Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon," senate president Andy
Biggs and speaker of the house
Andy Tobin join us for their
monthly discussion of
legislative issues.
The leaders of the house and
senate, 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, welcome to
"Arizona Horizon."
I'm Ted Simons.
>>> Each month during the
legislative session, senate
president Andy Biggs and speaker
of the house Andy Tobin give us
their take on what's going on at
the state capitol.
And tonight we welcome president
Biggs and speaker Tobin.
Good to have you both here.
Good to see you again.
Let's get started.
There's so much to talk about,
but this ruling that came down
regarding the Medicaid expansion
lawsuit.
I want to get your thoughts, a
judge dismisses it, again,
thoughts.
>> I think her logic was
twisted.
Basically what she's saying is
you have --
A simple majority can determine
whether prop 108 kicks in you
need a super majority vote.
That's what she's saying, and so
there's two aspects to that that
really undercut what she's
saying.
That means prop 108 doesn't mean
what it says, so she emasculates
prop 108, and the second thing
you could say, is that the same
logic you'll use for voter
protected or prop 105, the
simple majority can determine
what applies and what doesn't
apply?
>> She basically said the
lawmakers, you guys, don't have
the right to sue because there
was no injury there.
>> Well, I think to the
president's point, when you say
you only need 50% plus one when
you're required to have
two-thirds, that completely
blows apart the voter initiative
on 108.
So for the judge to say, you
know what, you guys passed it
with 50% plus one, so obviously
you don't have standing because
you're the legislature.
But it flies in the face of the
voter initiative.
From my perspective, I'm like,
how do you not have standing if
you're harmed?
So we believe we're harmed
because two-thirds was not
crossed, and I think that's
where the differences with this
judge's ruling.
>> It sounds like she's saying
you, the legislature, you're the
one, you determine if the
two-third mass jotter is needed.
And by virtue of the vote,
apparently most of the
legislature did not think the
two-third mass jotter was
needed.
>> I take that --
I think that's the point the
president is making.
The voters said you need
two-thirds to raise fees, and in
order to decide whether that
fit, you only need 50% plus one
to say it fits and then it
applies.
Which I think is an absurd
ruling.
>> Again, I'm trying to figure
this out here.
It sounds as though --
>> welcome to our club.
>> She's basically saying you
determined this.
It is your determination.
And you and the governor's
office by the way, determined
this was not a tax, it was an
assessment, assessments are
determined by the legislature
all the time, the legislature
determined this time this was an
assessment.
>> Yeah.
I think that's what she's trying
to get at, but I think the point
we're trying to make, that's
really screwy logic.
Because what she's also taking
out of the mix is saying, guess
what?
There will be no judicial review
in the future either.
Because whenever the legislature
says goes.
Now, if that were the case, if
her logic follows, then there's
a whole mess of case law that
probably should be overturned
because there was no standing,
there was no ability, or
capacity to come in and say that
it should have been a prop 108.
>> Can you say anything that
would be protected by prop 108
is now in danger when in this
particular case it was an
assessment as opposed to a tax,
and again, assessments have been
agreed to before.
>> The taxpayers lost here.
The taxpayers voted to say, we
don't want taxes unless it
reaches a certain level.
They said it was two-thirds.
We're just asking them to apply
that logic to what we vote order
in the Medicare expansion.
This wasn't just a few for $10
to go into the park.
This was a quarter of a billion
dollars a year in new fees.
If that doesn't apply, I don't
know what does.
We'll go on appeal, because we
want it resolved.
I think the voters will want to
know.
If this is how it's going, to
maybe we should go back with
something else that's stronger.
I don't know.
>> Just one last point of that,
I agree with what the speaker is
saying.
The prop 108 doesn't say any
tax, it starts talking about any
new revenue.
That's what it's talking about.
And this is new revenue as the
speaker pointed out, in excess
of a quarter billion dollars a
year.
I mean, I don't know how you can
say golly, legislature, you can
say that's no increase in the
revenue.
That's no increase there.
So prop 108 doesn't apply.
>> Basically when the speaker
mentioned, it's ditch than a $10
fee, are you saying the $10 fee
in and of itself should not have
been approved in the past
regarding assessments?
>> That isn't what has happened
in the past.
In the past what we've said is
we're going to give fee setting
authority to the agency, and
that, the courts have said, that
seems to pass muster as not
qualifying.
>> Did that not happen here?
>> That didn't happen here.
No.
What they did, they say they
knew what the amount was going
in, this is what it's going to
be, here's what the assessment
is going to be and here's who
we're going to assess.
I have to tell you, just the
year before, we had passed
legislation to allow the nursing
home community to draw down
dollars from the feds to tax
themselves.
We had two-thirds vote.
So the process does have a way
of working itself through.
So it's just a continuing
argument we're going to have and
the courts will have to resolve
it.
I hope they resolve it more
quickly, because the voters may
be interested in doing something
else at the ballot box.
>> The governor said the judge's
ruling honors the will of the
voters.
You got 100,000 some-odd
Arizonans gaining coverage since
this has gone through.
Do you think Arizonans want you
to challenge this?
>> I think so, yeah.
>> Do you?
>> Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Absolutely.
>> This is a constitutional
provision.
It's a ballot initiative.
That's what we're fighting about
right now.
And I do think they want some
clarity if nothing else.
What fits?
I think if somebody went back to
the day 108 was passed, if
somebody said would this apply
for a quarter billion dollars in
fees to be passed by 50% plus
one?
I think they would say yeah,
this applies.
Then we have a judge that says
it doesn't.
>> If you think about it, and
you just take it back and say,
go to somebody, a person on the
street and say, look, if there's
going to be an assessment, and
knowing what prop 108 is, that
when you do this it's supposed
to take two-thirds vote, are you
comfortable with 50% plus one of
the legislature saying, hey, we
don't think that applies.
And I think most people in the
street are going to say, that's
kind of screwy.
That isn't what prop 108 is
about to begin with.
So I think that the whole motif
about prop 108 was to prevent
this type of thing from
happening, and that's why the
legislature --
They wanted to actually bind the
legislature and say, you
can't --
We don't want you to be the
arbiters of a new tax.
We want you to basically have to
do this by a super majority.
Which the speaker point out,
we've done it in the past on a
few occasions.
>> do you think that same person
on the street, if told that a
minority group in the
legislature, the group that lost
this particular vote, could come
out and say, no, you're wrong,
you thought --
You made the determination this
was not a tax, we lost, but
you're wrong, do you think they
would agree to that?
>> I don't think that's the
right frame of the question.
I think the right frame of the
question is, if you had elected
officials who were there --
Demanding this receive the
proper attention that prop 108
is supposed to get, which is a
two-third vote, would you want
those people, let's say from the
51 to the two-third to protect
the interest of the voter?
I think they'd say yes.
>> You have introduced a bill
regarding tighter regulations
for using access.
First, explain why you're doing
this, what achievement are you
looking for?
>> Here's the point.
We're watching just this
morning, I got the latest
telegram from the White House,
president using his pen to
change the rules again, the law
we said, OK, the law is finite,
here it is, everybody get over
it.
We passed Obamacare.
Except every week we seem to
have a change.
That change today is like, OK,
now we're going to give
businesses who are 50-99
three-year waiver.
So when I said, we need to be in
a place where we can
consistently request from
secretary Sebelius or CMS,
whoever, that some of these
issues are going to be very
expensive for us, emergency room
copays are one of the ideas I
put out.
People continue to find their
way into these emergency rooms.
We're going to have to have some
tools in the toolbox to help us
reduce costs.
So when I had the press circle
me and say, how do you --
They're never going to approve
that, my argument is, how do you
know they're not going to
approve it?
They've changed their own law
almost on a weekly basis.
My view is we need steps that
are going to be in the toolbox
when this unravels and the costs
get so high, you've got to
request some from CMS.
What we're saying, let's request
something every year that talks
about how to keep control of our
costs.
>> there's another bill that --
The person who introduced this
says your bill is baby steps.
If it's that bad, stronger
action is needed, repeal the
whole thing.
Why not?
>> Well, I think the
representative who decided that
was theirs, that's fair, that's
what we're paid to do, we write
law, the problem is the dynamics
of that law has not changed.
You're talking about repeal of
the Medicaid expansion we just
discuss order this 108 issue.
There's not enough --
Votes have not shifted at the
legislature.
This isn't about a change in
throwing out Medicaid expansion.
This is about, let's start
taking some steps along the way
that's going to help us control
things down the road.
>> Your thoughts, because I
remember the chamber lunch and I
asked you specifically, do you
think anything will happen to
Medicaid expansion restoration,
will the bill --
The law be left alone?
And you said yes, but then you
said there might be some
corrections that would be
needed.
Is that a correction?
Are we hearing a correction?
>> Well, I'll be honest --
>> The secretary said so.
>> Yeah.
I haven't read the speaker's
bill, but what we're seeing is
that the same people who rolled
out the exchanges so
successfully are botching the
implementation of Obamacare.
And so you're seeing things
like, we're going to give this
one small --
I won't say small, but a large
segment of society, we're going
to give them a break?
We're not giving a break to
families or anything else.
I assume the speaker's rationale
is we have to get to the bottom
and clear some things up.
And yeah, the dynamics haven't
changed, so you're not going to
see a repeal of what was done
last year.
>> You know, look what's going
on.
We're robbing from Peter to pay
Paul on this Obamacare, we're
taking from Medicare.
That's what's going on right
now.
We're taking from Medicare to
put it into now Obamacare.
At the end of the day, there's
not enough money to go around.
That's why the president keeps
changing the rules and moving
the target.
So my view is, OK, we're a
state, we're now starting to get
under obligations for our
Medicaid system, we're going to
need some of these tools going
forward at the very least, can't
we send a message back to
Washington, secretary Sebelius,
when things continue to fall
apart, instead of worrying about
this change or that change, how
about giving us tools the states
can use in their own system to
control some of the costs?
>> And again, if the feds who
have not been prone to give
these kinds of waivers for
eligibility requirements for
Medicaid, why go through --
Is it a formality?
Is it a message and that's it?
>> I don't think it's a message.
I think it's a crisis.
As they keep changing the rules,
they're not changing the rules
because they think they wrote it
wrong or the website didn't work
right.
They're changing the rules
because an election is coming
up.
They're concern --
Their concern isn't about
whether these people are going
to get on the system or in the
system, our concerns are about
our state budget B. having an
economy --
They're wondering about what's
happening in November.
And that's where the crisis is.
If they don't want to listen to
a couple of suggestions, all
we're saying is, please listen,
give us a chance at waivers, and
at the end of the day if they're
just going to worry about an
election, maybe you're right,
it's hardly worth having the
conversation.
>> If I could just make two
points real quickly, they have
not universally said no to
Arizona's request.
Even though we were on their
black list for a while.
We made requests --
>> a long while.
>> We've made requests to CMS
for changes, and they have grand
those changes, including with
the children, the adult --
The childless adult population.
So we were able to do something
major with that.
The second thing is, I have at
least several at least a couple
of members of mine who voted for
the expansion, who have said,
I --
We need to be doing something to
plan for when the circuit
breaker is tripped.
Because they know it's going to
be tripped.
So they're looking, and I said
the big concern for me is, not
when you get to 80%, which is
the circuit breaker, I'm mostly
concerned about from 90 to 80,
because that's about a
$400 million a year hit to us.
So what are you going to do
about that?
So we've got people who support
the expansion, who recognize
that this is not --
The federal funding is not going
last, things have to be done.
They have to look at this.
>> All right.
Let's talk about dark money.
This seems to be the topic
du jour these days.
Bills have been introduced, the
question is, should these
independent expenditure groups,
should they disclose anonymous
donors?
>> Well, I think that bill is
running over in the senate.
[TALKING AT ONCE]
>> I'm very frustrated with the
dark money, just like a lot of
people R I have run in races, I
remember getting a call from a
friend who says, boy you look
good on that TV ad.
And I'm like, what TV ad?
I didn't do a TV ad.
I think there's people who are
well meaning saying, maybe
there's too much of this going
that we don't know where it's
about.
I get it, but on the other hand,
the limitations of what people
are allowed to do with their
money is also striking.
I think when folks look at it
and say, why can't I use my
money for what I want to do with
it?
OK, let's just open it up, let's
have everybody write --
Put down on what they're filing
for everything, is that the
answer?
And it's shifted to this dark
money I guess that they're
struggling with.
>> I ask you, should it be a
crime to hide the identification
of contributors through other
entities?
>> I mean, that's really part of
the problem.
Now we're going to elevate to a
felony, and say, look, if you --
The way the proposed bill --
The way the bill is worded, it's
really hard to determine what
somebody's intent is.
You can say, I'm onblow has
$200,000, they want to
participate, they find out if a
couple committees, they give
those committees money, guess
what?
It's not unusual for those
committees to say, we haven't
raised as much as we thought, or
whatever, we're going to give it
to this committee, because we
kind of align.
And away they go, and next thing
you know, Joe Blow based on the
bill, he's looking at a felony.
Because there seems to be
saying --
Presumption that if you do
through a couple committees,
maybe what you're trying to do
is hide the money.
So the intent clause is really
difficult to show.
>> But still, if you know that
it's joe blow who is behind all
this, the original money comes
from Mr. Blow, is that not an
improvement over what we have
now?
>> I don't know, because you do
have groups that whether or not
they're going to be affected --
I'm talking labor unions.
This bill doesn't get into
saying, you labor unions are
going to have to start
disclosing --
>> you've got LLCs and
corporations, along with labor
unions.
All these folks have been hiding
their money.
The question back to you, is
that healthy?
Is that a good thing?
>> I think my personal view is
that with all the money that's
going in, I think public should
want to know who's making these
contributions.
I get it.
That's why as a candidate,
you're required to be showing
where does it come from, how
does it work and everybody can
see.
But you have joe citizen who
maybe they don't like prop 108.
Maybe they say hey I don't like
prop 108, I want-to-my family to
get involved, I want these guys
to get involved.
But they don't want the press
saying, we want an interview on
I get it.
The way they look at I, they've
got freedom of speech right too
and that's where these things
are pushing back on each other.
The end of the day, both sides
are using these dollars and I
think that's where it gets --
There's a race for these folks
to compete with that.
But it's hard to argue your
first amendment rights and yet
as a candidate, I'm fine with
making sure we completely
disclose.
>> Quebec mechanics question.
How important is bipartisan
spatter to you as senate
president?
>> The bottom line is I assigned
it to the committees, I'm
letting them work it through the
system.
I've not said don't hear it,
I've not said you hear it, but
it's --
One last point, if you look what
happened to prop 98 California,
where they have --
Prop 8 in California, where they
have more transparency type laws
than we do here, what happened
to people on one side of that
issue new donated money, guess
what?
All of a sudden usual a target.
They're not just picketing,
they're trying to shut down your
business, they're trying to
vandalize your home.
This is the problem so what do
you is chill speech as well.
So that's the balance we end up
having to look at.
You want to encourage speech,
you do it want to chill it, you
want transparency, you want
people to know, is this person
being favored?
One other thing, part of our
problem is that representative
Tobin and I, when we run for
election these days, we don't
control our campaigns.
We can raise money, you'll know
who we get the money from,
you'll know where we spend our
money.
But there's this whole --
All the groups out there, this
is what people are concerned
with, whether you're a candidate
or the public, they control the
campaign and the messaging.
That's part of the problem.
>> You make a good point, let's
say it's a gun rights group,
they're receiving member money,
millions, who knows?
They want to put an ad out
there.
For president Biggs.
How are you going to find --
What do they have to do, give
you a list of all their members
and show every contribution,
here's my five, your 10?
So you can see how it gets
onerous.
>> I think the argument works as
long as you had some idea where
it started, it goes through 14
different entities on the way to
you, then at least you know
where it start and good luck --
OK.
I want to move on, because we
had a discussion yesterday on
the program regarding broad band
service for Arizona and
specifically having schools pay
for that broadband service.
Come out of the governor's
office, the idea seems to be
getting traction in the lush.
What do you think of that idea?
>> Let's face it, there are some
places that need broadband
service, there's some places
that already have broadband, and
that's where you get into it.
The other problem you have is
the governor is saying, we're
going to basically take $15 from
every student's ADM.
And we're going to use it, and
once you get into the
particulars, which we're just
finding out more particulars,
they're hoping to leverage grant
monies and other monies, and
when you talk to these
providers, they're like, it
isn't the infrastructure, the
infrastructure goes right up to
the school.
It's moving --
Connectivity from the school to
the infrastructure.
So that's a bit of a problem.
How much is it going to be?
You've got schools that have
bonded, school districts that
have bonded to put this in
place, and then you're going to
take their bond money, some of
the money they're going to use
to pay back their bonds, and
you're going to say, we're going
to use it to subsidize somebody
else's --
These are some issues that are
real.
I think --
>> you also have schools that
don't even have the internal
wiring for broadband.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Come up to rural Arizona, the
difference between running a
wire in Gilbert, no disrespect,
from Gilbert to Mesa is
different than running something
from Seligman to ash forth.
It's probably not close to $15 a
student.
I think we need to find out,
should we not be on satellite
with some of these classes?
Should we not be changing the
dynamic?
I don't know how long it's
expected to get all this
broadband under wire and all
this stuff to our schools, but
the way electronics is changing
and things are adapting, 10
years from now we might think, I
wish we didn't spend that money
putting wires down, we've got a
satellite --
Maybe that's the answer.
I'm not --
I love the idea that we're
trying to high-tech.
I love the idea that we're --
These kids are so smart, and
they're on everything.
Everything moves.
I'm just thinking, boy, does
that really get to the problem?
I'm not finding it is in our
areas.
But I love the conversation.
But I don't know how we can get
out to peach springs or Baghdad
or --
>> sounds like some work still
to do.
>> I applaud the governor for
looking at the broadband
process, though.
>> We've got a few minutes left.
I've got to ask about the
election laws, the repeal of
these election laws.
Was it introduced yesterday in
the senate?
>> The senate, we actually had
the hearing on it.
It passed out of committee
yesterday.
>> House, it already did --
>> I don't remember --
>> yes, it has.
I always have to check with the
president.
He's watching the bill.
>> All right.
Critics are saying this is
simply an end run to avoid the
bill dying by way of the voters.
It's basically, let's kill the
bill so we can let the bill live
at a later date.
>> We're going to have to do
something.
Listen.
This didn't just show up on our
doorstep.
We had bipartisan coalitions of
folks in the elections business
around the state talking about
bundling crisis, and talking B.
how are we going to fix this
issue that happened especially
Maricopa County, where we had
people --
We literally had folks knocking
on doors of folks who would say,
I'm with the election
department, I know you got a
ballot, would you like to give
it to me, I'll take it there.
They knocked on the doors of
election officials in Maricopa
County, who said really, who are
you?
So that's why you --
This is testimony, this is
testimony in committee.
It's embarrassing.
It's frightening to think these
issues go on.
We made it too big.
I think there's was too much to
it, you had the third party
piece, I think the bundling
issue was something that we were
getting close to, I don't think
it was perfect.
I think also the permanent
voting --
There's good feedback on some of
that, but at the end of the day
you don't want to put this in
the --
And have it 105 protected and
not ever be able to fix it.
>> That's the question.
If it's that much of a problem,
if the testimony exists, present
it to the voters, let the voters
decide.
>> Well, OK, so you have 15 out
of 15 county recorders come in
and say, we've got to do
something with the people --
The early balloting --
>> democrats and Republicans.
>> And you say, if we that I can
that voter protected, you will
never be able to do anything
with that.
So the reality is, we need to do
something.
So we're repealing it, and like
I've told people, if you
guarantee nothing will come
back?
I'm not intending to run
anything this year, but I don't
know if nothing will come back.
>> Quickly, anything to revive
any of the aspects of this law,
anything that drops so far?
>> I'm going to tell you, the
detail is compelling with this
permanent voting list.
We had 60,000 I think permanent
voters not --
Permanent voting list people not
use their list and that's what
helped drag this election on for
weeks, the Maricopa County
elections.
Because these people are getting
ballots, having already received
one.
There's a lot of possibility for
fraud.
The bundling is a problem, I
love the work with the minority
coming up, but some of these
things are simple voter
protection.
I haven't ruled it out, even
though many have.
But I think it's it's got to be
repealed.
>> We've got to stop you both.
Thank you so much for joining
us.
>>> And that is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons.
Thank you for joining us.
You have a great evening.
Captioning Performed By
LNS Captioning
www.LNScaptioning.com
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of eight.
Members of your Arizona PBS
station.
Thank you.
>>> When you want to be more
adventurous, eight delivers the
wonders of the world.
Thanks to financial support from
you and --
>> nice and easy travel presents
seven seas cruises featuring the
all-inclusive experience.
Luxury cruising packages around
the world.
>>> Deeann Griebel, now with
Morse and cabinet investments,
proudly supports quality
programming on eight Arizona
PBS.
>>> Hospice of the valley.
A not for profit hospice
providing medical, social, and
spiritual support to patients
nearing end of life.
While supporting their families.
HOV.org.
>> Later on eight HD.
>> They were partners in crime
who had one hell of a ride.
The true story of the last
legendary western outlaws.
>> When they're gone, a lot of
the west is gone.
>> Butch Cassidy and the
Sundance kid.
On American experience.
on eight HD.
>> Eight HD.
Eight life.
And eight world.
This is Arizona PBS.
Supported by viewers like you.
Thank you.
>>> Ever wonder what that
vintage item buried in your
closet, garage, or attic may be
worth?
Now you can find out.
Eight's on a mission to explore
local history with the help of
viewers like you for our
brand-new show.
Arizona collectibles.
Expert appraisers are coming to
our studio this spring for the
filming, and you and your
treasures are the stars of the
show.
To get a chance for a free
evaluation of your collectibles,
just summit a photo and
description of your item to A
www.azpbs.org/collectibles F we
select yours, you could be
featured on the show.
Or if you want to make sure you
get your items evaluated, you
can make a donation of 125
dollars to receive guaranteed
admission to have up to three
items evaluated.
Reveal the mystery of what your
treasures are really worth.
Visit
www.azpbs.org/collectibles.
>>> Coming up on eight HD.
Eight life.
And eight world.
>>> Coming soon eight HD.
>> For 50 years, London's
national theater has presented
the world's greatest works.
Staged by outstanding directors,
starring the most amazing
actors.
Join us for a star-studded
scenes from its 50 years feast
of delights.
When we celebrate the national
theater.
>> This is wonderful.
>> On great performances.
on eight
HD.
>>> Support for eight comes from
viewers like you, and from --
>> the Persian room.
Travel to another world.
To a land of exotic aromas and
period DEA decor for a fine
dining experience.
The Persian room.
In north Scottsdale on
Scottsdale road one light north
of Frank Lloyd Wright Boulevard.
Gourmet, exotic cuisine at its
best.
>>> Support comes from robeson
resort communities.
>> It was Ed robeson's idea
giving active adults the freedom
of expression through the
thoughtful design, inside the
home and out.
six active adult communities in
Phoenix and Tucson to choose
from, getting to a good place in
life, this is it.