Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> HI, EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO "INTERCHANGE."
I'M DAN JONES.
THANKS FOR JOINING US.
INTERESTING THINGS TO TALK ABOUT
TODAY.
A MAN GETS JUST SIX YEARS IN
PRISON IN CONNECTION WITH THE
DEATH OF A TWO-YEAR-OLD GIRL.
IS THAT ENOUGH?
WE'LL TALK ABOUT FAST FOOD
WORKERS WALKING OFF THE JOB AND
COMPLAINING THAT THEY AREN'T
PAID ENOUGH.
WE'LL DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF
WISCONSIN POLICE AND
FIREFIGHTERS LOSING BENEFITS
JUST LIKE OTHER PUBLIC EMPLOYEE
GROUPS DID.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHETHER
WISCONSIN SHOULD JOIN THE
GROWING NUMBER OF STATES
ALLOWING THE LEGAL USE OF
MEDICINAL MARIJUANA.
LET ME INTRODUCE EVERYONE.
EVERYBODY KNOWS JOEL MCNALLY,
LONGTIME NEWSPAPER COLUMNIST.
AND KEVIN FISCHER, FORMER
BROADCAST JOURNALIST, POLITICAL
ANALYST, SOMETIMES FILL-IN HOST
OVER ON WISN TALK RADIO.
YOU'VE MET DENISE CALLAWAY,
COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC
RELATIONS PROFESSIONAL.
AND GERARD RANDALL, EDUCATION
CONSULTANT AND LOCAL JOB
CREATION EXPERT.
RICK HOROWITZ WILL BE ALONG WITH
COMMENTARY AT THE END OF THE
SHOW.
ALL RIGHT.
IN 2011, A TWO-YEAR-OLD
MILWAUKEE GIRL, ADRIANNA NEAL,
WAS BEATEN TO DEATH.
SHE REPORTEDLY HAD THREE BROKEN
RIBS, A BROKEN HAND, A
PERFORATED INTESTINE AND
MULTIPLE BRUISES.
THE GIRL'S MOTHER AND HER
BOYFRIEND WERE ON TRIAL IN JUNE
AFTER BEING CHARGED WITH CHILD
ABUSE AND CHILD NEGLECT AND WERE
GIVEN A PLEA DEAL WHEN OTHER
FAMILY MEMBERS CHANGED THEIR
STORIES ABOUT WHAT WAS AND
WASN'T SEEN, APPARENTLY MAKING
THEM UNRELIABLE WITNESSES.
THE MOTHER WILL BE SENTENCED
LATER THIS MONTH.
THIS WEEK, THE BOYFRIEND WAS
GIVEN JUST SIX YEARS IN PRISON.
DID OUR ENTIRE CRIMINAL JUSTICE
SYSTEM FAIL THIS LITTLE GIRL?
IS SOMEBODY GETTING AWAY WITH
***?
AND WHY DOESN'T THE COMMUNITY
GET OUTRAGED ABOUT SOMETHING
LIKE THIS?
>> WELL, I'M OUTRAGED AND I
CAN'T IMAGINE THAT ANYONE ON
THIS PANEL IS NOT OUTRAGED ALSO.
YEAH, THERE WERE A WHOLE LOT OF
FACTORS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN
THE AFTERMATH OF THIS YOUNG
GIRL'S DEATH THAT JUST CRIES OUT
FOR SOME KIND OF JUSTICE, WHICH
TO DATE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN.
SIX YEARS, NO MATTER HOW MODEST
THE BOYFRIEND'S INVOLVEMENT WAS
IN THIS, JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE
ENOUGH.
AND OF COURSE BECAUSE IT WAS A
PLEA DEAL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT
THE JUDGE DIDN'T STEP IN AND SAY
THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND WOULD
GO FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
PROBLEM AGAIN IS WITH THE FAMILY
MEMBERS THAT EITHER CHANGED
THEIR TESTIMONY OR COULDN'T
REMEMBER KEY PORTIONS OF THEIR
TESTIMONY THAT -- KEY PORTIONS
OF THE FACTS THAT WERE RELEVANT
IN THE CASE THAT WOULD HAVE LED
TO A MORE SIGNIFICANT CHARGE AND
OUTCOME.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT
ALL OF THIS AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT
HAPPENED WITH THE INFORMATION
THAT WAS GIVEN TO SOCIAL
WORKERS, THIS WASN'T JUST A
ONE-TIME KIND OF THING WHERE ALL
OF A SUDDEN IT SHOWED UP WHERE
THIS CHILD HAD BEEN BEATEN, HAD
-- THIS WASN'T THE SITUATION
WHERE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON OR
HAVE SUSPICIONS.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT COMMON
SENSE SHOULD HAVE PREVAILED IN
THIS AND THAT THE OUTCOME, AT
LEAST FOR THE BOYFRIEND, SHOULD
HAVE BEEN MORE.
BECAUSE IF I HAD BEEN WITNESS TO
A CHILD BEING TREATED THAT WAY
AS A PROFESSIONAL, I CERTAINLY
WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE TIME THAN
THAT BOYFRIEND GOT.
>> DENISE, IF A COP GETS CAUGHT
IN BEATING SOMEONE IN MILWAUKEE,
THE COMMUNITY GETS JUSTIFIABLY
OUTRAGED.
IF SOMEBODY GETS CAUGHT KICKING
A DOG, THE COMMUNITY GETS
OUTRAGED.
HERE A TWO-YEAR-OLD GETS BEATEN
TO DEATH AND IT'S JUST ANOTHER
STORY.
>> WELL, FOR SOME PEOPLE IT'S
ANOTHER STORY.
FOR US IT'S THAT CHILDREN IN OUR
COMMUNITY DON'T HAVE ADVOCATES.
FOR MANY OF OUR CHILDREN, THEIR
STRONGEST ADVOCATES ARE THEIR
PARENTS.
THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN
HER ADVOCATES AND SHOULD HAVE
BEEN TAKING CARE OF HER ARE THE
PEOPLE THAT CAUSED HER DEATH.
I THINK THE OUTRAGE ABOUT IT IS,
I HOPE, BUT I WORRY, THAT THIS
IS REFLECTIVE OF THE WAY WAY TOO
MANY PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY
THINK ABOUT OUR CHILDREN.
BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IF SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT
TO THE DOGS, THERE WOULD HAVE
BEEN 1,000 STORIES ABOUT IT.
YEAH.
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN.
I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES
AS A COMMUNITY WHY ISN'T THERE
THAT SAME KIND OF OUTRAGE FOR
THE DEATH OF A CHILD?
YOU KNOW, A COMMUNITY THAT
DOESN'T VALUE ITS CHILDREN IS A
COMMUNITY THAT WILL NEVER BE
ABLE TO REALLY PROSPER AND GROW.
AND I THINK AT EVERY STEP ALONG
THIS WAY, WHEN THIS TWO-YEAR-OLD
CHILD, WHO COULD NOT EVEN SPEAK
TO DESCRIBE WHAT HAD HAPPENED TO
HER, SHE WAS FAILED BY THE
ADULTS IN THIS COMMUNITY.
SHE WAS FAILED WHEN THERE WERE
SIGNS THAT SHE WAS BEING BEATEN
AND SHE WASN'T TAKEN AWAY FROM
HER FAMILY.
THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS OR OTHER
ADULTS WHO KNEW OR THOUGHT THAT
SOMETHING WAS GOING ON AND
FAILED TO STEP UP FOR THIS
CHILD, SHE WAS FAILED BY
EVERYBODY THIS STEP -- YOU KNOW,
EVERY STEP ALONG THIS WAY.
DID SOMEONE GET AWAY WITH
***?
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE
MOTHER IS SENTENCED.
BUT, BOY, IT SURE FEELS LIKE
SOMEBODY DID.
THE WAKE-UP CALL IN THIS
COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE AT THIS
SENTENCING.
AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT
WE'RE DOING WRONG SO A CHILD WHO
IS THIS VULNERABLE IS PUT BACK
IN A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE SHE
UNFORTUNATELY WAS BEATEN TO
DEATH.
WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE
DOING WRONG HERE AND FIX IT.
>> KEVIN, I WOULD GUESS THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WOULD
SAY, WELL, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
WITNESSES, WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OF
A CASE.
>> WELL, I KNOW POLICE OFFICERS
AND I TALK TO THEM A LOT AND
THIS FRUSTRATES THEM IMMENSELY.
THEY DO THEIR JOB.
THEY GO OUT AND APPREHEND
CRIMINALS.
THEN THEY GO TO COURT, AND YOU
HAVE A PLEA BARGAIN.
AND JUDGE RALPH ADAM FINE WROTE
A BOOK ABOUT THIS BACK IN THE
EARLY '80s, THAT THIS WAS
STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE IN
THE MILWAUKEE COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE UNDER E.
MICHAEL MCCANN.
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS.
SO THE PROSECUTION GOES IN AND
ASKS FOR FIVE YEARS FOREA
MURDERER.
THE JUDGE INTERVENES, BUT ONLY
MINIMALLY AND SAYS, NO, HE'S
GOING TO GET SIX.
AND THERE SHOULD BE GREATER
OUTRAGE IN THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE
THIS SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.
ALSO, I CONCUR WITH EVERYTHING
THAT'S BEEN SAID HERE, THAT
THERE IS A TENDENCY AMONG SOCIAL
WORKERS TO TRY TO KEEP THE
CHILDREN WITH NATURAL FAMILIES,
EVEN THOUGH THAT SCHIELD IS
-- CHILD ISGOING THROUGH A LIVI.
I THINK THAT MENTALITY HAS TO
CHANGE.
HERE AGAIN, THAT WHOLE PLEA
BARGAINING, IT'S DONE OVER AND
OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND THEN YOU
HAVE ATROCIOUS CASES LIKE THIS.
>> IS IT AS THOUGH THE SYSTEM
THINKS A TWO-YEAR-OLD'S LIVE IS
DISPOSABLE.
>> I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK ANYONE WHO HEARS ABOUT
THIS INCIDENT IS OUTRAGED.
AND HEARTBROKEN.
YOU KNOW, I FREQUENTLY TAKE A
DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW THAN
SOME PEOPLE ON THIS PANEL.
LET ME JUST MENTION THIS.
AND I MEAN THIS IN ALL
SERIOUSNESS.
MOST OF US ON THIS PANEL HAVE
WORKED IN JOURNALISM.
YOU DON'T CONVICT PEOPLE BASED
ON NEWSPAPER STORIES.
YOU CONVICT THEM BASED ON
EVIDENCE AND PROOF AND WHAT YOU
CAN PROVE IN COURT.
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PROBLEM
WITH WITNESSES IN THIS CASE,
HAVING THEM, YOU KNOW, BE
COMPROMISED AND NOT BEING ABLE
TO KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS OUT OF
THEM.
IF A PROSECUTOR CANNOT GO TO
COURT WITH EVIDENCE, THAT'S WHAT
LEADS TO PLEA BARGAINS, BECAUSE
THEY DON'T -- WE JUST HAD A CASE
A FEW WEEKS AGO THAT OUTRAGED
MANY IN THIS NATION BECAUSE NOT
A BLACK CHILD, BUT A BLACK ADULT
-- OR 17-YEAR-OLD WAS MURDERED
AND PEOPLE ACROSS THIS NATION
THOUGHT THAT GUY GOT AWAY WITH
*** BEFORE A JURY.
IF YOU PRESENT NO EVIDENCE TO A
JURY AND YOU TELL THEM THAT
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE A
DECISION BASED ON OUTRAGE OR
SOMETHING, THEY MIGHT ACTUALLY
FOLLOW WHAT JURIES ARE SUPPOSED
TO DO AND SAY IF SOMETHING'S NOT
PROVEN, YOU CAN'T CONVICT THIS
PERSON.
>> AND LEGALLY YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT
HOW MUCH MORE EVIDENCE DID YOU
NEED, JOEL?
YOU HAD --
>> I'M -- WHAT I'M SAYING IS --
>> YOU HAVE THE DEATH HERE OF A
CHILD.
>> THE CHILD IS DEAD.
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TWO PEOPLE,
COULD BE BLAMING EACH OTHER.
YOU CAN'T TELL WHO DID WHAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF
WHO DID WHAT, WHO CAUSED THE
ACTUAL DEATH OF THIS CHILD, AND
YOU EXPECT A JURY -- YOU KNOW,
-- AND LET ME ALSO SAY THIS.
THERE WAS KIND OF, YOU KNOW,
SOME IMPLICATION IN THE WAY DAN
LED INTO THIS THAT SIX YEARS IN
PRISON IS JUST A SLAP ON THE
WRIST.
WELL, THIS IS SIX YEARS IN
PRISON, PLUS SEVEN YEARS INTENSE
SUPERVISION, PLUS THE FACT ONCE
SOMEONE GETS IN PRISON THAT IS A
PUNISHMENT FOR THE REST OF THEIR
LIFE TOO.
WE HAVE TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING IN
THIS STATE, YOU KNOW?
AND THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS
THAT PERSON'S LIFE IS -- TAKING
AWAY SIX YEARS OF FREEDOM AND
THEN SEVEN MORE YEARS AND THEN
NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A JOB IN
THIS COMMUNITY OR ANY OTHER
COMMUNITY, WHAT I'M SAYING IT IS
NOT A SLAP ON THE WRIST.
IT MAY BE THE MOST THAT THE
PROSECUTOR'S COULD GET OUT OF
THIS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE
ANY EVIDENCE TO PRESENT TO A
JURY.
>> OKAY.
WE MOVE ON.
SOME FAST FOOD WORKERS IN
MILWAUKEE AND OTHER CITIES
WALKED OFF THEIR JOBS THE OTHER
DAY, CLAIMING THEY SHOULD BE
GETTING HIGHER WAGES, BETTER
BENEFITS AND UNION MEMBERSHIP.
DO YOU DESERVE MORE THAN MINIMUM
WAGE FOR WORKING AT McDONALDS
OR BURGER KING?
AND ARE THESE FOLKS BEING USED
AS PAWNS BY ORGANIZED LABOR
GROUPS TRYING TO MAINTAIN
RELEVANCY?
YOU'VE BEEN IN THE EMPLOYMENT
BUSINESS FOR A LONG TIME.
IS IT WORTH MORE THAN THAT FOR
McDONALDS?
>> LET'S LOOK AT THE MODEL THAT
FAST FOOD BUSINESSES WERE BUILT
ON, PARTICULARLY THEIR PERSONNEL
MODEL.
MOST OF THOSE JOBS ARE ENTRY
LEVEL JOBS.
IF YOU GO BACK 15, 20 YEARS AGO,
THOSE JOBS PRETTY MUCH RELIED ON
PEOPLE WHO WERE EITHER LOOKING
FOR ADDITIONAL PART-TIME WORK OR
YOUNG PEOPLE WHO WERE LOOKING
FOR PART-TIME WORK ESPECIALLY.
NOW -- AND THESE BUSINESSES,
THEY ARE PRONE TO HAVING TO TAKE
ON A LOT OF RISK.
THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS IS NOT
AN EASY BUSINESS TO GET INTO AND
THEY OPERATE A THIN MARGINS.
NOW WHAT YOU HAVE IS A LOT OF
ADULTS WHO ARE TAKING ON THESE
JOBS, MANY OF THEM, AS JOEL HAD
EARLIER POINTED OUT, HAVE
BACKGROUNDS THAT THESE ARE SOME
OF THE ONLY OPPORTUNITIES THEY
CAN GET.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF ADULTS THAT
ARE NOW FILLING THESE JOBS
EXPECTING FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT
SOMEWHERE IN THE NEAR TERM
VERSUS THE LONG-TERM PART-TIME
EMPLOYMENT.
THEY MAY BE THE ONLY JOBS THAT
THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET ALSO.
AND SO NOW YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF
ADULTS, THEY'RE SEEING THE
OPPORTUNITY TO UNIONIZE AS WELL
BECAUSE THESE ARE THE JOBS THAT
ARE KIND OF THE WAVE OF THE
FUTURE IN TERMS OF THE SERVICE
INDUSTRY.
I THINK, THOUGH, THAT IF THEY
MOVE MORE TO FULL-TIME
EMPLOYMENT FOR THESE WORKERS,
THEY'RE GOING TO CUT OUT A LOT
OF THE ENTRY LEVEL JOBS, WHICH
ARE BECOMING FEWER AND FEWER
OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
AND THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO CHANGE
THE MODEL FOR PRICING FOR THOSE
PRODUCTS IN THOSE RESTAURANTS.
AND THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO
FEWER PEOPLE EATING OUT, FEWER
PEOPLE TAKING ADVANTAGE, MAYBE
EVEN OF SOME OF THESE FAST FOOD
RESTAURANTS THAT SOME WOULD
ARGUE HAVE UNHEALTHY FOOD TO
BEGIN WITH.
BUT THEY STILL MAKE UP A
TREMENDOUS PORTION OF THE
SOCIETY'S JOBS IN THAT SERVICE
ECONOMY.
SO I'M NOT SEEING HOW THIS IS A
WIN FOR EITHER SIDE.
I DON'T SEE IT AS A WIN FOR THE
EMPLOYEES, AND I DON'T SEE IT AS
A WIN FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT
ARE LOOKING TO EMPLOY.
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE
ADJUSTMENTS AND THE ADJUSTMENTS
ARE GOING TO BE MADE ON THE
BACKS OF THE EMPLOYEES.
>> DENISE, SHOULD ANYBODY THAT
WALKS IN AND APPLIES FOR A JOB
AT BURGER KING, McDONALDS OR
TARGET THINK THIS SHOULD BE A
FAMILY-SUPPORTING JOB OR SHOULD
THEY THINK THIS IS AN ENTRY
LEVEL JOB THAT WILL GIVE ME SOME
EXPERIENCE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYONE
EXPECTS I'M GOING TO WORK AT
McDONALDS AND IT'S GOING TO BE
A FAMILY-SUPPORTING JOB.
NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG
WITH McDONALDS OR ANY OF THESE
PLACES.
THE PROBLEM WE'VE RUN INTO OVER
THE PAST THREE TO FIVE YEARS IN
THIS ECONOMY IS THAT WE HAVE
PEOPLE IN THOSE JOBS WHO NEVER
EXPECTED TO BE THERE, WHO WERE
EARNING A LIVING WAGE BEFORE THE
ECONOMY TANKED AND WE FOUND
OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE
THOSE WERE THE ONLY JOBS THEY
COULD GET.
I THINK THAT THERE ARE TWO
ISSUES THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE A
LOOK AT HERE.
WHAT'S THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON
THE INDIVIDUAL?
BUT ALSO WHAT IS THE IMPACT THAT
THIS HAS ON THE ECONOMY?
IF WE TAKE A LOOK AGAIN, ON
FRIDAY WE FOUND THAT THE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DIPPED DOWN,
7.4%, LOWEST IT'S BEEN SINCE
2008.
BUT IF YOU KIND OF PEEL THAT
BACK A LITTLE BIT, YOU'LL SEE
THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF JOBS,
60% OF THE JOBS THAT HAVE
RECENTLY BEEN CREATED, HAVE BEEN
IN THE LOWER THIRD OF THE WAGE
SCALE.
SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS PEOPLE
ARE FINDING THEMSELVES IN A
SITUATION AND THIS ECONOMY IS
QUICKLY FINDING ITSELF IN A
SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE AN
ABUNDANCE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AT
THE LOW END OF THE SCALE AND
SHRINKING NUMBERS IN THE MIDDLE
CLASS.
THAT DOES NOT ALLOW AN ECONOMY
TO GROW THE WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO
GROW.
SO AS WE TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE,
IT CAN'T JUST BE, I THINK,
WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE DESERVES
TO MAKE $15 AN HOUR IF THEY'RE
WORKING AT A FAST FOOD
RESTAURANT.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS
HAPPENING TO OUR ECONOMY?
HOW IS THIS IMPACTING THE
INDIVIDUAL?
HOW ARE WE IMPACTING THE ECONOMY
WITH THIS INCREDIBLE GROWTH OF
LOW-INCOME, LOW-WAGE JOBS?
>> IS PART OF THIS A STORY BEING
MANUFACTURED BY ORGANIZED LABOR
TRYING TO FIND NEW MEMBERS?
>> YES.
THIS WAS A POLITICAL STUNT.
IT WAS OVER-HYPED.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF
RESTAURANTS, EVERYTHING WENT
FINE.
SINCE 2002 THE MINIMUM WAGE HAS
GONE FROM $5.15 TO $7.25.
DURING THAT SAME TIME TEENAGE
UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GONE FROM A
LITTLE OVER 15% TO 19%.
THAT'S AN ALMOST 28% JUMP.
WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT PUBLIC
POLICY IS BEING MADE BY PEOPLE
WHO HAVE NOT RUN THEIR OWN
BUSINESSES, WHO ARE NOT BUSINESS
SAVVY, AND THE MORE YOU
ARTIFICIALLY, ARBITRARILY
INCREASE WAGES FOR WORKERS, THE
MORE LIKELY IT IS, AS YOU
STATED, THERE ARE GOING TO BE
LESS WORKERS, LESS HOURS, AND
YOU ARE ACTUALLY HURTING THE
PEOPLE YOU ARE PURPORTING TO
HELP.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NEXT TOPIC.
A BUNCH OF NEWS STORIES THIS
RAISING THE POSSIBILITY OF
POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS LOSING
SOME OF THEIR COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS IN THE FUTURE.
THEY WERE SPARED UNDER ACT 10,
WHICH TOOK THOSE AWAY FROM OTHER
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS HERE IN
WISCONSIN.
POLICE AND FIRE MAKE UP A HUGE
PORTION OF EVERY MUNICIPAL
BUDGET, SO IS THIS GOING TO HAVE
TO BE ADDRESSED NEXT?
>> WHY SHOULD IT?
I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU DIDN'T LET
ME COMMENT ON THE LAST TOPIC, TO
TELL YOU THE TRUTH.
IT IS NOT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO
DON'T RUN BUSINESSES CONTROLLING
PUBLIC POLICY.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THIS
COUNTRY IS IN FACT -- IT'S NOT
THAT WE'RE RAISING THE MINIMUM
WAGE.
WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN CUTTING THE
MINIMUM WAGE BECAUSE IT HASN'T
BEEN KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION,
SO PEOPLE AT THE LOWER END ARE
ALWAYS MAKING LESS, NOT, YOU
KNOW, THEY'RE GETTING HIGH ON
THE HOG AND McDONALDS AND NOW
THEY'RE GETTING GREEDY.
THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
DENISE IS RIGHT.
WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE ECONOMY
BECAUSE WHERE THE JOBS ARE, YOU
SHOULD BE ABLE TO WORK FULL-TIME
AND MAKE A LIVING AND NOT BE IN
POVERTY.
>> CAN I TALK ABOUT A TOPIC WE
TALKED ABOUT A WEEK AGO?
WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?
>> YOU GOT TO TALK ABOUT IT.
LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT POLICE AND
FIRE.
OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, SCOTT
WALKER HAS TELEGRAPHED -- HE
SAID IT.
IT WAS FILMED AND SHOWED UP, YOU
KNOW, IN A FILM, IN FACT, WHERE
HE SAID GOING AFTER PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES IS GOING TO BE A
ADIVIDE AND CONQUER THING.
FIRST WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO
AFTER STATE WORKERS, EXCEPT
POLICE AND FIRE.
BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO AFTER
THEM AND THEN THE PRIVATE
EMPLOYEES AND KILL UNIONS.
AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING
THAT'S HAPPENING TO PULL WAGES
DOWN.
IF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY ARE
WORKING FULL-TIME AND CAN'T MAKE
A LIVING -- WE USED TO COMPLAIN
ABOUT ALL THE PEOPLE ON WELFARE.
NOW WE'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT ALL
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING
FULL-TIME AND ARE NOW GETTING
STATE SUPPORT BECAUSE WE DON'T
PAY THEM ENOUGH.
>> DENISE, ARE POLICE AND
FIREFIGHTERS --
>> WE CAN'T -- WE CAN'T GO ON
THAT WAY.
WE JUST CAN'T.
>> ARE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS
THE NEXT ONES THEY'RE GOING TO
SEE PROTESTING AT THE CAPITOL?
>> THEY WERE ALREADY THERE.
>> SOME OF THEM WERE THERE, WHEN
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT FIREFIGHTERS.
IN FACT, PRESIDENT OF THEIR
UNION RAN AS THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNMENT CANDIDATE IN THE
RECALL ELECTION.
I THINK WE WILL.
I THINK THAT IF IN FACT AS
EVERYBODY ON THIS PANEL TENDS TO
BELIEVE IN THEIR HEART OF HEARTS
THAT THE GOVERNOR IS KEEPING AN
EYE TOWARDS 2016, YOU CAN'T HAVE
AN ASTERISKS BY THE FACT THAT
YOU GOT TOUGH ON PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES.
AND THE ASTERISK FOR HIM RIGHT
NOW IS POLICE AND FIRE.
SO I EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE
SOME CHANGES, THAT THEY WILL
COME AFTER THEM.
YOU KNOW, QUITE FRANKLY, WHEN
YOU TAKE A LOOK AT
MUNICIPALITIES AROUND THE STATE,
ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'VE SAID
IS WE'VE NOW GOT A BIRFURCATED
SYSTEM.
ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO GIVE US
THE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX, OPEN
THE TOOLBOX ALL THE WAY.
DON'T JUST OPEN IT BY THE
CORNER.
GO AHEAD AND TREAT EVERYBODY
FAIRLY.
SO I THINK ABSOLUTELY THEY'RE
GOING TO BE ON THE TABLE NEXT.
>> OR IS THIS AN ATTEMPT TO LET
THE POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS KNOW
THAT WALKER WANTS THEIR SUPPORT
AND HE WANTS THEM ON BOARD NOW
SO HE CAN DROP THIS IDEA LATER
ON?
>> 2014 THE GOVERNOR IS UP FOR
REELECTION.
LESSON LEARNED FROM OHIO, WHEN
THE GOVERNOR OF OHIO TRIED TO
IMPLEMENT AN ACT 10 TYPE PIECE
OF LEGISLATION, IT FAILED
BECAUSE POLICE AND FIRE FIGHTERS
WERE THE PRIMARY ORGANIZERS
AGAINST THAT EFFORT.
SO IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
HERE.
THE GOVERNOR'S NOT GOING TO TAKE
THE POLITICAL RISK OF
ANTAGONIZING A CORE OF HIS
SUPPORT GOING INTO AN ELECTION
YEAR.
I THINK THE IDEA WAS THROWN OUT
THERE.
IT WAS MAYBE WHIMSICAL TO THINK
THAT IT WOULD CATCH FIRE.
AND IT HASN'T.
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PERHAPS THE
MOST ANXIOUS TO SEE POLICE AND
FIREFIGHTERS BROUGHT INTO THAT
SAME POOL OF WORKERS THAT ACT 10
COVERS ARE THOSE THAT ARE
CURRENTLY UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF
ACT 10.
SO POLITICALLY THERE'S NO WIN IN
IT FOR THE GOVERNOR GOING INTO
2014.
2016 IS OFF THE TABLE FOR HIM AS
A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT.
AND IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY, VERY
DIFFICULT FOR HIM TO HOLD ON TO
HIS CORE OF SUPPORT IN THE UNION
COMMUNITY, PRIMARILY POLICE AND
FIREFIGHTERS, IF HE WERE SERIOUS
ABOUT THIS NOTION.
>> THAT'S ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE
LEFT.
>> WELL, THERE'S A LOT OF HEAVY
BREATHING IN THIS STUDIO, SO
LET'S JUST PUT THIS IN THE
PROPER PERSPECTIVE.
YOU'RE CORRECT.
THIS IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE,
OKAY?
THIS WAS A BLOWN-UP STORY.
AND LET'S GO TO THE FACTS HERE.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE SO I
DON'T GET ALL UPSET AND START
TALKING --
>> 20 SECONDS.
>> 0 SECONDS.
-- 20 SECONDS.
THE GOVERNOR SAID SURE I MIGHT
CONSIDER IT WITH THE CAVEAT THAT
THOSE UNIONS MIGHT COME TO ME
AND SAY WISCONSIN DIDN'T GO TO
HELL IN A HANDBASKET WITH ACT
10.
IF THEY WANT IT, MAYBE WE'LL
CONSIDER IT, BUT THERE ISN'T A
SINGLE REPUBLICAN IN THE STATE
LEGISLATURE THAT'S GOING TO
WRITE THAT BILL.
AND NONE OF US WANT TO GO
THROUGH THAT HELL WE WENT
THROUGH WITH THE CHAOS AT THE
STATE COP TALL.
THIS IS A DEAD ISSUE.
>> ALL RIGHT.
NEXT TOPIC.
THE OTHER DAY ILLINOIS BECAME
THE 20TH STATE TO ALLOW FOR THE
MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA.
IS WISCONSIN BEHIND THE TIMES ON
THIS, OR IS IT BEST WE JUST STAY
OFF THAT TRAIN?
>> I TELL YOU, I'VE BEEN
FOLLOWING THIS WHOLE SITUATION
DOWN IN ILLINOIS AND THEY CAME
TO HAVE MAYBE THE STRICTEST RULE
IN PLACE ONCE THE GOVERNOR SIGNS
AND THEY BEGIN THE
IMPLEMENTATION THAT'S GOING TO
TAKE ABOUT A YEAR TO LIMIT
ACCESS TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE
MARIJUANA FOR RECREATIONAL USE.
I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENED ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY WITH THOSE STATES
THAT HAVE ALLOWED MEDICINAL USE
IS THAT RECREATIONAL USE IS NOT
THAT FAR BEHIND.
THEY DON'T HAVE A GOOD TRACK
RECORD FOR REGULATION.
COLORADO IS ALREADY ON BOARD
WITH RECREATIONAL USE AND YOU'RE
GOING TO SEE THAT SPREAD TO MORE
OF THOSE STATES THAT ARE ALREADY
A PART OF THAT GROUP THAT ALLOW
FOR MEDICINAL USE.
IT'S JUST A BAD IDEA, ESPECIALLY
WHEN YOU START TO TALK ABOUT IT
AND LOOK AT THE REALITIES OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO GET
INTO THE JOB MARKET THAT USE
MARIJUANA RECREATIONALLY AND
FIND THEMSELVES KNOCKED OUT
BECAUSE MORE AND MORE EMPLOYEES
ARE STARTING TO TEST FOR DRUGS,
INCLUDING MARIJUANA, AND
KNOCKING THOSE FOLK OUT OF THE
POOL OF EMPLOYMENT AS A RESULT
OF POSITIVE TESTING.
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK IT'S 20
STATES NOW, IT WILL BE 30 IN A
FEW YEARS.
>> WELL, BEING AGAINST MEDICINAL
USE IS JUST MEANNESS BECAUSE
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAIN AND
SUFFERING.
BUT THE OTHER PART, THE
RECREATIONAL USE, WHICH GERARD
SEEMED TO WORRY ABOUT, IF WE
WERE TO STOP PROSECUTING THAT,
ALL WE WOULD DO IS SAVE A LOT OF
MONEY THAT NOW GOES INTO WASTED
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND NOTHING
WOULD CHANGE ABOUT RECREATIONAL
USE ABOUT MARIJUANA BECAUSE
NOTHING DOES CHANGE ABOUT THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE HAVE TO MOVE ON.
YOU MAY NOT THINK THEY'VE EARNED
IT, BUT CONGRESS HAS JUST LEFT
WASHINGTON FOR A FIVE-WEEK
SUMMER RECESS.
THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS?
NOT A VERY LONG LIST.
COOPERATION WITH THE WHITE
HOUSE?
EVEN LESS.
AND THAT'S GOT RICK HOROWITZ
THINKING.
RICK.
>> LOOK, IF SOMETHING DOESN'T
WORK, EVENTUALLY YOU'VE GOT TO
TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT, RIGHT?
SO THAT'S WHAT PRESIDENT OBAMA
HAS TO DO IF HE WANTS TO GET
ANYWHERE WITH CONGRESS.
HE HAS TO CHANGE HIS STRATEGY.
HE HAS TO CHANGE HIS POSITIONS.
HE MAY ALREADY HAVE STARTED.
JUST THIS WEEK, FOR INSTANCE, HE
OFFERED TO DROP CORPORATE TAX
RATES FROM 35% TO 28%, WHICH IS
WHAT CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS
HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR.
SO, NATURALLY, THEY REJECTED IT.
BECAUSE IN EXCHANGE FOR LOWER
RATES, THE PRESIDENT ALSO WANTED
MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO
CREATE MIDDLE CLASS JOBS.
APPARENTLY REPUBLICANS ARE
AGAINST CREATING MIDDLE CLASS
JOBS, AT LEAST WHEN IT'S OBAMA'S
IDEA.
BUT WHAT IF HE ANNOUNCED HE WAS
AGAINST CREATING JOBS TOO?
WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO BE IN
FAVOR?
I MEAN, SURE, THEY HATE
GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND HIGHER
TAXES.
BUT AS MUCH AS THEY HATE BARAK
OBAMA?
I DON'T THINK SO.
HEALTH CARE REFORM IS THE
PERFECT EXAMPLE, ISN'T IT?
OBAMACARE, WHICH THEY'VE TRIED
TO REPEAL, WHAT, 40 TIMES?
SOUNDS KIND OF OBSESSIVE, YOU
KNOW?
ANYWAY, WHEN MITT ROMNEY DID IT
IN MASSACHUSETTS, UNIVERSAL
COVERAGE, INDIVIDUAL MANDATES,
REPUBLICANS THOUGHT IT WAS A
FINE IDEA.
UNTIL OBAMA PROPOSED IT.
THEN IT WAS SOCIALISM.
TYRANNY.
THE SAME WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
HE'S TRIED TO DO.
THEY'RE AGAINST IT.
SO WHAT IF HE'S AGAINST IT TOO?
WHAT IF HE DOES A COMPLETE 180
ON SOME KEY ISSUES?
INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR INSTANCE.
HE CAN SAY HE DOESN'T CARE IF
HIGHWAYS FALL APART AND BRIDGES
COLLAPSE ANY MORE THAN THEY DO.
THEY'LL HAVE WORK CREWS OUT
THERE BY MORNING.
OR FOOD STAMPS.
HE CAN SAY HE WANTS TO CUT FOOD
STAMPS FOR MILLIONS OF POOR
PEOPLE, JUST LIKE THEY DO.
THEY'LL DOUBLE THE FUNDING.
OR CLIMATE CHANGE.
OBAMA SAYS HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IN
SCIENCE.
THEY'LL HAVE TO BELIEVE.
IMMIGRATION REFORM?
HE STARTS INSULTING HISPANICS,
THEY'LL HAVE TO DEFEND THEM AND
-- OKAY.
MAYBE THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH.
BUT MOSTLY IT'S BRILLIANT.
IF HE'S FOR WHAT THEY'RE FOR,
THEY'LL HAVE TO BE AGAINST IT.
AND WHAT HE'S AGAINST WHAT
THEY'RE AGAINST, THEY'LL HAVE TO
BE FOR IT.
ARE THERE RISKS?
SURE.
THE REPUBLICANS COULD DITCH
THEIR TOTAL KNEE-JERK OPPOSITION
TO ANYTHING THIS PRESIDENT SAYS
OR DOES, TAKE HIS NEW POSITIONS
AND DECLARE VICTORY.
BUT I'VE GOT FAITH IN THEM.
IT'S HARD TO STOP THOSE JERKS.
>> THANKS, RICK, AND THANK YOU
SO MUCH FOR WATCHING.
ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR WEEKEND.