Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" Journalists
Roundtable, different polls on
Medicaid expansion show
significantly different
results.
A bill that increases campaign
finance limits is signed into
law and attorney general
tom-tom wants funds for outside
law enforcement patrols in
Colorado city.
Those stories and more next on
the Journalists Roundtable.
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible from contributions
from the friends of 8, members
of your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>> Good evening and welcome to
"Arizona Horizon's" Journalists
Roundtable.
I'm Ted Simons.
Joining me tonight are Jeremy
duda from the Arizona capital
times, the Phoenix business
journal and mark brody.
Medicaid expansion is still the
800-pound gorilla at the state
capitol.
What's the latest?
>> The governor's Medicaid
expansion road show is
continuing, a lot of press
conferences with doctors and
healthcare professionals.
He went up in mohave county the
other day, the most
conservative part of the state.
Not a lot of support up there.
Did another one down at the
capitol, which is the third in
five weeks, this one on mental
health, the benefits of mental
health but I don't know that
any of this is getting her any
more support at the legislature
which is what she really needs.
>> How much support does she
have at the legislature?
>> It's hard to say.
Assuming all the democrats vote
for the plan which I'm sure
they will, you need three
Republican votes in the house.
The three in the Senate are
there, the house, no one is
sure.
I've had a couple of lawmakers
say they don't think she's got
seven votes and some of those
votes are shaky.
People are falling off.
We had one of the six
Republican lawmakers who stood
with brewer a couple of weeks
ago, he's now pretty much dead
set against this over the
abortion issue that's coming
up.
She's losing support.
She's further away from it now
than she has been since the
whole thing started.
>> That's a bit of a surprise.
You would think the tidal wave
would be moving in that
direction.
>> The full court press has
been on by the governor.
She's done all these events.
What are these events doing to
get more conservative
Republicans or semi
conservative Republicans to
vote for this.
The anti-abortion folks want
some pro-life language in
there, if that goes in there,
what happens to all the
democrats then?
It's quite a minefield for the
governor politically.
>> It seems there are a lot of
questions associated with this
that don't have answers, the
abortion issue has come up,
whether or not you need a two
thirds majority to actually
vote on this.
Are there the votes?
There are a lot of questions
about this issue that don't yet
seem to have answers.
>> The two thirds majority,
whether it's stand alone, we
have legislative leadership on
last night saying there's
nothing really concrete for
them to move on anyway.
>> Well, there is bill language
but the speaker is not prepared
to put that language up for a
vote quite yet.
I think it probably goes back a
little bit to the fact that
there's still so much work to
do on the budget itself.
The finance advisory committee
met just this week and had some
projections about revenue and
all and there's a lot of work
to do on the budget so it's
kind of hard to say whether or
not Medicaid fits into that or
it has its own bill.
>> This may end up as part of
the budget.
There's a lot of prostrating
that's going to have to go on
to get the speaker and
president to bring that up
which they've been pretty
resistant to.
>> As far as a couple of polls
released this week, I think a
few were actually released but
a couple originally, one seemed
to show a lot of support, kinda
for the Medicaid expansion.
The other showed not quite as
much and a lot of Republican
opposition.
How much does that play now?
>> I think that's a lot the
second poll because it talks
about certain districts and how
likely Republican primary
voters would be to not vote for
someone in the next election if
they sided with brewer on this,
that's got to scare a few
folks.
You have dueling polls out
there, you see a full court
press by the governor's
lobbying folks, the events at
the hospitals, all the business
folks that are behind this but
again how is that going to get
some conservative Republican
that's on the fence to vote for
this and it's tied to
Obamacare, too, and that's one
of the other things that's a
tough sell.
>> The poll that focused on the
six individual legislative
districts, it focused on
districts where the Republican
supporters are coming from or
people who were viewed on the
fence, they're trying to send a
message that the people who
vote for this are going to lose
in their primary.
>> With that in mind, are we
hearing from business, are we
hearing from pro Medicaid
expansion folks say don't worry
about the primary, we'll back
you up, you may get hit, but
we'll be here for you.
>> I think lawmakers are
hearing that but they're also
hearing from business and
hospitals and other medical
folks, regardless of whether
you win or lose your next
election, this is something
that has to happen for the
state, that you have to look
beyond your next election at
what's good for Arizona and I
think that's one of the
arguments that the business
folks and the hospital folks
are making.
>> What about you mentioned
Obamacare just saying that word
would be trouble in a
Republican primary in a lot of
districts.
What about the word tax?
The hospital assessment, we
have leadership on this they
are calling it a tax.
>> One person's user fee, one
person's assessment is another
person's tax.
I think the Obamacare affects
people more at first glance but
there is the anti-tax crowd out
there that's going to use this
as a drum beat and it could
hurt some Republicans who vote
for this and I don't know if
the folks that want the
expansion have made the
argument well enough about what
this actually does.
The income levels, how poor
people are that qualify for
this, it's like $23,000 for a
family, a family of four,
that's not a lot of money for
somebody to live on and I don't
think they made the argument
about the income limits and who
it would benefit.
>> Is there an argument to be
made?
Because again when the Senate
president says that things, the
status quo right now, that's
what we'll go back to if we
don't accept this and he
doesn't seem all that concerned
about it, what kind of argument
can you make?
>> It's hard to say exactly
what we're going to go back to
if this doesn't happen.
We're operating under an
agreement with the federal
government healthcare authority
and that agreement expires at
the end of the year.
That provides the two thirds
funding that we use for the
current Medicaid program.
Now, the governor's office,
they say the feds have
indicated they're not going to
renew that, we might not get
any funding for a childless
tell you the so the only way to
get that funding is to pass the
Medicaid program.
Others say it would make them
look bad, we should just keep
it the way it is and restore
some of the funding cuts once
we have some money.
>> There's also concern about
federal money that goes to
hospitals that care for a
disproportionate share of
Medicaid patients and what the
hospitals will tell you is that
money is going away under the
affordable care act, a lot of
these rural hospitals, places
like Maricopa medical center,
Maricopa integrated health
systems, they're going to lose
a lot of money because that
federal money isn't coming in
because the federal government
assumes there's going to be
more money under Medicaid.
>> So best guess, from a
30-foot thousand level here.
Does Medicaid expansion happen
in Arizona?
>> The hospital and business
lobbies pushing for it.
I think she can get it through.
>> What do you think?
>> I think so.
I think most of the people I
talked to down there agreed.
I don't know how she's going to
do it but eventually, you have
to believe that the governor's
going to get what she wants.
It is so important to her and I
think people assume if she
doesn't get what she wants,
it's going to be a scorched
earth strategy where she vetoes
everything that comes across
her desk, everything that's
important and eventually, she's
going to be able to use that
stick to get what she wants.
>> I think Jeremy and I have
been talking to the same
people.
It might not be fast, it might
not be exactly what she wants
but that's ultimately that
think she will get it.
>> The caucus of one can make
difficult for the caucus of
many.
You mentioned vetoes, the
capitol times did a big spread
on the governor's veto
tendencies and it's a genuine
guessing game at the capitol.
>> One lobbyist I asked how do
you guess what she's going to
veto, you put up a dart board.
Brewer I believe has vetoed
more bills than any Republican
bill in Arizona history and
she's still got most of this
session and all of next session
left and figuring out how she's
going to veto something or why
but even some of the veterans
down there don't know.
There's a few trends that are
fairly consistent, one of them
is that if you send her a bill
with fiscal impact that costs
money before the budget is
done, she's pretty likely to
veto that.
We saw that yesterday, her
second veto of the session.
We saw a veto today on the
healthcare price transparency
where she worked with the
governor, made some changes,
and then they vetoed it for a
bunch of reasons that she said
they never even brought up.
Even if you work with the
governor's office, she might
veto it.
>> Lack of communication, as
well an issue here?
>> I think so.
The governor's office has kept
things very close to their vest
when it comes to bills, even
the folks that work on the
bills stand up there and see
what happens.
Basically, it would have had
the hospitals and E.R.s what
they would be paying for
procedures and stuff and that
was vetoed.
I wonder how that plays in with
the hospitals supporting her
Medicaid expansion.
So she's been very
pro-business, very
anti-abortion, very consistent
on those thing but some of the
other bills that are very vague
on specific legislation.
>> Is it good to have that kind
of confusion, though?
You can kind of win by having
everyone not knowing what
you're doing or you can just
make a mess of everything.
>> It depends on who you ask.
To the people who spend all
session working on a bill to
have it vetoed for reasons they
didn't see coming, they would
say it's a bad thing.
You can reach out to the
governor's office but they're
selective on what they're going
to engage you on and part of
the reason is we have, you
know, more than 1,100 bills
introduced this session, more
than 1,300 last session.
The governor's office doesn't
have the time or the manpower
to engage every lawmaker and
figure out what's going to make
it palatable to jan brewer.
Sometimes, you've got to throw
the dart.
>> Let's move on here and talk
about something she did sign
and that was an increase in
campaign finance limits.
Talk to us about this and what
it does in the grand scheme of
things.
>> It allows political
candidates to raise and spend a
lot more money than they've
been able to so far.
A lot of Republicans are saying
the limits are too low that
especially after citizens
united you have all the outside
groups that are spending all
this money that the candidates
have no control over, this is
sort of a way as a candidate to
take back control of your
campaign by being able to raise
more money, spend more money
and get your message out as
opposed to the messages from
these outside groups.
Now, democrats and the
elections folks are saying this
is just another disincentive
for people to run with public
money and that is just even
more money in the political
system, which is for not a good
thing.
>> What is this doing to
elections?
>> Another stake in the coffin.
Businesses want to see the caps
raised a little bit so they can
get their money in there and
support more candidates and
have more money to spread
around.
So again it brings more special
interests money directly to the
candidates.
>> So again if the concern was,
a couple of breaks, outside
money was just outrageous.
But this doesn't do anything
about that.
It just says you can raise more
to what, help offset the
outside money?
>> The argument in favor of
this is that the reason -- one
of the reasons you get so much
outside money is we have some
of the lowest campaign
contribution limits in the
country, and so people don't
have the money to get their
message out so these ours
groups took up the cause for
their favorite candidates or go
after the people they don't
like.
If you're a legislative
candidate and you can go up to
raising, you know, $4,000 per
cycle, you can control your
message, you can run your
campaign the way you want and
there isn't as much of a need
for outside groups.
We'll see if the outside
groups, you know, stay out.
I don't know that they will.
>> Well, I think what might be
interesting to look at is the
folks and the groups who
donated to some of these
outside groups in previous
cycles, it will be interesting
to see now that they can give
more to candidates themselves
if they will or if they'll
continue to give to the outside
groups or not.
>> In the end, now, you can
give $4,000 to a candidate.
If you can still give $400,000
to an independent expenditure
and plus remember, a lot of
what those do is they do the
dirty work that candidates
can't.
You do the attack ads, you get
down and dirty and go after
people in a way that a
candidate is more likely to
want to take the high road,
that makes you look bad, too.
>> It increases the overall
money in politics.
It doesn't shift where it's at
but it's a rising tide lifts
all incumbent boats.
>> One interesting thing about
this bill, there's probably
going to be some kind of court
challenge over proposition 105,
the voter protection act.
When the voters approved the
clean elections act in 2000, it
included a provision, it almost
seems arbitrary, what it does
is it says the contribution
limits are cutting that by 20%,
gives it a 20% haircut and the
reason the supporters wanted
that is you have to keep the
traditions that privately
funded things low, otherwise no
one's going to use them but the
supporters now argue that this
violates the voter protection
act, that says you need a three
fourths vote to change a
voter-approved measure.
Now, the supporters of raising
the limits will say past bills
that have had to abide by this,
they didn't mention that
statute.
>> It's a separate track.
>> It's a completely separate
statute, it's not mentioned in
the clean elections act.
>> We'll find out.
It's fascinating stuff to watch
there and it will be very
interesting to see how it
affects things because the last
election cycle, we saw some big
money going to some just state
legislative races.
All right.
We'll move on here.
Tom Horne wants to once again
get some outside patrols,
Colorado city.
>> The attorney general's
office has been paying for that
and Horne wants the legislature
to step up and pay for the
sheriff's office up there to
patrol instead of the local
police up there, which has been
accused of some malfeasance of
being an arm of the polygamist
church up there.
It's a big mess, something that
should have been addressed a
long time ago in the state and
it always seems that it's the
attorney generals that take the
lead on this.
Now, Horne is doing a little
bit on this and it doesn't seem
like the legislature or the
governor is that interested.
>> If we had the house, it's
52-7 regarding some bills that
had some kind of oversight up
there and the Senate never
hears it.
That seems unusual to me.
>> Horne has been pushing this,
especially recently.
He called just this week, we
referred to what's going on in
Colorado city as one of the
great injustices going on in
the state right now, where
people try to leave and they're
brought back, punished and just
sort of the way the law
enforcement works up there.
And as mike said he tried to do
this last year, it didn't work,
he found some money in his
office, 400 something thousand
dollars to pay the county
sheriff to do some patrols but
he needs more.
That's what he said at the
time, this is a one year
temporary stopgap kind of
thing.
>> Why isn't the legislature
stepping up?
>> Some people have some
concerns about this, even
though it didn't pass like 90%
in the house, last year,
they've been running a bill to
try to give the state the
power, the counties the power
to take over the towns' police
departments if a certain number
of people have been decertified
by state officials and the
concerns that some people have
voiced is that they don't like
the notion they can just give
people the power to strip away
local control even though this
bill, especially this year's,
has been very narrowly tailored
in a way, they want it to only
apply to Colorado city.
>> This is a legislature that
wants to tell people what
bathrooms they can use when it
suits their purposes just like
the feds do it to states.
They don't like their impact
fees or something, they do
this.
There's not been the political
will in this state among
Republicans who control the
legislature to address Colorado
city for a number of years.
Not been a movement among
folks, even the acts by
attorney generals have not been
that strong.
It hasn't been out there and
it's a big injustice up there.
>> The fact it is so narrowly
tailored is another concern
that we can't pass a bill just
on Colorado city law
enforcement.
That's not right.
>> They keep setting it up for
failure.
One side will say we don't want
to have this sweeping thing and
then when you try to tailor it
to Colorado city, this
egregious case, they make that
argument.
>> If they wanted to do it,
they could.
They could narrowly tailor
this, you're not allowed to
pass special legislation, but
there are so many ways around
that.
>> Population levels.
>> They want to do something
that only affects that county,
they can say this new law
affects counties of populations
of more than 300,000 but less
than 1 million or something
like that, so it obviously only
applies to one situation.
>> Does this become an
evergreen kind of legislation
at the capitol now?
It never seems to go anywhere
so it's always likely to pop
up.
Is the likely?
>> She's going to bring it back
next year.
>> All right.
>> I think you'll see a
governor come out and really
make it an issue.
They're not going to do
anything.
>> It sounds like the fight for
that casino out there by
Glendale is going to capitol
hill.
Representative franks getting
involved.
What's he doing?
>> They've been trying to stop
this casino for a while and
they've lost every case in
court because of a 1986 I think
law that allows them to replace
some lands they lost down in
Tucson because of the
construction with
unincorporated lands.
So they secretly bought that
parcel near the stadium and the
arena for this casino.
Every lawsuit that the other
tribes have brought has been
shot down because of that law.
So for franks to step forward
with some other lawmakers and
introduced the bill to get rid
of that law.
The other cosponsors are kirk
Patrick who happen to have the
tribes in their district.
>> And this is the second year
that Congressman franks has
done this.
With great fanfare last year he
introduced this bill.
This year, it seems like the
introduction was a little bit
more low key but the same
concept of what he's trying to
do.
>> In the end he may not need
this.
They have won all -- god knows
how many court cases have been
going on about this.
There's one that sounds like it
has a better shot, there's
another one -- the 1988 law
that authorized Indian gaming
in the first place, there's
some provisions in there about
when the land has to be
purchased and after a certain
amount of time, you can't put a
casino on that.
The one exception I believe is
if there's a dispute over it,
tribes fighting with another
entity and this isn't the case.
They kind of just bought up the
land and one day said we're
going to put a casino here.
>> And the franks will with no
casino on Phoenix metro land
until 2027, which is when the
contract ends, Phoenix metro
land, what does that mean?
I've seen casinos and freeways
everywhere I go.
>> Any new ones, so it would
grandfather in all the existing
ones and the sponsors are
representing those tribes.
It's funny how the legislature
doesn't want to carve something
up specifically for Colorado
city but we have a correction
bill.
>> And there have been efforts
in the legislature you remember
a couple of years ago they were
working a bill that would have
allowed Glendale to under
emergency circumstances annex
that land back into the city.
There was a dispute earlier
about whether or not that land
was part of the city and what
the municipal planning area
phrase meant and there's been a
lot of dispute about this.
>> And so this will be
something I guess that will
continue -- I just wonder at
what point are we going to
start seeing construction out
there on that land and they're
just going to go ahead and move
forward.
>> From what I've heard, if
you're looking to play the
slots, don't save them for a
little while yet.
>> They're not going away.
They're going to build that
thing eventually.
>> It seems like and it's so
far every time they go to
court, they come out with a
win.
There's that one.
Before we get out of here, we
had like -- it was Amway or
something with bullet proof
bests, what happened?
>> Bob thorpe, freshman
Republican house rep wanted to
invite a seller of bullet-proof
vests to the capitol to ply his
wears to his colleagues.
The legislative attorneys told
him you can't bring in a
private seller and set up shop
in a house conference room but
this became news after this
e-mail leaked out and he wasn't
so happy about that and then
sent out another e-mail
complaining about how someone
leaked it and pointed his
finger specifically at one
democratic lawmaker but the
important lesson he learned is
what is a public record?
Any e-mail you send out on your
legislative e-mail account is a
public record, any of us can
put in a records request and
they'll have to turn that over
and that doesn't even include
if someone on either side of
the aisle says I want the press
to know about this.
I think it was in all of our
inboxes in 15 minutes.
>> It fits into the gun debate,
everything that's going on and
the legislature that is very
adverse to any kind of gun
control already kind of
controls on armor piercing
ammunition.
>> I think some pointed out the
irony the Senate rejecting a
ban on armor piercing bullets,
a lot of rejections on
amendments that were thrown in
regarding small schools and yet
rejecting that and yet if you
really are worried about it,
we've got some bullet-proof
vests.
>> I'm sure there's a group of
legislators who would like to
have a gun show at the
legislature.
>> Before we go, and we keep
that in mind, I want to go back
to the casino because I like
the prediction aspect of all of
this, are we going to see a
casino on that land?
>> Yes, I think we will.
That tribe is so committed to
building that thing.
I don't think they can get it
through the Senate, that
federal legislation through the
Senate and they have prevailed
on every court case before.
>> Before or after the compact
ends?
>> Before.
>> What do you think?
>> Most of the people I have
spoken with think it will
happen.
The timing, I don't know when.
>> So likely but --
>> It will probably happen but
it might not happen quickly.
>> Okay.
What do you think?
>> Getting out my dart board
again, I'm going to pluck this
answer and say yes, the
momentum seems to be on their
side and franks can't get
through the democratic Senate.
>> Does that knock the whole
2027 -- the whole compact for a
loop?
What happens to the compact?
>> There will be an argument
but there's language in the
compact that I think gave them
another casino so I think you
can make the argument that it's
not a poison pill.
>> All right.
All right.
That's good enough.
Good to have you here.
Lots of stuff to go through.
Monday on "Arizona Horizon,"
we'll talk about the life of
famed architect paolo saleri
and we'll discuss the town of
superior's option to the copper
mine.
and
on "Arizona Horizon."
That is it for now.
I'm Ted Simons, thank you so
much for joining us.
You have a great weekend.
>>> "Arizona Horizon" is made
possible by contributions from
the friends of 8, members of
your Arizona PBS station.
Thank you.
>>> Support for 8 comes from
viewers like you and from...
>> Lawns by les.
A family-owned business serving
hoas and commercial clients
while working to improve the
local community.
Proud to support 8, Arizona
PBS.
Enhancing Arizona landscapes
since 1982.
>> Friendship village Tempe, a
retirement community for over
30 years, offers independent
living with residency options,
life-long learning classes, as
well as continuing care.
Information at
friendshipvillageaz.com.
>>> Later on 8 H.D....
>> Join me on a journey across
America and through time as we
uncover lost moments in the
careers of some of the greatest
song and dance artists of their
time.
Bonnie is my gal
>> Liza manelli, jean Kelly,
fred astaire.
Let's dance on American
songbook, tonight at 9:00 on
8H.D.
>>> 8 H.D., 8 life, and
8 world.
This is Arizona PBS, supported
by viewers like you.
Thank you.
>>> 8 celebrates Arizona
history with a moment in time
made possible by the linkus
group, a registered investment
advisor.
In 1958, a successful statewide
ballot initiative changed the
name Arizona state college to
Arizona state university.
>>> Coming up on 8 H.D., 8 life
and 8 world...
>> When you become a member at
the $40 level, Arizona PBS will
send you a year subscription to
8 magazine, our monthly program
guide.
Each issue contains a complete
schedule of all of 8's digital
channels, special highlights of
upcoming shows, daytime and
repeat program schedules and
exclusive member news.
The 8 magazine is a member
benefit you'll appreciate all
year long just like the
programs we deliver to you here
on Arizona PBS.
>>> Coming soon to 8 H.D....
>> On master piece classics --
>> I've never seen you so
enchanted.
>> Every woman should have a
moment like this.
>> I have to be there.
>> On masterpiece classics.
on 8
H.D.
>>> Night falls in London and a
serial killer is on the loose.
Four women notice a pattern,
with code breaking tactics.
>> You're good with patents and
I'm all right with maps.
>> And covert skills learned
from the war.
>> How have you got this far?
>> Treating the crimes like a
code.
>> It's a race to stop the
killer.
>> Never saw anything.
>> It was too late.
>> The bletchley circle.
>> Support for 8 comes from
viewers like you and from...
>> The Persian room, travel to
another world, to a land of
exotic aromas and period decor
for a fine dining experience.
The Persian room in north
Scottsdale on Scottsdale road.
Gourmet, exotic cuisine at its
best.
>>> Ironwood Cancer & Research
Centers, providing treatment
options through research
trials, genetic testing and
personalized counseling,
focused on emotional, physical
and social support.
Outsmarting cancer one patient
at a time.
>>> BestDentalCareAZ.com
identifies selected dental
offices in the Phoenix metro
area, providing services from
basic cleanings and fillings to
advanced cosmetic procedures.