A freshman Republican from Tucson, Rep Vic Williams seems somewhat overwhelmed by the budget process. He says he didn’t fully understand the technical aspects leading up to a special session to fix the unbalanced fiscal 2009 state budget.
Williams, owner of a real estate investment firm, says he campaigned on three issues — quality education, illegal immigration and handling the budget crisis. So far, the budget has taken center stage.   
When you talk to people, constituents or lobbyists, about the budget compromises, do you worry they don’t understand the gravity of the deficit?
Every single agency I have talked to comes to the table understanding it is not a matter of if they will be cut but by how much they will be cut.
I think that our leadership is doing a fantastic job of allowing ownership on this; it is all of us together. Especially when it comes to (Rep.) Rich Crandall on education. He has done a tremendous job.
We want to go hands off and eliminate regulations for the next five months as we finish off the year. We need to allow them to run our school districts without us interfering. If they want to continue all-day kindergarten or if their needs are in transportation or soft capital, let them make those decisions.
That is very much the type of Republicanism I support, local control.    
While campaigning, you advocated for an overhaul of the state’s tax system.
I am going to put it this way: We need regulatory and tax consistency, as well as an overhaul. I strongly believe that. Currently, our tax structure is predicated on corporate income tax and personal income tax, and we need to get away from that. We need to develop an environment where we attract business to the state. We need to be regulatory- and tax-competitive with our surrounding states.
What changes to the state’s corporate and personal income taxes would that require?
Well, we should look at other states and see how they are structuring their tax codes and regulatory systems and make sure we are competitive with them.
Moving into something a little bit different, as a freshman legislator — what I am going to call Gordian Knots of legislation that has been built upon layer by layer needs to be streamlined. I can tell, at this point in time, that we have very complicated funding systems for all of our agencies. In our regulatory respects as well, these policies need to be streamlined. That will certainly make our state more receptive for larger businesses to be here.
Are there any taxes in particular you think need to be altered?
One tax in particular would be the personal property tax we have on business. I believe the number comes in at $100,000 in capital assets you have in your corporation that you have to start paying a personal property tax.
To me, what that does is encourage small business to not go out and invest in brick and mortar. It promotes people to work out of their houses. It doesn’t encourage people to go out and open up a welding shop, a plumbing supply company or some kind of other brick-and-mortar facility because once you get over $100,000, you start paying on your filing cabinets, your computer system, your palate racking or your storage materials.
I think this is something you find in many states around the country, that it is so complex once you transition from a sole proprietor to actually hiring individuals that we need to make an effort to streamline and make it simpler for people to employ others.
As we all know, 50 to 60 percent of all employment is done through smaller companies. And the catalyst to develop larger companies is through smaller companies. As we continue to over-regulate industry in a way that makes it more and more complicated to get into business and employ others, it ultimately affects the long-term outcome of our state’s economy.
Can we afford to make adjustments to taxes, the state’s revenue source?
No. We need overall regulatory reform on a long-term basis, but right now we have to address our budget crisis. That is an entirely different subject. We have to do today and tomorrow whatever it takes to get through this immediate problem.
So the tax overhaul you are suggesting should be placed on the back burner?
Yes, we need to look at taxes for the long term. For example, and this is not something I am advocating, but we bring in so little revenue to our general fund from corporate income tax. The last time I saw a JLBC report, it was $800 million that came from the tax to our fund. Once we stabilize our budget crisis, maybe let’s take a look at our corporate income tax. If it is contributing such a small fraction to our overall general fund, maybe that is something we take a look at first when doing an overhaul.
If we went from receiving $600 million to $300 million from tax, but it made us attractive to companies from other states — I know our regulations are a tapestry. I know you can’t just go in and change one area of policy and not affect everything else.
I also have a concern of the institutional knowledge we have now with term limits. I worry that we will never be able to effectively overhaul the systems because of term limits and not having that institutional knowledge within the Legislature. That institutional knowledge now lies within agency heads, staff and the special interest community. Those who actually have the ability to craft and make the decision on the floor of the House of Representatives will never have that ongoing knowledge. 
Do you advocate for the removal of term limits?
I am not saying I would advocate against term limits at this time, but I would certainly strongly consider allowing legislation that would allow term limits to be considered again at the ballot box.
I think term limits are negatively impacting the people of Arizona.
On the campaign trail you also advocated for the introduction of market principles to health care. What in particular do you think should be altered in the way the state distributes health care?
We need to take a look at health care in general. We have gotten to the point where the relationship between the doctor and the patient is completely devoid of any market principles.
When you or I go in to see our doctor, we just go in for treatment. We are all familiar with the horror story of people getting billed for $15 aspirins or $800 ankle boots you could easily get on your own.
There is none of that negotiation or a relationship between the doctor and patient anymore where market principles are brought up. I think we need to somehow reinstall that. Now, I am not talking about people going out and having to barter with their doctor to get a flu shot or to get a physical. But I know if you are going to get your house painted or some other service, you at least have an idea of what those services will cost you. We have gone away from that in the health care business.
Do you think the state should require doctors to inform patients of the cost of procedures?
Possibly. I think we can take a look at having the doctors put up a menu list so people can shop and rate the lists out as they go about looking for services. I am sure that I, looking at it at that level is naive, but I would like to hear why we can’t do that. 
Another thing that I think is a problem is that because of medical malpractice, doctors over-test to ensure they are not held
liable. That is something we can look at to try to bring down the cost of health care in the state of Arizona.
Are you advocating the relaxing the state’s medical liability laws?
That is not my level of expertise. But we need to take a look at everything. There are a lot of things that need to be overhauled. Until I came to work here at the Capitol, I was on a private health care system. As a single individual, I paid over $5,000 a year for my health. That is just huge.
What should the state do to lower the costs of insurance?
Obviously for smaller groups and individuals we need to make sure they have access to risk pools to help bring the cost down. We certainly need to modify the type of high-risk pools we have here in the state also.
With the budget being the primary issue this session, do you think these other places for change you are presenting will ever be discussed?
I don’t see it happening. I don’t see it happening this session. The budget deficit is so big at this point in time that I just don’t see it happening.
From what I am getting from the people who have been here for a couple of terms, is that the 2010 budget is going to go all the way into May or June. We are not going to finish it until the end of the session. Considering the size and severity of the budget, I don’t think we will have the opportunity to talk about other issues.
Does that lessen the quality of representation the citizens of the state and your district are receiving?
No. There are three things I campaigned on: quality education, illegal immigration and handling our budget crisis. In many ways we are handling some of our education problems through the budget. Illegal immigration has certainly turned into a back burner item at this point in time.
And do you think that is something your constituents are aware of and support?
I am not hearing from them right now either way. Where are they at this moment? Are they willing to accept the budget crisis overriding, say, illegal immigration concerns? I haven’t heard from my constituents.
Out of all the e-mails I have had, not a single one has been about illegal immigration. I am not hearing people saying, “Hey Vic, the budget is important, but don’t forget about the illegal immigration problems we have here in the state.”
If I start to hear that, I will certainly address those concerns.