Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>>> Coming up next on "Arizona
Horizon's" "Journalists'
Roundtable," state lawmakers
have yet another budget to
consider after House Speaker
Andy Tobin releases his own
proposal.
The House finally starts to move
on a budget and Medicaid
expansion.
Those stories 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's"
"Journalists' Roundtable," I'm
Ted Simons.
Joining us are Mary Jo Pitzl of
the "The Arizona Republic,"
Howard Fischer of "Capitol Media
Services," and Ben Giles of the
"Arizona Capitol Times."
>>> The State has competing
budget plans as House Speaker
Andy Tobin pushes his own
proposal.
>> This year it's a little
unusual because there never was
final agreement on a budget
among the House and Senate and
the Governor.
They didn't even agree on a
revenue number, which is their
usual starting point.
President Biggs came out with
his own budget proposal,
followed by Speaker Tobin and
the Governor released hers back
in January.
>> We seem to be moving, if you
listen to some of the more
conservative House members, in
the negative direction.
Andy Tobin is trying to deal
with a bunch of freshmen who
insist the budgeting be truly
balanced.
There's money and there's
expenses.
But a lot of that has almost $50
million cash carry-forward.
Why are we using the savings
account?
>> We purposely put it aside
knowing the sales tax would
disappear.
At this late date, his way of
cutting $400 million, 5% off the
top of everybody.
>> Why release this budget now?
>> It appears he's trying to
gain some control back over the
budget conversation.
Ever since the president
released his own budget, Mr.
Tobin has been sitting by the
side and waiting to see what the
Senate does.
Know that it's in his court, he
has a lot of freshmen breathing
down his neck, a lot of
Representatives saying this
budget isn't conservative
enough, we need to cut more
spending.
His does to an extent, but not
enough to please the
conservatives in his chamber.
>> Does he have to please them?
Does he have enough votes?
>> It's a numbers game.
He would like to have 31
Republicans voting for the
budget.
I think another reason why we
saw his plan come out this week,
if you recall at the beginning
of the week he said, okay, I'm
done trying cut a deal on
Medicaid expansion, it's not
going to work.
We're just going to move on.
Since Medicaid is so tied up
with the budget, you get moving
on the budget.
He puts his plan out.
These two issues are so
intertwined.
Late yesterday he scheduled an
up or down vote on the one
budget bill that contains
Medicaid expansion, widely seen
as a way for Speaker Tobin to
try to placate those
conservatives who want less.
Let them have their day, and
they will go into the committee
and kill that Medicaid expansion
bill on Tuesday -- Monday.
>> But that's the opinion.
We all know that even if it dies
in Appropriations, Heather
Carter has six, seven, eight,
10, depending on who you talk
to, Republicans to put it back
in on the floor.
This is part, as Mary Jo says,
this is part of the process.
Who are we placating?
Who are we patting on the head
saying, you've got your chance,
you don't have the votes, let's
finally move on.
>> If everyone knows it's not
going to make it out of
appropriations but it will make
it eventually, what keeps
Appropriations from just not
voting on anything?
>> They will probably take a
vote.
It'll be a vote to strip
Medicaid expansion from that
health budget bill.
Or they will vote it down
entirely.
Either way it doesn't matter, as
long as you have a bipartisan
coalition of however many
Republicans and Democrats you
need to get to 31 votes, they
can do anything they want on the
floor to revive that bill, to
add Medicaid expansion back in.
>> To your point, the committee
refuses to vote or doesn't vote
it out, the Speaker can withdraw
it from the committee or find
another vehicle.
He can put it through a
friendlier committee.
It isn't subject specific,
Appropriations is considering an
abortion bill, too.
Tell me what that has to do with
Appropriations.
>> The committee could muck up
the works here, couldn't they?
>> Three or four weeks ago now,
if you have a majority of the
chamber who wants to accomplish
something, there are any number
of ways they can do it.
If it doesn't get through
committee, you could use a
discharge petition, you could
just suspend the rules.
If you've got 31 votes you can
roll the Speaker or the chamber.
>> Rolling the Speaker.
Is he in the same situation here
or close to it?
>> Yeah, probably, because it's
unclear exactly where Speaker
Tobin will come down on Medicaid
expansion.
He can't vote for the Governor's
proposal as presented and they
might massage it a little in the
House.
We've yet to see that.
Also to your question, could the
committee muck this up, can they
kill Medicaid, sure.
As my colleague said, in a way
it doesn't matter.
It'll be a very entertaining
show and everybody will get
their whack at the pinata called
Medicaid expansion.
If they kill it, it can be
brought back and most assuredly
will be.
>> How unusual is it to have the
the president rolled, the
speaker possibly rolled?
>> Every few years we get these
unusual coalitions of folks who
are -- I don't want to call them
pragmatists, sometimes the
centrists, who find a way to
build a coalition on whatever
the issue is.
This goes back to the 1980s
where Alfredo Gutierrez, he
could put together the
coalitions.
So it happens.
Ideally the party likes to hang
together.
When you have people who are
true believers on either side,
you have the Carl Seals who
stand up every day in the House
to explain why it's the devil's
work, and you need to move on.
As long as the Governor won't
sign any other bills,
something's going to give.
>> What do we hear regarding the
Governor's office?
Are they watching and waiting?
>> Finally, after she vetoed
five bills they finally stopped
sending them.
Oh, is that what you meant by
moratorium.
>> They are all watching and
waiting.
It's now the 7th of June.
They know there's a deadline in
terms of a budget by the end of
the month.
I think their feeling is, look,
something will break free.
The Governor will want
something, we'll want something,
and we may end up sitting around
this table in two weeks talking
about a massive deal that
involves things we didn't even
know were in play.
>> As far as the Speaker again
deciding to do what he did when
he did it, does that show there
was maybe a little agreement, a
complete impasse?
I know he's speaking with the
governor's office trying to ease
some things with the Senate
plan.
No go?
>> No go.
No go whatsoever.
Spent three weeks trying to work
with the Governor's office to
see if there's any wiggle room
to amend Medicaid slightly.
For this issue I think Speaker
Tobin came to the realization
finally that the Senate
President came to weeks ago,
that there is no negotiating
with her on this issue.
>> Unless there was one other
factor in play.
The Senate did put on a couple
of small amendments.
They put on an expiration date,
something dealing with
uncompensated care.
If the House makes further
amendments it's got to go back
to the Senate.
The Governor does not want to
make another Senate vote.
While her press agent says, of
course we want to negotiate
reasonableness, the answer is,
go away.
>> How likely is it the House
comes up with something very
different than what we're seeing
right now?
>> I think on Medicaid they want
a few tweaks which I think could
be fix in the Senate if the
sponsor Medicaid expansion
there, the senator concurs.
But that's a pretty easy fix.
On the budget we keep hearing
there are things that didn't get
quite fixed in the Senate budget
that they could also do.
It could look a little different
but not significantly different
than what came out of the Senate
in mid May.
>> Relatively speaking, we're
talking nickels and dimes here,
except for the David Livingston
plan where he cuts $400 million.
There is not the political will
of the entire body to do that.
>> Are we expecting not only
activity, getting something done
here, but a flurry of other
bills flying across the
landscape?
>> Gosh, that's hard to say.
I'd say there's a 50/50 chance
once they pass the budget they
sine die and get the heck out.
>> This Medicaid expansion issue
has become so toxic I'm not sure
there's going to be a desire to
stick around and keep working on
the cleanup bills, which include
some of the Governor's
priorities, TPT reform.
>> Certainly the House Minority
Leader Chad Campbell, he's said
they are out of there.
What is so important that you've
got to stick around after these
toxic issues are dealt with.
>> The Democrats don't want the
election bill that changes the
initiative process.
They are not particularly
interested in the TPT reform as
the governor put it, the
religious freedom bill, quote,
unquote, they are not interested
in that.
For them, we're done.
>> But again, how unusual is it
to see -- these are pretty high
profile things.
The Governor went out ahead and
said the sales tax or TPT reform
is very important to her and her
office.
>> Well, this is the one issue
as you point out that has a
reason to do something.
Congress is moving ahead with
this Marketplace Fairness Act
which says, any state that has a
simplified sales tax system we
will let you impose taxes on the
internet sellers.
We don't have that.
There are ways of doing that
without the controversial
contracting stuff that has
driven the cities crazy.
Do they agree to simply deal
with that and go home?
Or will they figure, Congress
hasn't done the act yet, and we
haven't got a deal with Amazon,
so what's the rush?
>> They have been revived in
some new election reform bill.
But these things are so
controversial, so much
hand-wringing and gnashing of
teeth.
Let's just get out of here?
>> Some of the election reforms
are priorities for the Secretary
of State's office and the county
recorder, the people who run the
state elections.
They feel they really have to
have this, they have the votes
for it.
But now it's in the big mash-up
of a bill that does things like
allows -- it gets into the whole
attorney general conflict of
interest issue, who can return
your ballot, how many tickets
are needed, must a candidate
collect to get on.
There's something in there for
everyone to like and everyone to
hate.
Who knows which way that's going
to go.
>> It's a now or never issue.
Unless they pass it this year it
won't go into effect in time to
impact the elections of 2014.
Eight weeks they came to meet
together to settle the issue
with these election bills.
Seven weeks they canceled
because they were fighting
amongst themselves on how to do
it.
>> The reason a lot of these
bill measures were in the bill,
it stems from last fall's
election.
Remember the long lines and big
numbers of ballots which take
time to process.
>> You just need to do a lot
more voter education, people
don't live and breathe it like
those of us around this table
might do.
>> And the real chutzpah, if you
want to call it that, we want to
make it harder to put an
initiative on the ballot, they
want to cut the time.
They want to erect new legal
hurdles.
But by the way, in terms of us
getting on the ballot we don't
need quite as many signatures.
That's just amazing.
>> The fact that these bills,
measures, ideas, are all still
floating in the ether out there,
there are still some being held.
The Governor said don't send
them.
What's the legality of that?
Didn't we go through this a few
years ago?
>> The Governor did sue the
legislature for not sending her
bills.
In that case it was a budget
bill, and they didn't want to
send it because they knew she
was going to veto it.
She wanted to get it so she
could veto stamp it.
In this case there's a happy
understanding between the
speaker, the president and the
governor, I want you to be able
to get some work done.
I want you to continue to vote
in some manner on some of these
bills.
Maybe when the budget is passed
they can just send her a flurry
of bills.
>> As long as she's not going to
sue them again for breaking the
law --
>> That's the point.
Who's got standing to sue?
If the legislature is not suing
and the government is not suing,
it's not like Mary Jo can say, I
have an interest in this bill
going up on the floor.
Either they will with hold the
last vote, the last action, and
so somehow they think they may
have provided some cover.
Ben's right.
Nobody's interested in suing,
nobody want to make a stink out
of it.
It may run counter to the law,
but otherwise go ahead.
>> We went for a little period
there without even having a
budget.
Nobody sued over that and the
world did keep turning.
>> Who else would sue?
>> The only people is A, the
sponsor, or B, some other
legislation.
Maybe, but I don't think the
courts will entertain it.
Courts hate political
controversy and they try to stay
out of them.
>> Let's try to get some
groundwork here.
Next week, two weeks?
Sine die, is it on the horizon?
>> You're a fool if you try to
guess that, I'm not going to be
a fool.
But -- that said, as she walks
over the edge of the cliff, all
the tom-tom drums seem to be
suggesting they would have
controversial votes on drugs and
Medicaid.
We have to come back and do such
things as elections and tax
reform and religious freedom.
>> If it's a cleanup situation,
can it be next week?
>> It can be done.
If you take the Medicaid things
to Appropriations on Monday, you
still have to take the rest of
the budget bill maybe on
Tuesday.
If they work more than three
days a week, they could be out
by Friday.
Particularly if they make the
decision everything else isn't
that important.
>> Some say you have to pass the
religious freedom bill.
>> We just had a rally regarding
surprise searches.
>> This is a bill that came
nowhere.
>> The laws requiring a search
of a Planned Parenthood clinic,
an abortion clinic, has been in
effect for years.
Now it's been discovered, we
have this clinic in Phoenix that
may be doing something wrong.
I think to the extent that folks
really want to take this stuff
from scratch and tear this
apart?
>> Are we done by next week?
Or do we have another
legislative update with the
"Arizona Capitol Times" in two
weeks?
>> I think we'll be back in two
weeks.
It seemed so bright and hopeful
on today when it was firmly
announced that budget bills were
moved in the House.
Now we're only hearing one of
the budget bills on Monday.
They haven't scheduled the rest
of the budget bills for a
hearing yet.
>> And part of what's happening
is the Speaker and the keep is
bring in four, five, six of them
at a time, what does it take to
get you on a budget, what do we
need to do.
Republicans ideally, but at some
point even the Speaker realizes
you got to go home.
>> Before we go, I know John
Kavanagh has a couple of bills.
One of them including referring
back for a vote on the bathroom
bill.
What happened to those?
>> John made a big huff and puff
and beat on his chest and said,
look what I'm doing here.
The marijuana bill is in some
ways more interesting.
He passed by eight votes.
If it was put back on the ballot
in 2014, folks would defeat it.
Suddenly Republicans resist, you
future the marijuana bill on a
budget, who does that bring to
the polls?
Democrats.
>> Republicans can go to the
polls too.
>> It's hard to know, but there
aren't that many Libertarians
that are going to make that big
a difference.
Originally it was a crime to go
into a rest room where the sign
on the door didn't match your
plumbing.
Who's going to enforce that?
Then he said, we will make it so
a small business won't get sued
for violating an ordinance.
Some people said, come on, do we
want to get in the middle of
this?
They had this ordinance in 1999,
nobody brought it up.
This late in the game, they are
going to go by the wayside.
Will the final votes on budget
and Medicaid shut it all down?
That's the big question.
>> If they can work through
Saturday I think we can get out.
I love Ben's young optimism.
We'll beat that out of you.
>> Thank you so much for your
contribution.
I'm Ted Simons, thank you so
much for joining us.
You have a great weekend.