captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: president obama joined a gathering of leaders from the world's wealthiest nations today. topping the agenda: what to do about the bloody civil war in syria. good evening. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. on the newshour tonight, we explore the u.s.-russian split over syria, and the shared goal of stopping the violence. >> woodruff: then, the supreme court ruled arizona may not require proof of citizenship in order to vote. marcia coyle breaks down the decision.

>> ifill: ray suarez continues our series inside immigration reform. tonight, we debate the "e- verify" system to check workers' eligibility. >> woodruff: we look at the surprise result in iran's presidential election, and what they could mean for its nuclear program and relations with the u.s. >> ifill: hari sreenivasan gets the latest on the war in the states over whether to expand medicaid under president obama's health care law. >> woodruff: and paul solman closes with a conversation with the author of a new book, "who owns the future?," which poses a provocative way to think of our digital lives. >> the government should have to pay for whatever it does, including getting information from people, and should be constrained by its budget. so if they have to pay for collecting those images of you walking around, then they have to create a sense of balance about how often they do it. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> i want to make things more secure.

>> i want to treat more dogs. >> our business needs more cases. >> where do you want to take your business? >> i need help selling art. >> from broadband, to web hosting, to mobile apps, small business solutions from a.t.&t. can help get you there. we can show you how a.t.&t. solutions can help your business today. >> and by bp. >> bnsf railway. >> and by the alfred p. sloan foundation. supporting science, technology, and improved economic performance and financial literacy in the 21st century. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for

public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> ifill: the group of eight summit was alive today with talk of syria, and the u.s. move to intervene there more directly. the international gathering convened in northern ireland. . >> and the g8 leaders arrived today, syria's bloody civil war over shadowed the conference's usual focus on trade deals and unemployment. the u.s. decision to send arms to the syrian rebels guaranteed the place in the spotlight. at the same time a growing feud between washington and moscow. president obama and russian president putin met privately on the sidelines of the meeting today in northern ireland.

the tone was conciliatory. >> we do have differing perspectives on the problem but we share in reducing the violence, securing the chemical weapon and that we want to resolve the issue true political means if possible. >> of course our opinions do not coincide. but we are united by the common intention to end the violence. to stop the number of victims from increasing and to resolve the problems by peaceful means. >> putit was in london yesterday without president obama at his side politicizing any moves to aid the rebels involving a rebel commander. >> i believe one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies but eat their intestines in front much of the cameras are

these the people you want to support this are they the one you want to supply with weapons. >> putin defended russian arms. back in moscow today, the russian foreign minister accused of u.s. of mounting military exercises in jordan as a cover for implementing a no fly zone overseer i can't, something russia opposes. >> i think we fundamentally will not allow the scenario and reports that our american partners are doing preparatory work at military complexes related to this are also a direct violation. >> in damascus syrian president condemned the u.s. move telling a german newspaper that europe will pay the price if it does the same. in washington on sunday former vice president dick cheney took the opposite tack forming that president obama is doing too little too late in syria. >> had than opportunity earlier to provide suppor withoututavinf

directly involved they took paths now they're going to do it. but the question is whether or not they're a day late and a dollar short. >> white house chief of staff answers critics by president has no intention to rush to war.ity to do. that we have to be very discerning about what is in our interest and what the outcomes -- what outcome is best for us the prices that we're wito pay to get to that place. >> the syrian conflict is increasingly evolving in to a sectarian war. on sunday the egyptian -- he demanded that shiite hezbollah fighters from lebanon leave syria. late today the obama administration announced it would spend an additional $300 million in humanitarian aid to those affected by the syrian crisis. that brings total u.s. assistance to nearly $850 million since the civil war began.

>> woodruff: later tonight on most pbs stations, president obama sits down for an interview with charlie rose where he discusses syria, among other topics. still to come on the newshour, the supreme court rules you don't need proof of citizenship to vote; we debate electronic verification for immigrant workers; who is iran's new president?; states grapple with expansions to medicaid; and an author argues we should get paid for information the government collects on us. but first, the other news of the day. here's hari sreenivasan. >> sreenivasan: as the g-8 convened, a london newspaper reported britain has hacked into e-mails and phone conversations of foreign leaders and diplomats. the "guardian" said classified documents show it happened at a 2009 summit. the report said british intelligence even set up a "bugged" internet cafe. several countries-- russia, south africa, and turkey-- called for full explanations. the man who leaked word of secret surveillance by the national security agency has spoken out again. edward snowden held an online

chat on the "guardian" web site. he defended what he did, saying "it was seeing a continuing litany of lies from senior officials and the realization that congress wholly supported the lies that compelled me to act." snowden was last known to be in hong kong, but he said today, "i have no contact with the chinese government. i work only with journalists." he also said he does not expect a fair trial, if he is ever charged and returned to the united states. the government of turkey kept up the pressure today in a bid to put an end to protests. riot police fired water cannons and tear gas at small groups of demonstrators near istanbul's taksim square. police ousted the protesters from a park there over the weekend, ending an 18-day sit-in. meanwhile, in ankara, thousands of striking union workers waved banners and flags today, in a peaceful rally appealing for a more democratic government. >> we are here to protest the ruling party's pressures. we protest against unfair working conditions, they're ignoring our demands.

and limiting our freedom of expression. >> we thought the common sense was on vacation we thought it would return but it didn't. we want to be interest them. we're here to protect our children and prevent people from crying. we want to live in a normal country. >> >> sreenivasan: in response, turkey's deputy prime minister suggested today the military could be called out, if the police are not enough. the most destructive wildfire ever to hit colorado is now 75% contained. rain swept through the colorado springs area sunday, helping put out flames. fire crews hoped for more of the same today. the fire has destroyed nearly 500 homes and killed two people. authorities said today they're getting closer to pinpointing exactly where it started. on wall street today, the dow jones industrial average gained 109 points to close well above 15,179. the nasdaq rose 28 points to close at 3452. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to judy. >> woodruff: the supreme court issued a 7-2 decision today striking down arizona's law that required people to show proof of citizenship when they registered

to vote in federal elections. the ruling affects several states with similar laws, and will block others from adding requirements to the voter registration process. the court found a state law can't trump the 1993 motor voter law, which streamlines election sign-ups through a national form system. with us, as always, is marcia coyle of the "national law journal." tell us a little more about the case of the justice. >> the election clause in the federal constitution it gives states the responsibility to set the time, place and manner of federal elections. but it also gives congress the power to alter those regulations, as you said in 1993, congress enacademy the motor voter law that created a simple unified form to register to vote. in 2004 arizona enacted proposition 200, and that required state voting officials

to reject any registration form that did not include concrete evidence of citizenship such as driver's license, birth certificate. the issue before the court was whether that requirement conflicted with the federal form which only requires the applicant to attest, sign that the person is a citizen under penalty of perjury. >> what did the justices do? >> justice scalia wrote for the majority as he was during oral arguments, he was very skeptical of arizona's argument that under the federal law which requires states to accept and use the federal form, the terms, accept and use means only to willingly receive the form and use it as part of the state's registration process. he said this was a mandate in the federal law for a specific purpose. and if arizona and other states could tack on to the federal law

different requirements, pretty soon the federal law would no longer have a very simple and unified form. >> woodruff: they knocked down what arizona has done but there was also language in the ruling that gives some hope to states maybe even arizona about a pathway they can choose if they do want to tighten voting requirements. >> absolutely, judy. this is the second part of his opinion. he said, well arizona, you can go back to the federal elections assistance commission which oversees the federal form, and ask it to include a state specific requirement like you have in proposition 200. if the commission rejects your request, you can file a lawsuit and challenge that decision in federal court. >> woodruff: is it -- is there clarity here or how do you read it? >> i think it's one of those two sided decisions.

he did provide a road map for the state if they want to add requirements on to voter registration forms. on the other hand he also spoke to the elections clause and the power that congress has given here is being quite broad. ultimately what we're going to see is states are going to try to add some state specific requirements to the federal form. justice wrote a descent he said basically, this is a remedy that is just not going to work because right now there is no one on the federal elections assistance commission, it's not functioning. >> woodruff: marcia, this is 7-2 decision, unusual split among the conservatives? you had justice scalia writing the opinion, couple of others conservatives joining with him. but you had justice alito and justice thomas defensing. >> i've always believed that the conservatives on the court

as well as the more liberal members on the court are not monolithic blocks. and the conservatives, justice scalia and justice alito have different amendment cases. they are not cloned they also have differed on first amendment and even some criminal law cases. while it is surprising to see, it's not unusual. >> woodruff: you write about this in your book. >> i do. robert's court. it would be so much easier if they did fit in to an easy explain nation. >> those of us who write and talk about the court. >> woodruff: there are still some very high profile cases that justices have been deciding on. we don't know how they're going to rule, what is the thinking about what's taking so long? >> okay. they're very difficult cases. the three that we're all sort of watching closely involve affirmative action, university of texas case. voting rights, the challenge to the heart.

voting rights ago act and the two same-sex marriage cases. the court traditionally wraps up a term in the last week in june which would be next week, really. we have one decision day scheduled for this week on thursday. next week probably two, maybe three days for the court. if it does want to wrap up who knows, we're only told when a day is decision day but not what decisions are coming. >> woodruff: marcia cow. thank up. >> ifill: online, we'll have live coverage of the supreme court's end-of-term decisions as they arrive. and on the days opinions are issued, we'll carry developments from inside the court from scotusblog on our home page. >> woodruff: next, we turn to the immigration legislation up for debate on the senate floor. ray suarez has our story.

>> publicly can marco rubio helped the bill. >> an excellent starting point. i think 95-96% of the bill is in perfect shape and ready to go but there are elements that need to be improved. >> on sunday the senator called again for tougher border security requirements. to win over conservative skeptics in his own party. >> the debate is about what that border security provision looks likef we do that this bill will have strong bipartisan support. >> new jersey democratic said his party could support additional reform this f they're offered in good faith. >> we're open to constructive elements of how border security can be further achieved but not if at the end of the day you are simply using that as an excuse not to permit a pathway to legalization. >> like rub yes and menendez, lindsey graham of south carolina is one of the gang of eight who wrote the bill. he warned republicans will pay a

heavy price if the bill failed. >> if we don't pass immigration reform, get it off the table in a reasonable practical way it doesn't matter who you run in 2016 we're in a demographic death spiral as a party and only way to get back in good graces with hispanic community in my view is pass comprehensive immigration reform. >> hear rer,id set july 4 deadline to finish the legislation that gives lawmakers two weeks to sort through more than a hundred amendments. among them, proposals to bolster the electronic employment verification system known as e-verify. thish hue could draw added attention following told's raids on 7-eleven stores in new york and virginia. nine owners and managers are charged in a scheme to employ undocumented immigrants from pakistan and pay them under stolen security numbers. e-verify is also the latest topic in our ongoing series, inside immigration reform. it's current lie voluntary in

most states but that could all change under the new legislation. we get two points of view now from mark, executive director of the center for immigration studies and author of the book "the new case against immigration" both legal and illegal. and christopher calabry legislative council for the civil liberties union f. my last couple of employers i was already proving that i had a social security number and showed a document, what is the current version of e-verify doing and don't employees already have to do that? >> it's true, do you have to demonstrate first your identity and also your authorization to work. but it's based on paper. so the employer just has to take pretty much at face value whatever you show him, as long as it isn't mickey mouse's picture he has to accept it. what e-verify would do is the employer in doing all his normal paperwork anyway would simply have to check with social security and homeland security databases, whether the number,

social security number, name, date of birth are real land they match of the the point is just to make sure that the stuff is already being provided is genuine and that the person isn't lying to his employer. >> christopher, version of e-verify was already rolled out a couple of years ago, was the federal government up to the task of matching the documents presented by workers with its own database? >> i would say, no. certainly the federal government has gotten better at this task but the trick here is that first of all you have to be correct in the e-verify system before you can work. if there is an error in the database that means you cannot work. and when you look at entire population, large one like the u.s., 154 million workers, even a small error means hundreds of thousands or even a million workers might not be able to work. even very effective system is going to potentially ensnare a lot of workers.

>> do you think the new e-verify, the new generation e-verify proposed in the senate legislation has a shot at working? >> you know, i think that you're still going to have a lot of workers who are going to get caught up in the system that aren't going to be able to work because of errors in the databases. that's going to be a real problem for them. i mean this thing about this bill that -- this program that's different than many other things is this affects everybody. whether you have anything to do with immigration or not you're going to be under this new mandate and that mandate may mean that you, through no fault of your own, suddenly need to prove your work eligibility to the government. that makes it tricky. >> a step in the right direction, mark? >> it's clearly a step in the right direction. the idea that hundreds of thousands of people are somehow going to be denied employment because of mistakes and system is just not true. first of all you have to be hired first, you're already working for the employer, only then do they check. they don't screen people ahead of time. number two, something like

one-third of all new hires last year were already screened, it's video game unterry but it is pretty widely used. we've used it for a number of years. we've never had any problem with it. built some people do get what's called tentative non-confirmation. initial response that says, something seems to be wrong, double check everything see what the problem is. most of the time you know what that turns out to be, it's women who took their husband's name when they got married but didn't tell social security. frankly, i think i'd want to know about that when i was 25 not when i was 65. in a sense it's almost a public service making sure that the information in your social security account is correct early on rather than trying to fix it later. >> many of the supporters are trying to shift the burden to employers, check whether someone is legally authorized to be in the country and work. say, we can fix this quickly. social security cards have never had pictures on, never any kind

of physical data, make eight hard card, non-counterfeitable card, something with biometric data on it and make the immigrant carry it. what do you think? >> well, there's a couple of problems with that. the first one is, it couldn't just be the immigrant who carried it because you didn't have a card that could mean either you were a citizen or you weren't work authorized. have to be a card for everyone. and that would be a tremendously expensive proposition i think tens of billions of dollars. imagine everybody in the united states run through the dmv through some sort of federal identification system. that would basically be what it would be. so, that's a very expensive proposition, honestly i'm not sure it solves the problem. remember, the people who don't want to comply with the immigration system now aren't complying. you could have a very high acceptance rate, very high compliance rate but if it wasn't the people you were trying to get at to want to hire undocumented workers, don't care

about credentials, i don't think any of these proposals get at those people. that's a huge problem we could have a very expensive, very invasive system that actually doesn't solve the problem. >> the interesting thing, people don't get is that most illegal immigrants work on the books, our estimates are something like 60% of illegal immigrants who have jobs working on the books with regular employers and they have lied to the employers about who they are. social security actually estimates even more, maybe 75%. this isn't just an issue of people huddled in front of the home depot working for cash. most of the problem can in fact be addressed by a better -- e-verify system that is applied universal leech it's not a magic bullet, not going to magically fix anything all hat once but it is one of the most important elements because if people have a very hard time finding work, then it becomes much less appealing to come here or stay here as illegal aillyian. >> in the short time we have

left let me get ha quick shot at the waterfront from both of you on how we can do better with e-verify. >> i think one of the things we can do is existing wage and hour laws, put some of the money towards findingment bad employers, actually sending testers to see if they're not complying with the law and bringing down existing penalties that we have on those employers. much less invasive than a giant system targeted at everybody, i think it's something that keeps ordinary folks really don't even realize they're being affected by this discussion from having to grapple with a giant federal bureaucracy in order to work. >> if you don't like e-verify, you need only real solution to let illegal aillyians work. you can't have a ban. but not have some way for legitimate employers to actually know whether they're hiring people who are authorized to work or not. this isn't an issue of crooked employers, you're always going to have some of that, that's

what we have police and other things for. the issue here is legitimate law abiding employers who want to do the right thing but now have real difficulty in telling whether somebody is legal or illegal and the way the law is now if you look too closely you can actually be sued by the justice department for discrimination. e-verify is important for employers as well as the country as a whole. >> the debate is underway on capitol hill, gentlemen, thank you both for helping us explain to the public what's at stake. >> thank you. >> online, five things you should know about e-verify. that's on the run down. >> ifill: now, to iran. over the weekend, the country chose a new leader to replace outgoing president mahmoud ahmadinejad. . >> crowd poured in to the streets of tehran saturday evening cheering for the

country's next president, hassan rohani. won the election in stunning fashion. he captured nearly 51% of the vote, enough to a void a runoff and well ahead of several more conservative candidates. >> god willing this election will be prelude to the changes that are demanded by the people. this includes of course revolution in the economic cultural, social and political field. >> his win was marked by a late surge as reform voters coalesced behind him in a turn out that topped 70%. it was far cry from the mass protests that followed the 2009 election. violent clashes erupted then amid widespread claims that iran's ruling cleric rigged the re-election of the president. rohani called for moderation and for reviving iran's economy.

in recent years, international sanctions aimed at rean's nuclear program helped fuel rising inflation and high unemployment. rohani presided over nuclear talks with the west between 2003 and 2005. but today the president elect was not support ceasing iranian enrichment. >> we will make nuclear talks more active. this is a problem. solution to the nuclear problem is just talks. neither threats nor sanctions will work. >> ifill: he left open the door to improving relations with the united states. >> the problem complicated and difficult. there's an old wound that should be dealt with with prudence. of course we are not seeking tension or increase can the tension. common sense says our two countries should think about the future more than the past. >> u.s. officials cautiously welcomed rohani's victory but

state department spokeswoman said the obama administration wants to see more. >> we look forward to him and are hopeful that he will fulfill the campaign promises he made to the iranian people such as expanding personal freedoms, releasing political prisoners and improving iran's relations with the international community. but time will tell. >> ifill: israel is watching closely as well, prime minister benjamin netanyahu threatened military action to stop the nuclear program. he spoke sunday. >> the elections no doubt express a dissatisfaction of the iranian people with their regime, i don't see it producing the genuine change in iran's nuclear pole see. >> ifill: israeli president by contrast took a more hopeful stance regarding the new iranian leader. >> will not go for this extreme policies, i am not sure that the

specified policies, but it will be better, i am sure and that is there is -- >> ifill: rohani confronts the challenge of satisfying demands for change. at home and abroad while staying in the good graces of eve ran's hard line supreme leader eye toll i can't hamanae. joining me to tell us joining me now to tell us more about hasan ro-hani and what his victory means for iran and the united states, are. karim sadjadpour, a senior associate at the carnegie endowment for international peace. and cliff kupchin, middle east director at the eurasia group. you've met him, what is he, who is he? tell us about him. >> he's a very straight forward , thoughtful earnest guy. you ask a question you get an answer. he's kind of the anti-mahmoud ahmadinejad. i think it's a new leave for iran. i think we're out of the ideology and back to the realm

of of the real world. now, how much power he has how far he can take iran is a different question. >> ifill: i'm curious, he's uniform mallly been called a moderate, what is what by our standards. >> we were having this conversation ten years ago, roman knee would have been described as a conservative but given the right ward shift of iranian politics, he was really the lone moderate choice that people had in this election. if you look at iran over the last decade, this is a nation which has been suffocating under political pressure, economic mismanagement and tremendous external economic pressure, i think for iranian people this is the meteorological equivalent of light rain after eight years of drought. >> ifill: if you were to draw some sort of -- between the two, is he in the middle somewhere? >> he is in the middle somewhere. but i think --

>> ifill: not a reformer. >> that's what's very important for everyone to understand. he is not a reformer. he is a child of the system. he served as the secretary of national security council for 16 years. he sits on highest adjudicating body. he's very close to the supreme leader, he's a cautious man of the system who may pursue reform but is not going to turn his back on the system. that is why i think in my view supreme leader led him become president. ultimately homani doing not remember the threat. >> ifill: the guy who gets the final say how much power does rohani really have? >> iranian presidents have influence december particularly more than they do internationally. in changing the strategic principle. just like in washington where there is new president bring in whole new team, group of folks to staff the bureaucracy and rohani will be able to bring more professional managers and

technocrats in the system. those types of moderate forces that have been purged over the last decade. but when it comes to i would argue ideological principle of the islamic revolution, resistance against america, rejection of israel's existence, support for groups lick hezbollah, i would argue -- that rohani's influence is more tactical than strategic. not going to change those principless but he can conduct diplomacy with a smiling moderate face as opposed to mahmoud ahmadinejad. >> ifill: what a about nuclear weapons, we've seen them grow, what almost everybody is worried about tangentially. >> well, look, i agree with him that we're unlikely to see change. but the nuclear arena is different. this is where in the degait he

effectivetively linked iran's nuclear position with sanctions with the suffering of every iranian citizen and it worked. in some ways that election was a mandate for rohani to support a different policy. he will pursue a more reasonable position, bring in skilled diplomats and atmosphere will change. doesn't mean we'll get a deal but i think we got better chance today than we did last friday. >> ifill: you say we, the u.s. finally has someone to deal with to talk to who is not going to come and declare that u.s. smells of sulfur or whatever that was? >> i agree with the perspective this for the obama administration was the best possible outcome, or least bad outcome of a very flawed electoral process. you talk to someone like secretary much state john kerry or secretary of defense, even obama himself they could push a button normalize relations, they would love to, iran has

significant influence. i would argue this time around as opposed to obama's first term what they're hoping for is less reproach which they probably see as unrealistic and more detante. the person who is perhaps most concerned with hassan rohani's victory is benjamin netanyahu. i think what he sees is equivalent of putting lipstick on a pig. iran is going to continue to pursue, he believes, same hard line nuclear policies but do so with a moderate base which will make it more difficult to coerce the pressure. >> ifill: is that what he should be worried about? >> i think israelis get the reception, i think they know that at the end of the day that iran will have some domestic ability to enriched uranium. that the world is, whether they recognize iran's right to enrich they will recognize that iran is enriching. and what netanyahu is up to keep

pressure on to get the best deal, get the most inspections, the longest lead time if they do try to create a weapon. i think he's worried, he'll keep the pressure up but if we can get a good verifiable intrusive deal, i've been to israel six times, that's what they tell you. they would support that. >> ifill: these conversation, these talks underway that were frozen and waiting on the outcome of the election, do you expect them toe start again? >> rohani will be inaugurated in august. if you look at his previous team of nuclear advisors they were all u.s. educated, they came from merchant background, they were idealogs. he has demanded from the public to pursue confidence building. this is the first time that these stars have aligned since the year 2000. but i think our expectations should be tempered. >> ifill: a question for both of you, in your opinion, i'll start with you, was this free

and fair election, you saw the turn out. >> it wasn't free in that only a limited pool of candidates were allowed to run. but as opposed to the 2009 election when people believed votes weren't count this time it looked to the surprise of many of us that integrity of the ballot box was good. >> it wasn't free in the same way that karim said. compare iran there aren't any elections, there is still, i would point out this remarkable, enduring democratic streak in iran. they do care about the vote. it's a remarkable country, i think it was free and fair enough for for me to admire what happened. >> ifill: cliff kupchin and saw ream sadjadpour. thank you both so much.

>> woodruff: now, why some republican governors who have been vocally opposed to obamacare are having second thoughts about walking away from an expansion of medicaid. hari sreenivasan has the story. >> sreenivasan: medicaid is a crucial piece of the health reform law and its goal of providing new coverage to 30 million americans. roughly 13 million of them are expected to receive coverage by expanding eligibility to the program, which provides health care to the poor. but the calculus changed after the supreme court decided states could opt out, even though the federal government would pick up 100% of the new costs for the first three years. so far, 23 states-- mostly led by democratic governors-- and the district of columbia have said they plan to expand eligibility, starting next year. 18 others-- with republican governors-- are opposed. states could be passing on billions of dollars. now, some republican governors once opposed are pushing to expand medicaid.

that includes florida, michigan, ohio, and arizona, where governor jan brewer signed a bill to do so today. we look at what's behind these changes in two of these states. mary k. reinhart is with the "arizona republic." and karen kasler is with ohio public radio. so, mary k. reinhart, what did governor brewer have to do and why did she did it now? >> well, she had to get a bipartisan coalition of her republican-led legislature to go along with what she's announced at the beginning ever the session in january that was a top priority. that was expanding medicaid. it was a surprise, stunned observers we were one states to sue to stop obamacare and the governor needed to get this coalition behind her, she put these folks together. when negotiations stalled the governor called a surprise special session, just 48 hours this bipartisan coalition in the house and senate pushed through medicaid expansion, got her to where she is today signing that

bill. >> she still doesn't admit this is in support of obamacare. >> she admits that this tiny little piece she supports. it's the law of the land, the election certainly was conclusive with the re-election of president obama, the supreme court made its decision and she was trying to convince for last five months opponents in the legislature both leaders in the house and senate that this was a done deal, what arizona needed to do was go along, do the math, look at the calculus as you say and realize that we're talking about ensuring an additional 350,000 people bringing in $1.6 billion in the first year alone. and upholding the will of the voters here in arizona who in 2000 said they wanted to expand our medicaid program to ensure people under the poverty level. we had been in expansion state, governor said it was just a folly to not go ahead and expand medicaid.

>> karen kasler, what is the state of play in ohio where is the governor? >> like in arizona surprised a lot of people when he supported expansion of medicaid, he has been an opponent of what he calls obamacare but said in his budget he took the avenue, this is way to capture 13 billion federal over several year a way to help ohio's 1.5 million uninsured. many who are very poor and can't afford health insurance. so he spent a lot of his personal capital trying to get this passed. his proposal, though, went over very, very poorly in the state legislature which is dominated by republicans, you have a lot of republicans in ohio who are very suspicious of the expansion much medicaid. and so it was stripped out of both the house version and the senate version of the state budget. our house speaker said that of his 60 member caucus, 20 members, this is quote from him, would rather shoot themselves in the head than vote for medicaid expansion. so right now what's happening is that out of the state budget, and it's being considered in a

different way. we have a medicaid expansion bill that has only one backer. but now there's a bill that dropped late last week that has lot of bipartisan support which would reform medicaid in ohio trying to contain costs and integrate workforce development and measure health cut outcomes. that appears to be the way, medicaid reform rather than expansion. >> how does this affect his relationship with the legislature, especially with those 20 who would rather do something else. >> well, it's certainly been an interesting thing to watch because governor got a lot of what he wanted in his first budget cycle, and ohio is almost completely run by republicans, there's a super majority in the house and senate and governor is a republican as well. there's been a real push on his part to try to get medicaid expansion but there's been a real rekiss tans on the part of lawmakers. this ask seen as maybe a half way point. the lawmakers who are putting this medicaid reform bill together are saying that they want to improve the system before we start talking about

adding more people to it. so they are still leaving that door open slightly but right now the path appears to be toward reform rather than expansion. >> mary k. reinhart, i want to come back to you, how does the hospital industry see this and what kind of influence are they having in the conversation? >> like in other states, i think the hospital industry, chamber of commerce have been very involved in trying to push medicaid expansion. they were right on board early on in arizona, they have been carrying for a growing number of uninsured who are coming through the emergency rooms, we've had couple of chapter 11 bankruptcies in arizona, today at the signing ceremony one state lawmaker said you've saved rural arizona, you've saved our hospitals. clearly they were on board. they are also going to be paying -- taxing themselves essentially to help pay arizona's additional share of medicaid expansion. so they're in all the way with an additional provider assessment to help pay our share of expansion. >> karen kasler, how much money

at stake here, quite a few members of the g.o.p. in different states have said this first three years, free stuff is great but that 10% is still a lot of money to us later on. >> governor kasick it's $1 billion over seven years. that money issue is credit tall to a lot of republicans who are on the fence or opposed. they feel like expanding medicaid then if there chance federal government would not somehow follow through that would be a difficult benefit to take away. that's been a lot of the concern from conservatives, there have been some conservative think tanks that say, they're very concerned about the long term stability of the system. that is a real issue here is, well this money be there when ohioans need it over time. but hospital issue is critical here in ohio, too, we have a lot of rural hospitals, we have a lot of urban hospitals. they're very concerned about their long-term financial stability if medicaid is not expanded. >> miss kasler, what is the timeline here, legislation that is making it so far doesn't

include the expansion, what is next? >> well, the budget needs to be signed by the edge of the month that is not going to happen. there's been a concern that if indeed medicaid expansion wasn't started by june 30th there wouldn't be time capture all those fellal dollars. but i'm told by lawmakers who are behind this medicaid reform bill that they still think there's a possibility to go back and get some of that money. but there's no rush that we need to improve the system before we add beneficiaries to it. but certainly time is of the its sense because the clock is ticking here and so there's a concern to get it done as quickly as possible with the budget out. way, maybe that would move forward the first hearing for these reform bills is tomorrow. and soy there's a chance it will move forward. >> quickly to you, too, this isn't the end, people are proposing ballot measures. >> a group of former governors and g.o.p. activists the grass roots that's been opposed to this all along are going to be officially kicking off referendum drive on saturday, they're taking out petitions with the secretary much state's office. they have got 90 days to collect

about 86,000 signatures, if they're successful our medicaid expansion bill goes on hold until the next general election. there is lawsuits following, it's not over yet. >> mary k. reinhart officer "the arizona republic" and karen kasler from the ohio republic. > >> ifill: finally tonight, the collection of information online and its economic consequences. the recent revelations about surveillance have raised numerous questions about the use of data by the government and service providers. we close with a look at another concern about the information that's gathered: is it deepening a widening class divide? economics correspondent paul solman gets that take, part of his reporting on making sense of financial news. >> in berkeley, california, the studio of jaron lanier, author,

composer is, computer scientist and lately leading critic of the digital technologies he himself helped invent. they're widening the economic divide, he says. darkening our future by destroying paid jobs. like musicians, which is how he once supported himself. >> this is shaku, it's classical japanese flute. ♪ lanier has also long worked in technology. still does as a telecommuting consultant microsoft research in seattle. but in recent years, he's grown skeptical of the internet. in 2010 he published "you are not a gadget" a manifesto,

critique of digital networks like facebook and twitter which he calls shallow and dehumanizing. >> you don't do the -- i used to for money. >> it was the computerization much the music industry that helped inspire his new book "who owns the future" in which he argues that digital networks are destroying jobs and the middle class, ex exacerbating economic inequality by providing free stuff that's really paid for by the information the networks take from us and sell to other big companies. what's the basic thing you worry about? >> that we've used digital networks to organize our world and digital networks have a certain negative side effect that none much us foresaw. a digital network, whoever has the biggest and best connected

computer is going to get all the power and all the money and that centralizes the reward so much that it screws up the society and economy eventually. >> this is the google, the facebook of the world. >> it's not just the usual suspects like the googles and facebooks, so far there are two kinds of industries that have been overtaken by the structure of digital networks. one is finance the other is creative industries, journalism and music and that sort of thing. >> i can see the problem with respect to the concentration of power, but how does it affect the average person? >> well, what happens when you interact with somebody else's giant computer over a network is always at first there is some special treat for that you enadvertises to you enter in to their game in the case of finance, it was really easy to get cheap mortgages. in the case of consumer internet services it's free stuff, it's the coupons, free social networking and search. >> free music, flee blogs. >> exactly.

what happens is there is initial free stuff. the market contracts a lot of what used to be paid is made free so that the economy gets a little bit smaller just notice that while you're getting all these free treats there's more income concentration and in finance it's created incredible rewards for people of the biggest computers. in the media industries it's the same thing. >> but is it only happening in packets or this is going to be pervasive? >> it's coming to basically every place. we have self driving cars, all the truck drivers go out of work. we already have 3d printers, robotic manufacturing tools, eventually manufacturing workers can away. we'll have automatic robotic mining of raw materials, we won't have all those people moving to the dakota to frack any more that will go away. >> in economics the clicheed phrase is creative destruction. >> creative destruction is great so long as there is enough

rebuilding to make up for the destruction. what's happening right now is all of the rebuilding, all of the wealth creation is happening around the pickest computers and not out in the world. >> la mere thinks that's a recipe for disaster. there is plenty information in his world, of course. >> spoke this was made by a guy who lived on the streets of baltimore, he made this out of garbage, some of the detritus of a motel that was torn down in baltimore. ♪ >> he called it the obutar. he was abu the master flute maker. >> even master abu wasn't making a living. a harbinger lanier feels of a grim two-tier economy. >> the problems i'm talking about with mass unemployment due to people being left out of the information economy, that is still a decade or two away. the reason i'm talking about this now i think we have enough lead time to fix it.

>> what do we do about this? >> it turns out that the very first concept of digital networking actually solved this problem in advance. the first person to talk about digital three networked was ted nelson who started his work in about 1960. ted's idea was that everybody who contributed over digital network would get paid in little micro payments for whatever they did. what that would do create an economy that would grow as things became more digital. >> for example, i'm driving, as i do now, i'm part of a network. i let people know if there is traffic up ahead. i get paid for that. >> a little bit, sure. or here is actually the better example. right now one thing that concerns a lot of people is that government agencies are putting up cameras everywhere. so as you walk around in the big city you might be tracked constantly, i think the government should have to pay for whatever it does including getting information from people and should be constrained by the

budget. if he have to pay to collect those images of you walking around. then create a sense of balance of how often. >> you're not just talking about street corner surveillance cameras, you're talking about any computer network that is ex can tracting information from me. >> right. what we have right now is we have thousands of computers, big computers around the world who are creating dossiers on all of us. any information that exists because you exist should bring you reward. you get ill, you get better, your medical case history and data gathered from your body becomes part of the medical databases that help others, you get paid. furthermore based on how valuable it turns out to be. so it might turn out that something about your d.n.a. turns out to help a lot of people ten years later can be more valuable than expected. you should benefit proportionally to its value. >> how do you force a computer network to pay me for something that they have been extracting from me for years for free? >> i know when i talk about

these ideas that must sound like i'm talking about something extremely complicated. i've been involved with the internet from the beginning, a relatively small number of people brought about this pretty complicated thing already, what i'm talking about now is just continuation of the same spirit. and it doesn't seem any more complicated than what we've already done. just moving in a different direction that i think it's more suitable to making us a sustainable society. >> i've been naive when i have for number of years now thought, gee, free is good. free may be the wave of the future. >> i helped make up the whole idea of free open everything a long time ago. there's a lot of great qualities to it. however, if we create a world where everybody can benefit from the information economy, even if it's just pure information, in other words, you actually get paid for your blog post or your social network activity if you're popular that kind of stuff. then we can create a stronger middle class than we've ever had

before as technology gets better. that is the big idea, that's the big possibility. >> jaron lanier. >> this was great. i'm very happy that you're interested. >> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day. president obama joined other leaders from the world's wealthest nations at a summit dominated by the civil war in syria. the u.s. supreme court struck down an arizona law that required proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote in federal elections. >> woodruff: and that's the newshour for tonight. but before we go, we have some exciting news of our own to share that involves hari. we're expanding, and bringing you our unique brand of reporting and analysis of the news seven days a week. starting september 7, pbs launches the "pbs newshour weekend." hari will anchor the half-hour saturday and sunday program from new york, partnering with member

station wnet. it's the next step in our commitment to make the newshour a trusted, reliable source of news available anywhere, anytime, weekdays, weekends, and, always, online. i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. we'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening. thank you, and good night. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> by bp. >> and by at&t. >> supported by the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation. committed to building a more just, verdant and peaceful world. more information at macfound.org. >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and friends of the newshour. >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org