Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
LOTS OF IMPORTANT THINGS TO TALK
ABOUT TODAY.
THE SHOOTING AT CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL AND WHETHER POLICE
ACTED APPROPRIATELY IN THAT
SITUATION.
PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES THE
DECISION TO BACK OFF ON THE FULL
IMPLEMENTATION OF OBAMACARE FOR
THE NEXT YEAR.
IS THAT A GOOD THING OR NOT?
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE STATE
LEGISLATURE TIGHTENING UP THE
HOURS THAT PEOPLE WILL BE
ALLOWED TO VOTE EARLY IN
ELECTIONS.
AND WE'LL DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT
17-YEAR-OLD CRIME SUSPECTS
SHOULD ALWAYS BE TRIED AS
ADULTS.
LET ME INTRODUCE EVERYONE.
YOU KNOW JOEL McCALLY,
LONGTIME NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST.
GERARD RANDALL, EDUCATION
CONSULTANT AND LOCAL JOB
CREATION EXPERT.
AND OF COURSE, DENISE CALLAWAY,
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC
RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL.
RICK HOROWITZ WILL BE ALONG WITH
COMMENTARY AT THE END OF THE
SHOW.
LET'S TALK FIRST ABOUT THE
SHOOTING AT CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL.
POLICE GO TO ARREST A MAN WHO
THEY'RE TOLD HAS A GUN.
HE'S HOLDING A BABY IN THE
NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT.
HE PUTS THE BABY DOWN AND STARTS
TO RUN.
WHEN HE POINTS THE GUN AT THE
POLICE OFFICERS, THEY SHOOT HIM.
IS IT FAIR FOR THE MEDIA TO
QUESTION WHETHER THIS SHOULD
HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN A DIFFERENT
WAY?
>> YOU KNOW, FORTUNATELY, THE
ONLY INJURY THAT WAS SUSTAINED
WAS BY THE PERSON WHO HAD THE
GUN.
VETERAN POLICE OFFICERS, I TRUST
THEIR WISDOM IN THIS INSTANCE.
AND I AM VERY GRATEFUL AS I
THINK MOST IN THE COMMUNITY ARE,
THAT HE WAS THE ONLY CASUALTY IN
THIS SITUATION WHERE THERE COULD
HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE CASUALTIES.
THERE CERTAINLY WAS A LOT OF
ANXIETY, A LOT OF FEAR, A LOT OF
PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS
HAPPENING.
BUT THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE
OCCASIONS WHERE I THINK THE
POLICE ABOUT RESPOND
APPROPRIATELY, THEY TRIED TO
HAVE AS FEW PEOPLE IN DANGER AS
POSSIBLE.
YOU KNOW, IN THOSE SITUATIONS
WHERE SOMEONE HAS A WEAPON, A
DEADLY WEAPON ESPECIALLY, AND IN
THIS CASE, POLICE HAD AN
UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS GUY HAD
A HISTORY OF STRUGGLING WITH
POLICE WHILE ARMED, I GUESS I
WANT TO GIVE THE POLICE THE
BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT THAT THEY
ACT PRUDENTLY AND MADE A -- THE
BEST DECISION THEY COULD MAKE
UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE
TIME.
>> DENISE, I HEARD SOMEBODY IN
ONE OF THE NEWS STORIES
YESTERDAY SAY, WELL, THEY
PROBABLY MAY HAVE SHOULD HAVE
JUST WAITED FOR HIM TO BE DONE
VISITING WITH THE BABY AND COME
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL AND NOT
ARREST HIM.
>> WELL, OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL,
WHERE THERE WERE EVEN MORE
PEOPLE.
OUTSIDE THE HOSPITAL WHERE HE
WAS NOT IN A CONTAINED SPACE AND
PERHAPS MORE PEOPLE COULD HAVE
BEEN INJURED AND THIS IS AN
INDIVIDUAL, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER,
THE BABY'S MOTHER WAS ON THE
ELEVATOR TELLING POLICE THAT
THIS WANAKEE PUGH WAS GOING TO
SHOOT HER -- THAT THIS MAN WAS
GOING TO SHOOT HER CHILD.
THEY BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS AN
EMINENT THREAT AND THAT THEY
COULD NOT WAIT.
NOW, I ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN IN THE
NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT
THERE AT CHILDREN'S.
IT'S NOT JUST A CONFINED SPACE.
IT'S MRS. A VERY TIGHT KNIT
SPACE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE
WHERE THEIR CHILDREN ARE BEING
CARED FOR AND YOU KNOW,
CERTAINLY I THINK THAT WHILE
THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT TAKING
THE ACTION THEY DID, WHERE THEY
DID, WHAT ALTERNATIVES DID THEY
HAVE?
WAIT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT HE
WOULD HARM THE BABY OR HARM
OTHER PEOPLE WITHIN THAT UNIT?
WAIT UNTIL HE WAS IN A CORRIDOR
WHERE THERE WERE MORE PEOPLE WHO
POTENTIALLY WERE AT RISK.
IT WAS JUST A BAD SITUATION, BUT
IT'S A BAD SITUATION THAT EXISTS
BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS YOUNG MAN
WHO MADE A DECISION TO TAKE A
WEAPON INTO A HOSPITAL TO VISIT
HIS CHILD.
>> IS IT AMAZING THAT YOU CAN
WALK IN TO A FACILITY LIKE THAT
THAT HAS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
VISITS EVERY WEEK WITH A GUN?
>> I THINK IT IS, AND I THINK IT
TELLS WHAT WE ALL KNOW, THAT WE
ARE MOSTLY -- EVERY INTELLIGENT
PERSON I KNOW IS APPALLED BY IT
THAT THERE IS SUCH A
PROLIFERATION OF GUNS EVERYWHERE
AND IN PLACES WHERE WE CERTAINLY
DON'T WANT THEM.
I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE
QUESTION THOUGH TO RAISE ABOUT
THE POLICE CONDUCT.
I REALLY DO.
WE -- THE FIRST REPORTS JUST
SUGGESTED THAT YOU KNOW, THEY'D
BEEN TOLD THAT YOU KNOW, SOMEONE
THEY HAD A WARRANT ON WAS THERE.
AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE WALKING
AROUND THIS COMMUNITY EVERYWHERE
WITH WARRANTS ON THEM AND
USUALLY THEY DON'T -- THE POLICE
DON'T EVEN BOTHER ARRESTING
THOSE PEOPLE UNLESS THEY HAPPEN
TO STOP THEM FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU KNOW, I -- THEY SUGGESTED
THAT SOMEONE TURNED THIS GUY IN
AND THEY'VE NEVER SAID WHO,
THEY'VE NEVER SAID, YOU KNOW,
WHO ACCUSED HIM OF BEING A
DANGER THERE.
I INTERPRET THE STORY A LITTLE
DIFFERENTLY THAN DENISE DID
ABOUT A WOMAN ON THE ELEVATOR
SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO SHOOT MY
BABY OR SOMETHING.
I HAD THE IDEA THE WAY I
INTERPRETED IT THAT THAT WAS
SOMEONE WHO HAD THAT FEAR, BUT
IT WASN'T NECESSARY MY CONNECTED
TO THE -- NECESSARILY CONNECTED
TO THE BABY.
>> I DO THINK THAT IT WAS
CONNECTED.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT --
>> I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.
>> THAT'S WHY WITNESSES AND
OTHER REPORTS THAT THIS WAS THE
MOTHER OF THE CHILD.
>> BUT JUST THE IDEA OF SOMEONE
HOLDING A BABY AND, YOU KNOW,
POLICE TRYING TO ARREST HIM, YOU
KNOW, THAT IS NOT AN IDEAL
SITUATION.
AND I THINK IT WARRANTS REVIEW
AROUND YOU KNOW, THEY'VE ALREADY
KIND OF CHANGED THEIR STORY A
LITTLE BIT, AND FROM SOME OF THE
INITIAL, YOU KNOW, REPORTS -- IT
WAS A VERY CONFUSING SITUATION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW,
SHERIFF CLARKE GOT IN THE MIDDLE
OF IT AT ONE POINT.
>> IT WAS CONFUSING, IT WAS.
>> THE POLICE WERE THE ONES ON
THE SCENE AND THEY WERE THE ONLY
ONES WHO APPARENTLY FIRED A
SHOT.
AND FIRING A SHOT IN A HOSPITAL
AND PARTICULARLY IN A CHILD
UNIT, YOU KNOW, IS -- I DON'T
BLAME PEOPLE FOR HAVING A LOT OF
SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT IT IT.
NOW, IT COULD BE THAT IT WILL
TURN OUT THAT IT WAS PERFECTLY
LEGITIMATE AND PERFECTLY
WARRANTED.
BUT I COULDN'T TELL THAT FROM
THE VERY CONFUSING MEDIA REPORTS
AROUND WHAT WAS GOING ON.
>> BUT I THINK PART OF THAT
CONFUSION WAS CAUSED BY SHERIFF
CLARKE.
DECIDING EVEN THOUGH --
CERTAINLY THE CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL IS ON THE COUNTY
GROUNDS AND THAT'S PART OF HIS
JURISDICTION, BUT HE DIDN'T HAVE
CORRECT INFORMATION.
HE SHARED INFORMATION THAT
REALLY WAS NOT CORRECT, THAT
CAUSED I THINK A LOT OF CONCERN
AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT
PEOPLE HAVE.
WHY WOULD YOU GO TO SERVE A
WARRANT WHICH IS WHAT THE
SHERIFF SAID.
THEY WENT THERE TO SERVE A
WARRANT.
WELL, HE WAS WRONG AND REALITY,
WHAT HAPPENED WAS, THEY HAD WHAT
THEY FELT WAS A LEGITIMATE CALL
OF A MAN WHO HAD A GUN IN THE
HOSPITAL AND OH, BY THE WAY, HE
MAY HAVE A WARRANT.
THEY WEREN'T GOING TO SERVE SOME
WARRANT LIKE IT'S, WELL, YOU
KNOW, IT'S 10:30 A.M., LET'S GO
FIND THIS GUY AND SERVE A
WARRANT, WE DON'T CARE WHERE HE
IS, SO I DO THINK THAT SOME OF
THAT CONFUSION WAS UNFAIRLY
ATTITUDE BY SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T
HAVE ALL THE FACTS, ATTEMPTING
FOR WHATEVER REASON, I'M NOT
GOING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
THOSE ARE, TO BE THE CENTER OF
ATTENTION AROUND THIS PARTICULAR
ISSUE, SO I THINK THAT HELPED TO
CAUGHT A LOT OF THE CONFUSION
THAT PROBABLY STILL EXISTS OUT
THERE.
>> AFTER PRESSURE FROM BOTH
PARTIES, PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID
THIS WEEK THAT HE'S BACKING DOWN
A BIT ON SOME OF THE OBAMACARE
REQUIREMENTS, AT LEAST FOR A
YEAR.
IS THIS A PRESIDENT BEING
PROACTIVE OR REACTIVE, AND DOES
IT HELP HIS CAUSE OR HURT IT?
>> FIRST OFF, WITH REGARDS TO
THE HEALTH CARE LAW ITSELF, I'M
NOT A FAN OF IT.
I DON'T THINK IT ADDRESSES THE
PROBLEMS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAD
HOPED WOULD BE SOLVED WITH ITS
IMPLEMENTATION.
IMPLEMENTATION HAS BEEN
PROBLEMATIC.
NOW THE PRESIDENT JUST SEEMS TO
BE SCHIZOPHRENIC IN THE RESPONSE
TO ADDRESSING SOME OF THOSE
PROBLEMS THAT HAVE CROPPED UP
LIKE PEOPLE LOSING HEALTH CARE
BENEFITS THAT THEY THOUGHT
THEY'D BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN OR AT
LEAST POLICIES THAT THEY THOUGHT
THEY'D BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN.
AND THE PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF
HIS OWN PARTY, ARE STARTING TO
QUESTION WHAT DID THE PRESIDENT
MEAN WHEN HE SAID YOU COULD KEEP
THE PLANS THAT YOU HAVE, AND THE
DOCTORS THAT YOU HAVE.
SO IN THE MIDST OF HALL OF THIS
CONFUSION, THE PRESIDENT MAKES
THE DECISION TO PUT ON HOLD THE
IMPLEMENTATION AT LEAST OF THAT
PART OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW SO
THAT PEOPLE CAN GO BACK AND GET
THE PLANS THAT EITHER THEY HAD
BEFORE OR PLANS THAT WERE
SIMILAR TO IT, AN THEY'RE GOING
TO THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO GET IT AT THE SAME
PRICE.
BUT INSURANCE COMPANIES DON'T
REACT THAT WAY.
INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE ALREADY
MADE THE DECISIONS AROUND THE
HEALTH CARE LAW THAT THEY THINK
WILL ALLOW THEM TO COMPLY OFF OF
THE PRODUCTS THAT WILL BE IN
COMPLIANCE.
IF PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SHED FROM
THEIR ROLES WITH THESE PLANS
THAT ARE NO LONGER IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE LAW, IT'S NOT LIKELY
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO
BACK, SO I THINK THAT SIMPLY
ADDS TO THE CONFUSION.
IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE KIND OF
CONFUSION THAT NOW SURROUNDS THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW THAT
THE PRESIDENT IS LOOKING TO GET
GET -- RELIEF FOR PEOPLE FROM.
>> DENISE, YOU SAID IN THE PAST
THE PEOPLE CRITICIZING THIS LAW
HAVE TO REALIZE IT'S HERE TO
STAY, IT'S GOING TO BE HERE TO
STAY, IT'S THE LAW OF THE LAND
AND IT WILL BE.
DO YOU STILL FEEL THAT WAY.
>> I DO, WHAT WE'RE SAYING AND I
HARDLY EVER DISAGREE WITH
GERARD, BUT TO SAY THAT THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW HAS
BEEN PROBLEMATIC IS LOOKING AT
IT THROUGH THE LENS OF THE PAST
TWO, THREE MONTHS.
WHAT WENT WERE BIG PIECES THAT
PEOPLE ARE SEEING BENEFITS FROM.
THE FIXING OF THE DOUGHNUT HOLE
FOR PEOPLE ON MEDICARE AN
MEDICAID WHICH IS SAVING SENIOR
CITIZENS IN SOME CASES UP TO
$10,000 A YEAR, BECAUSE IT FIXED
A PROBLEM THAT EXISTED IN TERMS
OF A GAP OF COVERAGE THAT CAME
ABOUT FOR THEM FOR PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS PRIMARILY, SO THAT'S HUGE.
WE NOW HAVE CASES WHERE PEOPLE
CAN NO LONGER BE TURNED DOWN
FROM HEALTH CARE COVERAGE
BECAUSE OF A PREEXISTING
CONDITION.
THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT ANY
PROBLEMS.
>> THAT'S HUGE.
>> WE NOW HAVE CHILDREN WHO
CANNOT BE -- WE LIVED IN A
COUNTRY WHERE CHILDREN WHOSE
PARENTS HAD HEALTH CARE COULD BE
DENIED INSURANCE BECAUSE OF
MEDICAL CONDITIONS.
THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN NOW BECAUSE
OF OBAMACARE.
AND GIVEN THE ECONOMY THAT THE
PRESIDENT INHERITED AND TO AN
EXTENT WE'RE STILL LIVING WITH
NOW, YOUNG PEOPLE UP TO THE AGE
OF 26 CAN REMAIN COVERED UNDER
THEIR PARENTS' PLAN.
WOMEN CAN NO LONGER BE CHARGED
MORE MONEY THAN MEN FOR THE SAME
INSURANCE POLICIES AND WOMEN NOW
CAN HAVE COVERAGE FOR
CONTRACEPTIVES.
THOSE ARE BIG THINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN DONE BY THIS PLAN, AND IT
WORKS SMOOTHLY.
HAS THIS BEEN A BIT OF A HOT
MESS ON THE ROLLOUT OF THE
GOVERNMENT WEB SITE WHERE
PEOPLE -- WHICH IS ONE OPTION,
NOT THE OPTION, ONE OPTION WHICH
PEOPLE CAN PURCHASE INSURANCE?
YEAH.
IT'S BEEN A HOT MESS, BUT LET'S
NOT THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE
BATH WATER.
I DO THINK THAT THIS ISSUE IS
GOING TO BE FIXED, PEOPLE ARE
ALSO FINDING THAT THEY CAN GO ON
LINE, THEY CAN GO TO -- WE'VE
HAD A COUPLE OF OCCASIONS HERE
IN MILWAUKEE, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN ACTUALLY ABLE TO GO TO
LOCATIONS WHERE THEY CAN SIGN UP
FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND
TO RECEIVE INSURANCE.
SO YES, MA'AM, THIS PIECE OF IT
HAS BEEN A MESS, BUT LET'S NOT
PRETEND THAT THIS IS THE ONLY
THING THAT IS OBAMACARE.
THERE'S A LOT THAT'S BEEN DONE
THAT IS WORKING, AND WE NEED TO
REMEMBER THAT AS WELL.
>> DID HE TO BACK DOWN A LITTLE
BIT?
>> I THINK HE DID, BUT I'LL TELL
YOU WHY, BECAUSE OF THE MEDIA.
AND WE SEE HOW THIS GOES.
YOU KNOW, THE MEDIA WAS VERY
NERVOUS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY
BEAT UP ON THE REPUBLICANS OVER
THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN AND OVER
THE STUPID, STUPID, YOU KNOW,
MOVE BY THE GOVERNMENT, BY THE
REPUBLICANS TO TRY TO USE THAT
TO EXTORT THINGS OUT OF THE
PRESIDENT.
NOW THE DEMOCRATS AND ON THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THE OTHER POINT I AGREE WITH
EVERYTHING DENISE SAID, BUT OF
COURSE THE OTHER POINT IS, THE
LATEST, YOU KNOW, YES, IT WAS
SLOPPY RHETORIC BY THE PRESIDENT
SAYING IF YOU LIKE YOUR PLAN,
YOU CAN KEEP IT, BUT I'LL TELL
YOU WHAT REALLY IS AT THE BASIS
OF THAT SLOPPY RHETORIC.
IT'S PRETTY HARD TO IMAGINE
PEOPLE WOULD LIKE THOSE PLANS
THAT ARE BEING CANCELLED.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE -- THAT'S
SOME OF THE WORST INSURANCE THAT
ANYONE HAS EVER BEEN SOLD.
YOU PAY -- YOU MIGHT NOT PAY
VERY MUCH BECAUSE VERY LITTLE IS
COVERED, AND THERE ARE
DEDUCTIBLES.
THIS IS THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET,
THIS IS SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T GET
THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE THROUGH
AN EMPLOYER, WHICH IS MOST
PEOPLE.
THIS IS LESS THAN 5% OF THE
MARKET, AND IT IS TERRIBLE
INSURANCE.
THESE ARE LOUSY INSURANCE
POLICIES.
THE REASON THEY DON'T CONFORM TO
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS
BECAUSE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
NOW REQUIRES THAT HEALTH
INSURANCE DOES COVER, YOU KNOW,
IMPORTANT THINGS, IF YOU HAPPEN
TO GET SICK.
THESE POLICIES ARE ONLY GOOD FOR
YOU IF YOU NEVER GET SICK.
BECAUSE IF YOU GET SICK, YOU'RE
GOING TO FIND ENORMOUS
DEDUCTIBLES AND FIND OUT ALL
THAT MONEY YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE
SAVING BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT PAYING
AS MUCH AS OTHER PEOPLE, YOU'RE
GOING TO PAY THROUGH THE NOSE,
BECAUSE THEY'RE TERRIBLE
POLICIES.
BUT THE PRESIDENT WAS SO BEAT UP
ON THIS, HE DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE
TO SAY WELL IF SOMEONE WANTS THE
LOUSY POLICIES, WE'LL LET THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES CONTINUE TO
SELL THEM, BUT THEY HAVE TO
EXPLAIN HOW BAD THEY ARE.
>> NEXT TOPIC.
>> STATE LAWMAKERS THIS WEEK
TIGHTENED UP THE PERIOD OF TIME
WHEN WE CAN VOTE EARLY IN
ELECTIONS.
TWO WEEKS BEFORE AND ONLY DURING
THE DAY.
NO MORE NIGHTS OR WEEKENDS.
IS THIS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE
THINGS UNIFORM STATEWIDE, OR IS
IT AN ATTEMPT TO STOP PEOPLE IN
URBAN AREAS FROM VOTING
DEMOCRATIC?
>> I LIKE THE CONSISTENCY PART
OF IT.
I REALLY DO.
NOW, THERE'S -- I'M CERTAIN
THERE WILL BE ARGUMENTS THAT
WILL BE ADVANCED THAT WILL SAY
THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO DENY
PEOPLE BROADER OPPORTUNITIES TO
VOTE.
BUT WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO MARSHAL YOUR
FORCES, GET THEM OUT AT TIMES,
THAT ARE CONVENIENT TO THEM, GOD
BLESS THEM.
MAKE THOSE TIMES UNIFORM
THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
I THINK THAT'S THE REAM APPROACH
TO -- REASONABLE APPROACH TO
TAKE, THAT'S WHAT THIS LAW
INTENDS TO ACCOMPLISH.
>> REALISTICALLY, IS TWO WEEKS
ENOUGH?
>> REALISTICALLY, WHY WOULD
ANYONE WHO BELIEVES IN DEMOCRACY
BE AGAINST PEOPLE VOTING ANY
TIME THEY CAN VOTE?
WHY COULDN'T THEY DO IT BY MAIL,
WHY COULDN'T THEY DO IT ON
WEEKENDS?
WHY SHOULD YOU MAKE IT DURING
THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE WHO ARE
WORKING, YOU KNOW, HAVE NO
OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF
IT.
THE PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AND
YOU KNOW, I'M SORRY, GERARD, BUT
YOU REPUBLICANS ARE SIMPLY
DISHONEST ON THIS.
EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT YOU'RE
DOING, EVERYONE KNOWS THAT IT IS
IN FACT TO REDUCE VOTING BY
PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKELY TO VOTE
DEMOCRATIC AND THE FACT THAT
MANY OF THOSE ARE
AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND LATINOS,
I'M ASHAMED THAT YOU WILL EVEN
STAND UP FOR THAT.
>> BUT I'M MONTH, BECAUSE -- I'M
NOT, BECAUSE I THINK IT IS NOT A
DISINGENUOUS MOVE ON THE PART OF
THE PARTY.
>> IT ABSOLUTELY IT.
EVERYBODY KNOWS IT.
>> THAT'S ONE OPINION OF IT.
>> NO, THE OPINION OF ANYONE WHO
INTELLIGENTLY LOOKS AT IT.
>> THE LEGISLATION IS MORE THAN
LIKELY GOING TO PASS BECAUSE
THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE VOTING FOR
IT DO BELIEVE THAT THERE OUGHT
TO BE -- YES, THEY DO, THEY
BELIEVE THERE OUGHT TO BE
UNIFORMITY IN HOW THESE HOURS OF
OPERATION ARE EXTENDED
THROUGHOUT.
>> I --
>> WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT PEOPLE
TO HAVE EXTRA OPPORTUNITIES TO
VOTE?
THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, EVERYONE
HAS A RIGHT TO VOTE.
>> IF YOU CAN'T VOTE DURING THAT
TWO WEEK PERIOD, YOU CAN ALWAYS
GET AN ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
>> THEY'LL MAKE A CHANGE ABOUT
THAT TOO.
>> THIS IS WHAT I DON'T
UNDERSTAND, TRYING TO DICTATE TO
LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHAT THEY CAN
DO WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING SURE
THEIR CITIZENS HAVE EVERY
OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE.
I AM AMAZED AT HOW THIS
LEGISLATURE, WHETHER IT'S
RESIDENCY FOR THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE, TELLING THE COUNTY
BOARD AND HERE IN MILWAUKEE
COUNTY, WHAT ITS BUDGET NEEDS TO
BE OR NOW TRYING TO SAY TO
EVERYBODY, YOU HAVE TO BE IN
LOCK STEP, YOU CAN'T HAVE
ANYBODY WHO IS ON THE OUTSIDE
WHEN IT COMES TO VOTING, EVEN IF
THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE IN YOUR
COMMUNITY WANT.
THIS IS A PARTY THAT ESPOUSES
LOCAL CONTROL AND HAS REPEATEDLY
IN THE LEGISLATURE PASSED OR
INTRODUCED LEGISLATION THAT
ACTUALLY TAKES LOCAL CONTROL
AWAY FROM COMMUNITIES.
EVERY COMMUNITY IS NOT THE SAME.
IT IS NOT.
AND TO SOMEHOW SAY, THAT UNIFORM
ITY IS EXCELLENCE AND
THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD STRIVE FOR
IS A BUNCH OF HOGWASH.
WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE
TO STRIVE FOR IS TO FIND WAYS
THAT WE KNOW WORK, THAT OPEN UP
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO
VOTE.
>> AND THE MORE PEOPLE VOTE THE
BETTER.
THAT'S WHAT DEMOCRACY IS.
>> AND YOU KNOW, THIS WILL
ACTUALLY HURT REPUBLICANS.
THE ONE OF THE PLACES, ONE OF
THE COUNTIES WHERE THEY HAVE
TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THESE
EXTENDED VOTING HOURS BEYOND THE
HOURS THAT REPUBLICANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE HAVE SUGGESTED, IS
WAUKESHA COUNTY.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
THIS IS A LOCAL CONTROL ISSUE
YET AGAIN.
THE REPUBLICANS IN MADISON NEED
TO LET LOCAL COMMUNITIES WHO
KNOW THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND
THEIR RESIDENTS BEST MAKE THESE
LOCAL DECISIONS.
IT'S CRAZY.
>> LAWMAKERS ALSO ARE DISCUSSING
CHANGING THE 10-YEAR OLD LAW IN
WISCONSIN THAT SAYS 17-YEAR-OLDS
WHO COMMIT CRIMES WILL BE
CHARGED AND TRIED AS ADULTS.
THEY SAY THIS BRANDS SOME KIDS
CRIMINALS FOR THE REST OF THEIR
LIVES.
THE PROPOSAL GETTING THE MOST
ATTENTION IS ONE THAT WOULD
ALLOW THOSE WHO COMMIT
NONVIOLENT OFFENSES TO BE
PROCESSED THROUGH CHILDREN'S
COURT.
IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?
I MEAN, SOME OF THESE
17-YEAR-OLD KIDS, ARE THEY
REALLY KIDS?
>> YEAH.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEIR
BRAINS ARE, THEIR EXPERIENCES
ARE, THEIR KNOWLEDGE IS.
THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE.
AND THE LAST THING YOU WANT FROM
YOUNG OFFENDERS AND WE'RE
TALKING NONVIOLENT FIRST
OFFENDERS, DO WE REALLY WANT
THEM TO BE IN PRISON WITH
ADULTS, DO WE REALLY WANT THEM,
YOU KNOW, TO BECOME HARDENED
CASES AT, YOU KNOW, INCREDIBLY
YOUNG AGES?
NO.
YOU KNOW, WE -- NOT ANY
INTELLIGENT PERSON.
YOU WANT TO INTERVENE WITH YOUNG
PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE MISTAKES
AND ARE MAYBE HEADED IN A
TOTALLY WRONG DIRECTION.
THE MORE YOU CAN INTERVENE AND
CHANGE THEIR LIVES AND SAVE
THEIR LIVES AND EDUCATE THEM AND
MAYBE CREATE A LIFE FOR THEM,
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE KIDS ARE
COMING OUT OF CONDITIONS WHERE
THEY DON'T HAVE LIVES, AND THEY
DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT
THEM, AND THEY DON'T HAVE PEOPLE
WHO SUPPORT THEM, BOY, WHY IN
THE WORLD WOULD WE WANT TO SEND
THEM, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE WORST
POSSIBLE PATH INSTEAD OF PERHAPS
SAVING A KID'S LIFE.
>> WHEN THEY PASSED THIS LAW 10
YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A LOT OF
TALK THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE KIDS
COMMIT CRIMES AND THESE ARE NOT
REALLY KIDS ANYMORE, AND THEY
SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE ADULTS.
>> WELL, NOT REALLY KIDS, BUT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING OUT
OF THE EQUATION THOSE CRIMES
THAT ARE NONVIOLENT CRIMES, AND
SO YOU'RE LOOKING PRIMARILY AT
YOUNG PEOPLE THAT HAVE DRUG
OFFENSES THAT ARE A PART OF THAT
HISTORY.
AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE
EXCESSIVELY PENALIZED FOR WHAT
LATER ON SOME FOLK WILL ADMIT
WERE PROBABLY JUST JUSTIFY
MISTAKES.
THE JUVENILE COURTS HAVE MORE
EXPERIENCE IN HANDLING THOSE
SITUATIONS, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE
MORE TOOLS AT THEIR DISPOSAL FOR
REDIRECTING PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE
MISTAKES AND TRYING TO GET THEM
BACK ON THE RIGHT PATH.
ALL THOSE OPPORTUNITIES
DISAPPEAR ONCE THEY GO INTO
ADULT COURT AND ARE TRIED AS
ADULTS WHO ARE PRESUMED TO HAVE
HAD ALL THE KNOWLEDGE,
UNDERSTANDING, AND MALICIOUSNESS
THAT TENDS TO BE INVOLVED WITH
THE CRIMES.
MAYBE THIS IS ONE AREA WE CAN
ALL GET ALONG.
>> IT WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE SOME
PRESSURE OFF THE ADULT COURT
SYSTEM.
>> IT WOULD TAKE PRESSURE OFF
THE ADULT COURT SYSTEM.
BEYOND THAT, IT DOESN'T BRAND A
17-YEAR-OLD FOR LIFE FOR A
MISTAKE THAT THEY MADE.
NOW I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR
EVERYBODY ON THIS PANEL, BUT I
WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE THINGS
I DID WHEN I WAS 17 YEARS OLD
THAT I'M SURE GLAD THAT I'M NOT
SOMEHOW ACCOUNTABLE FOR FOR
THINGS THAT -- FOR THIS POINT IN
TIME IN MY LIFE NOW.
AT 17, SOMETIMES KIDS DO DUMB
THINGS.
JOEL IS RIGHT, THEIR BRAINS ARE
NOT EVEN FULL MY DEVELOPED, FOR
CRYING OUT LOUD.
MPTV AND UWM ARE TAKING ON A
REMARKABLE IMPORTANT ISSUE IN
THIS COMMUNITY AND THAT IS THE
HIGH RATE OF BLACK MALE
INCARCERATION.
THIS IS PART OF THE REASON THAT
WE HAVE IT, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN
PUTTING 17-YEAR-OLDS INTO THE
ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM AND AS
WE'VE SEEN, IT BECOMES A
REVOLVING DOOR FOR THEM TO
CONTINUE TO GO IN AND OUT OF THE
SYSTEM.
>> VERY HARD TO GET OUT ONCE
YOU'RE IN.
>> IT IS HARD TO GET OUT ONCE
YOU'RE IN, AND LET'S BE HONEST
ABOUT IT TOO, IN SOME WAYS, WE
ALREADY HAVE THIS IN PLACE IN
COMMUNITIES THAT ARE NOT
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR IN PARTS OF
WISCONSIN.
WHERE YOU FIND THAT YOUNG,
LATINO AND AFRICAN-AMERICAN,
PARTICULARLY YOUNG MEN, ARE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR
CRIMES THAT ARE IDENTICAL OR
VERY SIMILAR TO NONYOUNG MAN OF
COLOR, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT
COMES TO DRUGS.
THIS IS ALREADY HAPPENING.
WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL DO IS
AT LEAST EVEN THE PLAYING FIELD.
>> UNIFORMITY.
>> DID YOU HEAR THAT?
KEVIN IS OPENING UP.
>> A FEW MORE THOUGHTS NOW ON
THE OBAMACARE ROLLOUT AND ALL
THE PROBLEM IT'S ENCOUNTERING.
RICK HOROWITZ, YOU'LL RECALL,
TRIED SIGNING UP FOR THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT A FEW WEEKS
AGO AND IT DIDN'T GO WELL.
HE FIGURES HE'LL WAIT A WHILE
BEFORE HE TRIES AGAIN.
IS HE HAPPY WITH HOW IT'S BEEN
GOING?
HARDLY.
UNLIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE.
RICK?
>> NUMBERS HERE.
GET YOUR OBAMACARE NUMBERS HERE.
YOU WANT OBAMACARE NUMBERS?
WHY DON'T WE START WITH THESE.
A THIRD-RATE ROLLOUT, A THIRD
RATE ROLLOUT, USING SECOND TIER
TECH TALENT.
AND NOW IT'S A FIRST CLASS MESS.
LET'S GET THAT RIGHT OUT FRONT,
OK?
IT'S FIXABLE, BUT FOR THE
MOMENT, IT'S A FIRST CLASS MESS,
NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
MEANWHILE, BEFORE THE GLOATING
GETS OUT OF HAND, I MEAN, LET ME
THROW SOME OTHER NUMBERS AT YOU.
123.
YOU MIGHT HAVE HAVE HEARD THAT
NUMBER ALREADY.
123 IS THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO
SIGNED UP FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS
HEALTH CARE PROGRAM, MITT
ROMNEY'S HEALTH CARE PROGRAM,
AND THE MODEL FOR OBAMACARE,
DURING ITS FIRST MONTH OF
OPERATION BACK IN 2007.
PEOPLE WAITED, AND THEY THOUGHT.
THOUGHT SOME MORE.
EVENTUALLY, THEY CAME ABOARD.
THE COVERAGE RATE IN
MASSACHUSETTS IS UP AROUND
97-98%.
BUT DURING THAT FIRST MONTH?
ONLY 123 PEOPLE.
COMPARED TO WHICH, THE FIRST
MONTH OBAMACARE NUMBERS, 106,000
OR SO NATIONWIDE, DON'T SOUND SO
TINY.
COMPARED TO EXPECTATIONS?
TO THE HYPE?
PRETTY SMALL.
BUT ACTUALLY A MUCH HIGHER
PERCENTAGE THAN MASSACHUSETTS
STARTED WITH.
NOW A QUICK NUMBER QUIZ FOR YOU
GLOATERS OUT THERE.
HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU IMPROVED
THE LIVES OF 100,000 PEOPLE IN A
MONTH?
JUST WONDERING.
OK.
HOW ABOUT ANOTHER, MUCH BIGGER
NUMBER?
40 MILLION.
THAT'S ROUGHLY HOW MANY
AMERICANS DON'T HAVE ANY HEALTH
INSURANCE AT ALL AT ANY GIVEN
TIME, WHOSE FAMILIES ARE JUST
ONE ACCIDENT OR ONE ILLNESS AWAY
FROM FINANCIAL RUIN.
AND THE NUMBER OF PLANS THAT
REPEAL OBAMACARE CROWD, THE
GLOATERS, HAVE COME UP WITH TO
MAKE A DENT IN THAT NUMBER?
ZERO.
ZERO PLANS.
ZERO PLANS, BUT PLENTY OF
GLOATING.
OBAMA'S DOWN, SO THEY'RE UP.
THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE.
POLITICS IS A TOUGH SPORT.
THE GLOATERS WANT HIM TO FAIL.
NEED HIM TO FAIL.
THEY'RE WORKING 24/7 TO MAKE HIM
FAIL.
BUT THEN THERE ARE THE
40 MILLION WHO AREN'T OBAMA.
AND ALL THAT GLOATING, EXULTING
EVEN, IN THE FACE OF THEIR
SITUATION?
LET'S JUST SAY IT'S UNSEEMLY.
WHICH TAKES US TO A FINAL
NUMBER -- ONE.
ONE IS HOW MANY CONSCIENCES EACH
GLOATER WILL HAVE TO ANSWER TO.
JUST ONE.
>> THANKS, RICK.
>> WE HAVE 36 SECONDS.
12 SECONDS FOR EACH OF YOU, WHO
WILL THE PACKERS DO?
>> IF THEY CAN KEEP THE STARTING
QUARTERBACK BEYOND THE FIRST
SERIES, THEY'LL BE GREAT.
>> WHICH STARTING QUARTERBACK?
I DON'T KNOW.
I'LL TUNE IN WHEN THEY GET THE
WHOLE TEAM TOGETHER, BUT I'M
MORE INTERESTED IN SEEING HOW
THE DEFENSE PLAYS.
>> HOW WILL MATT FLYNN PLAY?
>> HE'LL GET A CHANCE TO PLAY.
I THINK THE PACKERS LOSE.
>> CROSS YOUR FINGERS, HOPE FOR
THE BEST.
THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH FOR
WATCHING.
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR WEEKEND.