 and welcome to another fun-filled episode of the Donahue Group. We're delighted that you could join us for a half an hour's worth of discussion of the great issues facing us, discussed by four highly intelligent people who are happy to share their thoughts. Only two happy to share their thoughts. To introduce our guests or our fellow travelers here today, Cal Potter, former state senator and assistant superintendent for library services with the Department of Public Instruction and now retired and having way too much fun. Tom Pineski is a professor of mathematics at UW-Shabuigan working hard. Ken Risto, the king of the social studies empire of the Shabuigan area school district and a teacher. My name is Mary Lynn Donahue. I'm a lawyer in town and we're gathering today this afternoon whenever this is played to talk a little bit about issues in the state and there's been a lot going on. It's beginning to feel like an election year is beginning to creep in and we have the, well it's a little cynical isn't it, but do you think that maybe just a few of the things that our legislature is voting it's time to might just be election year issues? How about gas tax indexing? It's my understanding that that has passed, is it both both houses? Well I believe as we are taping we are having action in the assembly. Okay. So we would know this very weak and when this airs we'd have a decision. I'm sure it's going to pass. Of course. I mean both houses are conservative and both houses have taken a posture that this is an evil tax. One of the interesting things is I was in the legislature when we enacted this and one of the reasons it was enacted is because nobody would vote for a gas tax increase. So you have all these legislators complaining about their project never being funded. Henry had his long waiting list of 20 years before your project was going to be undertaken and the rationale of course was that things like the income tax or sales tax naturally go up because of inflation or people getting a raise. You go in a higher income tax bracket. The gas tax is one of those flat taxes that isn't a percentage. It's so many cents per gallon as stipulated in the statutes. This was indexed based on the cost of highway repair and construction and so every six months or so it would go up about a half a penny and it worked well now for maybe 20 years but we're seeing the legislature getting on their high horse and saying this is an evil but it's going to be interesting to see how many projects are not funded because I'd be willing to bet that if this conservative group who's repealing this automatic index is still in power they're going to be very reluctant to raise any type of tax whether it's gas tax or whatever. Oh I mean I think it kind of sets in stone the fact that there will be no money for highway construction from an increase at least and Governor Thompson never met a highway project he didn't like. Highways in road construction certainly prospered in the 16 years of the Thompson administration and we here in Sheboygan County have some lively interest in the forelaning as it were of Highway 23. I can't argue about what they're doing. I'm glad they're doing it. The argument is no taxation without representation so all those people involved a few years ago they decided to do this so they never had to vote anymore. So now we're just saying if you need a highway project and Sheboygan needs a highway project then maybe then vote on a gas tax increase. The disabled adults don't have places to live because we need to. I think that's just even that was pretty basic I thought I mean it's hard not to follow that argument. What's interesting is the Republicans generally have been very close to the road builders as an industry. That's correct. That's why Tommy Thompson was a good supporter and as a result even when Republicans for the last number of years here have had control at least of one house they haven't touched this so it kind of really shows how far to the conservative will move both houses of the state legislature have gone. But it's also interesting how talk radio has really influenced this one because Mark Belling made that a major project. He got on the phone got people calling their senators. I mean he for the whole week or two weeks that was a major thrust of his talk show. So legislators are responding to talk show hosts talk show hosts getting people to activating the constituency and informing the people what's out there. I wouldn't play his program in a barn but I mean it was a major project. You know you could be called you could be cynical here and say that some of the plan might have been to repeal it with the idea that the governor may veto it. He has not I have been seen that the governor said what he is going to do about that. And you know we talk your initial comments about well we'll get into the game marriage issue and others that are coming up as a prelude to confront confrontational issues that could be used in the next election. This could be one of the governor would veto this. I think Tom's populist view here. Taxes well representation would play well in a campaign period. Well maybe next time we can just do a little research and see where the money is and see where the road builders have been putting their money and to see how in fact either the governor or candidates for governor or members of the legislature respond based on that because I think you really in these circumstances have to follow the money to really get a sense of I mean I make a straight line connection between the money and the action. Well if I understand yeah money in the action but if I understand this year's budget money came from the transportation fund to school to the general fund to the school. Well that was my question. How much of this is just straightforward political payback where you you've essentially what you've done is you from the Republican point of view you've raided you've raided this trust fund that was set aside for road construction to support public schools you know and we'll fix your yeah we'll fix and we'll fix your class well by making sure that that pile of money is is no longer available for you to use. Sure that could be that could be that's how I looked at it when I read the newspapers. The politics that could be involved. Your point about how much money is involved you know one of the things is that the legislature today is through reapportionment more solidly one party than it's it has been in a way of competitiveness and as a result you may see that that money is not as important anymore because of the safety of the districts that these birds come from and as a result they're reacting to the constituency of the bellings and the Sykes and the shows that play well in suburban Milwaukee where a lot of Republican votes come from so the constituency numbers might be more important than the road builders dollars today. So political gerrymandering as a solution to campaign finance reform I mean it's it's a thing of beauty. We keep coming back to that time after time after time is the lack of competitiveness of these districts. How much is its index to construction costs you know there must be some sort of an index of highway construction. So how is how fast is that track in compared to say the you know consumer price index or I mean. I think the track record has been about a half a penny every six months or so has been the increase. It is 33 cents a gallon currently I think I heard that. One of the highest states in the nation which adds fuel to the fire to repeal this thing but the fact of the matter is many states have high fees for example California or money states you license your car you're paying two three hundred dollars sometimes it's based on the value of a car. It's a personal property type thing where you have a Cadillac of course or a Lexus you pay more than the Chevy. Other states it's just a flat fee but it's higher. We have basically had a philosophy in the state that we're going to hit people who use their cars extensively and hit the tourist trade that comes to this state particularly Illinois drivers who would pay their gas tax here and we garner some money for the upkeep of the road since we don't have toll roads. We made that decision yeah instead of you know stopping traffic every five six seven eight ten miles and putting up a toll booth. Which has been a very difficult way to keep up as you know Illinois went from 40 to 75 to I think a dollar 40 or dollar 50 within about a year and a half just trying to keep tabs on repairing those roads and having upkeep. But now you can get eye-passed so you can just zoom through those toll booths and I sometimes want to just get one of those cards for the thrill of going through the toll booth and it's supposed to be you know five miles an hour but you know people tend to kind of whiz through a little a little quicker than that but other issues that that the legislature is is attacking with gusto. Concealed carry has come back reared from my perspective it's it's ugly head so that citizens can carry concealed weapons with a license and in many places but not churches daycare centers and police stations. Now here's my deal. How about taverns? Yeah no I I'm serious I'm not being glib here. Yeah no I think taverns are fine. I think taverns are I think schools but schools already have their bands. All right here's my deal though on the police station. Who's better suited to deal with somebody who has a weapon than a police officer? These guys have got bulletproof vests. They've got their own guns. It seems to me that the one place you should be able to carry a weapon is in a sorry I just I just had to bring that up. Well this is a good issue that conservatives are getting getting set to do two things one they're pinging off the NRA and the gun lobby for their good support and past the elections and the other is that we know the governor's going to veto this this bad piece of legislation and he's done so twice or once before he'll do it again and of course in November of next year you'll have all those who support this and see this as the life blood blood of the American democracy they go after governor for second veto on the matter. It's a double-edged sword because I mean there are a lot of people who don't support it just citizens the poll numbers that I read indicate that by and large the citizens of the state are not in favor of it certainly law enforcement has at least in the first round I'm not so sure in the second round came out almost uniformly against concealed carry for you know many good and even though they were bulletproof vests you know they I think they understand better than we do what what carrying a gun is all about. What's the argument for it second amendment? Yeah defense I think it's playing on the fears of people that there's a criminal around every corner waiting to rob you and you need to have that. The criminal walks into a situation wondering that's the argument criminal walks into a situation such as this studio he or she doesn't he doesn't know that whether one of us is packing a six-pack and can take him to take him down you know six shooter issues. I'm still thinking about taverns. I can't I mean I thought for sure they would ban taverns I mean this is Wisconsin for crying out loud and I've tended I've tended barred I don't want my I don't want the clients I mean I'm allowed to use under Wisconsin law a certain amount of a lot more force than the average citizen you know but this has been a very successful movement by the gun lobby because we're one of the few states that now doesn't happen. It falls back on the right to bear arms. Well I think it's the measure of extent of the right to bear arms. Extends that right and that's that's I would imagine part of the process plus what is the understanding that more people are going to buy firearms once they're allowed to carry them concealed with a permit. I presume that that will be a certain industry point of view in a minor. I have a chance to look at the statute how much latitude I assume you're going to get your permit from your local police department. Yes and there's training and the original bill even had a time period through which the sheriff under which the sheriff had to proceed to to give you this permit it was like 30 days or something rather short and the sheriff's were saying there's no way we can do a national felon search even on some of these birds without uh and during that period of time. Does the statute say will or me? I think it will will well that was that was the original bill now this has been modified somewhat I don't I can't speak but it is now. I just think there's a lot of opposition to the law on both sides of the fence and that it's not a clear political winner it is I mean if if if you're beholden to the NRA or to other members of the gun lobby but I I think it's I think it's it's a difficult issue and I that one I'm pretty sure I can't I can't foresee the circumstances under which Doyle would not veto it again and I'm not so sure that will necessarily. And he's going to do it with 65 police chiefs surrounding him yeah sure I mean that you know if you want to look like a law and order governor you want to support your local police departments I mean I veto that thing in five seconds because I'm going to say I got all these police chiefs are telling me this is going to make their job that much tougher yeah I think I think this is every county has a sheriff so we have 72 sheriffs and I think a goodly percentage so well it'd be interesting to see what happens. There isn't a single police officer and I've talked about me 10 or 11 of them in Sheboygan that's hardly you know I don't know their representative sample but none of them are comfortable at the idea of the citizenry walking around and wondering whether they've got a gun or not. Well you read all the letters and all these people are going to be highly trained and screened but you know if you look at the population out there's a certain percentage that are mentally ill there's a certain range of population that are drug dependent and alcoholic you know you're going to get people who are going to pass the muster of being able to carry the gun who probably shouldn't be and I think the police officers knowing what the variety of people they deal with on a daily basis if they're going to have more people carrying guns simply because they would make it easier it's not a pleasant situation for them. I mean I know people will carry continual carry guns and conceal them but at least now you've taken one more weapon away from the police the police oftentimes get in a situation you search a reasonable search and you find a gun now we're off you know now you've got something at least to detain this person. And I think it is difficult and I and I would certainly understand law enforcement opposition to it so what do you think Tom are you a second amendment? I'll go with the second amendment. It is this issue always. I mean there's a lot of trade it's not just anybody gets a gun you've got to purchase a gun you got to go through a lot of training training safety and things like that that's part of the process at least that's how it's supposed to be done. And and to bear to bear an arm or if I don't have guns I've never have guns but I think those who like guns those I know a lot of people who are hunters they love guns they go out and you know the turkey hunt and deer hunt and everything else duck hunt they feel it's the right and it is absolutely when I was in a legislature there was never a time never a bill that I saw that prevented anybody from having a gun to hunt and we just were having one in your dresser drawer at home waiting for that burglar to come through your bedroom window so you can blow her head off you know you have you have a right to do that in your home so it's a matter here of it's home as a gas it's the next step of do you want this person in a supermarket packing packing their 45 and for what reason I guess and the rightest would say the second amendment gives you that right to protect yourself and anyone else who ends up in trouble and that's part of the whole second amendment and then police officer would say well there is a point at which the second amendment gives you the right to have a firearm but in some places maybe you shouldn't well and we just passed it not just but in the last couple of voting cycles and amendments guaranteeing the right to hunt and fish and I think that was really to shore up any question that there might have been in anybody's mind that the people that there ever was I can't there certainly wasn't that you know we aren't going to let people deer hunt I you know I did I didn't see that as a as a pressing issue but in any event that that amendment passed handily if I remember with about 80 percent of the vote and so and and those fisher people you know they can be dangerous look in the nose and and and and there's some pain involved no question about it well I think that was a concern about the DNR passing you know very stringent regulations that would allow people animal rights people yeah I mean there are people who are afraid that there's going to be a movement from protecting mink and others that they into then stopping the deer hunt or whatever type of other hunting there might be even I don't feed us got a substantial constituency here in the state of Wisconsin well we depend on our friends for venison and so which is a fine dish so and and venison and fish so I I have no problem with that let's move on to gay marriage you know this is another nudge hunt for a correlation I will be voting on that in November by the way this is out of the this is out of you know Carl I didn't expose anybody you know um carol robes playbook uh clearly that's what's going on here uh is we're going to try to see if we can turn out the base on this issue but that being said I mean my view and we've talked about this earlier is I think the state should get out of the institution of marriage altogether I think the state understand there's a reasonable state position that says we want to have monogamous stable monogamous uh relationships of one kind or another it is in our job to decide what the religious uh basis of these unions should be I I think to go in the other direction I think we should change the take the word marriage out of the United States out of the Wisconsin statutes this is absolutely talk about civil unions and heterosexuals can have them homosexuals can have them with all the rights and privileges that go with it and if one wants to have it you know some sort of religious covenant between one's partner then go find yourself a minister rabbi's you know a mom or whatever it might be and have a second ceremony a friend of mine has done that they had a civil marriage uh in in Florida at the time so Caesar had his day uh and his say in the matter and then they went and turned to their local UCC minister to have this religious covenant and let and let the religious the religious denominations you know do the theology rather than the state government uh that day is never going to come of course but that would be that would be this man's minority position on the on the topic well I think we're going the other direction yeah that's an interesting I mean if you're going to have it I think marriage ought to be explicitly defined because people interpret it all sorts of ways I like the idea of the traditional keep the definition and very clear very exact if you want to call relationships between uh gays and other kinds of relationships uh something else call them you know fine but keep marriage well defined we keep changing words and terminology but actually that's an interesting comment just take it out of the out of the discussion altogether it recognizes the separation of church and state and it says that marriage is fundamentally uh what we consider marriage is fundamentally a religious concept because the state statute simply says you know it's just a contract it's nothing more nothing less there's no theological religious component to and the termination of the contract you know and it's entirely secular as well it should be and so let's call it that and say it's secular and then let's have the discussion of do we want to have certain do we want to provide the same sort of legal protections for committed homosexual couples as we do for heterosexual couples and if we do then fine let's let's sanction both types of both types of contracts and let the churches fight it out what's particularly just tasteful about this whole thing is the speed at which they're trying to pass it in order to get it on the ballot as you mentioned for the November election I think you're taking a population which can be anywhere from five to ten percent of the population and using them for political purposes and the gay and lesbian population has enough to contend with in their lives without having politicians starting to use them in some way that I think this is just completely distasteful someone is characterized this whole piece is as the last civil rights issue the last civil rights constituency and when you think of how long it took just the basic concept for women to get the vote starting in the the the first convention in in New York in 1876 or the Seneca convention yeah in Seneca Falls and to the the the final amendment which was passed in 1919 I think that's why we need a social studies guy here right here right on camera I'm getting my US history test right 50 years 50 years for a concept now that is so without even considering I mean it just takes it's a question of how long it takes society to evolve and for and 100 years for African Americans I mean really to make the 13th 14th and 15th amendments actually exactly at least legally recognized as being enforceable in the south so I think we're sort of just at the beginning of a of a civil rights movement that if history teaches any teaches us anything will take many many many years and and people who feel they don't have the full range of civil rights are impatient and so it'll be it will be interesting but it's a it's an easy political it's an easy political matter and you know heterosexuals don't really do all that well in marriage since about 50% of those marriages end in in in divorce and if I guess I don't see the point of if you have people who are willing to enter into stable relationships why we shouldn't why we shouldn't allow that and and long you know long-term partners and well they could do it we just don't call it marriage that's all but this amendment goes beyond the reference to marriage I think it got into civil unions as well right oh I think there is a tag on yeah yes and so here you're you're you're going and really purging a group from even having an option which I think is you know I could even concede for religious regions you want to do what you want to do on marriage but let these folks because of legal reasons and inheritance and custodies and all kinds of other things have some type of civil recognition because today more and more companies even under the fire that they get from the extreme conservatives are offering benefits to couples of the same sex absolutely it really is a sensible way to and you know how that plays out I think the reason why they went in that direction was there was a fear that if you I mean some people would be opposed even to the recognition of civil unions for for theological reasons but I think some of people are concerned that if one creates civil unions then what will happen is there will inevitably be equal protection challenge under the national 14th amendment you've got marriages over here for heterosexuals and then you have civil unions for homosexual couples and you know there's a fear that then the 14th amendment is going to come and overturn those and and like all of massachusetts forced the state down the road of recognizing marriage as a homosexual institution as well as a heterosexual one I don't know I first of all given the way of the supreme court is going I don't think we need to worry about that scenario that would be fair to say I think we got about a 50 yeah barring yeah barring time limit there I don't even know what I can't even imagine how that would change I think there'd be a legal case to be made that says you know let's look at the actual benefits derived from marriage civilly under the law and civil unions and there if there isn't any you know that's equal enough perhaps for the for the I think for a court it's a rose by any other name well let's move on but I don't want to move on without wishing Elton John the very best in his new in his new marital state and I'm sure it will be quite the wedding well what's the sexual orientation this week because I mean I've been following I've been listening to Elton John since 1970 and and I've seen him you know playing both teams so I'm not quite sure where is he this week yeah well in any event okay near the red piano Brian Burke's going to jail Chacoala Scott Jensen Mr. Foddy Steve Foddy what are your thoughts well I think we're seeing convictions on all of these individuals on their tomb they haven't been convicted yet but I I suspect there's going to be a conviction to be a plea bargain on the part of Jensen and Foddy and some type of sentence held out and I think it's it's the good that might come out of this will be that I think there is Senate bill one which merges the elections board and the ethics board together and hopefully we'll get some type of institution that monitors this type of behavior with some teeth and it becomes something where we go back to clean operation and state government these I can I can say these probably were the poster children of past politicians who shook down a lot of people for money sure and it's just something that shouldn't be done and let's clean it up and move on but I think you're seeing that what took place here was something that got them in hot water and they're paying the price Kelley you work there with the conviction when the convictions themselves enough you know get people to you know have the fear of fear the Lord put in them or do we have to send some of these guys to jail for the rest of the Capitol understand this is serious business I think you get a period of time where people are clean and they'll you know start going to the local tavern or something and doing the shake down it won't be bond phones and legislators offices but you know if nothing is done to clean it up by you know there's backsliding if you remember in the past there used to be a phone schedule I think it was in a phone scandal way back around 1980 where legislators are calling their kids and in Timbuktu and whatever and posting it to the public taxpayers expense and a lot of them were found guilty of misdemeanors and had to repay and so on and that cleaned it up for a while well here now you had people using the phones to solicit money well it's been an interesting time and we're all sending a wedding card to Elton John and thank you for listening