The Senate Democrats’ top negotiator showed last year there’s a friendlier way to write the budget. It helped that Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger had a good partner in Senate President Tim Bee. Both began their terms seven years ago; both are from southern Arizona. In a way, political realities also egged them on. The Republicans’ margin had shrunk after the 2006 elections and the person in charge of the executive tower was a Democrat. These realities are still present, but the situation last year was quite different. The state was not facing nearly a $1 billion in deficit. Today, lawmakers are starting the session with near unanimous agreement that budget cuts must be made, and that the cuts would be painful. Both Bee and Arzberger, however, vowed to continue the atmosphere of cooperation that marked last year’s budget talks. In this Jan. 3 interview, Arzberger discussed Arizona’s shaky revenue source, her plan of becoming a back-up country singer, and the dying era of the rancher-legislator.
Do you have any ideas why we face (the deficit)?
Oh, I think there is a very good reason. And I believe that some of the studies have pointed that out. Arizona bases its revenue on very volatile sources — income tax, corporate taxes and sales tax, and all of those are on specific economic situations. Now there are states — and the studies have recommended a broader-based revenue source spread over a larger population of people and it would be more steady in an economic downturn. But Arizona has not done that.
You say a broader base of revenue sources? What are these?
I would refer you to the Morrison Institute’s study on that. They were very specific on it.
What you are saying is the revenue sources that we have are subject to fluctuations.
High fluctuations and everyone is aware of this — that Arizona does not have a predictable source of revenue. So this is going to happen. We are going to not predict it correctly when something happens to the economy.
And if we continue to have this kind of a system, it’s going to happen again?
It will happen again.
You do have a $1 billion in deficit—
$970 million. It sounds better than a $1 billion. It really does. (Laughs)
How do you propose to solve it?
This is going to be a hard one. This is going to take a lot of hard work. Are you aware that the governor is releasing to the press or did release to the press her updated proposal? Okay, it’s more detailed than the earlier proposal. But the parts of that are some cuts and trimming in programs. You don’t do it just by agency. You have to do it by program. Some use of bonding capacity and some use of contingency funds, which is the Rainy Day fund. I think that’s the three parts (of the program). I would add to that, while we are examining the agencies, there are places where we could delay implementation. When we have to find some more money, we can consider suspending certain new programs but don’t cancel completely — just suspend them during this crisis, during this problem.
I understand that you are having small groups meetings with your caucus members?
We have completed that.
What’s the sentiment among those who have expressed their opinion? What’s the consensus that you see is forming as far as how to tackle the budget?
Our caucus members still stand behind many of the issues that our Democratic caucus has stood steady on for several years. And that is we want to make sure that those who need health care under the current programs are still going to be able to receive it, (those) who desperately need health care, and we want to make sure that our education system continues to be funded and we’d like to see some progress in that area. Now it may be possible to still show some progress this year in some important policy areas even though we are short of funds, and we don’t want to lose sight of that. We need to look at future projects in Arizona too, build that into our discussions of the budget.
Have you identified specific programs that Democrats, as a caucus, would want to protect or make sure, as much as possible, they do not get so drastic a cut?
 You know, the Senate caucus often does not make a public announcement of the issues that we protect. However, we’ve made a very detailed examination and some of the proposed cuts, of course, are not acceptable. Well, I can give you an example: We wouldn’t want to see the senior nutrition meals cut. There is an easy example for you. That would be one. We don’t want to see — the caucus itself does not want to see — any cuts in the funding for foster care children. It’s a small number of children, actually. But we wouldn’t want to see cuts in those.
These are welfare programs for the most vulnerable in society.
One of the jobs of government — not only do we protect our public safety, but also we need to protect our vulnerable citizens. America does not let our old people go hungry. And America does not let children who do not have a functional family out in the streets.
The New York Times ran an editorial a few weeks ago that blasted Arizona for enacting the employer sanctions law. Its central point is that should undocumented workers be purged from Arizona, they will take with them a big chunk of Arizona’s growth and economic vitality.
Did they want our workers? Is that the idea? New York? (Laughs).
The Times said that “Arizona’s plunge into enforcement-only immigration policy highlights the folly and inadequacy of that approach, particularly when it is left to a crazy quilt of state laws.” It said: “As Arizona exacts its punishment on the undocumented workers who have made it so prosperous, it runs the risk of proving itself tough but not smart.”
New York Times really gave it to Arizona, didn’t they?
Does this state need illegal immigrants?
That’s a no. This state needs legal workers — not illegal immigrants. We need workers. We are a growth state. We badly need workers.
And in your area, the need is specifically acute?
Yes it is — unless you just don’t love lettuce and vegetables and tomatoes and all those things.
What have the farmers told you now that the law has taken effect?
What they say is I can’t afford to plant chilies this year. I can’t afford it. I’m just not going to do it.
By the end of this session, you would be forced out of the Legislature because of term limits. This is your last session. Are you sorry to leave and would you have liked to stay a little more?
I haven’t left yet. I have got a whole year to go. So, I think we should have that discussion after we’re through this budget session. (Laughs).
Talking about term limits and the way they have affected the way things are done here, I’ve heard many complaints against term limits. Chuck Gray has this idea of changing the way of doing sunset review cycles to five and seven years from 10 years because you are not going to be here that long.
It should be changed and I think that our Congress was set up in a wise way because the Senate chamber has a longer term than the House chamber. That allows for the citizenry to make changes quickly
in the House but also allows for continuity and institutional knowledge. We need some of that here in Arizona to steady our process. And I will answer your question although it is far too early to do that because then I feel like I can leave, and I still have to work. I will have spent eight years. Prior to that my husband spent 16 years, which meant that we have been here in this service for 24 years by the time I left. Personally, we both feel that we worked our very hardest to do whatever we could do to help the state. But 24 years is enough service.
I take it to mean you are retiring at the end of the session from the Legislature?
I am. My latest offer is to sing backup in a country western band. (Laughs). That’s my latest offer.
That’d be awesome.
Well, I’ve got stage fright when it comes to singing. But I could maybe manage back up. They only play at historic festivals and special occasions. It’s not a Saturday night band… I’m told that I got to spend three months practicing on my guitar before I could do that.
Your background is in the academy, the farm, and the plane’s cockpit. Your husband was a former state senator himself. But what brought you into politics? What brought you into his world, so to speak?
Well, I was the first woman campaign manager for our college student president in 1956, it must have been. That’s right. It has been a while. I gave you the year to show you that — you see, women were not doing an active role then as much. And my candidate won and later went on to become president of the college. So I picked a good candidate. But that was my entry into politics.
You do see now — and I feel awkward asking this — a lot of women in leadership roles more so than ever. What are your thoughts on that?
Society evolves. I’ll tell you a fun thing. A radio announcer asked me one time — it was in a rural area and he says, ‘Do you think that you’re treated any differently as a woman?’ I was running for the Legislature at the time. And my answer to him was, ‘You know, when we go out and round up, I saddle my horse just like all those cowboys.’ So I don’t think so.
Did you like campaigning?
I did in prior years. Now it has changed. I don’t like it so much now.
Can you explain that to me?
In prior years, we actually went out and just talked to people, settled at the back of the pick-up. But when they increased the districts to close to 200,000 people, all of a sudden you can’t go meet them all. We used to drive down the road where the houses are a quarter mile apart in Greenlee County, which we had at the time. We drove down and knocked on the door and met all the people.
Now, you don’t like it too much anymore?
For one thing, people don’t gather like they did some years ago. Now, they don’t. You announce a candidate forum in town at city hall for example and nobody comes.
Is that right?
Yeah, because they are just going to get their news on TV.
Too bad.
It is too bad. I mean, there would be 20 to 30 some people, but not the 200 that you think ought to come.
What do you think caused that?
Well, it’s just hard for me to say. Campaigning has gone too much, so much use of media. In my district, that’s actually resented. But I notice that people don’t seem to want to be as personally involved in other things as well as politics, and that’s a shame because it’s important to each of them that they should be personally involved.
You are saying very clearly people now are less enthusiastic about the political life of the community, of the state?
And less involved and less interested in voting, and all of that’s unfortunate.
Do you blame politicians for that?
No, I don’t. I blame people for that.   
One of the things that we talked about at the beginning of last session was the era of the rancher-legislator, and the cowboy-legislator. Do you ever see this era coming to an end sooner than later?
Well, I think it’s coming now to an end.
Now?
Yes. Well, I read this — somebody did a good explanation, so it’s not just exactly my word — but it said people who come from the land are more often statesmen. They are concerned about the good of the whole state, and that’s what we are losing — people who come from the land.