THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A PBS
WISCONSIN ORIGINAL PRODUCTION.
>> SO WE ARE HERE TODAY TO TAKE
THE FUNDS FROM THAT ARE VETO,
INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO RETURN
THAT MONEY TO THE TAXPAYER.
BASICALLY GIVING THE GOVERNOR A
SECOND CHANCE TO DO THE RIGHT
THING.
>> REPUBLICANS FLOAT ANOTHER TAX
PLAN.
A VISIT TO WISCONSIN FROM THE
FIRST LADY FOCUSES ON HEALTH
CARE AS COSTS FOR TEN MEDICARE
THROWS COULD SOON DEFLATE.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG, TONIGHT
ON "HERE AND NOW".
ANALYSIS ON THE NEW GOP
PROPOSAL.
SENSES DYSFUNCTION, THE LATEST
ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE THE ELECTIONS
ADMINISTRATOR.
WHAT KIND OF RELIEF MEDICARE
RECIPIENTS CAN EXPECT TO SEE ON
DRUG PRICES.
IT IS "HERE AND NOW" FOR
SEPTEMBER 1ST.
>> FUND ING IS PROVIDED BY THE
FOCUS FUND FOR JOURNALISM AND
FRIENDS OF PBS WISCONSIN.
?
>> DUELING TAX AND SPEND
PRIORITIES OUT OF THE CAPITOL.
REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS WANT THE
USE NAERL THREE-QUARTERS OF THE
PROJECTED 4 BILLION SURPLUS TO
LOWER TAXES IN THE THIRD INCOME
BRACKET.
THE PROPOSAL WOULD REDUCE THE
TAX FROM 5.3% TO 4.4% FOR JOINT
FILERS EARNING BETWEEN 18,$420
AND $405,550 PER YEAR.
THE PLAN WOULD ALSO EXCLUDE THE
FIRST $150,000 OF A COUPLE'S
RETIREMENT INCOME FROM TAXES.
WHILE THE STATE ASSEMBLY MOVED
QUICKLY TO A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE PLAN, SENATE LEADERSHIP SAYS
ONLY THAT THE PROPOSAL IS UNDER
DISCUSSION.
BUT SENATE CO-SPONSOR OF THE TAX
CUT, REPUBLICAN RACHEL CABRAL
GUEVARA SAYS CONSTITUENTS ARE
STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET FOR
SCHOOL SUPPLIES AND EVERYDAY
PURCHASES.
>> ALL OF THESE LITTLE COSTS ARE
ADDING UP, ADDING UP, ADDING UP.
WE ARE SITTING ON ALL THIS MONEY
THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE
EARNED AND PAID IN.
IT NEEDS TO GO BACK.
>> GOVERNOR TONY EVERS SAYS HE
WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE PLAN
BUT HIS OFFICE HAS CONCERNS THAT
WOULD JEOPARDIZE MORE THAN 2
BILLION IN FEDERAL RELIEF FUNDS,
WHICH STATES ARE PROHIBITED FROM
USING TO OFFSET TAX REDUCTIONS.
HE ALSO WANTS REPUBLICANS TO
CONSIDER FUNDING HIS PRIORITIES
LIKE CHILDCARE AND THE
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.
HERE TO UNPACK THIS PROPOSALAL,
JASON STEI N FROM THE WISCONSIN
POLICY FORUM.
THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
>> MY PLEASURE, THANKS FOR
HAVING ME.
>> THE RETIREMENT INCOME
EXCLUSION UP TO 150 THOUSANDED
IS NEW.
WHAT IS YOUR REACTION IN THIS
PACKAGE?
>> IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING
THAT COULD BE A POPULAR
PROPOSALAL.
IT IS A GROUP THAT HAS MANY
VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN IT.
ALSO HAS MANY VOTERS IN IT.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALWAYS
IN LINE FOR POLITICIANS.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE AN
AGING STATE.
THAT MEANS THIS IS A VERY
LARGE-TICKET ITEM.
ALSO WE ARE A STATE THAT IS
TRYING TO RECRUIT YOUNGER
WORKERS.
SO TO THE EXTENT WE PUT IN A BIG
TAX BREAK FOR PEOPLE AT THE
UPPER END OF THE AGE SCALE, THAT
IS GOING TO BRING TENSION WITH
TRYING TO RECRUIT WORKERS AT THE
YOUNGER END.
>> SO IS IT SOMETHING THAT YOU
THINK PIQUES THE GOVERNOR'S
INTEREST?
>> YOU KNOW, IT IS SOMETHING
THAT WOULD AFFECT PEOPLE ACROSS
THE INCOME SPAN OR AT LOWER OR
MIDDLE INCOMES, SO THAT MAY MAKE
IT SOMEWHAT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO
HIM.
AT THE SAME TIME I THINK THE
SIZE OF THE PACKAGE IS PROBABLY
BEYOND WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO
SEE, GIVEN HE HAD OTHER
PRIORITIES FOR THE SURPLUS.
>> SO AS TO THE GOVERNOR, HIS
OFFICE SAYS THAT THIS INCOME TAX
REDUCTION PUTS IN JEOPARDY MORE
THAN $2 BILLION OF FEDERAL
RELIEF FUNDS BECAUSE THEY ARE
PROHIBITED BEING USED THIS WAY
AS TAX REDUCTION OFFSETS.
IS THAT STILL TRUE, TO YOUR
KNOWLEDGE?
>> YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S A
LEGITIMATE CONCERN THERE TO THE
LEVEL THAT THE STATE SHOULD LOOK
AT THAT CAREFULLY AND
POTENTIALLY CONSULT WITH THE
U.S. TREASURY ABOUT THAT.
AT THE SAME TIME WE DO HAVE A
SURPLUS, WE HAD A SURPLUS GOING
IN THIS BUDGET OF ROUGHLY 7
MILLION.
SO I THINK THE ARGUMENT COULD BE
MADE THAT THE STATE HAD FUNDS IN
ADDITION TO THE 2.5 BILLION WE
RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IN EXCESS OF THAT TO
MAKE TAX CUTS.
YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY
I THINK THE MAIN QUESTION HERE
FOR THE PUBLIC AND FOR ELECTED
OFFICIALS IS, WHAT IS THE BEST
AND HIGHEST USE OF THAT MONEY.
THEN WE CAN WORRY ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, MORE MINOR TECHNICAL
ISSUES LIKE THAT.
>> WELL, SPEAKING OF THE BEST
USE OF THAT MONEY, THE GOVERNOR,
OF COURSE, THINKS ONE OF THE
BEST USES WOULD BE HIS BILLION
DOLLAR CHILD CARE PACKAGE AND
GIVING MORE TO THE U PACKAGE BUT
THE GOP HAS ITS OWN PACKAGE,
WHICH DOESN'T ADDRESS WITH
MONEY; IT IS MORE LIKE --
>> REGULATIONS.
>> YEAH, THAT KIND OF THING.
THAT IS KIND OF STAND-OFF HERE.
>> SURE.
>> HOW DO YOU THINK THAT MIGHT
RESOLVE?
>> AGAIN, I THINK THERE ARE ALL
THE ELEMENTS HERE FOR THE TWO
SIDES TO REACH SOME SORT OF
DEAL.
THEY HAVE, QUITE FRANKLY, BEEN
MORE ADEPT AT DOING THAT THAN
SOME OF US THOUGHT THEY WOULD
BE.
SO BOTH IN TERMS OF DIALLING
DOWN THE TAX CUT, MAYBE DIALLING
DOWN WHAT THE GOVERNOR WANTS
FROM THE CHILD CARE FUNDING AND
PERHAPS THE REGULATION SIDE FOR
CHILD CARE.
THERE COULD BE A PACKAGE THAT
COULD BRING THE SIDES TOGETHER
AND LEAVE THE STATE WITH A
HEALTHY BALANCE TO WEATHER ANY
UNFORSEEN CHALLENGES THAT COME
UP.
I THINK IT IS REALLY A MATTER OF
POLITICAL WILL HERE.
I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY.
THERE IS NO IDEALOGICAL BRIDGE
THAT CAN'T BE BOUND.
>> THAF IS WHAT WE SAY BUT IN
TERMS OF THE PACKAGE THE SPONSOR
SAYS IT WOULD SAVE THE AVERAGE
TAXPAYER OVER $750 A YEAR.
WHAT ABOUT THOSE AT THE TOP OF
THAT BRACKET .
TABQ.
>> AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A
PACKAGE THAT IS GOING TO BE
PRETTY FAVORABLE TO THOSE AT THE
UPPER END.
IT WILL HAVE ITS BIGGEST EFFECT
FOR THOSE THAT HAVE THE MOST
INCOME SUBJECT TO IT.
OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN HAVE INCOME
FOR MARRIED COUPLES ABOVE
$$400,000.
THAT BEING SAID THIS IS STILL
PROVIDING INCOME FOR LOWER OR
MID TAXPAYER, PARTICULARLY IF
THEY ARE RETIRED.
THIS IS MOVEMENT I WOULD SAY ON
SIDE OF REPUBLICANS WHERE
GOVERNOR EVERS HAD WANTED.
JUST NOT AS MUCH AS HE WOULD
LIKE TO SEE.
>> IS IT YOUR SENSE THE SENATE
LEADERSHIP IS NOT MOVING AS
QUICKLY BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE
TO SEE EVEN MORE TAX CUT S?
>> THAT IS POTENTIALLY TRUE.
I THINK THE ASSEMBLY HAS ALWAYS
BEEN A MORE TOP-DOWN DRIVEN
HOUSE THAT. MAKES IT EASIER FOR
LEADER SHIP TO PROPOSE THINGS.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE PRACTICE OF
SENATE LEADERS TO KIND OF SIT
BACK AND WAIT AND SEE IF
EVERYONE CAN GET ON THE SAME
PAGE.
THEN THEY JUST MOVE TO THE HEAD
OF THE PARADE AND START LEADING
IT.
BUT WE WILL SEE.
>> WHAT KIND OF POSITION DOES
THIS PUT GOVERNOR EVERS IN?
EVERYBODY LIKES A TAX CUT.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THIS IS POTENTIALLY VERY, YOU
KNOW, ATTRACTIVE TO A BIG VOTING
BLOCK.
AT THE SAME TIME, HE'S HAD SOME
MOVEMENT IN HIS DIRECTION, SO I
THINK THERE'S POTENTIALLY AN
OPENING FOR HIM TO COME TO THE
OTHER SIDE AND SAY, WELL, YOU
KNOW, THIS ISN'T WHAT I WANT BUT
HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
CLOSER TO SEE IF THE TWO SIDES
-- THEY ALSO HAVE NOAH PARK OR
AMERICAN FAMILY FIELD, BREWER
STADIUM, WHERE THEY WILL NEED TO
COME UP WITH A DEAL.
THAT POTENTIALLY WILL COST AS
WELL.
I THINK HE'S GOT TO THINK ABOUT
THE BIG PICTURE ABOUT WHAT HE
NEEDS TO DO OVER THE NEXT YEAR
AND COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE
THAT FITS.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL BE WATCHING ALL THAT.
JASON STEIN, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>>> TURNING TO THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT, ACRIMONY AMONG
JUSTICES HAS HIT A FEVER PITCH
IN RECENT WEEKS.
>> WITH THE LIBERAL WING NEWLY
IN THE MAJORITY CONSERVATIVES
ARE EXPRESSING THE STING OF
BEING IN THE 4-3 MINORITY.
THERE ARE ACTIONS CAUSING THE
IN-FIGHTING LIKE THE LIBERAL
JUSTICES FIRING AND REPLACING A
COURT DIRECTOR.
BUT THE ESSENTIAL OUTRAGE FOR
CONSERVATIVES HAS TO DO WITH THE
FACT THAT NEW LIBERAL JUSTICE
JAN
JANUARY P. WAS EL ELECTEDED
WHERE SHE SAID THE VOTING MAPS
WERE RIGGED AND UNFAIR.
REPUBLI
REPUBLICANS HER TO RECUSE OVER
THE MAPS AND IF SHE DOESN'T
THREATEN TO IMPEACH HER.
A LIBERAL LAW FIRM SAID IN A
COURT FILING OVER THE MATTER,
QUOTE, UNHAPPY WITH THIS
ELECTORAL RESULT WHICH THEY
COULD NOT PREVENT THROUGH
GERRYMANDERING, REPUBLICANS SEEK
TO NULLIFY THE RESULTS AND PICK
THEIR JUSTICES.
THIS IS JUST THE LATEST PRECINCT
DUST-UP IN WISCONSIN.
A HIGH COURT HISTORICALLY KNOWN
AS NON-PARTISANSHIP AND COLLIE
JAL.
WHEN DID IT BECOME A PROXY FOR
POLITIC S? WE TURN TO ZAK, OUR
CORRESPONDENT.
>> HELLO.
>> THE IDEA OF IMPEACHING A
JUSTICE SEEMS FARFETCHED BUT
GIVEN THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY,
MAYBE NOT.
WHERE IS THIS RIGHT NOW?
>> NOW IT IS IN THE LAND OF
THREATS AND ALLEGATIONS AND
QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW FAR THIS
WILL GO.
IT COULD GET SERIOUS VERY FAST.
THE ASSEMBLY REPUBLICANS COULD
PASS THIS AND LIKELY GET PASSED
IN THE CHAMBER.
WHETHER IT GO TO THE SENATE AND
HAVING ALL IN THE SENATE VOTE TO
IMPEACH SEEMS MORE QUESTIONABLE
THAN WHETHER THE ASSEMBLY COULD
DO IT.
BUT THEN THERE'S QUESTIONS OF
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MEANTIME.
EVEN IF THERE IS IMPEACHMENT
CHARGES BROUGHT FORWARD IS THAT
ENOUGH TO THROW ENOUGH CHAOS OR
SLOW A PROCESS THAT PERHAPS
REDISTRICTING MAPS TALKED ABOUT,
IF THE COURT TAKES THE CASE, MAY
NOT BE IN EFFECT UNTIL AFTER
2024, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT
REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO SEE
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.
DELAY CHANGES TO MAPS THAT GIVE
THEM THEIR POWER.
>> INDEED.
WE THINK OF THIS AS A MAJOR
IMPOSSIBLY AND UNSEEMLY KIND OF
FIGHT WITH MAJOR IMPLICATIONS
BUT IT IS NOT THE FIRST TROUBLE
THE SUPREME COURT HAS SPILLED
INTO THE PUBLIC EYE.
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THIS COURT HAS HAD A TROUBLED
HISTORY, I THINK IT IS FAIR TO
SAY, THE LAST 15, 16 YEARS.
WE HAD ONE JUSTICE ACCUSED OF
CHOKING ANOTHER JUSTICE INSIDE
THE CAPITOL.
THAT WENT ALL THE WAY BACK UP TO
THE COURT OF WHETHER HE SHOULD
LOSE HIS SEAT IN THAT CASE.
SO THERE HAVE BEEN ALL SORTS OF
DUST-UPS AND ALLEGATIONS.
I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THE
SPEED OF WHICH SOME OF THESE
ALLEGATIONS ARE COMING OUT.
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS MOST OF
THIS KIND OF SNIDE REMARKS AND
SNIPPING AT EACH OTHER HAS BEEN
DONE IN THE FOOTNOTES OF
DECISIONS.
THE MAJOR DECISION WILL COME
OUT.
THEN A JUSTICE IN THEIR
COMMENTARY WILL TAKE A POT SHOT
OR TWO AT SOMEONE ELSE THEY
THINK SHOULD AGREE WITH THEM OR
SAYING HOW THEY DON'T ACTUALLY
UNDERSTAND THE LAW OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
NOW THIS IS HAPPENING AT THE
SPEED OF E-MAIL, IN PART BECAUSE
THE SPEED OF THE CHANGE IS SO
MUCH FASTER.
CONSERVATIVES ON THE COURT AND
REPUBLICAN SUPPORTERSES OUT IN
THE PUBLIC WANT THIS INFORMATION
NOW FASTER.
THEY ARE RELEASING IT FASTER.
INSTEAD OF HAPPENING IN THE
BACKGROUND AND COMING OUT SLOWLY
OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, WE ARE
GETTING IT ALMOST AS IT HAPPENS.
>> I SAID HISTORICALLY THE COURT
WAS KNOWN TO AT LEAST PROJECT
NON-PARTISANSHIP COLLEGIALITY,
WHEN DID THAT CHANGE?
>> A LOT WILL LOOK BACK TO 2007
WHEN THERE WAS AN OPEN SEAT.
LINDA CLIFFORD AS LIBERAL AND
ANNETTE ZEIGLER, THE CURRENT
JUSTICE RUNNING AS A
CONSERVATIVE FOR THAT SEAT,
COMING OFF A PERIOD WHERE SOME
OF THE COURT'S DECISIONS MADE A
POLITICAL IMPACT.
ONE WAS THE LEAD PAINT IMPACT
WHICH ALLOWED A LOT OF PAINT
MANUFACTURERS TO BE SUED.
THEY DID NOT LIKE THAT.
IN THAT RACE WISCONSIN
MANUFACTURERS IN COMMERCE, THE
BUSINESS LOBBY, DUMPED A TON OF
MONEY INTO THAT RACE AND THE
FIRST TIME WE SAW HEAVY HITTER
GROUPS PUT A POLITICAL SLANT ON
A RACE AND IMPACT THE FINAL
MARGIN.
IT WENT FROM THERE.
THE NEXT YEAR WE SAW JUSTICE --
BECAME JUSTICE GABLE RUN ONE OF
THE MOST RACIST ADDS IN HISTORY
IN DEFEATING BUTLER AND SINCE
THEN THEY HAVE BECOME MORE
PROXIES FOR PARTIES.
BEFORE THAT YOU SAW CANDIDATES
KEEP PARTIES ALMOST AT ARM'S
LENGTH SAYING WE DON'T WANT YOUR
HELP OR ENDORSED BY YOU.
JUSTICE PROSSER AT ONE POINT
TOLD ME HE WASN'T A CONSERVATIVE
REPUBLICAN ANYMORE BUT
CONSERVATIVE JUDICIAL
PHILOSOPHER AFTER HE WAS THE
ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN SPEAKER SO
PEOPLE REALLY TRIED TO KEEP
DISTANCE FROM PARTIES.
BUT OVER THE LAST DECADE IF YOU
WANT TO WIN YOU NEED THE PARTY
APPARATUS TO FUNDS THOSE ADS AND
USE TO GET OUT THE VOTE
OPERATIONS DOOR-TO-DOOR.
THAT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE
CLEAR IN EVERY ELECTION SINCE
THEN.
>> AS TO JUSTICE P. THE OTHER
COMPANY WAS ABORTION RIGHTS.
COULDN'T THE CURRENT RECUSAL
IMPEACHMENT BATTLE REPEAT IF SHE
IS NOT SIZE LINED FIRST?
>> YOU COULD SEE THAT.
I THINK ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
ISSUE OF REDISTRICTING AND
ABORTION IS REDISTRICTING
ACTUALLY THREATENS POWER OF
REPUBLICANS TO KEEP THEIR
MAJORITY.
IF MAPS CHANGE, THEY WILL LOSE
SEATS.
EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
THEY WILL LOSE SEATS IN THE
SENATE AND ASSEMBLY.
WHETHER THEY LOSE THE MAJORITY
ISN'T CLEAR, DEPENDS ON THE
MAPS, BUT WILL LEASE SEATS AND
POWER.
IF THE ABORTION SITUATION
CHANGES THERE ARE SOME
CONSERVATIVES SAYING THAT IS
BETTER, PERHAPS TAKING THAT
ISSUE OFF THE TABLE.
WE HAVE SEEN WHAT THE ISSUE OF
ABORTION HAS DONE TO ENERGIZE
INDEPENDENT YOUNG WOMEN, YOUNG
VOTERS, MODERATE REPUBLICANS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF REPUBLICANS
IN THIS BUILD ING THAT WILL
PUBLICLY SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO
SEE ABORTION IN WISCONSIN
PROOI
PRIVATELY IN NON-FACTOR.
IF THE SUPREME COURT DID THAT
THEY WOULDN'T FEEL BAD IF THEY
KEPT MAJORITIES.
>> IN THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
THEMSELVES NOW GET TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO RECUSE.
HOW DOES THAT FACTOR HERE?
>> WELL, IT FACTORS IN THAT WE
DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN
IMPEACHMENT PROCESS COMING
FORWARD, WE DON'T KNOW WHERE
THAT WILL GET STALLED.
MORE THAN LIKELY LIKE EVERYTHING
ELSE, THERE WILL BE A LAWSUIT
FILED AT SOME POINT SAYING THIS
ISN'T LEGAL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE
RIGHTS TO DO THAT OR THE GROUNDS
TO DO THAT.
THERE WILL BE PEOPLE TRYING TO
THROW A WRENCH WOULD IT COULD
POTENTIALLY TAKE JUSTICE
PROTASIEWICZ OFF THE BUNCH.
IT COULD GO TO THE COURT AND
COULD BE PROTASIEWICZ SAYING
WHETHER OR NOT TO RECUSE HERSELF
FROM A CASE THAT WOULD REFLECT
ON HER.
WE'VE SEEN THAT IN THE PAST.
THE CONSERVATIVE NOW MINORITY
HAD OPTIONS IN THE PAST TO PASS
CLEAR RECUSAL RULES AND
DECLINED.
THEY ALWAYS WANTED TO BE LEFT UP
TO INDIVIDUALS.
FRANKLY, THEY HAVE SAT ON PLENTY
OF CASES THAT INVOLVED THEIR
CAMPAIGN DONORS AND THEIR
SUPPORTERS AND PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BROUGHT THEM THROUGH.
EVERYONE IN THIS BUILDING IS
CONNECTED TO POLITICS.
EVERYONE ON THE BENCH IS
CONNECTED TO POLITICS IN ONE WAY
OR THE OTHER.
WHILE THEY SIT IN CHAMBERS THEY
WANT TO BE NON-PARTISANSHIP BUT
THAT IS NOT THE REALITY OF
POLITICS THAT SURROUNDS AND
ENGULFS THEM IN ALL THE
DECISIONS.
>> ZAK THANKS, APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANKS.
>>> SPEAKING OF THE SUPREME
COURT THE QUESTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WISCONSIN
ELECTIONS COMMISSION WILL KEEP
HER JOB WILL LIKELY BE DECIDED
IN THE COURTS.
>> REPUBLICANS IN THE
LEGISLATURE WANT TO SEE MEAGAN
WOLFE REMOVED FROM HER POSITION.
THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING THIS
WEEK ON HER RE-NOMINATION TO RUN
THE ELECTIONS COMMISSION.
EXCEPT SHE HASN'T TECHNICALLY
BEEN RENOMINATED.
DEMOCRATS CALL THE HEARING A
SHAM.
THE ROOM WAS FULL OF ELECTION
CONSPIRACY THEORISTS LIKE MIKE
GABALMAN, CALLED EMBARRASSMENT
TO THE STATE BY ASSEMBLY SPEAKER
ROBIN VOS AFTER THE ELECTION
INVESTIGATION COST THE TAXPAYERS
M
MILLIONS AND PRODUCED NO
EVIDENCE OF FRAUD OR WRONGDOING.
AS TO WOLFE AND ELECTIONS
COMMISSION, EARLIER THIS SUMMER
THE SIX MEMBERS OF WEK HELD A
VOTE TO RENOMINATE WOLFE FOR THE
JOB.
THE THREE REPUBLICANS VOTED YES,
HOPING TO SEND HER NAME TO THE
REPUBLICAN SENATE WHERE THE GOP
SAID THEY WOULD VOTE HER DOWN.
EFFECTIVELY FIRING HER.
BUT THE THREE DEMOCRATS ON THE
COMMISSION ABSTAINED FROM VOTING
AND SINCE STATE LAW REQUIRES
FOUR VOTES FOR A NOMINATION,
WOLFE IS ABLE TO CONTINUE TO
STAY ON, EVEN AS HER TERM HAS
EXPIRED.
DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
KAUL ADVISED WOLFE NOT TO ATTEND
THE HEARING, CITING A CASE
CALLED BAWSON IN 2022 IN WHICH
THE HIGH COURT RULED FRED PREHN
COULD STAY ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BOARD PAST HIS TERM .
THE REPUBLICAN SNALT SENATE
PASSED RESOLUTION SAYING WOLFE
RENOMINATED AND CALLED THE
HEARING.
DEMOCRATS SAY THE FIX IS TO
CHANGE THE LAW MAKING IT CLEAR
APPOINTED OFFICIALS HAVE TO STEP
DOWN WHEN THEIR TERM EXPIRES.
>> I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY IN
TERMS OF THE LEGISLATURE, GIVING
AWAY ITS AUTHORITY, WE ARE THE
ONES THAT EMPOWERED THE
SIX-MEMBER BIPARTISAN COMMISSION
WITH THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE
FIRST SAY IN THE PROCESS OF
APPOINTING AN ADMINISTRATOR.
THEY HAVE TAKEN A VOTE AND THEY
HAVE NOT MADE A NOMINATION.
SO IF WE DON'T LIKE THAT, WE ARE
WELCOME TO CHANGE STATUTE BUT
THAT IS THE STATUTE THIS
LEGISLATURE CREATED.
>> JUST UNFORTUNATE WE ARE GOING
TO WIND BACK UP IN COURT FOR
TRYING TO EXERCISE OUR OWN
AUTHORITY.
IT WAS NEVER INTENDED THIS TO
PLAY OUT THIS WAY.
FIT WAS BY SOME -- WE KNEW THIS
WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, WE
PURPOSELY WROTE REALLY BAD
LEGISLATION, WHICH I DON'T THINK
WAS ANYONE'S INTENTION.
>> TEN LIFE-SAVING PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS COULD SOON COST LESS FOR
ANYONE ENROLLED IN MEDICARE PART
D, ROUGHLY 1.1 WISCONSINITES.
THE FIRST TREAT BLOOD CLOTS,
DIABETES, HEART FAILURE, CHRONIC
KIDNEY DISEASE, BLOOD CANCERS
AND MORE.
ADDITIONAL DRUGS TO BE
NEGOTIATED ARE EXPECTED.
THE ACTION STEMS FROM PART OF
THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT,
WHICH WILL ALLOW THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TO NEGOTIATE PRICES
WITH MANUFACTURERS FOR THE FIRST
TIME.
MEDICARE CURRENTLY SPENDS
$135 BILLION ON PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS ANNUALLY.
THE SAVINGS WILL ALLOW IT TO
SHORE UP FINANCES ACCORDING TO
THE AARP AND EVENTUALLY LEAD TO
LOWER PART D PREMIUMS.
FOR MORE WE ARE JOINED BY AARP
WISCONSIN DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY,
M
MARTIN HERNANDEZ.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> HOW MEANINGFUL THAT THE
GOVERNMENT CNEGOTIATE DRUG
PRICES?
>> WE KNOW AMERICANS HAVE SOME
IF NOT THE HIGHEST DRUG PRICES
IN THE WORLD.
BEING ABLE TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE
FIRST TEN DRUG S IS A HISTORIC
FIRST STEP REALLY FOR ALL
AMERICANS BUT ESPECIALLY HOLDER
AMERICANS, WHO WE ALREADY KNOW
ARE ON A FIXED INCOME IN MANY
CASES.
AND A LOT OF TIMES THEY ARE THE
ONES TAKING THE MAJORITY OF
THESE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
>> HOW MUCH COULD THIS HELP
LOWER OUT-OF-POCKET CO- S FOR
SENIORS?
>> WE ARE LOOKING FOR REDUCTION
IN TENS OF MILLIONS WHEN WE LOOK
AT THE TOTAL SAVINGS.
NOT JUST FOR THESE TEN DRUGS BUT
ADDITIONAL ONES THAT WILL GET
ADDED ON TO THIS PLAN IN THE
FUTURE.
>> BECAUSE THESE DRUGS ARE THE
KINDS OF DRUGS THAT MANY, MANY
SENIORS TAKE FOR THINGS, AS WE
DESCRIBED, LIKE BLOOD CLOTS AND
HEART DISEASE AND THAT KIND OF
THING.
SO THEY CHOOSE THESE DRUGS IN
PARTICULAR?
>> THEY REACHED OUT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC
HEARING SESSIONS DONE IN ORDER
TO DETERMINE WHICH WERE THE TEN
DRUGS INCLUDED ON THIS FIRST
BATCH.
THAT WILL CONTINUE HAPPENING AS
THEY ADD MORE AND MORE DRUGS.
THERE WILL BE 15 MORE ADDED IN
2027, HOPEFULLY, WITH ANOTHER 20
ADDED TO THE NEGOTIATION BY
2029, GETTING US UP TO POTENTIAL
60 COVERED BY THIS NEGOTIATION
PROCESS.
>> THE WHITE HOUSE FACT SHEET
SAID ENROLL LEES AVERAGE
OUT-OF-POCKET WERE NAERL 6,$500
PER ENROLL LEE LAST YEAR.
WHAT HAPPENS TO PEOPLE WHO
SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD THAT?
>> WELL, THE UNFORTUNATE
CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HAPPENS IS,
MANY SENIORS EITHER WILL GO
WITHOUT THEIR PRESCRIPTION OR
THEY WILL RATION IT OUT, WHERE
THEY MIGHT TAKE HALF A PILL WHEN
SHOULD BE TAKING A FULL DOSE FOR
THAT DAY.
OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THAT HAS MANY
DETRIMENTAL AFFECTS TO THEIR
HEALTH.
>> IT SEEMS COUNTER-INTUITIVE
THAT SENIORS, MANY ON FIXED
INCOMES, HAVE TO PAY THAT KIND
OF MONEY FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
WHAT HAS BEEN THE REACTION FROM
YOUR MEMBERS TO THIS?
>> I THINK THIS WAS AN EXCITING
FIRST STEP.
MANY OF THEM KNOW EXACTLY HOW
MUCH OF AN EFFECT THIS WILL HAVE
ON THEIR POCKETBOOK AND THEY ARE
EXCITED TO CONTINUE THE FIGHT TO
BRING MORE AND MORE DRUGS INTO
THE PRICE NEGOTIATED SCALE.
>> SO THE NEGOTIATED PRICES
DON'T JUST HELP CONSUMERS ON
PRESCRIPTIONS.
IT REPRESENTS SAVINGS FOR THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM ITSELF.
COULD THAT LEAD TO LOWER
PREMIUM S?
>> THAT IS THE HOPE.
IS THAT AS WE BRING THE COST OF
MEDICARE DOWN, THAT IT LEADS TO
LOWER COSTS OVERALL IN ALL
SECTORS OF THE HEALTH CARE
FIELD.
>> GIVEN THAT THE NUMBER OF --
THE DEMOGRAPHICS ARE SUCH THAT
THE OLDER POPULATION IS GROWING.
THERE'S ALWAYS DISCUSSION ABOUT
MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY.
IF THE NEGOTIATED DRUG PRICES
KIND OF SHORE UP MEDICARE, WOULD
YOU IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD
ACTUALLY LOWER THE PREMIUMS, OR
WOULD THEY JUST KIND OF USE IT
TO MAINTAIN THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
ITSELF?
>> I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE
THE NEXT BIG CONVERSATION WE
HAVE.
THAT'S THE WORK WE ARE DOING, IS
GETTING FOLKS ACTIVE IN THEIR
POLITICAL PROCESS SO WHEN THAT
DECISION COMES, WE CAN HAVE AN
ACTIVE VOICE AT THE TABLE.
>> YOU KNOW, IT HAS ALWAYS
STRUCK ME THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
THINK THAT SENIORS ON FIX T
INCOMES, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY
FOR MEDICARE.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR
THEIR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.
BUT ACTUALLY THOSE PREMIUMS ARE
QUITE HIGH, GIVEN MANY SENIOR'S
INCOMES.
>> NO, NO.
ESPECIALLY ONE OF THE DRUGS
ANNOUNCED AS PART OF THE
PROGRAM, JENUVIA, USED TO TREAT
DIABETES, THE PRICE HAS GONE UP
LIKE 275% SINCE INTRODUCED IN
2006.
WE HAVE 11,000 WISCONSINITES ON
MEDICARE WHO TAKE THAT DRUG.
SO HAVING THAT PRICE COME DOWN
ANY AMOUNT IS GOING TO MAKE A
BIG IMPACT FOR THOSE 11,000
WISCONSIN RESIDENTS.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
YET PEOPLE SHOULD NOT EXPECT
THIS TO GO INTO AFFECT UNTIL
2026.
>> 2026 IS THE GOAL.
THERE ARE UNFORTUNATELY LAWSUITS
BY THE DRUG MANUFACTURERS.
THE HOPE IS IT DOESN'T DELAY
IMPLEMENTATION.
IT'S BEEN LONG COMING, THIS
RELIEF FOR ALL AMERICANS.
ESPECIALLY OLDER AMERICANS.
AND OUR HOPE IS THAT COME 2026
WE CAN START ROLLING OUT THE
PLAN THEN ADDING ADDITIONAL
DRUGS.
>> SO THERE ARE LAWSUITS ON THE
PART OF DRUG MAKERS OVER THESE
NEGOTIATING THESE PRICES.
BUT COULDN'T THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SAY, WELL FINE, YOU
DON'T WANT TO DO THIS THEN YOU
ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE -- YOU
KNOW, YOU CAN'T BE PART OF THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
>> THAT IS ONE OPTION THEY HAVE.
WE ARE HOPING THAT IT DOESN'T
HAVE TO COME TO THAT MUCH OF A
HEAD-OFF.
THE DRUG MANUFACTURERS CAN STILL
MAKE A HEALTHY PROFIT.
THAT IS OUR STANCE IS THAT EVEN
WITH THESE NEGOTIATED PRICES,
THEY CAN STILL MAKE A HEALTHY
PROFIT, INNOVATE ON NEW DRUGS
WHILE STILL PROVIDING AGAIN THAT
LOWER COST FOR CONSUMERS.
>> IT IS TRUE THAT THE COST OF
INSULIN HAS BEEN CAPPED.
WHAT IS THAT LIKE FOR YOUR
MEMBER S?
>> THAT WAS A BIG FIRST STEP.
CAPPING INSULIN.
NOW IT IS CAPPED AT $35 A MONTH
FOR FOLKS ON MEDICARE PART B.
AARP IS SUPPORTIVE OF EXPANDING
THAT TO ALL AMERICAN, ALLOW
EVERYONE TO ACCESS TO THAT $35 A
MONTH CAP ON INSULIN.
>> WHAT WAS IT?
WHAT WERE PEOPLE HAVING TO PAY?
>> THEY WERE PAYING UPWARDS
THREE, FOUR TIMES THE AMOUNT TO
ACCESS INSULIN.
>> OBVIOUSLY THAT IS A
LIFE-SAVING DRUG.
>> IT IS A LIFE-SAVING DRUG AND
ONE YOU CAN'T GO WITHOUT.
FOR ME THAT IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT PART.
MANY OF THE PRESCRIPTIONS ARE
THE TYPES YOU GO ON AND HAVE TO
STAY ON IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN A
HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.
IT IS NOT SOMETHING SOMEONE CAN
TAKE AND, AGAIN, EITHER TAKE
LESS OR RATION OUT THEIR
PRESCRIPTION.
>> MARTIN HERNANDEZ, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN VISIT
PBSWISCONSIN.ORG AND CLICK ON
THE NEWS TAB.
THAT IS OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
?
FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS WISCONSIN.