For Arizona legislators, 2009 will be a year of change. Chief among those changes are a changing of the guard in leadership, as Gov. Janet Napolitano will be replaced by Secretary of State Jan Brewer. In the House of Representatives, the mantle of leadership has been given to Kirk Adams, who takes the reins from four-year speaker Jim Weiers.
Adams, himself, envisions installing his own changes in the House. He wants to move budget creation from the back-room negotiations that have become commonplace in recent years and he also wants lawmakers to be more collegial, a departure from the often acrimonious legislative sessions of past years.
Adams spoke briefly with Arizona Capitol Times Jan. 12, just a few hours after he was sworn in and officially elected speaker of the House of Representatives of the 49th Legislature.
Can you cut through the entire budget problem the state faces? What is the appropriate way to solve this?
When you look at 2009, there’s very few options besides cutting. You can’t raise revenues, even if you wanted to do that. You can’t raise them fast enough to affect ’09.
The accounting gimmicks only work when you have cash. As we’ve heard from the state treasurer, our cash position is rapidly deteriorating. So, we are literally left with very few options, (except) for suspensions of spending or reductions in spending.
OK, but where do you make the cuts. It’s a nice platitude to say, “We need to cut government spending,” but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of the budget, what are you going to do?
Literally, I think every major area of the budget is going to have to see reductions, and in some cases, very major reductions. I don’t think you’ll find a single area of the budget that is spared. We could name what all of those areas are, but if you look at the big ones, there will be reductions in K-12. There will be reductions in universities. There will be reductions at (the Department of) Corrections. The list goes on and on and on. The problem’s too big and the time is too short. You have to go where the money is.
Do you see any areas where you’ll try to cut as little as possible, or where you’ll try to be more careful in your cuts?
Any time you look at anything dealing with education and public safety, you have to be very careful. But the state is in a very precarious financial position. I’ve said this numerous times and I’ll say it again: It’s not that we want to do this. It’s not about ideology, it’s about math. We have a constitutional requirement to balance the budget, so that’s what we’re going to do.
You’ve said permanently repealing the state property tax that was suspended in 2006 is a top priority, but that actually adds $250 million on to the deficit by not allowing that revenue to be collected. Is that wise, considering the “very precarious financial position” you just said the state is in?
One of the biggest challenges you have as essentially the board of directors of the state of Arizona is you have to account for every area of responsibility. Now, we’re not only responsible for state government finances, we’re also responsible for an economic environment that can grow and provide good-paying jobs and so forth.
The worst thing we could do right now is to pass — or to allow to come into play — the largest property tax increase in state history. It would be devastating to businesses at a time when they’re just trying to get things rolling.
It doesn’t add to the 2009 deficit. Had we (decided to) allow it to come back, it would add to the state coffers in 2010, but it does nothing to help our economy. In fact, it hurts it.
Both the House and Senate are talking about doing their budgets in the Appropriations committees. Does that set the stage for competing budgets between the chambers?
I’m sure that’s a possibility. With the committee process, you can’t predict exactly what’s going to happen. It’s important, though, that we remain committed to doing the budget in the committee process. Senator Burns and I have a very strong agreement — an affinity — for the Appropriations Committee. We’ll see how it rolls out once it gets out of those committees.
One of the points you’ve made since winning the speaker election is that conservative legislators need to be careful they aren’t approaching the budget deficit with glee. Why?
The reason that’s important is because people have to understand that we’re taking this job seriously, that we’re approaching this not because we want to, but because we have to. If we do it that way, we’ll have much more success.
What kind of a role will Democrats play, given their diminished numbers in the House?
The Democrats really are going to get to pick the role they want to play. They will be a part of the process if they choose to be a part by participating and finding ways to reduce spending and balance the budget. If they choose to vote “no” on any budget, they will automatically make themselves irrelevant.
All indications are right now that they want to be relevant, they want to be part of this. They certainly will have a fair and open process, as much as possible. But, really, they’re the ones that get to choose.
There was a rumor that the Republicans were going to present the Democrats with $2 billion in cuts and allow the Democrats to say which $300 million or so in identified cuts they wanted to keep. Will that be their involvement?
I haven’t heard anything like that.
On to CPS — you get to control the agenda now, so what do you have in mind?
This is an area of real concern. I believe, personally, that the functions of CPS are public safety — they’re looking out for the public safety of children. We need to tread lightly on all public safety (cuts), but the hole is so big and so deep, that I don’t believe that there’s any area of this budget that does not need to be looked at for savings. Otherwise, how do we get there?
What will be the biggest difference between the House in 2009 and the House in 2008?
One, I think, will be the appropriations process. You’ll see a very much reinvigorated appropriations process. Two, I hope we have a general level of collegiality within the body, at least initially. I think that’s important. I know we’re going to have our differences, but if we can do it in a way that’s respectful of other opinions, I think it will go a long way toward improving the morale and the comity of being in the House.