The Milwaukee Post

We Energies out of line with proposed rate hike To the editor: This overcompensated, $10-million-plus- per-year CEO of We Energies is at it again. His proposals that were the subject of discussions at the recent Wilson Park Public Service Commission listening sessions are plain outrageous. First of all, his timing is such that most people's attention is on the election of gov- ernor and they may not be paying attention while he slips these outrageous increases "under the door" of Joe average ratepayer. A sleazy but effective method of getting them by the PSC. Secondly, We Energies is selling measur- able energy to its rate payers. Each ratepay- er's usage is measured monthly and he or she should be billed on that usage with no fixed charges. What about the power grid claim? That cost should be folded into the measurable unit cost for the energy sources. Fixed monthly costs take away the ability of a rate payer to conserve, as he or she sees fit to deal with these rising costs (turning down the heat, shutting off the lights, putting on the storm windows, etc.). If We Energies wants to increase their already outrageous profits, all they have to do is raise the fixed rates. After all, they cannot enter our homes to turn up the heat or turn on more lights. We Energies is operating as a legal monopoly with passive oversight by the PSC. Is that not enough for this greedy bunch? What will they come up with next? Having us buy a yearly license for the privi- lege of purchasing energy? Henry J. Olszewski Milwaukee Expelled Nazis should not receive Social Security To the editor: I read an article concerning expelled Nazis receiving Social Security monthly payments of $1,500 and living in foreign countries. It was enough to make me regur- gitate. People are living in poverty and on the streets, and minimal percentages of Social Security are given to Social Security recipi- ents who have worked all of their life and paid into the system for their retirement and were not innocent people killers. Our government better put a stop to this $1,500 payment, wasting our working citi- zens' retirement funding and us, the retirees, too, and also stop trying to take away our retirement entitlement worked for so diligently. Our president should step in on this. No payment of $1,500 should be given to the Nazis that were booted out of our United States of America. Dolores Stasik Milwaukee Schimel's contrasting statements make him wrong choice to hold office To the editor: Brad Schimel, the GOP candidate for Wisconsin attorney general who is running against Democratic candidate Susan Happ, has stated he would have defended a ban on interracial marriage if it existed in Wisconsin in the 1950s and he was AG at the time. This is mind-boggling. The attorney gen- eral of the state is not hired to be the lawyer of the state Legislature when they pass unconstitutional laws. If he or she isn't independent enough not to defend clearly unconstitutional laws, then that person probably shouldn't be in such an office in the first place. If the state Legislature pass- es a law banning free speech, freedom of the press, due process or the many other rights in both the federal and state constitutions, would he defend that? Wait, Schimel has also stated he was not sure if he would defend the state's campaign finance laws. So he would defend an interra- cial ban, but not a campaign finance law? It would be his choice on what he would defend and it is the choice of the people of Wisconsin who we want in that office, and to me it sure isn't Brad Schimel. Schimel has also opposed universal background checks at gun shows and through the Internet, hopefully relying on the honesty of convict- ed felons not to lie about not being able to own guns. Not only shouldn't Schimel be attorney general, he shouldn't be Waukesha County District Attorney or have any posi- tion of power. He is wrong for Wisconsin, and Susan Happ is right for our state. Jerome McCollom Milwaukee 8 • Milwaukee County Post • October 31, 2014 By JESSICA MCBRIDE You want proof that District Attorney Brad Schimel really was screened off from the Bill Kramer sexual assault case? (Schimel said he handed it to an assistant because Kramer once donated money to his campaign, money he returned when it came out that Kramer was an alleged groper.) The proof is that Schimel's office just entered into a plea deal with Kramer — yes, less than two weeks before the election! If you think about it, Schimel's office created his own October surprise. I have mixed feelings on the Kramer plea deal. However, the plea deal food-fighting going on in the attorney general race is pretty silly. Both sides are whipping var- ious plea deals at the other side. The Democrats even created a nasty, juvenile website purporting to highlight Schimel plea deals. The Republicans have responded by flinging a bunch of Susan Happ plea deals into the media. The only plea deal that I think really was relevant here was the deal Happ's office gave to a man accused of child molestation with whom she had previously had a financial relationship. DAs can't possibly screen themselves off from every single campaign donor (they have a LOT of campaign donors). But having a direct fidu- ciary relationship with a defen- dant strikes me as different and necessitating a special prosecutor. I recognize the secretive "board that regulates attorneys" thinks it was fine that Happ supposedly screened herself off by assigning an assistant to the case. Well, if what she did wasn't wrong, I think it should be. But the garden-variety plea deals that both sides are digging up and flinging around are just silly. Hunt around any district attorney's office in the state and (the horrors!) you will find plea deals. Lots of them. Every single day. Why? Because without plea deals, the system could not work. It would grind to a halt. Justice delayed is justice denied. Cases would languish. Taxpayer costs would skyrocket. The tiniest frac- tion of cases actually go to trial in Wisconsin. Now, it might be inter- esting if someone had done the research to compare rates of plea bargaining among DA offices. But acting shocked, shocked over the fact there was plea bargaining going on in the establishment is just plain dumb. Sure, Brad Schimel has granted plea deals. So has Susan Happ. The system wouldn't work without them. Sometimes they're best for the victim. Sometimes a trial would be a gamble the state might lose. Sometimes the state over- charges so when people enter a plea deal it's what they really thought they could prove in the first place. The fact Schimel has granted a plea deal or Happ has granted a plea deal has zero corre- lation to whether or not they would make a good AG. I see Schimel as a more experi- enced prosecutor than Happ, and he's less activist. He's run a larger county, and he's respected by law enforcement. I think he's been a good DA (as a matter of disclo- sure, my husband hired Schimel when he was DA and supports Schimel). Happ strikes me as more political and less experienced. Back to Kramer. With all this as the backdrop — and, frankly, the central theme of the AG race — it's surprising in a political sense that S c h i m e l ' s office would give a plea deal to a controver- sial legislator accused of g r o p i n g women so close to the e l e c t i o n . However, that also underscores my earlier point — Schimel is not that political of a guy. Because if he was playing politics, he would have stopped or stalled the plea deal. I believe Schimel truly screened himself off, because I believe Schimel is more law enforcer than politician when you get right down to it, which leaves the question of whether the plea deal was the right thing to do. I have mixed feelings about that because Kramer was accused of pretty odious behavior and there was an alleged pattern. Avoiding a felony conviction (as he does in this deal) means Kramer can still serve out his term (and theoreti- cally could run for elective office again). I'd prefer we didn't have Kramer crafting legislation right now, but I also doubt he's going to be that active. At the same time, I get the prag- matic view. The guy's attorney says he was an alcoholic and he's now sober. Alcohol is not an excuse, but it's an explanation. As a human being, I hope that Kramer truly has gotten help. The guy has paid a big price — proba- bly bigger than any jail sentence could make him pay — and he's still facing jail time. He's suffered complete reputational and career ruin. Furthermore, a jury trial is never going to be pleasant for a victim when the subject is sexual assault. That is even truer when the media's interested and the defendant is prominent. The pros- ecutor who handled this, Deb Blasius, has handled sexual assault prosecutions for years in this county. She's no pushover. She's smart, ethical, and tough as nails. For those reasons, I can't say this plea deal was wrong. The tim- ing surprised me, but wrong? No. (Jessica McBride is a member of the journalism faculty at the University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. Her column runs occa- sionally in The Post. Readers may email her at jessicamcbride05@live.com.) OPINION No outrage heard with Kramer plea Send your letters to: The Milwaukee Post, c/o Dwayne Butler, 3397 S. Howell Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207, or by e-mail to: dbutler@conleynet.com. We reserve the right to edit letters for style, length and clarity. Letters should be typewritten or printed and include full name, phone number and address. Please keep your letters to no more than 400 words. Letters policy LETTERS TO THE EDITOR McBride

• Cover