One bit of Day Two spin about the Foxconn project caught my eye:
It was in company executive Louis Woo's discussion of what Foxconn now says it will be doing at the Racine County project:
Reported in stories and details like this:
But suppose the company sought billions in Wisconsin public subsidies but had said it was "still considering if, when and which panel technology to build..."
Because 'questions remain?'
Can you imagine the Legislative Reference Bureau putting together a fiscal note based on something that speculative, let alone supplying consultants with data for the analyses that were done to support the deal?
Like this glowing report, which, by the way, pointed to 400 jobs at a related flat screen supplier - - which, by the way, was never begun because the Walker administration, having already over-committed to Foxconn, couldn't gin up the enthusiasm, let alone the cash for another handout.
And when Foxconn didn't take Walker up on the idea that it should pay for locating its own supplier nearby, we all should have understood that the great unwinding or whatever it is that is happening now had begun.
And certainly this May, 2018 blog post contained all sorts of information about changes Foxconn was anticipating back then.
Additional questions linked to that "if, when and which panel technology" issue should be asked of the DNR because it approved a Lake Michigan diversion to service the plant because now it is unclear what sort of panels may be produced, requiring what demand for water and producing what level of discharge with what chemicals in the mix?
Same questions for the air permits the DNR had similarly greenlit? See this post for information about both the air and water approvals.
We're nowhere near the end of this story, let alone understanding its true beginning.
It was in company executive Louis Woo's discussion of what Foxconn now says it will be doing at the Racine County project:
Questions remain about what kind of product Foxconn would be making. The original plan included large LCD panels for TVs, but that has been changing.
Woo said the exact product is still to be determined: "We are referring to making end devices having the LCD panels as a component. We are still considering if, when and which panel technology to build which will best suit the customers' demands and the state of Wisconsin."Now roll back the clock to 2017 when Walker, Vos, Fitzgerald, Schimel and others had quickly lined up behind handing billions in public subsidies for Foxconn - - but for a specific purpose.
Reported in stories and details like this:
Trump announces that Apple's top supplier, Foxconn, is building a $10 billion TV factory in Wisconsin
The planned Wisconsin factory will make flat-panel LCD screens for televisions and other electronics. Bloomberg previously reported that the screens could be used to make Sharp-branded televisions.Like these:
But suppose the company sought billions in Wisconsin public subsidies but had said it was "still considering if, when and which panel technology to build..."
Because 'questions remain?'
Can you imagine the Legislative Reference Bureau putting together a fiscal note based on something that speculative, let alone supplying consultants with data for the analyses that were done to support the deal?
Like this glowing report, which, by the way, pointed to 400 jobs at a related flat screen supplier - - which, by the way, was never begun because the Walker administration, having already over-committed to Foxconn, couldn't gin up the enthusiasm, let alone the cash for another handout.
And when Foxconn didn't take Walker up on the idea that it should pay for locating its own supplier nearby, we all should have understood that the great unwinding or whatever it is that is happening now had begun.
And certainly this May, 2018 blog post contained all sorts of information about changes Foxconn was anticipating back then.
Additional questions linked to that "if, when and which panel technology" issue should be asked of the DNR because it approved a Lake Michigan diversion to service the plant because now it is unclear what sort of panels may be produced, requiring what demand for water and producing what level of discharge with what chemicals in the mix?
Same questions for the air permits the DNR had similarly greenlit? See this post for information about both the air and water approvals.
We're nowhere near the end of this story, let alone understanding its true beginning.