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.