Senator Sarah Kiyoski is in the studio and from the 14th Senate District here she's maneuvered through all of the construction and good to see you this morning Senator.
Thank you.
How are you Phil?
Doing really well.
And
I saw, I think I saw a picture of you at a Brewer game this year as well.
So you must be a Brewer fan.
Yes, yes.
I am a Brewer fan, although some have much more die hard information and data and statistics that they know, but I
loved being there.
I went just once in September and the feel-goodness of it for our state and for just the sense of that team being such kind of a family and such goodness in it.
I thought it was just such a feel-good story.
We won at that game and then as we know we're going on to the World Series and just a
brilliant time in our state to just have something really positive to look at and look forward to.
I know, I think it's a good diversion from all of the ads that we're hearing and seeing and things like that.
I think people are a little bit stressed out in that regard, aren't they?
Yeah, I would say me too.
I'm not running this election cycle.
I'm not up for a reelection until 2028.
I know the arduous journey of being on the campaign trail and how hard you work to try to reach out and speak to people.
But when there are these ads that are in the background that make up things or dispel propaganda that's really negative, I think it does a disservice to our society in general.
And I think it takes away from the idea that there are good people that want to do good things in the service of others.
I think politics gets to be so, so ugly.
And now when we see billionaires bankrolling, in particular one party, the Republican Party more right now, I think it tells us a bit about where
priorities are and what they're trying to buy.
Rather than trying to have more people power, I think it's really more corporate billionaire power and I'm really concerned about how that messaging is being
portrayed to individuals because money is a powerful medium, right?
When they can do this over and over and in your mailboxes and on your TVs, et cetera.
So I hope that people are thoughtful when they see that and try to do their own research and pull back from a lot of the slander that's thrown out there, a lot of the disinformation and try to just really look at the candidates, do their own research and kind of
pull out of the propaganda and really look at the people themselves and what they've done and what they're advocating for and who they are as people and who's supporting them.
Many times it's not the candidate, it's the outside organizations that are running a lot of the slander ads too.
Yeah, they have limited guardrails, right?
And so they can kind of say anything.
AI can now be used in ways that are really egregious.
And I think that
What I really worry about is so many people have said to me, I don't know how you do it.
I don't know how you ran for office.
I don't know how you take the negative that comes towards you so much because there's so much that people will say behind a keyboard and or will propagate through an ad that can be mistruths.
depressing because it prevents people from wanting to even run for office because all they see is how much you're hammered.
And thankfully, I'm not willing to fall and I'm not willing to say I'm not going to do it because they're going to say mean things about me.
I understand that
I need to have really thick skin and not personalize it and recognize it for what it is, which is oftentimes fear of somebody that they don't want to get elected.
So I kind of take it as a bit of a positive in some ways that they have to work that hard to make me sound terrible.
But I think it really, really does discourage people from wanting to participate in politics.
And if we do that, but we are a government of the people by the people for the people, then we're losing what is a democracy.
Because then all you'll get are people that are really, really wealthy and or potentially really, really lacking conscience to be able to be in the field and running.
And I think we see more and more of that.
I think there's just some real despicableness in the candidates that are running.
I saw the Rama Swami.
He's a governor candidate in Ohio.
And he's now running an ad against his opponent.
And it is about her history of being sexually abused.
And he's using the mother that aligned with her husband that had been accused of this sexual abuse and ran off with him after he was indicted on these charges.
And now is using her in this ad to diminish his opponent.
I've never seen something so
And that's where we're at right now.
And he's a billionaire.
Where's the moral center here?
What has happened?
And when we see it at the national level like that or a state level like that, I just worry about what it means for elections locally and people even being willing to participate in the process.
Many of us want to hear what they intend to do, what they stand for, you know, I mean, it'd be a lot more refreshing if they just came out and said, this is what I'm going to do in my next term.
And
well, absolutely.
And I think, but here's what, here's what I think we need to understand.
Because when I was doing my campaign, I said, I really don't want to, I don't want to bash, you know, an opponent.
I just don't, that doesn't feel right to me.
And so I was able to have, um,
My ads talk about a legislative vote, so that was just to kind of describe what had actually happened, not these grandiose arbitrary negative statements about people.
And so doing factual things, what do you want to bring or what has that person voted for previously?
I think those are fair places.
That's not where we're at anymore.
I think we're at a place where, you know, like, you know how they always say like blood cells or blood, you know, like I'm like the, the,
when it's like the biggest stories get the clicks and everything.
And when I talked to people in the campaign world, they said, unfortunately, people say they want that.
Pardon me, but that's not actually what gets the attention or the clicks.
And so we as a society have to decide.
that if we actually want that, we are going to have to show that in our behavior.
We're gonna have to not engage with those ads.
We're gonna have to vote against people that are doing those types of ads to say this doesn't work on us anymore.
But until then, we get fed what we respond to, and as a society,
what we know is right now that is what gets the attention.
And it's disgusting and it's disappointing and we need to do better.
You've been in the area a lot lately.
I know in the hot topic still is the 765 kilovolt lines.
You've been to a few meetings recently.
Oh
gosh, yeah, I've been so involved in trying to both understand that issue as deeply as I can not being somebody from the utility
world or on the utility committee.
So it's a big proposal that has come really fast and furious to the area, the awareness and the clarity about the breadth
and intensity of this was not clear even to people that are in the legislature like me until the end of the summer when essentially the plan for this 765 kilovolt line was being presented to the community.
And so, needless to say, I was
put back on my heels about what I was hearing and learning.
And originally I was very tepid in my statement about where I stood because I just didn't know enough, right?
And I didn't want to be out front before I was informed.
And so, but within only a couple of weeks, I think it became very clear that
I can't support and do not support this current proposal because it has the potential and likelihood of impacting negatively so many issues and negatively impacting so many people of my district that
I believe we need to have a fuller, comprehensive look at what our actual energy needs are, what our energy abilities for generation maybe need to be considered, how transmission needs to be thought of.
because right now this is a line that's 765 kilovolts, which is the first time that's ever been in our state.
And so if we just kind of go forward with what has always happened, we're kind of saying, oh, okay, so transmission lines, that's kind of how we do things.
I think we need to have some really robust innovation that is encouraged.
I think we need to have conversations about how do we
not just accept our past history of transmission lines being the answer, but considering you know, there's grid enhancing technology now that's out there.
There are options for one way or DC lines being underground.
There are obviously concerns about it going along existing corridors that we need to consider.
We have to recognize
this kind of line will have an impact in our driftless area, in our karst rock that is unique to our planet.
And we need to think about what that means.
We need to think about our area and how tourism would be impacted and our small communities would be impacted.
Our schools, our school forest, property values.
I mean, there's so many things that go into this that I think it just
is going to take a really thoughtful forward movement by the legislature, but really driven by the people to help us know what they are willing to do, what they want, and how to be their voice.
And so that's really my effort is to try to hear constituents the best I can and to advocate on their behalf.
Representative Tony Kurtz was here on Monday and he said this is one of the few topics where everybody seems to agree that they don't want them.
Yeah.
And I think that is, uh, so true.
And I think, you know, I've tried to work with, um, representative Kurtz.
We, uh, did a joint letter.
Um,
expressing to MGS our desire for them to really postpone any kind of submission to the PSC for approval until at least May because they were looking at maybe doing it in in February and
We just need more time.
We need more opportunities to learn and to then maybe even legislate in the new session time.
So we won't get in and inaugurated.
The new people won't get inaugurated until the beginning of January.
So we need to have time to be able to potentially do things that are going to be protective.
So I agree that we,
we have bipartisan agreement that we don't want this.
What I'm seeking is not just the no, but the what next.
Because if we need more energy to meet needs, right?
Then we're going to need more generation and or more transmission.
But is it also important to say we are not going to just think about meeting needs, because right now what we do is we plan for, it sounds like peak use, right?
And so peak use, when everybody's using it on the grid at the same time is really high.
But that doesn't, that's not always the case, right?
Different seasons, different times of the day, that kind of thing.
And so I think we really need to be then thoughtful about
How do we do more energy savings?
Because Focus on Energy has been a really, really important program in our state and has done tremendous work of helping people limit their energy usage with better appliances, thermostats that regulate.
And so I want us to take in this knowledge that we don't want to
over extend our energy needs.
And we want to actually think about how we can be proactive in the way that we thoughtfully use it.
And we all need to get on board of that.
We want to talk about, you know, data centers, making sure or big manufacturing companies generating their own energy so that we don't have to, you know, have the utility prices on our backs.
But I also think we need to think about, can we have more local solar on our roofs?
How can we be part of the solution rather than just saying no?
And I think that's going to be a really important move forward.
The election coming up, and for some of us, it can't come soon enough, but there will be some changes, for sure.
Yeah, so I think.
I'm really hopeful about the changes that are possible.
We are working really hard on my side of the aisle to encourage the messages by our Senate Democratic candidates that are really focused on affordability and making sure that government works for people and not corporations, not
for billionaires, working on helping that we allow government to help a robust economy, but also helps address the needs of those that might be slipping through the cracks.
And we believe that we can do both.
And so we have some great candidates in this area.
Jenna Jacobson is locally is running, not in this particular.
district but she's running against Howard Markline and I think I'm eager to have her as a colleague because she has great experience as an assembly member currently.
She has a lot of knowledge about agriculture and she's a working mom like me who has a perspective of what it's really like
at sort of the ground level of making, you know, a budget work, raising our kids in our public schools right now, looking at the costs of, you know,
commuting or taking a job somewhere so that you have insurance.
I think there's a lot that she brings to the table that I really resonate with, so I'm excited about that.
And overall, I'm really hoping that if we get to the majority in the state senate, which is possible because we need to flip just two state senate seats and we will have the majority.
I'm really hoping and very thoughtful in the idea that if we do have the majority, we need to govern in a way that is proactive but pragmatic.
We need to be really thoughtful about not just governing the way we have been governed and kind of doing what we have had done to us.
where we've been locked out of conversations, where we've been gerrymandered.
I really want us to be thoughtful about giving the people of Wisconsin a discerning governing body that is thoughtful about the future and is trying to think about how we all live in this web of a society that
when we all do better, we all do better, rather than picking just winners and losers and really trying to set up a society that works for all of us, which I really believe we can do if we're really thoughtful and pragmatic in the way that we put forth legislation.
A lot of work ahead, when you look at prices of fuel and everything we're going through and healthcare and things like that.
Yeah,
I think, and again, I think it's really, I'm hopeful, but I'm also very realistic that what we're facing right now with what's been happening at the national level makes everything harder at the state level.
They have stopped
giving money to states for things that we have typically gotten money for.
For example, FEMA.
We've been a state that has not necessarily gotten the FEMA money we should have deserved because this president hasn't cared for our state because we have a Democrat for a governor.
So things have happened like that.
They've also taken away funding for education.
They've taken away supplements for
health care, they've taken SNAP benefits.
So there's a lot of things and some new things after that one big rather awful bill that was passed that are going to be coming into effect in January with regard to health care.
That we will have more needs, more difficulties in
personal lives trying to just get by.
And as a state, we are going to have to be very thoughtful about what we do to kind of plug those holes and address those issues on top of what we want to do as far as realigning some of our priorities in the state to again, think about how do we invest in a future that is going to be
able to provide economic viability, like investing in our young people so that they can be intelligent innovators that bring forward the next idea, the next business.
So that means more educational investment.
And we're going to need to be doing that in a very thoughtful way while also recognizing where we need to be protecting our environment so that we have less illness, for example.
Because when we have more illness, it costs more in our state.
And then when it costs more, then we all bear the burden of that.
And so we have to be thinking about not simple solutions that look good and are good soundbites, but are really systemic big ideas about a progress we want to see in our state that you might not be able to fully quantify in the first year.
And so we're going to be looking at it in a longer range.
And we have to be able to help people understand a vision versus just a quick trick, if you will.
That sounds good, but doesn't do a meaningful transformation in the way that we need.
Yeah, one of the stories this morning was concerning the cuts to Medicaid, which will threaten community home-based services and people able to stay in their homes and things like that might have to
be institutionalized as a result?
Well, and who's going to pay for that?
And how are we going to do that, right?
I mean, when we are not investing in our young people or protecting our elderly, then we create new dilemmas that land on the backs of those of us that are in the work field right now.
And so we need to make sure that we recognize the importance of
Putting in policies that help, for example, health care and coverage, access to meals on wheels, access to the ADRC and all the important things that they do to help people stay independently living.
We need to make sure that we're looking at all of those things because otherwise the cost down the road will then otherwise be
brought to bear on those working.
And so when we're constantly taxing work, right?
And not taxing wealth enough, because that is one of the issues that I have, is that we are really looking at taxing income, right?
We're not taxing enough of the wealth that is sort of put aside and is just growing in accumulated amounts.
we're not taxing that enough.
And so I think it is an unfair way of burdening sort of regular people.
And I don't even mean, I even would think some wealthy people that are making the hundreds of thousands, I mean them too.
I'm talking more about the Uber millionaires and the billionaires that we need to be thinking about how do we do some different things with our tax structure so that we can have people that
our wealthy in our state, but also that we don't have such impoverishment that in a country that is the most wealthy in the world, we shouldn't have this much despair, this much difference between the haves and the have nots.
And so we have to start thinking a little bit more thoughtfully about how do we do that differently while allowing there to be benefit and gain and profit
but not to the expense of not paying for our roads.
not funding our small communities.
We have to be able to readdress that in new ways, I think.
And so my hope is that that is a big part of what we think about and do differently going forward.
The state surplus certainly makes the news as well.
And the new governor, whoever it is, whichever side it is, will be faced with that and what to do.
And our schools could use a little boost these days.
Yeah.
Well, the state surplus, I'm excited to know that we will have a state surplus, but I'm also
pragmatic enough to know that much of that is probably going to have to go to some of the issues that are coming now down from the national decisions, right?
So we have our gas that is so high that is
significantly and diesel that is significantly impacting the cost of everything because transportation is higher, so therefore our costs are higher, so livability is harder.
One of the saddest things, I was at a, I was at Second Harvest a couple of weeks ago and I, there's a, it's called Beyond Blast is a food pantry in Baraboo.
And I had visited there
prior, and it was a really brilliant organization of volunteers that are really providing some very healthy, good, robust groceries to people in need.
And I talked to the person that is the executive director there at this event as they were talking about the need growing for people that are
going hungry and the needs because of what's happening in our economy.
And I asked her, you know, has she seen a growth in people coming?
And what was so shocking is she said, no.
And not right now, she goes, we've actually seen a bit of a decrease.
And I thought that was so strange.
And then it took a beat
And then it was confirmed.
I said, is that because of the gas prices?
And she said, yeah, people can't afford to drive to us to get the food that they need.
That's how bad it is.
I never thought about
that.
Yeah.
But yeah, if you're coming from any distance.
Exactly.
It's a commitment.
Yeah.
It's a commitment.
And then you have to drive your vehicle, and then you wait, and then you drive.
I mean, and that cost is not a cost then some can really manage.
So they're going hungry instead.
And so that, I mean, we are in the most dire situation that we have seen in my lifetime indeed, right?
It's worse than COVID.
When we saw the pictures of the lines of people going to food pantries, it is now double or triple as bad.
That's how much food insecurity is out there.
And that food insecurity is particularly bad for our elderly and particularly bad for our children.
people that are desperately in need so that their health and well-being is going to be flourishing.
And instead, we are having more issues regarding health.
And then more demand, for example, on our rural hospitals, where a lot of people that are needing their Medicare to be used.
And that's impacting, then, their bottom line, their ability to provide services.
We're having hospitals not be able to provide things like obstetrics, birthing, that one hospital in the portage area.
I think it was the portage area.
stopped providing that because trying to figure out how to manage costs when it's a rural hospital.
So there's so many things happening, but going back to the budget surplus, my hope is to be really thoughtful about how to invest that money so that we can gain some...
the investments can grow then where we can save money and where we can make more money.
But right now, my fear is much of that is going to go to places it has been taken away from us by the federal government.
And so it's not going to have the same kind of impact when we definitely desperately need to be
reinvesting in our schools, as you said, our rural schools in particularly are desperate to be able to stay open if they can.
They are huge economic drivers for our small communities.
And so if they close, we have a triple trickle out effect, right?
We won't then have people that are professionals in that community buying those homes, buying those groceries, buying those vehicles on the car lots,
All kinds of small businesses will close.
And so if we want rural livability, we have to think about how to support our small municipalities in ways that will utilize and be thoughtfully situated for the future by using this surplus well.
Well, we've talked about a lot of dire subjects, right?
No, I know.
I'm sorry.
I don't
really have a downer, but I think right
now it is the, it's the,
It's the state of things.
I'm a hopeful, positive person, but I'm also a pragmatic realist.
And so I think recognizing where we're at and really seeing the lay of the land and what this election means is very, very important.
I think if anybody is sort of on the sidelines, please get involved.
Please vote.
Voting.
in-person voting started yesterday.
So be involved in today's election.
It couldn't be more important.
I don't think to figure out, are we going to have a reckoning with what's happened so that we can have a better future?
Or are we going to have more of the same?
And I think more of the same is going to dig us a deeper hole that we simply can't afford for ourselves or the next generation.
Right, we gotta be hopeful for our kids and grandkids, right?
We have to, yeah, not just be hopeful, right?
But be thoughtful about what we do today that then will have implications if we continue to add to the deficit, right?
Which is what's happening by billions.
If we continue in a war that continues to use money that we could be using here in the infrastructure in our land.
If we can continue to give tax breaks to billionaires and to these, you know, brolagarks, you know, instead of investing in our people, we're going to have a society that
continues the big gap between the haves and the have nots.
And there's so much despair right now in those of us that are just trying to get by.
I have two jobs, right?
I have six kids.
I can't just sit around and just wait for things to kind of improve.
I have to get involved.
That's why I'm in the legislature.
That's why I fight so hard for what I fight because I want it not.
I've had a decent life, but I want it to be at least as good if not better for my children.
And right now, it is dire and dark.
And that makes me sad to bring children into this world and have this what they're going to get.
And I refuse to kind of surrender to the idea that this is going to be what they get.
So I'm fighting like a rabid dog, I guess,
right now,
saying, no, no, no, no, we must do better.
We must, must do better.
We must demand better.
And the only way to do that is to get new people in power.
Thanks for being a friend of the morning show.
Oh my gosh,
thanks.
Thanks for having me.
I
really appreciate being here and letting, letting, having you ask me interesting questions that I get to just chat about with people and hopefully it's helpful for them.
Yeah.
I know it is.
And I know it's a commitment to come from where you live to join us here at Mitchell Center.
So thank you.
But it's always a beautiful drive.
Yes, it is.
I
do love that.
So thank you so much.
Right now it's a beautiful drive.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
You bet.
Sarah Kiaski joining us representing the 14th Senate District on today's morning show.