Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," Republican and
Democratic lawmakers join us
in studio to discuss the major
issues of the ongoing
legislative session and just
how long that session will go
on.
A legislative overview next
on "Arizona Horizon."
>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of eight, members
of your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Good evening and welcome
to "Arizona Horizon."
I'm Ted Simons.
The state legislature is still
in session, with the battle
over Medicaid expansion
Holding up a variety of other
major issues, including the
budget and sales tax reform.
Joining us now to talk about
the session is Senate majority
leader John McComish.
Senate minority leader Leah
Landrum Taylor.
House Speaker Pro Tem J.D.
Mesnard.
Minority leader Chad Campbell.
Good to have you here.
Let's start with Medicaid
expansion.
Where are we on this and are
things progressing?
>> No.
The short answer.
There is a lot of conversation.
And that was a -- you know,
there is progress of a sort in
that we're talking trying to
sort out, but nobody has yet
seen the path to victory, so to
speak, where we can find a way
to get this to a conclusion,
whether it is pass it, whether
it is not going to past.
Division amongst parties,
particularly among the
Republicans and division
amongst leadership and the
governor is pretty
single-minded, and it has just
been tough.
We haven't found a pathway to
conclusion yet.
>> The federal memo that the
governor released, which I
think the governor's office
thought would be the smoking
gun, if you will, the last nail
that would hammer this thing
in, why is that -- basically
what was outlined in that memo
seems there is only one option
according to the governor's
office.
>> When you look at it in the
grand scheme of things.
If we do not go forward in
making sure that the Medicaid
expansion does take place.
There as strong economic side,
down fall that can happen.
When you look at the rural
areas, hospitals that can shut
down.
It spirals on and on.
At some point, when is it going
to be a give in there.
We have to move forward with
the Medicaid expansion and
quite frankly, there is a
number of ways that that can
occur.
If it has to go about being a
special session within the
session.
At this point, it --
>> What is holding things up?
What are the arguments against
this and how strong are the
arguments and could there be
some compromise in there?
>> Sure, well, I think it is
difficult sometimes to find
compromise if it is a tug of
war.
And unfortunately on this
issue, that is sort of what it
has become.
I would say that the governor
has outlined her vision pretty
clearly.
I'm not going to speak for the
Senate.
But I guess that the Senate is
mostly there.
And the house is really where
the battle is raging.
And the real reason is because
there are arguments for and
against.
And there will be consequences.
Whatever direction we choose to
go.
>> And I just want to add --
>> Go ahead.
>> I think most of the
arguments against Medicaid
expansion are ideological.
As Leah pointed out,
economically speaking, it is a
no-brainer, in terms of
economic development,
especially in Arizona, keeping
their doors open.
The only reason not to do it --
this is one of the people who
have been pushing for the
abortion argument, Mr. Steel,
and he admitted yesterday that
the only reason he is doing
that -- he is trying to kill
Medicaid.
For all of the reasons most
opponents are throwing out
there, they are not relevant --
>> Tenure in the legislature,
sometimes you see issues that
become as big as this
particular one in discussion.
A lot of times it has to do
financially.
This is something -- our
budget, our general fund
financially.
We're trying to figure out
where are we going with all of
this?
>> You mentioned compromise.
And I think one of the
difficulties of this I don't
see where there is compromise.
You are either for it or
against it.
And I don't see that there is
any half measure or partial
measure.
We can't partially expand
Medicaid -- yes or no.
>> If you do partially restore
Medicaid, as some has proposed,
it is more expensive for the
state to do that.
>> I want to say it is not only
ideology.
There is a practical side you
can argue against expansion.
Supreme court released us a
little bit from the idea that
we have to expand.
That was the mandate under
Obama care that they released
us from.
It is a little grayer once you
do expand if you can unexpand.
If we start to go down that
road and find out that it is
not working out like what we
thought, we may be stuck.
And that is a consideration
that should be -- that should
be given thought to.
>> But then you have the whole
argument, and, again, after
being around for 15 years, I
mean, we have heard the
argument about the
uncompensated care and we can't
go down that road again.
Hospitals are already
struggling.
And thirdly, many of the rural
area hospitals.
If we were not to have the
Medicaid expansion then we
would be moving back into that
very risky area of
uncompensated care.
>> And, you know, something hit
me early on in the session.
We were discussing Medicaid
expansion, informational
hearing, a ton of people came
down to talk about why they
were in favor of Medicaid
expansion.
Hospital, business community,
you name it.
They were there.
One young lady that came down,
one of the few single childless
adults that gets coverage right
now, 50,000 or so that are
getting coverage that will lose
the coverage at the end of the
year.
If she loses Medicaid, she will
go blind.
Chronic condition, degeneration
of the eyes.
She will go blind.
All of the numbers, all of the
stats, that is the reason I
want to pass Medicaid.
It is the reason that keeps me
up at night if we don't pass
Medicaid.
>> In the Senate -- I thought
the battle was raging in the
Senate.
News to me.
What is going on in the Senate?
>> The battle is raging in the
Senate.
And it is the same ideological
discussions that we are having
here.
There can't be any half
measures.
We're trying to figure that
out.
And how do you go about it?
We could probably pass a bill
out of the Senate that would
include Medicaid expansion, but
if it is not going to pass in
the house, then why would we do
that?
So, you need to -- you need to
get -- before we do that, you
need to get the house on board
and you can't forget about the
governor.
She has to be on board with
whatever we do.
And that is part of the
hang-up.
It is just a -- it is a very
complicated issue, and people
have unfortunately drawn the
lines in the sand on both
sides.
>> It is that time of the year,
too, when we have to take a
look at the timeliness of
getting a budget fast forward.
We are approaching toward the
middle of May.
That will happen really quick
if nothing happens next week,
then the time clock will be
ticking away.
We still have a responsibility,
fiduciary responsibility to the
various department.
We have to have a budget going
forward.
Schools, school districts,
contracts that have to be
offered to the teachers and
they are dependent upon us
getting this done.
It gets exhausting getting to
this point of the budget when
we already know what needs to
happen and the time frame of
it.
>> How much is this bogging
things down?
>> Oh, it is the reason the
session is bogged down.
In some ways, rightly so.
This is probably one of the
biggest issues we have faced in
some time and will face for the
next several years.
And so, yes, we're in May and I
know we all want to be done
with session, but given the
magnitude of the issue, we need
to make sure that it is fully
vetted and discussed and that
we come up with something that
makes sense.
>> You mentioned the idea of
unsecuring this or getting out
of something that may not --
what are the other arguments
against going into this
agreement?
>> One thing that gets
overlooked, we're talking about
two things that have been
combined into one.
You have on the one hand
expansion.
Idea of who is going to be
covered?
And the other is a mechanism of
paying for it.
Assessment on hospitals has
been proposed, and there is
some controversy with that
because some would consider
that a tax increase.
So in addition to the
philosophy of whether or not
you want to expand, it is do I
want to support a new tax?
If you are against that, two
issues have collided.
You throw abortion in there and
it is one convoluted mess.
>> You can call it tax, you can
call it whatever you want.
Hospitals are saying put this
fee on us.
It is not like you're forcing
the hospitals to impose this
fee.
The hospitals want to pay this
fee.
This fee will more than pay for
itself, the -- they will make
that money back and lower their
uncompensated care cost.
Don't call it a tax --
>> I agree that most hospital,
not every hospital is there.
Most hospitals -- because
they -- they would serve to
benefit from it, and, of
course, the question would be
will they pass it on to
consumers?
If they do, of course they will
support it.
They said they are not going
to --
>> Prohibited from being passed
on to the consumers.
Consumers are protected.
To me that is an argument that
doesn't hold much water to me.
>> From the start of the
conversation, always a question
is this a tax, an assessment?
If a tax, why does it not need
a two-thirds vote?
I mean, go ahead.
Let's say you finally get a
vote.
Does it go directly to court
because someone --
>> And you raise another
complicated issue.
Is it what we call a 108 which
requires a two-thirds vote.
And there are the same
opinions, very strong opinions
on both sides of that.
Legal opinions, absolutely 108,
two-thirds.
Others say no, no, we have done
similar things to this before.
It is not a 108.
And, I think at the end of the
day when something passes, it
will probably end up -- end up
in the court as to whether it
is a 108 or --
>> That is another reason some
oppose it.
In order to get around the 108
issue, the mechanism being used
is to say, okay.
We're not going to do the tax.
We're going to let somebody
else do the tax.
And some folks in the
legislature, including myself,
with that particular aspect of
this plan find that to be
unacceptable.
>> That is why the hospitals
were -- they're heavy-duty
stakeholders that are a part of
this.
That is why they were in the
initial conversations.
Is this something that the
hospitals could handle?
Clearly this would be the
better direction than the
uncompensated care.
Because then that would
devastate the medical industry.
>> Yeah, one more argument that
I don't think we've touched on,
and that is the federal debt
argument that -- if we do the
expansion and there is going to
be $1.6 billion or whatever the
number is, and that's money
that adds to the $16 trillion,
federal debt and -- it is not
my argument, but it is -- and
where does this stop and this
is where we're going to draw
the line.
>> Let me respond to that.
Many of my colleagues in the
house have on the GOP side.
I don't see them turning down
money for border security from
the federal government or money
for federal highway dollars.
This is the first time I ever
heard anybody voice concern
about money coming to Arizona
returning our tax investment
that we paid in D.C.
If we don't take this money,
our federal tax burden does not
change and the tax dollars that
we pay to D.C. will go to
another state.
Our tax dollars will be thrown
away if we do not pursue
Medicaid expansion.
>> Last point on this.
Ideological and philosophical
differences here -- is there
talk about what -- I may be
against this philosophically
but most in the state are for
it and thus I need to maybe
bend one way or the other?
>> Right.
When it comes right down to it,
most of the people in Arizona,
they do want to make sure that
there is, you know, medical
care.
And there has been a big, big
concern about those who are
single adults, disabled,
individuals that really need to
have good medical care.
Absolutely.
The question is, moving
forward.
We have had a couple of votes
that have went forward to the
ballot where the voters have
shown this is what is needed in
order to have this.
So, I think the voters have
already spoken, yes.
>> They're duels polls out
there now to continue the
complicated issue.
The one poll that shows that
the people do want this.
I happen to think that is more
valid that there is a duelling
poll that shows particularly
the republicans don't want it.
I don't think that poll is
valid as the first one, but
there are duelling polls.
>> We have had two past ballot
initiatives that --
>> On the other side, prop 106
on the other side that said,
hey, we have the right to be in
control of our health care.
Some look at this as giving up
some of that control.
And so, there are -- in
addition to duelling polls,
there are duelling propositions
as well.
>> We are talking about 133% of
poverty level, childless
adults, trigger matching funds
from the feds which may or may
not be there in the future.
Another argument.
>> The circuit breaker that
governor Brewer built into the
proposal --
>> When you get to the circuit
breaker, who knows what
happens.
I just want to be sure we
clarify terms.
Because I want to get into
sales tax reforum and TPT,
which I would imagine most
folks have no idea what it is
or what it means.
But this is another one,
loggerheads going on.
>> Two issues keeping us from a
budget.
One, the Medicaid expansion.
The other is TPT.
TPT for the viewers benefit
stands for transaction
privilege tax.
It is a privilege to pay sales
tax in the state of Arizona.
>> Nice name for a sales tax.
>> Yes.
>> And I know more about this
than I ever wanted to know.
Spent my summer vacation on the
governor's task force to
address this issue.
And I think we're pretty close
to a really major reform bill.
A long-time coming.
It is once again, a very
complicated issue.
But we have the worse system of
sales tax in the country.
And we're close to reform.
>> The reform bill includes
this business of counties not
getting -- if you don't have a
home depot in your county,
you're not getting the point of
sale benefit there.
I mean, that sounds like that
is a real sticking point.
>> It is a big concern.
Again, for years we have talked
about this and the fact that we
do have a volatile tax
structure here within our
state.
And so there has to be
something done about it.
I think with that all being
said, it is really important
that we take it into
consideration of the concerns
of the cities and the towns.
And I think that has been the
case.
And trying to work on --
>> And you bring up the issue
of prime contracting, what you
are talking about.
Outstanding issue at this
point.
Most of the other issues
related to auditing and
collections, I think there is
some agreement on or we are
very close.
That is the sticking point.
Various iterations have been
proposed.
They all have their weaknesses.
This is something that I think
both caucuses agree needs to
be -- we do agree on some
things.
>> It hasn't been, you know,
quite frankly the sexier
conversation to talk about, but
it has been one out of all of
the conversations I think has
come up with more agreement.
>> But it has been one where
folks in Maricopa and folks in
fountain hills and who live in
some of these communities don't
have -- they are wondering who
is going to pave the streets.
>> And I think that issue has
to be resolved before this
moves forward.
There is no way the original
language around prime
contracting will go forward --
to your point, you talked about
spending the summer learning
about this.
And I have done the same thing.
I have been calling for sales
tax reform for about five
years.
Actually called for this
committee four years ago.
I'm very excited about this,
which I never thought I would
say I was excited about tax
policy in my life.
But we have a long ways to go.
After this, we have to continue
to fix our sales tax code.
Way too many exemptions on the
book and our sales tax is way
too high.
Close the exemptions out and
lower the sales tax, we make
the state much more
competitive, friendlier to
small businesses and an even
playing field for everybody in
the state.
This is a good start.
We have to keep moving forward.
>> We will save that for the
next show.
>> Next go round.
Let's get to CPS funding.
Emergency measure that went
through.
We have got, what, $4.4 million
that went through --
>> Along those lines.
>> Obviously the governor's
office wants I think, $50
million or so.
Is that a sticking point or a
numbers kind of thing?
>> No, I don't think it is a
sticking point.
I think it is numbers -- we may
have some quibbling about the
numbers, but I think most of
the legislature, at least
republican leadership and the
governor's office very, very
close what would in essence add
another 150 employees to CPS.
The only thing is how much
money would that be --
>> And specifically towards
caseworkers.
We added the 50 in there.
One thing that we wanted to
make sure as we move forward
with the budget and the
conversation, that was not
forgotten.
And when we had the task force,
governor's task force, that I
had the privilege of serving on
with that, there is concern
about making sure that we're
doing something about this big
bear of CPS.
>> Not all of the $50 million
is for CPS alone.
There are other services
involved.
Some of of the numbers may be
negotiated.
But I think John's right.
I think we're in agreement that
CPS, in particular, caseworkers
the top priority.
>> Also we have to not forget
about prevention as a whole and
throughout the years of the
budget crisis that has went on
over the last several years, we
have to make sure that they are
our dollars put back to be sure
that there are preventative
mechanisms --
>> Other major headlines of the
legislative session involve gun
issues.
We could spend an hour talking
about those.
But the most recent, gun
buy-back bill.
Thought on this.
Why was this necessary?
>> Well, what it was a reform
of where we already were in
terms of gun buy back.
There was a loophole that
allowed cities to do what they
were doing for -- what the city
of Phoenix was doing, and so
this -- close that loophole.
It didn't create a new policy.
It closed the loophole on the
current policy.
>> Bill this session, that
would have allowed cities to do
whatever they wanted to do with
a gun.
Mandate, local law enforcement,
what we passed -- forces the
city to sell these guns back
and put them back on the
street.
Mandated local law enforcement,
mandating on cities, telling
them how to manage their own
communities.
If you think about this -- if
you are a gun owner, I am a gun
owner -- you need common sense
gun laws in the United States.
If I were to go to the city of
Phoenix with my gun, here is my
weapon, I'm the owner, destroy
it for me.
They cannot destroy the weapon.
That gun has more rights than
the owner has in the state now.
And --
>> What would the argument be,
if you want the gun destroyed,
destroy it.
>> It doesn't matter.
Gun owner, city, preventing the
city and cops in that city to
make the best possible decision
to protect their communities.
>> And that is some of the
argument that we hear on a
regular basis on the other side
of the aisle from us in all due
respect as it relates to the
federal government not jumping
in and jumping into state
business.
Well, at the state we jumped
right into the cities and towns
and with that being the case --
this recent buy-back, I heard
stories of individuals that
pulled up that were involved in
domestic violence situations
and wanted to, you know, get
the weapon out of reach and out
of touch of harm.
And with that, you know, again,
it is up to the cities and
towns and to come in as the
state we are going to go ahead
and regulate what the cities
and towns do, that was a bit of
a concern.
Not to mention all of the other
issues that we had.
That was a hard-pressing one
that we moved forward with.
>> Why is something like this
necessary?
>> Well, I think whether it is
necessary in the eye of the
beholder.
A loophole, the idea to close
the loophole.
If someone wants to destroy it.
They can still destroy it.
This hasn't prevented an end
from happening.
It is saying that law enforce.
Will sell the gun if it is
brought to them.
>>
>> Again, there is this weird
mindset taking place in the
political debate, not just
Arizona, but the country,
around weapons.
It is almost like people that
are pro NRA are almost
attaching personalities and
their own character to weapons.
Weapons are weapons --
>> You haven't named your
weapon?
>> You -- but the point is
there is no need for this.
It is a good question.
With all due respect, I don't
think I can answer the
question.
There is no need for this.
If you want to keep your
weapon, keep it.
If you want to have destroyed,
have it destroyed.
Why are we telling people who
have ownership of their guns
what they can and cannot do
with it and local law
enforcement what they can and
cannot do to keep their streets
safe.
>> Only a few minutes left.
With this in mind, gun issue,
overall, the impression that
you think the legislative
session so far, this go-round
is leaving on voters?
I mean, some would look at the
gun buy-back program as being a
black mark on the legislature.
There is a disconnect there.
We hear that a lot.
What do you think the
impression the legislature is
making on Arizona?
What do you think that is this
session?
>> I think the impression that
we're making on the people is
probably not fair in this
regard.
And that is that we've got
these huge issues that
incredibly complicated and we
haven't dealt with them yet.
We are working on it.
We will get it done.
In the meanwhile, we have gone
about our business in a
professional way.
Very civilly.
Probably the most -- nine
years' experience, and we get a
lot done.
The wheels of government which
is most of what we do.
Most of what we do is not the
big sexy stuff.
Most of what we do is the grind
it out, make the wheels of
government turn and we have
done a very good job of that.
But that is not the impression
that people will have.
>> What --
>> And you know, there are so
many different things of
priorities that the public is
concerned about.
Education, for instance.
I mean, wanting to restore
things like full-day
kindergarten so that families
are not having to go to public
schools and pay for all day
kindergarten.
Making sure that we have the
Medicaid expansion.
Making sure that the budget
gets out on time.
Hopefully as we move forward
things will happen quickly by
the end of next week.
Other than that, the impression
of what we're doing and how
we're taking the priority of
the people seriously may start
fading.
>> About 20 seconds.
>> Perception that people have?
>> Yeah.
>> Probably not good.
We're all politicians.
Nobody likes politicians.
>> Disconnected on the
issues -- direct result of the
policies being driven down
there right now.
>> We have to stop it right
there.
Good conversation.
Good to have you all here.
>>> Friday on "Arizona Horizon"
it's the "Journalists'
Roundtable."
Get the latest on some of the
issues we discussed tonight,
including Medicaid expansion.
And we'll look at another
favorable court decision for
a proposed tribal casino near
Glendale.
That's Friday on the
"Journalists' Roundtable."
That's it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
Thank you so much for joining
us.
You have a great evening.
>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of eight, members
of your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
Captioning Performed by
LNS Captioning
www.lnscaptioning.com
>>> When you want to be more
informed, eight delivers.
Thanks to financial support
from you and --
>> Whitfill nursery.
Over 200 acres of Arizona grown
trees, citrus and palms.
Whitfill nursery does the
digging.
>> Selected dental offices in
the Phoenix Metro area
providing services from basic
cleanings and fillings to
advanced cosmetic procedures.
>> Later on eight-HD.
>> Let's talk about food.
>> For my entree -- the flavor
was amazing.
>> Eclectic mix of seating
areas, great drinks and great
food, all-around consistently
good service.
>> They make you feel at home
right off the bat.
>> A good sandwich place.
>> Three new guests will
recommend their favorite spots.
>>> Eight HD, eight life.
Eight world.
This is Arizona PBS, supported
by viewers like you.
Thank you.
>> Eight celebrates Arizona
history with a moment in time.
Beginning in 1918, author
frequently visited his cabin
near pay son, Arizona.
Numerous books and films.
>>> How do we educate in a
rapidly changing world?
>> How can we create a
sustainable way of life?
>> How can we teach peace?
>> Arizona state university.
Rise to the challenges before
us.
>> Coming soon to eight HD.
>> Masterpiece classic.
>> Perhaps we shouldn't see
each other for awhile.
>> You have a very lovely
daughter.
>> On masterpiece classics.
on
eight-HD.
>> In Africa, new -- hit the
ground running.
One of the greatest migrations
in the natural world, a TREK
across thousands of miles for
food and water.
Danger also lies close to home.
It is all about life, death,
and an endless March.
on
eight-HD.
>> Support for eight comes from
viewers like you and from:
>> Wells Fargo advisors.
Wells Fargo advisors proudly
supports quality programming on
eight Arizona PBS.
>> Lawns by LES, family-owned
business, serving HOAs and