In November, Baldwin and Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, introduced the Access to Capital Creates Economic Strength and Supports (ACCESS) Rural America Act to provide regulatory relief for rural telecom providers, allowing them to submit streamlined financial reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  

Baldwin claims the cost of these disclosures is getting in the way of local providers being able to efficiently deploy broadband statewide, especially to rural Wisconsin. She also says these regulations were not intended to cover such small providers in the first place. The Observatory investigated whether this was true.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act

In the early 2000s, some of America’s biggest corporations, including Enron and WorldCom, were involved in highly-publicized corporate accounting scandals, revealing widespread financial fraud.

In November 2001, Enron was caught inflating its earnings by about $600 million, later filing bankruptcy. This came as a shock to the American public; Enron was the seventh largest company in the country and had been reporting extraordinary quarter-to-quarter numbers.

“As it turned out, Enron was the canary in the mineshaft. A number of very major public companies were relying on convoluted and often fraudulent accounting devices to inflate earnings, hide losses, and drive up their stock prices,” then-U.S. Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, co-author of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, explained in an interview with Fraud Magazine.

In an effort to protect investors and implement harsh penalties for dishonest corporate behavior, Sarbanes, a Democrat, and U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley, a Republican from Ohio, co-authored the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act. The bill, which aims primarily at publicly-traded companies, requires them to disclose their internal accounting controls and financial reporting procedures in annual financial reports. It also requires corporate executives to certify the accuracy of the reports or face severe personal penalties.

When President George W. Bush signed it into law in July 2002, he labeled it “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” It was passed with a overwhelming bipartisan support, including a 99-0 vote in the Senate.

The intention behind the legislation, according to Sarbanes, was to establish a solid ethical framework for conducting business. SOX, he said, would be “the watchdogs of watchdogs.”

A key focus of the law was to restore investor confidence.

“If you don’t protect the interests of the investors, it deals a major blow to the workings of the economic system … The integrity of our capital markets is very important to the strength of our economy. The blow to investor confidence at the time of Enron and WorldCom was of major proportions,” Sarbanes said in the Fraud Magazine interview.

Companies other than certain kinds of banks with 500 or more shareholders and $10 million or more in total assets must register with the SEC and comply with the requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley.

Lance Cheung / USDA via Flickr

A microwave tower owned by the Pine-Net communications company is seen in Broken Bow, Okla., part of a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program to upgrade communications and broadband systems in the area. U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin is proposing loosening corporate reporting requirements on small telecom companies so they can spend more money on expanding networks.

In the case of small local telecom providers, their shareholders are often community members, who exert their own oversight over the company. Complying with SOX, they say, costs money that would better be spent on expanding high-speed internet in their service areas.

Michael Romano, a senior vice president of the Rural Broadband Association, said companies like small rural telecoms were not a big concern when SOX was implemented. It was more for investors who worried about being defrauded.

John Klatt, CEO of Lakeland Communications LLC in Milltown, Wisconsin, said the federal oversight brought on by SOX is punishing his business and other small rural telecoms.

“It’s a horrendous amount of regulation that’s frankly unnecessary because we have a lot of local oversight. From a personal perspective I live within our service area, and I feel I have roughly 500 bosses as shareholders in our small community,” Klatt said, adding his company is subject to “a fair share of checks and balances” that may not be in place in communities such as Madison, Minneapolis or New York City.

This regulatory cost comes on top of the “cost-intensive business of deploying and operating advanced fiber optic networks in high-cost rural areas,” said the Rural Broadband Association, also known as the NTCA.

The cost of avoiding Sarbanes-Oxley

Wisconsin rural telecom companies such as Coon Valley Farmers Telephone Company are the sole providers of their communities, and a majority of their shareholders are community members. Shares are sometimes passed down and parceled out through generations of family, posing a problem with avoiding SEC scrutiny.

“They’re splitting their shares into maybe five kids at a time, or however many kids they have, so each one gets so many shares,” said Carol Ann Olson, Coon Valley’s general manager. “It doesn’t take long for it to keep increasing the number of shares we have. We’ve been telling our shareholders about it, but you can’t tell them they can’t give their shares to their children. So that becomes difficult.”

Instead of focusing on improving TV, internet and phone services, Coon Valley Farmers Telephone Company has had to divert money and time to manage the shareholder threshold and track assets to stay under the threshold, she said.

“If we have to go into selling our stock publicly traded and have to do the audits and the extra work that has to be done, we won’t be able to make it,” Olson said. “So then somebody huge moves in, they won’t always take care of their customers like we do.”

Klatt said business decisions are being made based on avoiding Sarbanes-Oxley requirements rather than on the company’s primary mission. His office calculated the company has lost $79,446 annually in avoidance costs — or $1.4 million dollars over 18 years.

That money could have been used for deploying around 20 miles of fiber, he said.

“We went way past the $10 million because of fiber optic and network deployment. So we’ve got one number to manage right now, and that’s basically to keep shareholders below 500 because we don’t want that annual ongoing expense,” Klatt said, adding that the company has been forced to buy back millions in stock to avoid going over the limit.

Klatt said the cost of avoidance includes time he and other employees have taken to meet with the company’s board of directors and educate  shareholders on the risks of exceeding the count limit, not to mention costs for airfare, hotel and other expenses of years of lobbying in Wisconsin and Washington against SOX.

Klatt isn’t the only one feeling the effects. The law firm Foley and Lardner surveyed 93 public companies in 2007 on the effects of Sarbanes-Oxley and found companies across the United States were spending a lot of money on compliance. Companies with under $1 billion in revenue were estimated to be spending around $2.8 million a year complying with the law.

“There is clearly a desire within the business community to exempt smaller public companies from Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the study stated. “Respondents were also relatively aggressive in their definition of ‘smaller’ public companies, believing that the threshold should be set at a $250M market cap and under.”

There was some relief in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act in 2012, which sought to mitigate smaller companies’ reporting requirements by increasing the registration shareholder threshold from 500 or more persons to either “(1) 2,000 or more accredited persons, or (2) 500 or more persons who are not accredited investors.”

Shareholders in small rural companies are often community members, not accredited investors, who by definition must have more than $200,000 in income individually, $300,000 if married; or a personal net worth of over $1 million, excluding personal residence. So small rural businesses continued to have to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley.

The ACCESS Rural America Act

The ACCESS Rural America Act hopes to alleviate rural companies of costly SEC reporting by proposing an increase in the shareholder threshold from 500 to 1,250.

“Reliable high-speed broadband is critical to strengthening small businesses and neighborhoods throughout Wisconsin’s rural communities,” Baldwin said in a press release. “Our bipartisan legislation provides the regulatory relief that rural service providers need to build-out high-speed broadband in small communities and continue our efforts to bring broadband access for all — no matter where you live in Wisconsin.”

NTCA backs the bill.

“We supported it because we have a number of members who have expressed concerns about the fact that they would have costs associated with compliance with these shareholder counts and asset thresholds and that that was basically consuming resources that they instead would spend on deployment of rural broadband,” Romano said.

Barry Orton, emeritus professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, noted that it is unusual to have bipartisan support in Congress today. Orton said the proposal appears to be a good way to tackle the problem.

He calls the bill a “bank shot.”

“In pool, when you’re trying to get a hole in the pocket, a regular shot goes into a pocket but a bank shot goes into the side – it’s not a direct shot. This bill is a bank shot – indirect and helps small companies that are trying to provide rural broadband to save some money on reporting on their fiscal situation. … It’s indirectly helping them,” Orton said.

If you asked Orton a more direct way to tackle the issue, it might be to allow small rural telecoms to pay less in taxes, provide funding to build fiber optic cables in rural areas or add money to existing programs to improve broadband access in rural Wisconsin.

“It’s a small piece of a bigger problem, it takes a little bite out of it,” Orton said.

The Observatory rates Baldwin’s claim that local rural telecom providers are being hit by costly regulations never intended for them as Verified.

Sources
Fraud Magazine, An Interview with Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes, May/June 2007
The New York Times, Enron Admits to Overstating Profits by About $600 Million, Nov. 9, 2001.
NPR News, The Fall of Enron.
SearchCio, What is Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), May 2018.
Statement, The Rural Broadband Association – NTCA, Relieving Registration Burdens on Small Community-Based Businesses.
Interview, Michael Romano, senior vice president of the Rural Broadband Association, Feb. 11, 2019.
Interview, John Klatt, CEO of Lakeland Communications LLC, Feb. 8, 2019.
Interview, Carol Ann Olson, general manager of Coon Valley Farmers Telephone Company, Feb. 27, 2019.
Interview, Barry Orton, emeritus professor of telecommunications at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Feb. 26, 2019.
Foley & Lardner LLP, The Cost of Being Public in the Era of Sarbanes-Oxley, Aug. 2, 2007.

So what’s been happening to Wisconsin farms since then?

Tariffs take effect

The 25 percent tariffs on aluminum and 10 percent tariffs on steel imports have been in effect since March, but major trade partners including the European Union, Mexico and Canada were exempted until June 1. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced on May 31 that the United States would move forward with lifting the temporary tariff exemptions and impose metal duties for Canadian, Mexican and European Union goods after unsuccessful negotiations. The move was met with condemnation from world leaders

“These tariffs will harm industries and workers on both sides of the Canada-U.S. border and will disrupt supply chains that have made steel and aluminum from North America more competitive across the whole world,” Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in a press conference.

Mexico, Canada and the EU, major agricultural export markets for the United States, immediately struck back with their own set of tariffs, targeting steel and aluminum and key commodities of American farm goods including cheese, corn, fruits and pork.

Experts agree the U.S.-China feud has the highest stakes. China is the nation’s largest goods trading partner and made up $129.9 billion of U.S. exports in 2017, according to federal data. Their retaliatory tariffs target American agricultural commodities such as soybeans and dairy – goods Wisconsin is known for.

Last July, CNN reported soybean prices hit a 10-year low at $8.55 per bushel — 13 percent lower than prices at the beginning of 2018. This was a week after the United States imposed a 25 percent tariff on $34 billion worth of Chinese exports to the United States, which China later matched with tariffs on soybeans.

In an interview, Kevin Bernhardt, University of Wisconsin-Platteville professor of agribusiness, said the soybean tariff hit especially hard.

“Agriculture prices live and die by exports. In all commodities, we’re heavily dependent (on China), especially for soybeans,” Bernhardt said.

“Just the tip of the iceberg”

Wisconsin producers are seeing the effects of the trade wars. In October, Wisconsin’s leading manufacturers and businesses met at a Waukesha town hall meeting, part of the Tariffs Hurt the Heartland’s nationwide grassroots campaign, to discuss the impact on Wisconsin’s economy.

Jim Holte, Wisconsin Farm Bureau president, said the Trump tariffs are “compounding the issues of global oversupply of food products” in nearly all of Wisconsin’s commodities like milk, grain, beans and oil seeds.

“Farmers are price takers not price makers,” Holte said. “So while there is an active futures market out there, the opportunities to look forward and lock in a profitable price are very limited in nearly all of the major commodities.”

A report by the Trade Partnership, an international trade and economic consulting firm, presented at the meeting, revealed tariffs cost Wisconsin businesses almost $95 million in August —  47 percent more than in August 2017.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Carrie Clark Phillips, panelist and director of policy and partnerships for Farmers for Free Trade. She added Wisconsin businesses spent $20 million more that they never had to pay before as a result of the tariffs.

Agriculture downturn gets worse

Agricultural experts agree the tariffs hurt farmers and prolonged downturn in the agricultural sector. From 2013 to 2017, U.S. net farm income fell 39 percent, from $123.8 billion to $75.4 billion.

University of Wisconsin-Platteville

Kevin Bernhardt, University of Wisconsin-Platteville professor of agribusiness, says the soybean tariff imposed by China as part of its ongoing trade war with the United States hits U.S. farmers particularly hard.

In 2018, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service projects net farm income at $66.3 billion, a 12.1 percent decline from 2017.

“In May, we had $4.20 corn, we had $10.40 soybeans, and $16.60 milk — all those have come down since that time,” Bernhardt said in an interview in November. “I think they were all starting to slowly climb up to something that might’ve been better for farmers this year, and then the tariffs hit. So the tariffs took what little wind we were starting to get in the sails.”

Oversupply of milk and persistently low commodity prices have hurt farmers, said Mark Stephenson, director of the Center for Dairy Profitability at UW-Madison. He said tariffs are a factor in the slow markets, but not the whole story.

“The biggest part of the story is probably just too much milk being produced for the what the market place actually wants and needs right now,” Stephenson said. “But then into all the problems, in the mix, you throw tariffs against Mexico. Mexico is our biggest export customer, so when they put those tariffs on cheese, and cheese sales slowed down, that’s not a good thing (for farmers).”

Now we’re left with a dairy industry that has a gas pedal with no brakes, said Kara O’Connor, government relations director at the Wisconsin Farmers Union, an advocacy group for family farmers and rural residents.  

“We have technology that makes it easier to ramp up production faster, and we have federal policy that creates no disincentive for doing so,” O’Connor said. “And for an individual farmer, the answer to every situation that you might encounter economically is to produce more.”

Number of farms shrinking

University of Wisconsin-Madison

Mark Stephenson, director of the Center for Dairy Profitability at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says the trade war between the United States and Mexico is hurting Wisconsin farmers. “Mexico is our biggest export customer, so when they put those tariffs on cheese, and cheese sales slowed down, that’s not a good thing (for farmers),” he says.

Commodities tend to follow cycles of varying lengths of high and low prices, Stephenson said. Dairy farmers have become accustomed to these cycles in prices, and stock up on working capital to survive down periods, he said.

This time around, though, the market hasn’t rebounded, driving farmers to take on loans to “borrow against their future” or go bankrupt, Stephenson said.

The number of dairy farms in Wisconsin sharply decreased in 2018, according to latest data from the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protections. Wisconsin had 8,801 licensed dairy producers at the beginning of the year and had lost 638 farms as of December.

O’Connor said farm loss in the past three years has been “astounding.” She regularly talks to farmers across Wisconsin and has noticed even farms with multiple income streams from different commodities can’t turn to producing other goods because prices for everything are  down.

“Every sector usually, even if milk prices are low, does well with animal sales and other things are low, but now it’s just crickets everywhere,” O’Connor said.

Bankruptcies level out

Recent data from the American Farm Bureau Federation reveal the national farm bankruptcy numbers are not quite as bad as 2017, but several regions, including the Midwest, continue to suffer high failure rates.

“Caseload statistics from the United States Courts indicate that for the 2018 fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30, there were 468 Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings, down 8 percent, or 40 filings, from the prior year,” according to the farm bureau. “Filings in fiscal year 2018 were down from prior-year levels but were approximately 25 percent higher than in 2014.”

Although bankruptcies are down from 2017, the group, which represents farm and ranch families, notes the data “highlights the tough financial conditions across portions of rural America.”

The Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings, known as “family farmer” or “family fisherman” bankruptcies, were higher than year-ago levels in the Northeast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions. And, of the 468 filings in fiscal year 2018, more than half came from districts highly concentrated in traditional row crop, livestock and dairy production, the farm bureau said.

Bernhardt said there are still some producers who have figured out a way to keep costs low and break even — or make a profit off of the current prices. But he said farm casualties are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of down periods.

Federal bailout not enough

Agricultural economists remain concerned about the farm industry, particularly the uncertainty of ongoing trade wars between the United States and China.

The Trump Administration announced in August it would provide a $12 billion bailout for farmers affected by the tariffs. Farmers and others say that is not enough.

“We’ve estimated that it’s probably between 50 cents at the minimum to something like a dollar per hundredweight of milk that prices were impacted because of the trade negotiations,” Stephenson said. “The farmers got a (bailout) payment that’s going to be equivalent to about 6 cents. That’s not much.”

The National Milk Producers Federation wrote to Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue asking for more federal compensation to mitigate dairy farm losses from the tariffs, which are projected to easily exceed $1 billion in 2018.

Bernhardt said the tariffs could damage farmers’ trade relationships, and declining profitability could disrupt the generational transfer of farms.

O’Connor said farmers feel fear and isolation as they watch their neighbors close down one by one.

“Nobody that I’ve talked to could remember a situation with that ever happening. It’s completely unprecedented where people felt at risk at being terminated, not because of poor quality or violation on their part but simply because their product isn’t wanted,” O’Connor said. “So when you go forward first of all, not making any money and second of all thinking, ‘I could lose my farm at any moment,’ that’s a terrifying way to live.”

Said Stephenson: “This trade war could be prolonged, and I don’t know if you declare a winner to be the person who comes out with the fewest bruises, but I don’t think any of them are going to come out as the winner.”

Sources
CNBC, Trump administration will put steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada, Mexico and the EU, May 31, 2018.
CNN Business, Trump hits allies with metal tariffs; Mexico, EU and Canada vow to retaliate, May 31, 2018.
CBS News, Canada, Mexico, EU retaliate against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, May 31, 2018.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, Top Markets for U.S. Agricultural Exports in 2017, March 20, 2018.
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, The People’s Republic of China, accessed Dec. 20, 2018.
CNN Business, Trade war fallout: Soybean prices plunge to a 10-year low, July 11, 2018.
Wisconsin State Farmer, Trade critical to U.S. farm economy, tariffs need to be removed, Oct. 26, 2018.
Interview, Kevin Bernhardt, University of Wisconsin-Platteville professor of agribusiness, Nov. 16, 2018.
Interview, Mark Stephenson, director of the Center for Dairy Profitability at the UW-Madison, Nov. 15, 2018.
Interview, Kara O’Connor, government relations director at the Wisconsin Farmers Union, Nov. 16, 2018.
Congressional Research Service, U.S. Farm Income Outlook for 2018, Dec. 11, 2018.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Highlights from the November 2018 Farm Income Forecast, Nov. 30, 2018.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Number of Monthly Milk Cow Herds Wisconsin, 2004 to current.
American Farm Bureau Federation, Chapter 12 Bankruptcies Lower Across Farm County, Nov. 16, 2018.
Statement, U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA Announces Details of Assistance for Farmers Impacted by Unjustified Retaliation, Aug. 27, 2018.
Statement, National Milk Producers Federation, Oct. 24, 2018.

During his 2018 gubernatorial campaign, Evers was vocal about criminal justice reform, outlining a number of policies he would like to see changed and saying that reducing the prison population by 50 percent is a “goal that’s worth accomplishing.” Already, the state’s prison system is 33 percent above capacity.

But with a Republican-controlled state Legislature looking to curb the incoming Democratic governor’s power before he’s even in office, Evers is likely facing an uphill battle in trying to reduce the state’s prison population and implementing changes in criminal justice policies.

A growing prison population

As of Nov. 30, Wisconsin had a prison population of 23,637 — a number that’s expected to increase by almost 6 percent in the next three years.

Prison Point-in-Time Populations: 2000-2016, Wisconsin Department of Corrections, August 2017

According to a report released in October by the nonpartisan, independent policy research organization Wisconsin Policy Forum, by 2021, the number of inmates will grow to more than 25,000.

While this would be a record number of inmates, the increase isn’t as rapid as it was during the 1990s when the state experienced a 174 percent increase from 1990 to 2000.

To deal with the expected increase, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections is requesting an additional $149.4 million in the 2019-21 biennial budget.

The DOC, unlike most other state agencies, is funded entirely out of state income and sales tax, Wisconsin Policy Forum spokesman David Callender said.

“Prisons are almost exclusively a state operation, so when there’s an increase (in request for funding), that obviously means there are going to be other programs that either won’t get that money or will have to compete for that money,” Callender said.

Part of the budget request is to convert the Lincoln Hills juvenile facility, which is slated for closure by 2021, into an adult facility, Callender said. Right now, the design capacity for the state’s adult prisons is 17,829, according to the DOC — roughly 5,800 below the current population.

Another part of the request is increasing the use of contract beds over the next few years, meaning that DOC would pay for space in county jails to house inmates, Callender said. Something the DOC is not talking about, Callender said, is sending inmates to out-of-state facilities, which was an action that was taken in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

So, how did this increase happen?

University of Wisconsin Law School

Walter Dickey, professor emeritus of law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, says there are ways to reduce Wisconsin’s prison population. Changing the state’s truth-in-sentencing laws would be the most effective.

University of Wisconsin-Madison professor emeritus of law Walter Dickey believes truth-in-sentencing legislation has been a major driver of the rising prison population. Dickey was secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections from 1983 to 1987 and serves on Evers’ recently formed criminal-justice reform committee.

Prior to truth-in-sentencing, offenders were eligible for release after serving 25 percent of their time and received a mandatory release date after serving two-thirds of their time, after which they were paroled. Under truth-in-sentencing legislation, which first took effect in 2000, traditional parole was virtually eliminated for newly convicted offenders.

Currently, only about 5 percent of so-called old-law inmates who are parole-eligible are granted release, according to David Liners, state director for WISDOM, a grassroots organization seeking to end mass incarceration.

“That whole (parole) system is just broken down, and it’s a nightmare,” Liners said. “Common reasons people are given for having their parole denied, are ‘insufficient time served’ or somehow releasing them would be an ‘unacceptable risk to society’ — there’s no definition for either of those things.”

Under truth-in-sentencing, offenders receive a bifurcated sentence, which includes the time they’re supposed to spend in prison and the time they’ll be on extended supervision following their release. The time spent on extended supervision has to be at least 25 percent of the prison sentence.

While extended supervision is similar to traditional parole in the sense that there are certain conditions that need to be met, the difference is the individual can go back to prison for the entire term, Callender said.

“Let’s say that you have three years on extended supervision. If on the very last day you commit an offense and have to go back to prison, you could potentially go back for that entire three years,” Callender said. “Generally, the longer that somebody is looking over your shoulder and the longer you’re under supervision, the more likely it is that you may do something wrong and end up back in prison.”

Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

David Liners is state director of the faith-based group Wisdom, grassroots organization seeking to end mass incarceration. “That whole (parole) system is just broken down, and it’s a nightmare,” Liners said.

In fact, in 2017, 36.5 percent of prison admissions in Wisconsin were related to violations of probation, extended supervision or parole — not new crimes, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum report.

While someone is on extended supervision, there are three main ways supervision can be revoked: a new sentence; a revocation plus a new sentence; or a rule violation, which the DOC calls “revocation only” and WISDOM calls “crimeless revocation.” The largest segment of prison admission is people who are coming back due to revocation only, Callender said.

Some of the rules people have to follow while on extended supervision can be pretty specific and detailed, like not being able to borrow money without permission or being late to an appointment with an agent, Liners said. Others are more straightforward, such as failing a drug test or not attending a specific program.

“It’s hard to keep all these things straight,” Liners said. “In some cases, it is that people have messed up, but in that case, I don’t know that reimprisonment should be the default way to deal with it.”

A piece of data Callender said is missing is what is driving the revocations and what the most common revocations are.

“Are these serious violations of protocols that individuals need to be returned to prison in order to protect society, or are they minor offenses that perhaps could be addressed some other way?” Callender said. “That’s one area of data the Department of Corrections really doesn’t have yet.”

When asked about data on revocations, DOC spokesman Tristan Cook sent a link to the “up-to-date and complete data on admissions to prison for revocations,” but this data did not include information about the types of violations offenders are committing.

Is it really possible to lower Wisconsin’s prison population by 50 percent? It’s complicated.

During the gubernatorial election, Evers’ opponent Gov. Scott Walker claimed cutting the prison population in half would require the release of thousands of violent offenders into the community. PolitiFact checked Walker’s claim and found it to be Half True.

Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Gov.-elect Tony Evers has set a goal of reducing the state’s prison population by 50 percent. Is that realistic? Evers is seen here at the State of the State address in Madison, Wis., on Jan. 10, 2017.

While a short time frame for Evers’ goal might require the release of violent offenders, a longer time frame could achieve this goal without the release of any violent offenders, according to PolitiFact.

Evers has not outlined a timeline and is spending his transition period talking with members of the corrections community and the Legislature before anything is announced, Evers’ transition spokeswoman Carrie Lynch said.

Around two-thirds of Wisconsin’s inmates are incarcerated because they have committed a violent offense. There’s a public perception that prisons are full of nonviolent offenders, but overall, that has never been the case, Callender said.

“That’s where it creates some complexity in terms of being able to immediately reduce the prison population because there is not necessarily a lot of low-hanging fruit in the population,” Callender said. “There are individuals I think potentially could be released, but again, it’s a much more complicated situation.”

Wisconsin Policy Forum

Wisconsin Policy Forum spokesman David Callender says the largest number of new admissions to state prisons are people who have violated rules while on parole, probation or extended supervision — an approach that could change under Gov.-elect Tony Evers.

With Wisconsin’s current sentencing system, Dickey believes cutting the prison population in half would be extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. Traditional parole has been abolished and sentences, for the most part, cannot be shortened.

Dickey said changing sentencing laws would be “much more desirable” but would need to be done by the Legislature, which is currently run by Republicans. While Liners sees the Legislature addressing sentencing laws in the long term, he doesn’t see it happening in the coming year.

Judges can adjust sentences, but this isn’t a realistic method for reducing the prison population because it would take willing judges and a return to court for each case, Dickey said. In a May 2017 report, the nonpartisan Badger Institute found that sentence adjustment petitions are rarely approved. Out of the 2,288 petitions filed in 2016, 295 were granted.

Dickey said he believes state leaders first need to agree on a purpose for prison.

Two possible purposes could be just punishment and public safety — both of which Dickey believes are hard to disagree with. Once the purposes for prison are figured out, then the possibility for discussion opens up on how to use sentencing and community corrections to achieve these goals.

“Prison is for the people we’re afraid of — not the people we’re mad at,” Dickey said. “We ought to be using prison as a means to achieve public safety, and if we have people who don’t ‘need’ prison because they’re not a public safety threat, then we shouldn’t be using prison for them. We should be using some other kind of correctional resource.”

Reducing revocations is a place to start, Dickey said. Liners noted that revocations are discretionary, and the DOC usually doesn’t have to put people back in prison for rule violations.

Liners said the prison population could be reduced by at least 8,000 in two years if steps are taken to end crimeless revocations, fix the parole system and expand Treatment Alternatives and Diversion programs.

The governor has a lot of latitude when it comes to ending crimeless revocations and fixing the parole system, and TAD funding comes from the state budget, Liners said. Funding for TAD programs usually gets bipartisan support, so there’s a good chance if an increase in funding was proposed, the state Legislature would go along with it, he added.

“Treatment Alternatives and Diversion saves all kinds of money, so it’s fiscally really responsible, and the recidivism rate is much lower for people who get into TAD programs than it is for the equivalent people who go to jail,” Liners said. “Whichever thing we’re trying to do — save money or reduce crime — they both have the same answer.”

For Evers, it comes down to investing in TAD programs and drug courts because both will help reduce the prison population, Lynch said. During his campaign, Evers also stressed the importance of looking at crimeless revocations and the impact it’s having on the state’s justice system.

On Dec. 10, Evers and Lt. Gov.-elect Mandela Barnes announced their Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Policy Advisory Council on Dec. 10. Both Liners and Dickey were named part of the council that is “bringing together people from all sides of the criminal justice system … on exploring solutions for reforming Wisconsin’s criminal justice system.”

Evers noted that red states including Texas have passed comprehensive criminal justice reform with support from both sides of the aisle — something he’s confident Wisconsin can do.

Said Liners: “We either need a new prison or we need to do something about the capacity. Take these other steps first, because we don’t think you’ll need the new prison.”

Sources
Wisconsin Policy Forum, Wisconsin’s Prison Population on the Rise, Oct. 31, 2018
WisconsinEye YouTube, Today’s TMJ4 and UW Milwaukee Host Democratic Gubernatorial Debate, July 12, 2018 – 34:33
The Cap Times, Wisconsin Republicans pass lame-duck bill to curb powers of incoming governor, attorney general, Dec. 5, 2018
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Offenders Under Control on Nov. 30, 2018
DOC, Agency Budget Request 2019-21, Sept. 17, 2018
Interview with David Callender, Wisconsin Policy Forum communications director, Nov. 20, 2018
Wisconsin State Legislature, Chapter 973: Bifurcated sentence of imprisonment and extended supervision
Interview with David Liners, WISDOM state director, Nov. 26, 2018
Interview with Walter Dickey, University of Wisconsin-Madison professor emeritus of law, Nov. 28, 2018
DOC, DAI – Admissions to Prison Dashboard
Email with Tristan Cook, DOC spokesman, Nov. 28, 2018
PolitiFact, Tony Evers supports cutting prison population 50%, but releasing thousands of violent criminals?, Sept. 21, 2018
Interview with Carrie Lynch, communications director for Gov.-elect Tony Evers during transition, Nov. 26, 2018
DOC, Performance Measurement Series: Inmate Profile 2017, May 2018
The Wheeler Report, Governor-elect Tony Evers and Lt. Governor-elect Mandela Barnes Announce Public Safety and Criminal Justice Reform Policy Advisory Council, Dec. 10, 2018
Badger Institute, Black Robes and Blue Collars: How to Let Wisconsin Judges Help Job-Seekers and Employers, May 2017
Wisconsin State Legislature, 2017 Wisconsin Act 185, March 31, 2018

During an Oct. 19 debate and in a tweet, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir said 3.4 million people will be “thrown off their employer-based health insurance” under Medicare for All, a proposal co-sponsored by Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin. Vukmir lost to Baldwin in the Nov. 6 election.

“I’m waiting for the media to come out and say, ‘Look at this’ and fact-check Senator Baldwin on this,” Vukmir said during the debate.

The Observatory decided to take her up on the challenge.

The Medicare for All Act was introduced by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, in September 2017 as a way to ensure health care for every American. The proposal would create a universal single-payer health care program, making it so individuals received health insurance from the government versus private companies or other programs.

Under Medicare for All, these outside programs, such as employer-based health insurance, would be eliminated.

However, the people who would lose their employer-based coverage would then move over to a new plan, and have insurance under Medicare for All instead, said Donna Friedsam, a researcher and health policy programs director at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health. These individuals would most likely have new taxes but no more premiums.

Looking at the number Vukmir mentioned of how many people would lose insurance, Friedsam said she could not comment on it specifically since she had not seen it cited anywhere. Vukmir’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment about where this statistic came from, however, a statement issued by Vukmir’s campaign to WisPolitics explained where Vukmir got the number.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, about 3.4 million Wisconsinites have employer-based health insurance.

“There are different ideas or estimates about what the impacts of Medicare for All would be, but that bill is more of a symbolic gesture, and the details of how that would work have not been articulated,” Friedsam said.

WISN-TV

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, right, criticizes Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin’s support for the Medicare for All bill during an Oct. 19, 2018 debate at Marquette Law School.

The “symbolic gesture” is that while some in Congress have endorsed universal health care, there’s no way for the bill to move forward in the current political climate, she said. There also aren’t provisions in the bill to fully explain how a Medicare for All program would work, Friedsam said.

Even with the Democrats winning the House, Medicare for All is unlikely to pass with Republicans controlling the Senate and the presidency, according to Forbes contributor Howard Gleckman. Because the legislation is not a priority in Congress, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has not released any estimates on how many individuals would be impacted.

Friedsam said the topic of Medicare for All is a side conversation. What is more relevant is looking at what different politicians plan on doing to strengthen the existing system, such as the discussions surrounding pre-existing conditions and lowering health care costs.

During the debate, Vukmir made it sound as if 3.4 million people would lose health insurance under Medicare for All. In the statement to WisPolitics, however, Vukmir’s campaign clarified that the 3.4 million people on employer-based health insurance would move over to a new government-run health care plan.  

So, Vukmir is right; 3.4 million people would lose their employer-sponsored health coverage. But she left out the key component — those 3.4 million people would continue to have health insurance under Medicare for All. For those reasons, we rate Vukmir’s statement as Mostly True.

Sources
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin U.S. Senate race: Tammy Baldwin, Leah Vukmir clash on health care, Sept. 4, 2018
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin exit polls: loss of support among independents and college-educated voters has put Gov. Walker’s re-election at risk, Nov. 6, 2018
WISN, Baldwin, Vukmir debate at Marquette University Law School, Oct. 19, 2018
Tweet from Republican U.S. Senate candidate Leah Vukmir, Oct. 19, 2018
Congress, Medicare for All Act of 2017
Bernie Sanders’ campaign website, Medicare for All: Leaving No One Behind
The New York Times, How the Bernie Sanders Plan Would Both Beef Up and Slim Down Medicare, Sept. 13, 2017
The New York Times, How Medicare for All Would Affect You, Sept. 14, 2017
Interview with Donna Friedsam, researcher and health policy programs director at University of Wisconsin-Madison’s School of Medicine and Public Health, Oct. 30, 2018
Forbes, Democrats Have Won The House. What Will They Do About Medicare For All?, Nov. 7, 2018
The Hill, Why CBO won’t estimate cost of Bernie Sanders’s ‘Medicare for All’ bill, Aug. 29, 2018
WisPolitics, Vukmir campaign: 3.4 million Wisconsinites to lose employer health insurance under BaldwinCare

“In the past year, Wisconsin lost 602 dairy farms,” Baldwin tweeted. “That’s why I’m working to make sure the final #FarmBill18 improves risk management tools for dairy farmers and gives them the tools they need to meet these challenging times.”

Baldwin also said the 2018 Farm Bill supports dairy farmers, levels the playing field for organic farmers and gives more support to farmers in crisis.

The Observatory decided to check these claims by Baldwin: that Wisconsin has lost 602 dairy farms in the past year and that what the 2018 Farm Bill promises is what dairy farmers actually need.

Baldwin’s claim that Wisconsin lost 602 dairy farms in the last year was made in early September, making the most recent data she could have used from August.

In August, Wisconsin had 8,419 dairy farms, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In August 2017, Wisconsin had 9,021 dairy farms. From August 2017 to August 2018, Wisconsin has in fact lost 602 dairy farms.

This is part of a longer term trend that appears to be worsening. Already in 2018, Wisconsin has lost almost 500 dairy farms, going from 8,801 in January to 8,304 in October. In the first 10 months of 2016 and 2017, Wisconsin lost 289 and 366 farms, respectively. Wisconsin is on pace to have its biggest loss in dairy farms since 2013, according to Wisconsin Public Radio.

The number of dairy farms closing picks up when milk prices are low and expenses are high, according to John Lucey, director of the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research. Many farmers no longer feel like they can make a business out of selling their milk, he said.

Another factor is generational. As farmers get older, they have to see if someone from the family will take over the farm, Lucey said.

Despite this decline, Wisconsin’s reputation as the dairy state isn’t in danger, Lucey said.

“The trend will continue because the trend has been going on for decades,” Lucey said. “But as the dairy state, we’re still producing a lot of milk, and we have about 200 dairy plants making cheese and other dairy products. So Wisconsin still produces a lot, and our farms that are remaining are larger and more productive.”

The Observatory rates Baldwin’s first claim about how many dairy farms Wisconsin has lost as Verified.

Saiyna Bashir / The Cap Times

The Observatory rates U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin's claim about the Farm Bill giving farmers “the tools they need to meet these challenging times” as Verified. She is seen here at a roundtable session in Madison, Wis. on Aug 18, 2016.

Baldwin’s second claim is focused on how the 2018 Farm Bill will help farmers in crisis by giving them access to insurance when milk prices are low and feed prices are high. Is this what farmers truly need?

Roughly every five years, Congress has to pass a new Farm Bill, which sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry policy. This an omnibus bill, meaning it features different laws, amendments and bills within it. The current Farm Bill expired Sept. 30, although most of its provisions continue.

Mark Stephenson, University of Wisconsin-Madison’s director of dairy policy analysis, believes Congress, with its new Democratic majority in the House, will wait until next year to pass the Farm Bill.

Historically, the bill has seen bipartisan support, but everything has become more partisan, including the Farm Bill, Stephenson said. The big issue this year has been with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the national food assistance program known in Wisconsin as FoodShare.

Republicans believe SNAP should have stronger work-related requirements, but Democrats are less inclined to make this change because they believe people who need assistance could lose their benefits, Stephenson said.

Without a Farm Bill, a lot of the programs remain in effect. But the Margin Protection Program for Dairy — the insurance program that protects dairy farmers in times of low milk and high feed prices — would end at the end of 2018.

That program, which was implemented in the 2014 Farm Bill, is a voluntary benefit that pays dairy producers when their margins fall below a certain dollar amount, according to the USDA. For the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress is making some changes to the program to make it less costly for producers to participate, Stephenson said.

But unless Congress acts, the current program “would not continue past the end of the year,” Stephenson said.

“It would have to be renewed through passage of a new Farm Bill, or Congress could pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) to fund portions of the old Farm Bill. There is some interest in trying to pass the new Farm Bill during the lame duck session of Congress, in which case we would be implementing the replacement program for the MPP sometime after the start of the new year.

“Personally, I’m skeptical that they will get that done and will punt until the new Congress is seated.”

That is not the only program in the Farm Bill designed to help dairy farmers. Among the more than 50 farmer-assistance programs in the bill are those that help with loans, provide information and tools necessary to make informed risk management decisions and help aspiring and retiring farmers.

Lucey and Stephenson agree that in the meantime without a Farm Bill in place, there is an increased risk for dairy farmers to continue doing their jobs.

“(Farmers are) facing increased market risks, maybe increased production risks, and weather patterns are becoming a more variable,” Stephenson said. “The Farm Bill tries to address that for them.”

But Stephenson said passage of a new Farm Bill is only a short-term solution to help farmers through low market prices. Long-term issues, such as the oversupply of milk, are not addressed.

The Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research is trying to discover medium- to long-term solutions by researching how to increase exports and create more demand for milk and dairy products, Lucey said.

“Fluid milk sales have been going down, but there are other types of beverages that have come on the market that can meet consumer demands,” Lucey said. “We have to be a little bit less conservative in terms of our view of what kind of products to make and how to make them and embrace innovation because that’s really what’s going to bring returns back to farmers in terms of sustaining in the long-term.”

According to experts, the Farm Bill does help farmers struggling with low milk prices — and the insurance program that supports them would end if the new bill is not enacted before the calendar year is over.

The Observatory rates Baldwin’s second claim about the Farm Bill giving farmers “the tools they need to meet these challenging times” as Verified.   

Sources
Tweets from U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sept. 5, 2018
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Number of Monthly Milk Cow Herds Wisconsin, 2004 to current
Wisconsin Public Radio, “Wisconsin On Pace to Hit Highest Loss of Dairy Farms in 4 Years,” Sept. 13, 2018
U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, 2018 Farm Bill
Farm Aid, Farm Bill 101, May 22, 2018
Interview with Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research director John Lucey, Oct. 12, 2018
Interview with University of Wisconsin-Madison Director for Policy Analysis Mark Stephenson, Oct. 17, 2018
Benefits.gov, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Benefits.gov, FoodShare Wisconsin
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Farm Bill Programs & Grants — Overview
USDA, Margin Protection Program for Dairy

The Observatory checked both claims by Walker.

According to Walker, Wisconsin’s wages are growing faster than the national rate. When asked about the claim, Walker’s campaign press secretary Austin Altenburg referenced a July BizTimes article. From January to May of 2018, Wisconsin experienced a year-over-year increase of 5.7 percent, according to the article. The U.S. average was 2.7 percent.

Altenburg also sent a link to a tweet from University of Wisconsin-Madison economics professor Noah Williams, who said Wisconsin’s wages grew 5.9 percent from June 2017 to June 2018. The national average during that time was also 2.7 percent.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages, for the first quarter of 2018, the average weekly wage in the U.S. increased 3.7 percent, and in Wisconsin the average weekly wage increased 3.8 percent.

Because each of these sources looks at a different time frame, the percent increase for Wisconsin and the United States is different. However, no matter the time frame, Wisconsin’s wage growth is beating the national average.

While Wisconsin’s wage growth rate is higher than the national rate, the average Wisconsinite is paid less per week than the average American. Nationally, the average weekly wage was $1,152, and in Wisconsin, it was $968, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Moreover, one in five Wisconsin workers has a poverty-wage job, according to UW-Madison’s COWS, a “national think-and-do tank that promotes ‘high road’ solutions to social problems.” COWS defined a poverty-wage job as one that pays less than $11.55 per hour. In Wisconsin, 22 percent of white workers, 41 percent of black workers and 41 percent of Hispanic workers hold poverty-wage jobs.

“Low-wage jobs – indeed, low-wage careers – define and constrain the prospects of too many workers,” COWS found. “And … while racial inequality is not unique to Wisconsin, it is extreme here.”

Despite these caveats, The Observatory rates Walker’s first claim, that the state has experienced higher wage growth than the national average, as Verified.

Walker’s second claim was that the percentage of people working in Wisconsin is one of the best in the country.

The state has a 69 percent labor force participation rate compared to the national rate of 62.9 percent, according to COWS. This is the fifth highest rate in the country.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Furthermore, Wisconsin’s current unemployment rate is 3 percent — it’s tied for 10th along with South Dakota and Virginia. The national unemployment rate is 3.9 percent.

Wisconsin’s neighbors Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois have an unemployment rate of 2.9, 2.5 and 4.1 percent, respectively.

But Wisconsin’s low unemployment rate is not the same for everyone. The 2018 COWS report broke down the state’s unemployment rate by race.

COWS found white unemployment was at 2.6 percent, Hispanic unemployment was 5.4 percent and unemployment among African-Americans was 9.3 percent. The black unemployment rate is more than three and a half times the white unemployment rate — the highest disparity in the nation, COWS associate director Laura Dresser said.

“Even as the white unemployment rate is almost the lowest it’s ever been, the black unemployment rate is at levels that we would call a recession,” Dresser said.

In April, The Observatory found that although the state’s unemployment rate was at a historic low, many Wisconsinites have to work two jobs due to low wages.

Overall unemployment is low, and labor force participation is high, but that leaves out the context of high unemployment for black residents. As a result, it does not provide a complete picture of Wisconsin’s economy — especially since the disparity between white and black unemployment is the worst in the nation.

Nevertheless, The Observatory rates the claim of Wisconsin’s high overall labor participation as Verified.

Sources
Tweet from Gov. Scott Walker, Sept. 3, 2018
Email from Walker’s campaign press secretary Austin Altenburg, Sept. 28, 2018
Tweet from University of Wisconsin-Madison economics professor Noah Williams, Aug. 14, 2018
BizTimes, Wage growth in Wisconsin outpacing U.S., July 23, 2018
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Covered establishments, employment, and wages by state, Aug. 22, 2018
State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Wisconsin Ranks 1st Nationally in Manufacturing Jobs Added Over Last Three Months, Sept. 21, 2018
Interview with COWS associate director Laura Dresser, Sept. 27, 2018
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Sept. 21, 2018
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment rates by state map, August 2018
COWS, The State of Working Wisconsin, Aug. 31, 2018

In an article published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on Aug. 16, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers said fixing Wisconsin’s roads is a top priority, saying the condition of the state’s roads is ranked 49 out of 50 in the country.

When asked by The Observatory where Evers got this statistic, his campaign cited two resources.

The first was a Feb. 28, 2017 press release from the Transportation Development Association referring to the ranking released by U.S. News and World Report. The ranking placed Wisconsin 49 out of 50 in road quality and 41 out of 50 for overall transportation, which includes bridge quality, commute time, public transit quality and road quality.

The second was a Feb. 6, 2018 Wisconsin Gazette article about a PolitiFact Wisconsin report looking into Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s claims that he had spent more than his Democratic predecessor Gov. Jim Doyle on transportation — a claim PolitiFact rated as “mostly false.” The Wisconsin Gazette article again referred to the same ranking released by U.S. News in which Wisconsin’s roads were ranked 49 out of 50.

However, U.S. News updated its rankings in February in its second annual Best States study and ranked Wisconsin’s road quality 44 out of 50.

U.S. News and World Report Best States study, Wisconsin profile, 2018

When asked about the statistic, Wisconsin Department of Transportation spokesman Christian Schneider referenced recent numbers regarding pavement quality on backbone and non-backbone highways. Schneider also pointed to Walker’s 2017-19 budget investment of approximately $6.1 billion to improve state infrastructure.

Backbone highways are the 1,588-mile multi-lane highway network “connecting all major population and economic regions of the state,” according to the DOT. Most of the state trunk highway system is on non-backbone highways, also known internally by the agency as the resurfacing, restoration and rehabilitation (3R) system, which makes up 10,167 miles of the network.

In an email on Sep. 12 to The Observatory, Schneider said from 2016 to 2017, the percentage of backbone highways rated “fair” or “above” increased from 98.1 percent to 98.3 percent. This rating is done by the DOT’s MAPSS Performance Improvement Program.

The percentage of non-backbone highways rated “fair” or “above” increased from 79.2 percent to 81.3 percent. For backbone highways, this was the fifth straight year of improvement, with the number increasing from 94.7 percent in 2012, Schneider said.

These numbers contrast a report released Sept. 18 by TRIP, a nonprofit national transportation research group, that included another key part of the transportation system: locally maintained roads.

According to the report, 31 percent of Wisconsin’s locally and state-maintained roads are in poor condition and 19 percent are in mediocre condition. Half of Wisconsin’s roads are either in poor or mediocre condition because of “inadequate state and local funding.”

The group also found 17 percent of roads are in fair condition and 33 percent are in good condition.

The conversation surrounding Wisconsin’s roads is not a new one. The Observatory reported on the quality and cost of the state’s roads in November and December 2016.

While Wisconsin’s roads are no longer the second to worst in the nation as Evers claimed, they remain in the bottom six. The Observatory rates Evers’ claim as Mostly True.

Sources:
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Scott Walker, Tony Evers aren’t spelling out their plans for Wisconsin roads, Aug. 16, 2018
Transportation Development Association, U.S. News Best State Ranking, WI roads #49, Feb. 28, 2017
Wisconsin Gazette, PolitiFact: Walker claims about Wisconsin’s infrastructure “mostly false,” Feb. 6, 2018
PolitiFact Wisconsin, Why Scott Walker, in real terms, has spent less on transportation than his Democratic predecessor, Feb. 6, 2018
U.S. News and World Report, Iowa is the Best State in the U.S., says 2018 Best States report, Feb. 27, 2018
U.S. News and World Report, Best States Wisconsin profile, 2018
State Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin: Budget in brief, 2017-19
Email from Wisconsin Department of Transportation spokesman Christian Schneider, Sept. 12, 2018
Wisconsin DOT, Backbone highway map
Wisconsin DOT, Non-backbone highway map
Wisconsin DOT, MAPSS Performance Improvement Report, July 2018 (updated September 2018)
TRIP website
TRIP, Wisconsin Transportation by the Numbers, September 2018

Is this true?

The University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation tracks deaths by country and cause every year. We used that information about the number of violent gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2016 to compare the United States to other democracies including Japan, United Kingdom, Canada. Brazil and India.

The basis for our evaluation is comparing the amount of violent gun deaths in each country and the current laws and regulations on guns in each country.  These deaths exclude armed conflict, accidents and self-harm.

The United States

In the United States there were an average of 3.85 violent gun deaths per 100,000 in 2016. This is significantly worse than the other countries on our list except Brazil. The United States has the 31st highest rate of deaths due to gun violence of all the countries in the world. The United States falls ninth highest socioeconomic status in the word, but every other country above it has lower rates of gun violence. The ease with which one can buy a gun differs from state to state, so the difficulty in obtaining a gun varies, but here is some general information.

Age: Federal law requires a person be 21 to purchase a handgun, but he or she can purchase a long gun at age 18. Some states have laws that either increase or decrease the minimum ages. For instance, in Minnesota, 14-year-olds can purchase a long gun if they have a firearm safety certificate.

Licensing: Most states do not require a license to possess or purchase a firearm.

Coburn Dukehart / Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Students and citizens rally against gun violence as they march to the Wisconsin State Capitol building on March 14, 2018 in Madison, Wis. Background checks are not required in Wisconsin when purchasing from an unlicensed dealer.

Background checks: Purchasers must pass a background check if they are purchasing from a licensed dealer. Background checks prohibit felons, domestic abusers and some others from purchasing firearms. When it comes to purchases from unlicensed dealers, background checks are required only in 19 states, not including Wisconsin.

Training: There are no federal firearm safety training requirements, although six states plus the District of Columbia require safety training or the completion of an exam in order to purchase a firearm.

Japan

In Japan, there were .04 violent gun deaths per 100,000 in 2016. This is the second lowest rate in the world. Singapore takes the No. 1 spot with .03. A person is 96 times more likely to die by gun violence in the United States than he or she is in Japan. Japan has  the Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law, which prohibits possession of a firearm, handgun parts, handgun ammunition or imitation handgun unless otherwise authorized by a specific provision.

Age: Minimum age to own a firearm is 18.

Licensing: All gun owners must have a gun owner’s license. In order to obtain a license, a person must have a genuine reason for wanting a firearm. A license has to be renewed every three years.

Background checks: Background checks are completed for all applicants. Background checks consider criminal, mental health and addiction records.

Training: A firearms safety course is required. At the end of the course, participants have to pass a test.

United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom there were .07 violent gun deaths per 100,000 in 2016. A person is 55 times more likely to die by gun violence in the United States than he or she is in the U.K. Firearm policy is based on the assumption that owning a gun is a privilege instead of a right.

Age: In the United Kingdom, a gun ownership license can be obtained at age 14, a person can purchase a firearm at 17 and a shotgun at age 21.

Licensing: All gun owners must have a gun owner’s license. In order to obtain a license a person must have a genuine reason for why he or she wants a firearm. A person must provide character references.

Background checks: Background checks are completed for all applicants. Background checks consider criminal, mental health and addiction records.

Training: A firearms safety course is not required.

Canada

In Canada, there were .48 deaths per 100,000 in 2016. A person is eight times more likely to die by gun violence in the United States than in Canada. Canada is considering stricter gun controls. The proposed laws would have more comprehensive background checks and ensure a valid license is used when firearm ownership is transferred.

Age: The minimum age for gun ownership is 12 with certain limitations or 18 without restrictions.

Licensing: All gun owners must have a gun owner’s license.

Background checks: Background checks are completed for all applicants. Background checks consider criminal, mental health, addiction and domestic violence records. In addition, an applicant’s spouse, partner or next of kin must be interviewed before a license can be issued.

Training: A firearms safety course is required and applicants must pass a test.

Brazil

In Brazil there were 19.34 violent gun deaths in 2016. A person is five times more likely to die by a violent gun death in Brazil than in the United States.

Age: The minimum age for firearm ownership is 25.

Licensing: All gun owners must have a gun owner’s license. In order to obtain a license, a person must have a genuine reason for why he or she wants a firearm.

Background checks: Background checks are completed for all applicants. Background checks considers criminal, mental health and employment records.

Training: A firearms safety course is required, and participants must pass a test.

India

In India there are 0.88 violent gun deaths per 100,000. A person is four times more likely to die by a violent gun death in the United States than he or she is in India. Firearms are regulated by multiple government and police services in India. The right to private gun ownership is not guaranteed by law. In addition, no civilian is allowed to have an automatic firearm. Private possession of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons are allowed with a license.

Age: The minimum age for firearm ownership is 21.

Licensing: All gun owners must have a gun owner’s license. In order to obtain a license a person must have a genuine reason for why he or she wants a firearm.

Background checks: Background checks are required for all applicants. Background checks considers criminal, mental health and domestic violence records.

Training: A firearms safety course is required and participants must pass a test.

Overall of the six large democracies examined, the United States has the least restrictive gun control laws and the second highest rate of violent gun deaths per 100,000 people.

Sources:
Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, GBD Compare database, 2017
NPR, Gun Violence: How The U.S. Compares With Other Countries, Oct. 6, 2017
GunPolicy.org, Gun Facts, Figures and the Law: United States, Japan, United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil and India, accessed May 11, 2018
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Licensing, Universal Background Checks, accessed May 11, 2018
Pacific Rim Law and Policy Journal Association, The Japanese Firearm and Sword Possession Control Law: Translator’s Introduction, 2000
BBC, Canada Introduces tighter gun control measures, March 20, 2018

In March, President Donald Trump announced a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminium imports from all countries except Canada and Mexico. Numerous countries, including those in the European Union, also were excluded later.

Trump’s actions were lauded by the U.S. steel industry but sparked a back-and forth of retaliatory actions with China — sparking intense criticism from U.S. industry leaders and politicians.

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind, a Democrat from Wisconsin, wrote an op-ed in the Tomah Journal criticizing the president’s actions.

“Instead of supporting growth in our farms by opening new markets and making a push for more exports, the president is creating trade policies that do more harm than good,” Kind wrote on March 26.  

“This short-sighted decision will raise the cost of farm equipment, eliminate jobs and be the grounds for retaliation by the trading partners we rely on…,” he said.

The action did trigger retaliation, but the full effects of escalating threats between the two counties can’t be measured yet. Economists agree, however, that if China’s threatened tariffs come into effect they will have a negative, fairly immediate, impact on the U.S. agriculture industry.

In Wisconsin it could significantly impact exports of ginseng, cranberries and soybeans.

Tit-for-tat trade dispute escalates quickly

Steel and aluminum were not the only goods the United States threatened to slap with tariffs. On March 22, Trump instructed the U.S Trade Representative to put together a list of additional product tariffs against China and to pursue dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization regarding technology licensing practices.

In response, the Chinese Embassy released a statement saying it was “strongly disappointed” that the United States was “ignoring rational voices” and disregarding their mutually beneficial relationship. The country then imposed a 15 percent tariff on 120 U.S. products — including cranberries of which Wisconsin is the nation’s leading producer — and a 25 percent tariff on eight other products including pork. The tariffs affect more about $3 billion worth of U.S. goods, according to Quartz.

Both the original steel and aluminum tariffs and China’s retaliatory list are in effect.

On April 3, the U.S. Trade Representative released a list of suggested tariffs on 1,300 Chinese goods, largely focused on technology, machinery and aerospace industries.

The next day, China announced another set of retaliatory tariffs on 106 U.S. products worth over $50 billion annually, according to CNBC. The list included soybeans, corn, dried cranberries and meat.

Erik Daily / La Crosse Tribune

Both the original U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and China’s retaliatory tariffs will negatively impact farmers, experts said. But if China’s second set of tariffs go into effect, it will have a fairly immediate impact on Midwest farmers who grow a lot of corn and soybeans. Here, a farmer combines corn near Blair, Wis.

Then Trump doubled down, threatening an additional $100 billion in the tariffs the next day.

The U.S. tariffs could have gone into effect in early May. However, days before the deadline, the White House announced it would send a delegation to China to discuss the two countries’ trade relationship.

China said its implementation date depends on what the United States decides to do, according to a Chinese news agency.

Retaliatory tariffs will hit farms hardest

Farms across the nation are already feeling squeezed. In the last five years, net farm income has dropped by 50 percent and many farm families have diversified, with at least one member earning a salary away from the farm, according to economists.

“We’re very concerned about our bottom line all the way around,” Veronica Nigh, an economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation told The Observatory.

Both the original U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs and China’s retaliatory tariffs will negatively impact farmers, experts said. But if China’s second set of tariffs go into effect, it will have a fairly immediate impact on Midwest farmers who grow a lot of corn and soybeans.

The United States exports 30 percent of soybeans it grows to China every year, roughly $14 billion worth, according to the Farm Bureau. Wisconsin exported more than $7.2 million in soybeans to China in 2017, according to the Richard Hummel, a communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

Additionally, the tariffs could also impact $11 million worth of cranberries, and $14 million in ginseng that the state exports to China.

However, products such as soybeans or No. 2 yellow corn are generic commodities — these products are grown around the world,, said Brian Gould an agricultural economics professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison. If those tariffs take effect, China will likely stop importing U.S. soybeans, Gould said, because with the tariffs, they will cost more than soybeans from other countries.

That’s a problem for farmers.

The amount of soybeans and corn they have to sell this year is already set because farms typically make planting decisions at the beginning of the calendar year. Without exporting to China, farmers will need to sell those products domestically — flooding the market.

That will cause market prices to drop, causing farmers to make less from this year’s crop — and any stored product, an asset, will lose value.

“You’ve lost dollars even though you haven’t done anything,” Gould said.

Even the threat of tariffs sent waves through the market. Nigh said soybean prices dropped 30 percent when the news broke. But she said prices recovered some when people realized they wouldn’t take effect immediately.

“(That) can kind of give you an idea of what’s to come if those tariffs were to come into effect,” Nigh said.

Even through the second round of tariffs haven’t been imposed yet, China’s imports of U.S. soybeans have taken a dive, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.

Chinese importers are holding off on purchasing U.S. soybeans and making contracts for future purchases, the newspaper reported. For comparison, the week of Feb.1, 2018 the United States exported about 809,000 metric tons of soybeans to China, but the week of April 26, 2018, it exported only 193,000 metric tons.

“Whatever they’re buying is non-U.S.,” Soren Schroder, Bunge Ltd. chief executive officer told Bloomberg News. “They’re buying beans in Canada, in Brazil, mostly Brazil, but very deliberately not buying anything from the U.S.”

The Farm Bureau has already heard from pork farmers that prices have dropped considerably since the first set of Chinese tariffs. But because export data are sent on a monthly basis, Nigh said they don’t have a good idea of the full impact.

Steel and aluminum impact on farms won’t be immediate

While the retaliatory tariffs will likely reduce farms’ income, the steel and aluminum tariffs will increase the costs to run a farm.

Imported steel will have a 25 percent tax on the current price, and domestically produced steel will raise the price to match it, according to UW-Madison professor Ian Coxhead, a development economist who specializes in globalization, growth and development in East and Southeast Asia.

The higher costs that farm equipment manufacturers incur to produce farm machinery will be passed on to the farmer who buys it, Gould said.

“If you do a search for new or used (farm) equipment, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. So it really is a big deal,” Gould said. “It’s not going to be a little amount (that it would go up).”

Indirectly, prices to transport agricultural products will go up because the industry that transports them will incur increased equipment costs as well, Coxhead added.

Gould explained the retaliatory tariffs on commodities could have an immediate impact, but the steel and aluminum tariffs could have a delayed impact.

“The retaliation that happened… (is) probably more significant immediately for farmers,” he said. “That’s going to happen this year, but someone could put off purchasing a new combine or tractor until maybe some of those tariffs go by the wayside.”

Will farms close?

It all depends on the individual farm, according to Nigh.

“I liken that to each of our individual checking accounts. How long could you go without a paycheck?,” she said.

Prices were good for agricultural products in between 2011 and 2013, and farmers were able to save money, she said.

“At some point, those reserves start to run out. We have seen a small increase in bankruptcies over the last couple of years, and the longer the low prices last, the more likely it is that there would be more,” Nigh said.

Smaller farms typically have proportionately more debt obligations than larger farms, and are not able to save as much during the good years. Both those factors would make them more vulnerable to prices changes in the market, Nigh explained.

“What (the tariffs) will do is (they) will reduce the profitability of farming for those markets that are impacted,” Coxhead said. “So it’ll accelerate the rate at which (aging farmers) will exit the industry or decide to retire or consolidate into a bigger operation. And then what they do after that, I don’t know.”

Eventually, those impacts will cascade through the multi-billion dollar agribusiness industry, Coxhead said. It will impact companies that transport agricultural goods, companies that store product in grain elevators and businesses that sell seeds and other supplies to farms.  

“If farmers cut back production and stop buying inputs, then the whole ag economy that revolves around farmers buying stuff and selling stuff starts to get productivity levels brought down as well,” Coxhead said.

Macro-economic impact

Coxhead said he believes the real fear is the possible macroeconomic impact a trading dispute could have.

“We know very, very well, and without any ambiguity, that when you have a trade war, nobody wins,” he said. “So if we got to the point, which I don’t think is likely, where there were real measures that restricted trade in a substantial way, then you’d start losing jobs really, really fast in the U.S.”

Gould said the president’s move to restrict free trade is “unprecedented” by going against 25 years of policies promoting free trade that have let countries specialize and expand their markets, but which some critics claim has come at the cost of American jobs.

Trump’s move is “counter to what we’ve been achieving because standard economic theory says that countries are better off if they can trade, and trade in a free environment,” Gould said. “Everybody wins in that situation.”

The last time the world saw a global trade meltdown was in the late 1920s, a precursor to the Great Depression.

“That was set off by exactly the same kinds of rhetorical pressures and mercantilist thinking that, ‘Nobody wins from trade, you only win if the other guy is losing,’ ” Coxhead said.

“Now that’s an extreme example, no one really expects something like that to happen, but that’s where it goes,” Coxhead added. “Because you can’t really expect a country like China, or indeed Japan nor the E.U., not to retaliate if you impose tariffs on their exports. Of course they will.”

Nigh said these tariffs could have a similar impact to the grain embargo of 1980, when the United States banned grain exports to the Soviet Union. The government heavily subsidized farms to compensate for the loss this caused, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasted that net farm income would drop 40 percent, according to the Foreign Affairs magazine.

President Ronald Reagan made good on his campaign promise and ended the embargo in 1981.

Nigh added that if people had taken Trump’s statements at face-value, they shouldn’t be surprised by his actions because he has consistently vowed to rewrite trade deals that he claims put the United States at a disadvantage.

“I think the whole country… is still trying to figure out when the president makes a statement on something how serious is he,” Nigh said. “And I think we’ve come to learn he’s pretty serious.”

But Gould and Coxhead said they can’t predict what Trump will do going forward, or how this dispute will end.

“He seems to be all bluster,” Coxhead said. “But bluster, it’s hard to tell whether the bluster is sheer emotion and irrationality, or whether it’s a more calculating kind of measure that’s intended to achieve some goal.”

Maybe, Coxhead added, the administration’s secret goal is to get China to offer safeguards for intellectual property, which would be a big win. In order to do business in China, U.S. companies have reportedly been forced to turn over trade secrets and technology to Chinese companies, according to the U.S. Trade Representative.

Earlier this year, the office’s investigation found that, “Chinese theft of American (intellectual property) currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.”

“This is kind of the Trump administration style,” he said. “They want to walk right up to the line and make a lot of noise and issue a lot of threats and see where that gets them.”

Gould said that in the current U.S.-China dispute, politics, and not just economics, have come into play. He believes some of the president’s rhetoric and policies surrounding trade, are to satisfy his political base.

“The tit-for-tat is that now China said, ‘OK, you’re going to put a tariff on our products, we’re going to put a tariff on your products.’ And the products that they’re choosing aren’t manufactured products, they’re ag products, and obviously there’s one reason they’re doing that,” Gould said. “The story is because rural areas are the ones that supported the president. And when you hit agricultural products, you’re hitting agricultural areas, rural areas, significantly.”

Gould added: “There’s just a lot of political stuff going on that’s motivation for this.”

This trade dispute with China is only part the agriculture community’s worry, Nigh said.

She added the Farm Bureau was pretty excited about opportunities under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, but Trump withdrew from that trade deal only ten days into his presidency. He has also threatened to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico.

“For us, we feel we’ve been pretty challenged on the trade front in the past couple of years,” she said. “And then you put that on top of other challenges that have led to a decrease of net farm income, and that’s what’s got us so nervous anymore.”

It’s a good thing for other countries if U.S. agricultural products become less competitive, because U.S. partners and competitors can join together for their benefit, and our expense. Nigh noted the E.U. and Mexico just announced their revised free trade agreement, and it will include agricultural products, which it hadn’t before.

“Even if the U.S. stops participating in trade the way we’ve participated recently, those (free trade agreements) are permanent,” she said. “That threat continues, and that erosion of our competitive advantage continues even once our tariff activities have stopped.”

Sources:
Interview, Brian Gould, UW-Madison professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics, April 20, 2018
Interview, Ian Coxhead, UW-Madison professor of Agricultural and Applied Economics, April 23, 2018
Interview, Veronica Nigh, economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation, April 23, 2018
Email correspondence, Richard Hummell, communications specialist for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, May 2018
Statement, U.S Trade Representative, The United States Officially Withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Jan. 30, 2017
Wisconsin State Cranberry Growers Association, About Cranberries, accessed May 2018
Statement, U.S. Trade Representative, USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the Presidential Memo on China, August 2017
White House briefings, statement, President Donald J. Trump is Addressing Unfair Trade Practices That Threaten to Harm Our National Security, March 8, 2018
U.S. Trade Representative, Investigation, Findings of the Investigation into China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer. Intellectual Property, and Innovation Under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, March 22, 2018
Statement, U.S. Trade Representative, President Trump Announces Strong Action to Address China’s Unfair Trade, March 22, 2018
White House, Statement from President Donald J. Trump on Additional Proposed Section 301 Remedies, April 5, 2018
U.S. Trade Representative, Under Section 301 Action, USTR Releases Proposed Tariff List on Chinese Products, April 3, 2018
White House Press Secretary, Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding the United States Delegation to China, April 30, 2018
U.S. Trade Representative, USTR Robert Lighthizer Statement on the President’s Additional Section 301 Action, April 5, 2018
U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce announces Steel and Aluminum Tariff Exclusion Process, March 18, 2018
Statement of the Chinese Embassy, Statement of the Chinese Embassy in the United States Regarding the “Section 301 Investigation”,  March 23, 2018
Xinhuanet, China plans additional tariffs on 50-bln-dollar U.S. products, April 4, 2018
On The Issues, Donald Trump on Free Trade, accessed May 10, 2018
Quartz, Trump’s steel and aluminum tariffs willnow exempt most of US imports, March 22, 2018
Quartz, The full list of 128 US products targeted by China’s retaliatory tariffs, April 2, 2018
CNBC, The full list of US products that China is planning to hit with tariffs, April 4, 2018
American Farm Bureau Federation, U.S. Soybeans, Cotton, Beef on China’s Most Recent Tariff Target List, April 6, 2018
Tomah Journal, Ron Kind: Trade war threat to Wisconsin farmers, March 26, 2018
United Steelworkers, Tariffs Are Good for Workers, March 6, 2018
The New York Times, Reagan ends curbs on exports of grain to the Soviet Union, April 25, 1981
Bloomberg, China Shunning U.S. Soybeans on Trade, Tensions, Bunge CEO Says, May 2, 2018
The Wall Street Journal, U.S. Farmers Are Already Suffering From Lost Chinese Orders for Corn, Soybeans and Pork, May 4, 2018
Journal Times, Farmers feeling squeezed; Many factors hitting county’s ag community, April 2, 2018
Financial Times, Donald Trump revives threat to pull US out of NAFTA, Aug. 23, 2017
Foreign Affairs, Lessons of the Grain Embargo, Fall 1980
Economic Policy Institute, Free Trade Agreements Have Hurt American Workers, 2014

“I’ve been working on tax reform since I got here,” Ryan said. “It’s why I became chair of Ways and Means Committee. We got that done.”

He also touted his efforts to boost military funding.

“I’m a big believer in a strong military. Our military has been hollowed out. It’s been — it’s been under duress. We are now fixing that. That is done.”

Ryan went on to say, ”The economic growth platform that we want is in place.

The enterprise zones that I used to work on for years is now in law, which helps poor communities revitalize. So the point being, I have accomplished most of what I came here to do.”

The retiring House speaker claims he accomplished most of what he wanted to accomplish, including tax reform, a strong military and enterprise zones, and these are the three things The Observatory decided to check.

Let’s start with tax reform

If you follow Ryan on Twitter, you’ve seen him tweet about taxes. Ryan claims tax reform has been a top issue for Ryan since he took office in 1999 and became the chair of the Ways and Means Committee in 2015.

In December 2017, the Republicans in the House and Senate passed their tax bill and President Donald Trump signed it into law.

According to PolitiFact, the last major tax overhaul until this one was passed in 1986. This package has different implications for different populations across the U.S., but a few of the key changes are as follows.

The Washington Post reported that the vast majority of Americans will pay less in taxes until 2026. Also, the tax bracket for the top earners has been lowered from from 39.6 percent for married couples earning over $470,700 to 37 percent for married couples earning $600,000 or more. In addition, tax rates for the biggest corporations fell from 35 percent to 21 percent, which The Washington Post called “the largest one-time rate cut in U.S. history for the nation’s largest companies.”

Ryan’s claim stating during his time in Congress “we got that (tax reform) done,” is Verified. The tax changes were the most significant in the past three decades.

The military

Ryan stated that Republicans in Congress have made significant strides in reversing a “hollowed out” military.

Military spending has been declining fairly steadily since 2010. The $1.3 trillion spending bill supported by Ryan and signed by Trump in March increases defense spending by $80 billion for a total of $700 billion.

Spending is one way to measure military strength, but it is not the only way.

Size of the military is another way to measure power. The size of the military has stayed relatively consistent at about 1.4 million total active duty military personnel since 2000. This is almost one million fewer than in the 1980s and ‘90s.

If we consider military equipment such as nuclear weapons, our stockpile has been consistently declining since it peaked in 1986. Nevertheless, the United States has the largest number of nuclear weapons in the world. Russia held this title from 2007 to 2011, but since 2012, we have had the most nuclear weapons.

We rate this claim as Mostly True, because while Ryan did not expand on what his definition of strengthening the military is, it is clear he did play an important role in increasing defense spending, and during his time in office, the United States became the biggest nuclear power in the world.

The enterprise zones

“The enterprise zones that I used to work on for years is now in law, which helps poor communities revitalize,” Ryan stated.

According to Steve McClure, president of the Opportunity Alliance, an economic development consulting firm in Springfield, Illinois, enterprise zones are “areas having boundaries within states where businesses or individuals are awarded benefits based upon their actions, such as making investments, retaining and creating jobs, or even moving to an area to help revitalize the area.”

This concept was championed by Ryan’s mentor, former U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp, and similar programs have been rebranded over the years by multiple politicians.

Ryan’s “opportunity zones” program was added as a tax incentive to last year’s tax bill. Investors in these neighborhoods can get tax breaks both when they invest in designated high-poverty neighborhoods and on money earned as a result of the investment if held for at least 10 years. The Brookings Institution described the program as offering investors a “very favorable” tax treatment.

The second part of Ryan’s claim — that enterprise zones revitalize poor communities — is in dispute. According to multiple studies, enterprise zones do not necessarily increase employment. And Brookings questions whether this latest program will subsidize gentrification, which tends to push out low-income residents.

We rate this claim as Mostly True. Despite the mixed literature on the effectiveness of opportunity zones, Ryan was successful in getting the program added to last year’s tax bill.

Tax reform, increasing military strength and creating enterprise zones are three of the goals Ryan says he set out to accomplish when he took office. The Observatory ranked his claims as follows, Verified in terms of tax reform, Mostly True in terms of fixing the “hollowed out” military and Mostly True in terms of achieving enterprise zones.

Sources:
CBS News, Paul Ryan’s interview with “CBS This Morning” – full transcript, April 12, 2018
PolitiFact Wisconsin, Paul Ryan claims 1986 tax reform, like the current one, had low public support just before passage, Dec. 18, 2017
The Washington Post, The final GOP tax bill is complete. Here’s what is in it., Dec. 15, 2017
The Washington Post, Here’s what Congress is stuffing into its $1.3 trillion spending bill, March 22, 2018
Military.com, Here’s What the Military Gets in $1.3 Trillion Omnibus Spending Bill, March 22, 2018
Our World in Data, Nuclear Weapons, accessed May 8, 2018
Steve McClure and Brittany Mack, Are Enterprise Zones Striking Out: Is the Fad Over?, 2014
The Brookings Institution, The early results of states’ Opportunity Zones are promising, but there’s still room for improvement, April 18, 2018
The Brookings Institution, Will Opportunity Zones help distressed residents or be a tax cut for gentrification?, Feb. 26, 2018
David Neumark and Jed Kolko, Do Enterprise Zones Create Jobs? Evidence from California’s Enterprise Zone Program, December 2008, revised December 2011
Daniele Bondonio and John Engberg, Enterprise zones and local employment: evidence from the states’ programs, September 2000