MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin first voted no to advancing President Trump's tax and spending bill but then switched his vote. What persuaded him? Let's ask him. Senator Johnson is back on the line with us now. Good morning, Senator. Thanks for joining us.
RON JOHNSON: Good morning. Thanks for having me on.
MARTIN: So you spoke with one of my colleagues at the beginning of this month, and you said at the time that this mega bill did not have a chance of passing. What changed for you?
JOHNSON: Well, in multiple meetings with the president, his staff, they've satisfied my requirement, which was a commitment to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending and a process to achieve and maintain it. Now, that's pretty broad. And we've had a lot of discussions, and I truly believe that the president and his economic team are committed to exactly that. But just a couple of numbers.
Prior to the pandemic, our average deficits were $660 billion for seven years. That was our average. Then we had the pandemic, you know, insane level of spending and deficit. A reasonable president, a rational one would've, after the economy returned to normal and unemployment levels returned, would've gone to a reasonable pre-pandemic level of spending and deficit. That's not what happened. President Biden and Democrats had $1.9 trillion four-year average of deficits, 1.9 trillion. I can't accept that as the new normal.
And so again, I realize we can't do it all in one bill, not even close. By the way, the biggest factor in this deficit is a massive tax increase, which we all want to avoid. So I just kind of take that off the table. You know, I think we need to do a lot more in terms of spending reductions. And I also have to correct you - we're not talking about traditional Medicaid that covers disabled children, you know, the vulnerable. That we want to preserve. We're talking about the Obamacare addition to it where you have single, childless, working-age and capable adults, childless adults that are being reimbursed 90 cents on the dollar...
MARTIN: OK.
JOHNSON: ...By the federal government.
MARTIN: Understood.
JOHNSON: Exploiting Medicaid and putting those children at risk, their Medicaid benefits and value.
MARTIN: Understood, understood, understood. But the argument is that these are people who didn't have health insurance and that it was better to get them into the system, and this was the vehicle for doing it. So let me just ask, are you committed to a yes on the final vote? Or was your yes about getting it to the floor, where there are still things that could be debated?
JOHNSON: Well, you always take one step at a time. And so, you know, I originally voted no because - for a number of reasons. But again, further discussions during the evening convinced me, OK, let's get on the bill, and let's see how the amendment process goes.
MARTIN: So your big objection, as you explained it to us, was that this bill balloons the deficit. Now, the group that analyzes these things for Congress says that the Senate bill actually increases the deficit even more than the House bill. And you said one of your concerns was that the goal should've been to bend the deficit curve down rather than allow it to skyrocket - this bill allows it to skyrocket. It still does.
JOHNSON: Again, I'm focusing on spending, spending, spending. And that's my problem is the House, you know, they did a pretty good job, something about $1.4 trillion in real spending reductions. The Senate bill does about 1.6. The difference in terms of the deficit is the Senate makes the business tax provisions permanent, where the House just makes those temporary. Again, I do not want to increase taxes, and that's about a $4 trillion score on the bill right there. So just set that aside.
We shouldn't even be arguing this. If we would've been smart enough in 2017, we would've found spending reductions to offset the tax cuts so it would've been permanent. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. We are back up to the same percentage of GDP in terms of revenue. So I really do think that, you know, this is the right level of taxation. I don't want to increase taxes on every American, which is what would happen if we don't pass this bill.
MARTIN: So let's talk about Medicaid. There's obviously a disagreement even within your caucus about that. One of your Republican colleagues, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, says these Medicaid cuts would be devastating for his state. Now, I understand that you see it differently. But the reality of it is that these increasing paperwork requirements, et cetera, it seems likely that a lot of people would be dropped from the rolls. I'm just curious why you think you and Senator Tillis see things so differently.
JOHNSON: Well, first of all, Rick Scott has an excellent amendment here where nobody would drop from the rolls. We just stop enrolling people into the Obamacare addition to Medicaid. We're talking about Medicaid expansion. And you have to understand, for traditional Medicaid, for every dollar the state puts in for a disabled child, the federal government kicks in $1.33. That's the way the system was designed. The states administer it, but they've got sufficient skin in the game.
Obamacare was designed for a single-payer system. So they incentivize states to sign up single adults - for every dollar the state sticks in for a childless, single, working-age, capable adult, the federal government kicks in $9. That has led to, basically, legalized fraud where - provider tax and provider fees, which by the way is not helping.
MARTIN: Wait. Hold on a second. What is the fraud here? Can I just understand, what's the fraud here?
JOHNSON: Sure.
MARTIN: What is the fraud? Because I think the logic of it is that you might be a single adult, but you still need health insurance, and that was the vehicle to getting it.
JOHNSON: So let me tell you. Health care taxes, provider fees, are not health care. But that's exactly how states have gamed the system to get $9 for every $10. And so it's literally legalized fraud. They're rolling in the dough coming from the federal government. Again, a provider fee, provider tax is not health care. It's just what states are doing to bring down the $9 to $1 match. And again, we can't afford it. And by the way, so providers would rather treat a single, working-age, able-bodied, childless adult than they would a child. For example, there's a great article in The Wall Street Journal. A father of a 17-year-old severely autistic child, they're taking care of this child at home. They can't get home health care because they're crowded out by the single, working-age adults.
MARTIN: I'm just curious why you think you and Senator Tillis see it so differently. I'm just curious.
JOHNSON: Because North Carolina is one of the biggest abusers of the system.
MARTIN: Oh.
JOHNSON: High provider taxes - they're sucking in all these federal dollars. Again, they're gaming the system.
MARTIN: So you're convinced that you're a yes for the bill, or are there things that you still want to discuss?
JOHNSON: Well, again, I proceed to the bill. Now let's see how the amendment process goes. I'm a big supporter of Rick Scott's amendment. From my stand, it is the solution. Just stop adding people to that roll. If people want - they can go under traditional Medicaid if they want single - states want to have coverage for single adults.
MARTIN: OK. We have to leave it there for now. Thanks so much for talking with us once again. That's Republican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin. I do hope we'll talk again. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
