Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Mark Born:

So we are here today to take the funds from that veto, introduce legislation to return that money to the taxpayer. Basically we’re giving the governor a second chance to do the right thing.

Frederica Freyberg:

Republicans float another tax plan and a visit to Wisconsin from the First Lady focuses on health care as costs for ten Medicare drugs could soon deflate.

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” analysis of the new GOP tax proposal. Insights into the dysfunction on the state’s high court, the latest attempts to remove the elections administrator. And what kind of relief Medicare recipients can expect to see on drug prices. It is “Here & Now” for September 1.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Dueling tax and spend priorities out of the Capitol this week. Republican lawmakers want to use nearly three-quarters of the state’s 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 Rachael Cabral-Guevara says her constituents are telling her they’re struggling to make ends meet due to high prices for things like school supplies and other everyday purchases.

Rachael Cabral-Guevara:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

Governor Tony Evers says he would like to consider the plan but his office has concerns it 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 proposal, Jason Stein from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. Jason, thanks very much for being here.

Jason Stein:

My pleasure, thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

The retirement income exclusion up to $150,000 is new. What is your reaction to that proposal in this package?

Jason Stein:

It’s obviously something that could be a popular proposal. It is a group that has many vulnerable people in it. Also has many voters in it and that is something that is always in mind for politicians. At the same time, we are an aging state so 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.

Frederica Freyberg:

So is it something you think piques the governor’s interest?

Jason Stein:

You know, it is something that would affect people across the income span or people 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 has other priorities for the surplus.

Frederica Freyberg:

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?

Jason Stein:

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 billion. 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 and then we can worry about, you know, more minor technical issues like that.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, speaking of the best use of that money, the governor, of course, thinks one of the best uses would be his childcare, billion-dollar childcare package and giving more money to the UW system but the GOP came out with its own childcare package, which doesn’t address with a lot of money. It is more like —

Jason Stein:

Lowering regulations.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah, that kind of thing. That’s kind of a standoff here.

Jason Stein:

Sure.

Frederica Freyberg:

How do you think — how might that resolve?

Jason Stein:

Again, I think there are all the elements here for the two sides to reach some sort of a deal. I mean, they have, quite frankly, been more adept at doing that than I think some of us thought they would be. So both in terms of dialing down the tax cut, maybe dialing down what the governor wants from the childcare funding and then perhaps doing something on the regulation side for childcare. There might be some package here you could see that could bring the sides together and maybe leave the state with a healthy balance to weather any unforeseen 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 ideological bound that can’t be bridged.

Frederica Freyberg:

That is what we say today but in terms of the income tax reduction itself, the Senate co-sponsor says it would save the average Wisconsin taxpayer over $750 a year. What about those at the top of that bracket?

Jason Stein:

Again, this is going to be a package that is going to be pretty favorable to people at the upper end because again, it’s going to have its biggest effect for people that have the most income that’s subject to it. Obviously, you can have income for married couples just above $400,000. That being said, this is a package that is still providing something for lower and middle income taxpayers, particularly if they are retired. This is movement I would say on side of Republicans towards where Governor Evers had wanted. Just maybe not as much as he would like to see.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is it your sense the Senate leadership is not moving as quickly on this because they would like to see even more tax cuts?

Jason Stein:

That is potentially true. I think the Assembly has always been a more top-down driven house and that makes it a little bit easier for the leadership there 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 and then they just move to the head of the parade and start leading it but we will see.

Frederica Freyberg:

What kind of position does this put Governor Evers in because everybody likes a tax cut.

Jason Stein:

Absolutely. This is potentially very, you know, attractive to a big voting bloc. 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 Miller Park or American Family Field, the Brewers’ stadium, where they are going to need to come up with a deal and that potentially is going to cost money as well. I think he’s got to think about the big picture about what he needs to do over the next year and then try and come up with a compromise that fits.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We will be watching all of that. Jason Stein, thanks very much.

Jason Stein:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Turning to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, acrimony amongst justices has hit a fevered 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 Janet Protasiewicz was elected during a campaign where she said the current Republican legislative voting maps were “rigged” and “unfair.” Republicans want Protasiewicz to recuse from hearing a lawsuit over the maps and if she doesn’t, threaten to impeach her. A liberal law firm said in a court filing over the matter, “Unhappy with this electoral result which they could not prevent through gerrymandering, Republicans now seek to nullify the results and pick their justices.” This is just the latest Supreme Court dust-up in Wisconsin. A high court historically known as non-partisanship and collegial. When did it become a proxy for politics as usual? We turn to “Here & Now” senior political reporter Zac Schultz. Hi Zac.

Zac Schultz:

Hello Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

The idea of impeaching a Supreme Court justice seems farfetched but given the Republican majority, maybe not. Where is this right now?

Zac Schultz:

Right now it is still in the land of threats and allegations and questions about how far this will go but it could get serious very fast. The Assembly Republicans can certainly be happy to present this. They could likely get this passed thru their chamber. Whether it would actually go all the way thru the Senate and have all 22 Republicans in the Senate vote to impeach seems questionable, more questionable than whether the Assembly can 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 down a process to mean that perhaps these redistricting maps that are being 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 happen. Delay any changes to the maps that give them their power.

Frederica Freyberg:

Indeed. We think of this as a major and possibly, an unseemly kind of fight with major implications but it is not the first trouble the court has spilled into the public eye.

Zac Schultz:

Absolutely not. This court has had a troubled history. I think it is fair to say, for at least the last 15 to 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 dustups and allegations. I think the difference here is the speed at which some of these allegations are coming out. Over the past few years, most of this kind of snide remarks and sniping at each other has been done in the footnotes of decisions. The major decision will come out and then a justice in their commentary will take a pot shot or two at someone else they think should have agreed with them or saying how they don’t actually understand the law or the Constitution. Now this is happening at the speed of email, and that’s in part because the speed of the change is so much faster. Conservatives on the court and Republican supporters out in the public want this information out faster. They are releasing it faster. Instead of happening in the background and then coming out slowly over the course of time, we are getting it almost as it happens.

Frederica Freyberg:

I said historically the court was known to at least project non-partisanship and collegiality, when did that change?

Zac Schultz:

I think a lot of election observers will look back to 2007. That’s when there was an open seat on the court. It was Linda Clifford as liberal and Annette Zeigler, the current chief justice, running as a conservative for that seat. That was coming off a period of time where some of the court’s decisions really made a political impact. One of those was the lead paint decision that allowed a lot of manufacturers of paint to be sued. They did not like that. In that race Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the conservative business lobby, dumped a ton of money into that race and the first time we saw real heavy hitter outside political groups put a political slant that heavy onto a race and really impact the final margin. And then it just went from there. The next year we saw justice — became Justice Gableman — Mike Gableman run one of the most racist ads in history in defeating Justice Louis Butler and since then, these races have become more proxies for the parties. Before that, you saw candidates almost keep the parties at arm’s length, saying we don’t want your help, we don’t want to be endorsed by you. Justice Prosser at one point told me he wasn’t a conservative Republican anymore but conservative judicial philosopher and that was after he was the Assembly Republican speaker so people really tried to keep their distance from parties. But over the last decade, if you want to win you need the party apparatus to fund those ads and to use to get out the vote operations door-to-door. That’s become more and more clear in every election since then.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to Justice Protasiewicz, the other major issue she campaigned on, of course, was abortion rights. Couldn’t the current recusal impeachment battle just repeat if she is not sidelined first?

Zac Schultz:

You could see that. I think one difference between the issue of redistricting and abortion is redistricting actually threatens the power of Republicans to keep their majority. If maps change, they will lose seats. Everyone knows this. They will lose seats in the Senate. They will lose seats in the Assembly. Whether they lose their majorities isn’t clear. It depends on the maps, but they will lose seats. They will lose power. If the abortion situation changes, there are some conservatives who will make an argument that’s actually better for them, taking that issue perhaps off the table. We’ve seen what the issue of abortion has done to energize independent women, young voters, and even some moderate Republicans over the last couple of years. There are a lot of Republicans in this building that will publicly say they don’t want to see any abortion at all in Wisconsin but privately, they would be very happy to see that be a non-factor. If the Supreme Court did that for them, they wouldn’t feel bad, as long as they get to keep their majorities.

Frederica Freyberg:

In Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, justices themselves now get to decide whether to recuse. How does that factor here?

Zac Schultz:

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 in the Capitol, there will be a lawsuit filed at some point in the process saying this isn’t legal. You don’t have the rights to do that. You don’t have the grounds to do that. There will be people trying to throw a wrench into that process before it could potentially take Justice Protasiewicz off the bunch. Well, if there is a court case, then it will go up to the court and eventually, it could be Protasiewicz herself deciding 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 actually pass clear recusal rules and they declined. They always wanted it to be left up to individuals. Frankly, they have sat on plenty of cases that have involved their campaign donors and their supporters and people that have brought them through. Everyone in this building is connected to politics. Everyone who sits 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 them and engulfs them frankly in all these major decisions.

Frederica Freyberg:

Zac Schultz. Thanks very much. Appreciate it.

Zac Schultz:

Thanks Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of the Wisconsin Court, the question of whether 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 renomination to run the Elections Commission, except she hasn’t technically been renominated. Democrats called the hearing a sham. The room was full of election conspiracy theorists like Mike Gableman, who was called an embarrassment to the state by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos after Gableman’s election investigation cost the taxpayers millions of dollars and produced no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing. As to Wolfe and the Elections Commission, earlier this summer, the six members of WEC 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 Kaul lost in the Supreme Court in 2022 in which the high court ruled Fred Prehn could stay on Natural Resources Board past his term. The Republican Senate passed a resolution saying they considered 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.

Mark Spreitzer:

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.

Romaine Quinn:

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. And if it was by some — we knew this was going to happen, then we purposely wrote really bad legislation, which I don’t think was anyone’s intention.

Frederica Freyberg:

Ten life-saving prescription drugs could soon cost less for anyone enrolled in Medicare Part D, that’s roughly 1.1 million Wisconsinites. The first 10 drugs announced 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 Martin Hernandez. Thanks for being here.

Martin Hernandez:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

How meaningful is it that the federal government, for the first time, will able to negotiate these drug prices?

Martin Hernandez:

We know Americans have some of, if not the highest drug prices in the world. Being able to negotiate for these first 10 drugs is a historic first step really for all Americans but especially older 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.

Frederica Freyberg:

How much could this help lower out-of-pocket costs for these seniors?

Martin Hernandez:

We are looking at a potential reduction in the millions of dollars over all when we look at the total savings. Not just for these 10 drugs but then additional ones that will get added on to this plan in the future.

Frederica Freyberg:

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?

Martin Hernandez:

They reached out. There was a lot of public hearing sessions done in order to determine which are the 10 drugs that were going to be 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 drugs covered by this negotiation process.

Frederica Freyberg:

Because the White House fact sheet on this said for enrollees without additional financial assistance average annual out-of-pocket costs for these drugs were as high as nearly $6,500 per enrollee last year. What happens to people who simply cannot afford that?

Martin Hernandez:

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 of a pill when they should be taking a full dose for that day. Obviously, we know that has many detrimental effects to their health.

Frederica Freyberg:

It seems counterintuitive that seniors, many of them on fixed incomes, have to pay that kind of money for prescription drugs. What has been the reaction from your members to this?

Martin Hernandez:

They — I think this is — 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.

Frederica Freyberg:

So the negotiated prices don’t just help consumers on prescriptions. It represents savings for the Medicare program itself. Could that lead to lower premiums?

Martin Hernandez:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

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?

Martin Hernandez:

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.

Frederica Freyberg:

You know, it has always struck me that a lot of people think that seniors on fixed 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 seniors’ incomes.

Martin Hernandez:

No, no, especially one of the drugs announced as part of the program, Januvia, which is used to treat diabetes, the price for that prescription has gone up by 275% since it was introduced in 2006. We actually 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.

Frederica Freyberg:

Absolutely. Yet people should not expect this to go into effect until 2026.

Martin Hernandez:

2026 is the goal for getting this implemented. There are unfortunately lawsuits by the drug manufacturers. Our hope is that it doesn’t delay the 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 and then adding additional drugs.

Frederica Freyberg:

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.

Martin Hernandez:

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 their consumers.

Frederica Freyberg:

It is true too that the cost of insulin has been capped. What is that like for your members?

Martin Hernandez:

That was a big first step. Capping insulin. Now it is capped at $35 a month for folks who are on Medicare Part D. AARP is definitely supportive of expanding that to all Americans, allow everyone to access to that $35 a month cap on insulin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Because what was it? What were people having to pay?

Martin Hernandez:

They were paying upwards of three, four times the amount in order to access insulin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Obviously that is a life-saving drug.

Martin Hernandez:

It is a life-saving drug and one you can’t go without. I think for me that is the most important part is many of these prescriptions are the types you go on and you 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.

Frederica Freyberg:

Martin Hernandez, thanks very much.

Martin Hernandez:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.