA CASE?
>> I CAN ONLY COMMENT GENERALLY
ON PENDING LITIGATION.
WE HAVE BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST
TWO PURDUE PHARMA ENTITY AND
RICHARD SACKLER THE FORMER
PRESIDENT AND CO-CHAIR OF THE
BOARD OF PURDUE PHARMA AND
JOINED A MULTI-STATE
INVESTIGATION INTO OPIOID
MANUFACTURERS.
MY PREDECESSOR JOINED
MULTI-STATE INVESTIGATIONS INTO
DISTRIBUTORS AND WE'RE
COMMITTED TO RECOVERING TO THE
FULLEST EXTENT WE CAN ON BEHALF
OF WISCONSINITES SO WE CAN
START PUTTING THOSE RESOURCES
TO ADDRESS THE EPIDEMIC TO
THINGS LIKE TREATMENT AND
PREVENTION AND ENFORCEMENT.
>> WERE EARLIER SETTLEMENT
TALKS IN CONNECTION WITH THAT
CASE OR THOSE CASES PART OF
WHAT BROUGHT YOU BEFORE JOINT
FINANCE SAYING YOU HAD AN
URGENT MATTER?
>> I CAN'T COMMENT ON THE
SPECIFICS OF THAT NEGOTIATION.
BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT ANY
CASE WHERE THERE ARE URGENT
SETTLEMENT TALKS COULD LEAD TO
A SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT NEED
A DECISION VERY QUICKLY FROM
THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE.
SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO MAKE A
DECISION IN A LIMITED WINDOW
AND THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE
NEEDS TO HAVE A PROCESS IN
PLACE OR THE STATE IS GOING TO
BE AT RISK AT LAONGZ OUT ON
BEING PART OF A LARGE
SETTLEMENT.
>> WHAT WOULD IT MEAN IF THE
MANUFACTURER OF OXYCONTIN
DECLARED BANKRUPTCY?
>> IF THERE IS BANKRUPTCY
DECLARED WISCONSIN AND A NUMBER
OF OTHER STATES, I'M CONFIDENT
A NUMBER OF OTHER STATES WILL
CONTINUE TO PURSUE THEIR CLAIMS
BOTH AGAINST THE BANKRUPTCY
ESTATE.
WE ALSO HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST
ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE
SACKLER FAMILY AND THOSE CLAIMS
WILL BE CLAIMS THAT WE CONTINUE
TO PURSUE EITHER IN A
BANKRUPTCY FORUM OR IN THE FORM
WHERE THEY CURRENTLY ARE.
>> IN TERMS OF THE SITUATION
WITH THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE, IF JUSTICE HAS TO
TRY CASES RATHER THAN SETTLE
THEM, IS YOUR OFFICE PREPARED
TO DO THAT IN EVERY INSTANCE?
>> WE'RE PREPARED TO TRY THE
CASES WE'VE BROUGHT BUT A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS NEW
PROCEDURE THAT HAS BEEN PUT IN
PLACE HARMS WISCONSINITES
BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED
RESOURCES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND WE NEED TO MAKE
SURE WE'RE ALLOCATING THOSE
RESOURCES AS EFFECTIVELY AS
POSSIBLE.
ONE WAY IS BY SETTLING SOME
CASES SO THAT THE RESOURCES WE
DO HAVE AREN'T USED IN LARGE
VOLUME ON SINGLE CASES.
BUT RATHER WE CAN MAKE SURE
WE'RE GETTING JUSTICE IN A LOT
MORE CASES.
IF NOT WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE
POSSIBILITY THAT MANY MORE
CASES ARE GOING TO TRIAL.
THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE
NUMBER OF CASES WE CAN BRING
AND THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE
ABLE TO GET JUSTICE.
>> SOME DANGER OF WORSE
OUTCOMES IF YOU GO TO TRIAL
RATHER THAN ENTER INTO A
SETTLEMENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE REASON YOU ENTER INTO A
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS YOU
IT'S A FAIR RESOLUTION OF A
CASE.
RISK COMES WITH PROCEEDING TO
TRIAL.
YOU MIGHT LOSE A CASE AND YOU
HAVE TO SPEND RESOURCES THAT
YOU WOULDN'T OTHERWISE HAVE TO
SPEND.
>> ARE YOU PUSHING THIS BECAUSE
YOU JUST DON'T APPROVE OF THIS
LAW OR IS IT A PARTISAN
SITUATION FOR YOU?
>> WE BEGAN IN FEBRUARY TRYING
TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CO-CHAIRS OF THE JOINT FINANCE
COMMITTEE TO TRY TO PUT IN
PLACE A PROCESS THAT WOULD
ALLOW US TO RESOLVE CASES.
THIS IS NOT A GOOD SITUATION NO
MATTER WHAT PROCESS WE PUT IN
PLACE.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT
WORK BECAUSE MY INTEREST IS IN
GETTING THE BEST OUTCOME
POSSIBLE FOR WISCONSINITES IN
THESE CASES.
UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T BEEN
ABLE TO REACH AGREEMENT WITH
THE JOINT FINANCE COMMITTEE.
THEY KEEP INSISTING ON
SOLUTIONS THAT DON'T WORK.
AND THEY'VE REFUSED TO TAKE ON
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
MAINTAINING THE CONFIDENTIALITY
OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS.
SO WHILE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE
THIS LAW OVERTURNED, WE'RE
DOING OUR BEST TO MAKE IT WORK
AND WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVEN'T
HAD COOPERATION FROM THE JOINT
FINANCE COMMITTEE TO MAKE THAT
A REALITY.
>> AGAIN, THE REPUBLICAN
CO-CHAIRS T FINANCE COMMITTEE
DECLINED AN INVITATION TO
APPEAR TONIGHT.
IN TONIGHT'S LOOK AHEAD IF YOU
LIVE IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY YOU
COULD BE LOOKING AT PAYING MORE
AT THE CHECK-OUT.
THAT'S BECAUSE ELECTED
OFFICIALS AND EVEN BUSINESS
LEADERS THERE WANT TO HIKE THE
SALES TAX BY 1% TO HELP PAY FOR
SERVICES AND IMPROVEMENTS.
IT COULD BE A HEAVY LIFT AS IT
NEEDS LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL
BEFORE IT GOES TO A REFERENDUM.
DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVE EVAN
GOYKE IS PROPOSING A BILL TO
ALLOW THE TAX INCREASE AND
JOINS US NOW FROM MILWAUKEE.
THANK YOU FOR DOING SO
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> ROBIN VOS HAS ALREADY SAID
THE PROPOSAL WILL BE A HARD
SELL.
IS THIS DEAD BEFORE IT EVEN
GETS OFF THE GROUND?
>> I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK SO.
I DON'T LIKE TO SPEND MY
LEGISLATIVE TIME WORKING ON
ISSUES THAT ARE DEAD ON ARRIVAL
IN THE STATE CAPITOL.
THE REASON WHY I THINK WE
AREN'T THERE YET IS WE HAVE AN
UNPRECEDENTED COALITION OF
LEADERS IN MILWAUKEE, LEADERS
FROM THE SUBURB, THE CITY, THE
COUNTY, CIVIC AND BUSINESS
LEADERS.
THIS IS A UNIFICATION OF
MILWAUKEE UNLIKE ONE THAT I
HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY TENURE IN
MADISON.
AND WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER, WE
CAN MOVE MOUNTAINS.
AND SO THAT'S OUR GOAL IS TO
STAY UNITED, PUSH FORWARD ON A
SOLUTION THAT WE THINK SOLVES A
LOT OF THE ISSUES FACING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY.
>> IF IT IS A HARD SELL DO YOU
THINK IT WOULD BE THAT BECAUSE
IT IS MILWAUKEE ASKING FOR THIS?
>> WELL, I THINK WE AS A
COALITION HAVE WORKED HARD TO
TRY TO TAILOR THE LEGISLATION
IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T PIT
MILWAUKEE VERSUS THE REST OF
THE STATE.
IF THIS LEGISLATION PASSES, NO
SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO ONE'S
HEALTHCARE OR NO ONE'S ROADS
ARE IMPACTED.
THIS IS OUR SOLUTION.
WE WILL BEAR THE BRUNT ON OUR
SHOULDER, OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR
VISITORS AND COMMUTERS WILL
RAISE THIS REVENUE, KEEP IT AND
SPEND IT LOCAL.
IF SOME OF OUR LISTENERS DON'T
LIVE IN MILWAUKEE COUNTY THEY
WON'T BE IMPACTED AT ALL BY
THIS OTHER THAN THESE
INVESTMENTS WILL GROW
MILWAUKEE'S ECONOMY AND OUR
RETURN ON INVESTMENT TO
TAXPAYERS IS LARGER.
>> WHY DOES MILWAUKEE NEED A
NEW SOURCE OF REVENUE?
>> WE'RE UNIQUE IN WISCONSIN
THE BIGGEST CITY AND REGION WE
HAVE UNIQUE CHALLENGES.
ALMOST EVERY OTHER LARGE CITY
OR LARGE METRO AREA IN THE
UNITED STATES HAS SOME ABILITY
TO CONTROL THEIR LOCAL REVENUE.
WE HAVE SUFFERED LOSS OF JOBS,
WE HAVE CONCENTRATED POVERTY.
WE NEED TO TOOLS TO ADDRESS
THOSE ISSUES.
CURRENTLY WISCONSIN'S LAW, OUR
STATE LAW, TREATS OUR
MUNICIPALITIES AS PRETTY
UNIQUELY AROUND THE COUNTRY.
WE'RE THE ONLY STATE IN THE
MIDWEST THAT DOES NOT ALLOW OUR
LARGEST METRO AREA TO CONTROL,
TO RAISE OR TO SPEND ITS LOCAL
TAXES.
AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS OUR
NEIGHBORS ARE GROWING FASTER
THAN US.
OUR NEIGHBORS LIKE MINNEAPOLIS
OR CHICAGO ARE SEEING BIG
INVESTMENT THAT IS ABLE TO
ATTRACT AND RETAIN YOUNG
WORKERS AND THEY ARE GROWING
FASTER THAN OUR METRO AREA.
>> SO HOW MUCH COULD BE RAISED
AND WHAT WOULD IT GO TOWARD?
>> SO OUR ESTIMATE IS THAT 1%
OR 1 CENT ON A DOLLAR WOULD
RAISE ROUGHLY $160 MILLION.
THE FIRST ONE QUARTER OF THAT
WOULD GO BACK TO PROPERTY
TAXPAYERS.
WE HAVE AN IMBALANCE IN
WISCONSIN.
WE HAVE A LOW SALES TAX AND
VERY HIGH PROPERTY TAX AND WE
WANT TO BETTER BALANCE THAT
RATIO.
WE RESERVE SOME MONEY FOR
PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE TO
ADDRESS HEALTH DISPARITIES IN
OUR REGION AND THE REST IS
SPLIT BETWEEN THE COUNTY
GOVERNMENT AND OUR 19
MUNICIPALITIES SO THAT THEY CAN
USE IT ON THEIR OPERATION AND
CAPITAL BUDGET.
THAT'S FILLING POTHOLES, POLICE
AND FIREFIGHTERS, PARKS, PUBLIC
TRANSIT.
ALL PUBLIC SERVICES AND PUBLIC
GOODS THAT OUR RESIDENTS USE.
>> JUST BRIEFLY WITH A HALF
MINUTE LEFT ONE UWM ECONOMIST
SAYS LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS
WOULD SUFFER A HIGHER BURDEN.
THE INCREASED COST WILL HAVE
MORE OF AN IMPACT ON LOW INCOME
FAMILIES.
HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT?
>> THE SALES TAX IS NOT A
PROGRESSIVE TAX BY ITS NATURE.
I THINK THAT ECONOMIST IS NOT
WRONG IN THAT I GUESS THAT
ANALYSIS.
HOWEVER, WHEN GOVERNMENTS ARE
FOERLSED TO CUT SERVICES, THAT
SAME POPULATION, THOSE LOW
INCOME INDIVIDUALS, ARE FIRST
TO BEAR THE BURDEN.
SO WHEN WE CUT BUS ROUTES OR
PARKS DON'T GET MAINTAINED IT
IS NORMALLY THOSE POPULATIONS
LIVING IN POVERTY THAT ARE MOST
AFFECTED BY CUTS IN SERVICES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE NEED TO LEAVE IT THERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> IN THE HARD SELL CAUCUS ON
THIS MATTER, STATE
REPRESENTATIVE JOE SANFILLIPO
OF NEW BERLIN.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK OF A LOCAL
OPTION SALES TAX INCREASE IN
MILWAUKEE COUNTY AND ITS LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES?
>> YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY ALREADY
TAKES ADVANTAGE OF THE SALES
TAX INCREASE THAT THEY HAVE.
THEY HAVE A HALF PERCENT.
I THINK THAT IT'S TOUGH -- IN
WISCONSIN WE'VE BEEN GOING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH OUR
TAXES THE LAST FEW YEARS BUT
STILL ONE OF THE HIGHEST-TAXED
STATES IN THE COUNTRY AND IN
THE MIDWEST REGION.
ANY TIME WE WANT TO PUT AN
EXTRA BURDEN ON OUR CITIZENS IT
IS SOMETHING WE REALLY HAVE TO
TAKE WITH CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.
>> BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ARGUMENT
THAT MILWAUKEE HAS SEEN
DECLINING STATE AID AND NEEDS
SOME WAY TO OFFSET THAT FOR
NEEDED SERVICES?
>> SO I THINK THE COUNTY HAS
PLENTY OF AREAS WHERE THEY
COULD LOOK WITHIN THEIR OWN
BUDGET TO DO SOME TRIMMING.
I SPENT FIVE YEARS ON THE
COUNTY BOARD.
I'VE BEEN OFF OF IT FOR SEVEN.
WHEN I WAS THERE THERE WERE A
LOT OF AREAS WHERE TRIMMING
COULD BE DONE THAT THE COUNTY
WAS UNWILLING TO DO SO.
WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK AT NOW
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT NEEDING
TO RAISE REVENUE FOR DEBT
REDUCTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WHEN I WAS ON THE COUNTY BOARD
WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF
LAND THAT IS UNUSED THAT
DEVELOPERS MAY BE INTERESTED IN
PURCHASING.
I THINK THAT OPTION OUGHT TO BE
EXPLORED.
TO RAISE SOME MONEY TO LOWER
DEBT SERVICE AS OPPOSED TO JUST
RUNNING TO THE TAXPAYERS AND
PUTTING AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THEM.
>> SUPPORTERS, INCLUDING THE
MILWAUKEE ASSOCIATION OF
COMMERCE, SAY THE INCREASE IN
THE SALES TAX WOULD PROVIDE
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF BY PUTTING
25% OF THE SALES TAX PROCEEDS
TOWARD THAT.
THEY ALSO CALL IT A SOUND
INVESTMENT OF THE FUTURE IN
MILWAUKEE.
WHAT ABOUT THE IDEA THAT
BUSINESS LEADERS SUPPORT THIS?
>> SO I THINK YOU HAVE SOME
BUSINESS LEADERS THAT WILL
SUPPORT IT.
IF YOU'RE IN DOWNTOWN
MILWAUKEE, DEPENDING ON THE
TYPE OF BUSINESS YOU'RE IN.
YOU AREN'T AS AFFECTED.
IF YOU'RE IN SOME OF THE
SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES
NEIGHBORING OTHER COUNTIES.
WAUKESHA COUNTY IS A HALF
PERCENT LOWER THAN MILWAUKEE
COUNTY IN ITS SALES TAX.
IT WILL TRANSLATE TO 1 1/2
PERCENT IF THIS FWOES THROUGH.
IF YOU LIVE IN SUBURB BAN
COMMUNITIES YOU CAN SHOP IN
WAUKESHA COUNTY AND SAVE 1 1/2%.
THAT ADDS UP THROUGHOUT THE
YEAR.
A LOT OF BUSINESSES AROUND THE
OUTER EDGES OF MILWAUKEE COUNTY
MAY NOT FEEL AS MUCH, YOU KNOW,
INSULATED FROM ANY DAMAGE THAT
COULD BE CAUSED BY THIS
INCREASE AS THOSE IN DOWNTOWN
MILWAUKEE ITSELF.
>> IS THIS IN YOUR MIND A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF LOCAL CONTROL,
THOUGH, THROUGH THE REFERENDUM
PROCESS?
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S A GOOD
EXAMPLE OF THE STATE -- OF THE
LOCAL COMMUNITY, IN THIS CASE
THE COUNTY AND LOCAL
MUNICIPALITIES, COMING TO THE
STATE AND WANTING THROW IT IN
OUR LAP, RIGHT?
LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES AND
COUNTIES ALREADY HAVE AN OPTION
TO HOLD A REFERENDUM AND RAISE
TAXES IF THEY SEE THAT THEY
NEED TO.
BUT IN THAT CASE THEY HAVE TO
SELL THAT IDEA TO THEIR LOCAL
VOTERS.
IT IS MUCH EASIER FOR THEM TO
COME TO MADISON AND ASK
LEGISLATORS TO GIVE THEM THE
AUTHORITY TO RAISE THE SALES
TAX AND TRY TO SLAM IT THROUGH.
IN AN ELECTION WHERE YOU MAY
HAVE LOPSIDED RESULTS.
>> AND SO AS TO THAT SPEAKER
VOS CALLED IT A HARD SELL.
DO YOU THINK IT'S ACCURATE?
>> I THINK IT WILL BE A HARD
SELL.
WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD THE LAST
EIGHT, NINE YEARS TO LOWER
TAXES IN THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
TO GET US MOVING IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION.
SO NOBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO
DO SOMETHING TO START REVERSING
THAT TREND.
NOW THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS I
THINK THAT IF YOU SEE WHERE IS
THE MONEY GOING TO BE SPENT AND
HOW DO WE SAFEGUARD -- YOU TALK
ABOUT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF ISN'T JUST
THERE RIGHT AT FIRST AND ALL OF
A SUDDEN DISSIPATES AS TIME
GOES ON AND THEY END UP HAVING
YOUR PROPERTY TAXES GOING UP
AND NOW YOUR SALES TAX IS UP AS
WELL?
THERE WILL BE A LOT OF
DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THERE ARE
SOME AREAS OF NEED.
THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE HAS A
HORRENDOUS CRIME PROBLEM RIGHT
NOW.
THEY REFUSE TO PUT MORE MONEY
INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I THINK IF YOU ASKED THE
AVERAGE CITIZEN THAT WOULD BE
SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY WOULD
AGREE TO HAVE SOME EXTRA
SPENDING IF THEY KNEW IT WOULD
GO TO SAFETY.
HOW DO YOU PROTECT THAT MONEY
AND MAKE SURE THAT'S WHERE IT
REALLY GOES?
>> WE'LL CONTINUE TO WATCH THIS.
THANK