♪♪♪
male announcer: Funding for the Hinckley Report is made
possible in part by the George S. and Dolores Doré Eccles
Foundation and the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund.
Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report"
Utah's legislative session is underway and already
moving at a break-neck pace.
Which issues are at the forefront?
What bills are leaders pushing?
And how are citizens making their voices heard?
The federal government is open for business for now.
Who did Utahans blame for the partial shutdown?
How do they want the debate over immigration
and border security to proceed?
And what is being done to prevent
another government shutdown?
♪♪♪
♪♪♪
Jason: Good evening and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."
I'm Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics.
Covering the week, we have Doug Wright with KSL,
Julia Ritchey, political reporter with KUER,
and Matt Canham, managing editor for the Salt Lake Tribune.
So glad to have you all with us on the show.
Let's jump in, so many things happening in
politics and in the state of Utah.
Doug, we're going to start with you.
This week the governor delivered his State of the State address.
What he gets to do every year, talk about what he thinks
is well in some initiatives.
You've had a chance to watch a lot of
these from many governors.
Give us a rating on this particular State of the State
and some of the, kind of the themes that you saw.
Doug Wright: It's a good solid B.
I've noticed Governor Herbert become much more relaxed, and I
think some of it is now that he's in the final
stages, probably, of his active political career,
at least in elective office.
I've noticed a lightening up a little bit, but also a focus.
I think this time, he seems comfortable.
He seems very comfortable in the shoes that he's
standing in behind the podium.
I think he's comfortable in addressing the legislature.
Several things intrigued me, first of all,
he is the number one salesman for the state.
He is the cheerleader for Utah, there's no doubt about it.
And I always enjoy that about Governor Herbert, but also this
time, he's really focused on the quality of our air,
and some ways to do it.
We've heard this for years, what about the quality of the air?
What are we going to do?
Well, we're beginning to see some direction, at
least, from the state level.
I'm also intrigued with the sales tax decrease, and that's
something that I hope we can get into here.
Jason: Well, let's jump into a couple of these.
Julia, there were some specifics that we were waiting for.
We see the governor's budget in December.
One of those, let's do in order that Doug just talked about,
$100 million for air quality.
We finally got some specifics and what he wants to do with it.
Julia Ritchey: Right, so we know he wants to help replace
some of those wood stoves, replacing gas powered
lawn mowers and leaf blowers.
So, we actually got more details than we usually
get in a State of the State.
I was kind of, I thought it was remarkable that he had this
sense of urgency that I thought was lacking last year where,
because it is his maybe next to last year before becoming a
lame duck governor, we got, actually, a laundry
list of things that he wants, including that big tax cut.
Jason: Mm-hmm, on that air quality issue, you're
interviewing lots of people and on the hill,
that's not something you always see a
Republican governor talking about.
How is this being received by legislators on the hill?
Julia: I, you know, I've been kind of curious about, like, the
impetus for this, but I really do believe because Salt Lake is
in the running for another winter Olympics in about 10
years, there is that sense of urgency that we
need to do something to both, you know, protect our climate
here, but also make it hospitable if we're going to
host another big games like that.
And so, reducing carbon emissions is a big part of that,
and he has a goal of, I think, of 25%
decrease in carbon emissions.
Matt Canham: It also comes to businesses,
though, want to relocate.
We'll also talk a lot about air quality or people who are living
here who are thinking about what they're going
to do with their careers.
If they have a health situation, it can be a factor.
Brad Wilson, the new House Speaker,
his--one of his kids has asthma, and so he feels that when those,
you know, inversions happen.
So, it is something that affects a lot of people.
Beyond the incentives to get rid of lawnmowers, which
I think that's something I should probably get
on this year, you know.
Julia: I had a push mower, so.
Doug: You know, that may be the way to go.
They're also talking about, you know, the state fleet and the
efficiency of state buildings, you know,
the state is a huge employer, and they can impact this by
increasing, you know, those who telecommute.
So, they're going to try to do that and then try to get other
businesses to get on board.
If they actually spend up to $100 million, we'll see, but it
is a more concrete effort than we have seen in the past.
Doug: Not only the Olympics and not only some of the other
things that have been mentioned here, but when we're looking at
our population doubling by 2050, even with tier 3 fuels,
even as we all buy new vehicles that hopefully are considerably
better, like tier 3 vehicles, as it were,
that's supposed to really, really dramatically help.
And when the majority of our small particulate pollution is
coming from our tail pipes, second is the smokestacks
out of her homes and our furnaces and water
heaters, and third is industry.
I think that's why there's such a focus because even with all of
these things that are being accomplished,
and some are happening naturally with the switches to fuels and
so on, but with the population of the state doubling,
that's a factor, and we want the state to grow, but wow,
that's a real challenge.
Julia: I think we should mention that the majority of
Americans believe in climate change, and so it's not been a
very winning issue for Republicans to
keep their head in the sand about it.
So, I think you are seeing the public opinion shift, and
you're seeing the Republicans following that shift.
Doug: Well, Mitt Romney kind of made that cool, remember?
He, you know, kind of I was country before country was cool.
He was a climate change guy before it was cool
in the Republican party.
He said, "I, for one, am a Republican who does believe
in climate change and I believe that humankind
plays a role in it."
That was a tectonic shift.
Jason: Yeah, big statement at the time.
Mm-hmm, all these changes that we talked about,
particularly, Matt, let's get into some of those things you
talked about that the governor has at his disposal, with
the government and the running of it, it all takes money.
And I'm kind of curious what your thoughts are about the
governor's approach to this because he announced kind of
right along with Brad Wilson, Speaker of the House,
a $225 million reduction in the sales tax.
Matt: That would be the biggest tax decrease in our,
you know, states history, and I think that marker on his resume
is something that's attractive to a governor that's near the
end of his term in office.
And it's also about a shift in how we tax.
Right now there's lots of services that you
don't pay a tax for.
Let's say, if you have someone come and mow your lawn,
or what's another example?
Julia: Liposuction.
Matt: Liposuction or any medical procedure really,
if you need a lawyer for anything, you don't pay a tax.
Carpet cleaning is another example.
I shouldn't say this, but newspaper
subscriptions are an example.
Jason: We'll keep subscribing.
Matt: Now, here's the flip-side: if you try to tax
everything, every one of those people, the medical
professionals, the lawyers, the newspaper publishers will come
and defend and say this is why this shouldn't be taxed,
and that's why this is such a big, hefty political lift.
The way you sweeten it is a tax decrease,
a tax, you know, reduction.
That's how you make it something that is worth it to a politician
to go through what will probably be a very painful exercise.
The other thing I would point out is doing
this in 45 days is hard.
And I would say, if I had to guess on whether this is
successful or not this session, I would put it at less than 50%
because every one of those lobbying groups are going to
come out and defend their tax exception--or exemption,
and getting that done while you're trying to get the rest of
the business of the state done, that's
just a heavy, heavy lift.
Doug: I was mentioning this prior to us going on the air
here, and speaking with Jason, but I look at my mother.
She's 90 years old now, and she lives primarily off services.
And occasionally she'll make a purchase,
often small, but her big expenses are services.
People coming into her home providing services and so on,
I wonder how we get, especially with our senior citizens,
how we make that equitable for them because many of the things
that we have mentioned here, they are primary consumers of.
You look at the medical things, you look at traditional old
school services, mowing the lawns,
having the carpet cleaners come in.
They hire that done.
So, for my mother, and I think AARP would probably agree on
this, there could be a real disproportionate wallop
for our senior citizens.
Jason: That's a very interesting point.
Julia, if you start looking at these implications 'cause the
governor says, this is the phrase,
right, "You broaden the base, you lower the tax," right?
So, you know, he even made some kind of funny statement.
We still tax buggy whips in his speech, you know.
He's talking about an outdated tax code
but does that compensate?
If we reduce the rate but we're still starting to have these
impacts that we're not used to paying,
is there still a disproportionate hit to those
that may be using the services the most?
Julia: Right, so he is worried about regressive
taxes and how those will
disproportionately affect lower income.
So, he says he's open to things like lowering income tax, which
we already have, I think, like a 4.95,
pretty low rate, but doing an earned income credit.
The issue is there just haven't been a lot of specifics yet.
We have two Republican lawmakers working on the big bill that
would look at what would be taxed and who gets taxed,
but we don't really know yet.
And even though he mentioned ride share
companies like Uber and Lyft.
Lyft already has a sales tax agreement with the state.
So, it's really unclear how much more, but Phil Dean,
who's with with the governor's office of Management and Budgets
said, "If you got rid of all of the sales tax exemptions that
are currently in existence, you would actually lower the rate to
below 4%, which is what he's aiming for."
He says he wants it even below that, below two percent.
But again, those people, all of those exemptions have
lobbies that go with them.
Matt: They always do, don't they?
Jason: Well, I want to keep on the money theme for a moment
too 'cause even as we're talking about lowering the tax
rate, Matt, we're still talking about Medicaid expansion.
So, let's get into how these two play together a little bit,
and maybe tell us what's happening with that bill that
just came out of this senate this week.
Matt: Yes, so, last January, and correct me if I get this
wrong, but last January the legislature passed a limited
Medicaid expansion up to 100% of the poverty level
and added a work requirement.
So, the people who get it have to at least prove that they're
attempting to find work.
There's limited exceptions for certain people.
To get that they needed the Trump
administration to provide a waiver.
The Trump administration did not.
The initiative went forward, there was a
much more robust expansion.
It went up to 138% of poverty.
I believe that's an extra 40,000 people that would get access to
Medicaid insurance, and that passed with
about 53% of the vote.
The legislature said, "Let's go back to our plan in January."
Almost roughly the same.
The one thing that they're keeping is the tax increase
that voters passed for it.
That part, they agree, is the will of the people.
The actual level of expansion, they are debating whether that,
actually, the voters really wanted to do what
the voters agreed to do.
Jason: Well, Julia you've been on the hill a lot.
Protests, people are on the hill.
Julia: Yeah, this defies logic.
I mean, it passed initially in the senate.
It will have to come up for another senate
and house vote, obviously.
But seven senators--or eight senators in districts where
Medicaid expansion passed voted against--or voted to
repeal portions of the bill, and that makes no
sense at all because if you're saying you're with the will of
the people and you're actually voting against
what your constituents voted for, makes no sense.
And it's all, as he said, predicated on receiving federal
waivers from the Trump administration that
have yet to be approved.
We have no idea who in the Center for Medicaid and Medicare
are talking to our senators about this.
So, it's just a big gamble, but Senator Christensen says
it's a gamble he's willing to take.
Jason: He does; now, Doug, people are talking to
you about this every day, right?
Doug: Well, I kind of came loaded, and a few more--
No, these are not notes. These are questions.
I have the opportunity to moderate a town hall
meeting right at the beginning.
It was last week, just at the beginning
of the legislative session, I've done it for years.
The legislators in our area, that includes Cottonwood Height,
Holladay, Murray, Millcreek, and some of Salt Lake City,
and we had five of our elected representatives there,
and they always ask folks to just give me the 3 x 5
cards, and you kinda do a quick distillation,
and then you ask the questions on their behalf.
It's an interesting process.
Normally, we see education.
The stack is the biggest for education.
Then it's usually tax issues and so on,
then kind of a smattering.
This year, I was really quite stunned.
It's all about the propositions, primarily about the
Medicaid expansion, Proposition 3.
But all of the props were brought up, and I
heard things like this, and we distilled it into
several different questions, but, "I'd like to know the
process and reasoning behind the legislative changing
of our propositions," our propositions.
Then this one, I may need my glasses for this because we have
some small writing on here I hadn't anticipated.
But it said, "There were propositions passed by the
majority of voters in November, but now the Legislature seems to
be modifying or overturning these propositions.
How is this possible?"
And every one of these deals with this,
and I've never seen anything quite like it.
And people really are--first of all, the process, it was
explained by one of our legislators that basically a
proposition carries about the same weight as legislation.
So, it can be overwritten, and you've been
in the governors office, so you know that.
And so, but it's the expectations of the voters
because this brought out, helped to bring out,
along with some other things, some really unprecedented
numbers of people participating in the process.
They were passionate. They were involved.
The Legislature, since its vouchers were overturned,
has made it much more difficult than it used to be to get
something on the ballot.
It takes herculean efforts and big money.
So, they're not only wondering about that.
They're wondering whether the Legislature now is going to not
only modify what they did, or overturn what they did,
if they are also going to now make it more punitive and make
it more difficult to get something on the ballot.
Jason: We do have some bills already looking at that.
Julia: Yeah, I think this speaks to the disconnect that
still exists between the citizens and the Legislature.
You would think after having three ballot initiatives even
make it to the ballot that the Legislature would be a little
bit more receptive to what the public is telling them
and what the public wants.
And so, while this Medicaid roll-back is under the guise of
fiscal conservatism, we're actually asking to pay more as a
state initially than what was even passed in the expansion.
I think people are paying closer attention to these issues,
and so they can call the Legislature's bluff
a lot easier than they used to.
Jason: Okay, I might follow the call-the-bluff analogy in
just a little bit, 'cause I want to talk about
what's happening in Washington D.C.
The government is now open, all right?
Julia: For now.
Jason: For now; we have two weeks left on this compromise,
right, as they start trying to negotiate what
they're going to do, and this--
Let me read a quote to you from Mitt Romney
about what he thinks happened, and let's see if you think
it's having the right impact.
Mitt Romney said, "The decision to reopen government for
three weeks basically says to the Democrats,
'Okay, now put up, or shut up.'
So the president calls their bluff.'"
That was your line there.
"And says, 'Okay, we'll open the government.
Now it's your turn to actually come up with a deal that
helps us secure the border.'"
Now, Matt--
Matt: That's not how poker works.
Jason: That's not how it works.
Matt: No, I mean, the president folded because he
didn't have a good enough hand to play the game.
That's what happened. It's not calling a bluff.
He put his cards down.
He said, "I'm going to keep the government shut down until I
get the border wall money."
Congress--he didn't have the votes.
Congress didn't do it.
He put his cards down and said, "Okay, fine, I open up
the government, but let's play another hand."
His hand didn't get any better.
Nothing changed for him.
Congress--there is no incentive for Congress to now
give him that money again.
And even this week, he had a tweet saying that the border
is--wall is being built, and I don't really
need you guys' help.
And so, it's mixed messages for the congressional negotiators.
When it gets to what, February 15th is
the next deadline, I don't know why if you were a person who
wasn't voting for border wall money, you'd suddenly
vote for border wall money, you know?
Like, I don't know what changed for you that
this would be worth it, you know.
While it might be different in Utah,
nationally the president was taking the brunt of the
criticism; and once again, it's his request that is the holdup.
Congress can just pass a budget and it's the president
who's the one that's forcing the shutdown.
Jason: Julia, to use Matt's analogy there, the opening bid
was zero from the Democrats this week, right?
Julia: The analogy I saw on Twitter was, Trump is playing
checkers while Speaker Nancy Pelosi is playing chess, right?
So, she's got a lot more maneuvering power at this point.
But I think it speaks to the reality that President Trump is
unwilling and unable to deal or cope with the
realities of divided government.
Jason: One of the interesting things that we've been looking
at, and what we did with the "Salt Lake Tribune" poll as to
who Utahans think are to blame for this shutdown,
it's interesting, 43% of Utahans blamed President Trump,
44% blamed the Democrats, 3% blamed the Republicans.
Doug, so Republicans are skating on this one.
It seems like two groups kind of in the crosshairs on this.
Doug: Yeah, and they shouldn't be skating because
this is a failure of Congress on both sides.
Congress needs to take the reins,
you know, in their hands.
They need to steer this.
Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities now for years
and years and years, and when people complain about executive
overreach, and legislative overreach, or legislating from
the bench, that's because Congress isn't doing their job.
I'm sorry, that's just the way I see it.
If Congress was acting under the Constitution and exercising
their constitutional powers, we wouldn't be
having some of these problems.
And so, the Republicans can't and should not be
allowed to skate on this.
Congress as a whole harbors a real responsibility here.
I think it's 50/50.
I think the president and the Congress, they need to step up.
I don't know when we weaponized the budget?
And now, we bludgeon each other.
There used to be lively fights over the budget.
The purse strings are very important, you know?
There are some leveraging things that can happen here,
but weaponizing the budget, this is a relatively new thing
that started in the late 1970s.
And now we've got it down to the art of war,
and it's working to the disadvantage of the country.
And can I just throw one thing that has made me crazy
in this whole conversation?
I was in Hawaii anticipating what the president was going to
say, that he had this plan and so on,
and he said basically, "You build my wall,
I'll give you the DACCA kids."
That just drove me insane.
DACCA kids should not be used as a pawn in this nasty
weaponizing of the budget.
It's reprehensible.
Jason: All right, Julia, to this point in all of the
proposals that have come out since the government reopened,
the DACCA issue has not even been on the table.
Julia: Right, and I don't know--I mean,
there wasn't that much difference between what
Democrats and Republicans wanted.
It really came down to President Trump reneging on his agreement
last year to put Dreamers and create a pathway, not to
citizenship, but at least to extend that program that he had
pulled the plug on, and he pulled out of that agreement.
And so, I think what we have, and I'm all about the both sides
thing, but in this case, I really do think President Trump
has gone back on his word over and over again on what he wants
and it has, you know, placated the hardliners in his party
and hardliners on Fox News.
And so, that is why we can't reach an agreement right now.
Matt: And the Senate abdicated to the president.
Mitch McConnell is following where the president's lead is on
this negotiation, which means when you talk about Congress,
sometimes, especially after the last election where the
Democrats took the House, maybe your average voter out there
might think Congress is now in the hands of Democrats.
One, the House is, not the Senate.
So, when you say, "Congress is to blame,"
that is a both-parties problem.
Doug: It is absolutely.
Matt: But the Senate is the one that says, "We're not going to
vote unless the president agrees to it," in which they were
abdicating their congressional responsibility to the Executive.
That is where the failure is coming through.
Jason: So, what are you seeing right now from the
president's office in terms of his options, right?
He keeps dangling at least one out there.
Matt: Which is the--declaring an emergency.
It's hard to argue that he's been in office for two years,
he campaigned before that for two years, on this and that--
Julia: And Mexico paying for the wall.
Matt: And that now it's the emergency.
And so, there are people who are concerned that that might not
hold up in courts because it's hard to defend that with the
circumstances in which we've seen.
But he might try it because it doesn't appear that he's--
I don't see how he gets his $5.7 billion from Congress.
He doesn't have the votes.
And this is one thing I want to really quickly point out.
Every president loses, right?
Every president loses a big initiative.
Clinton lost healthcare.
George W. Bush lost immigration.
He lost privatizing Social Security.
On the fist day in office, President Barack Obama signed
an executive order to close Guantanamo Bay.
Guantanamo Bay is still open.
He didn't have the votes.
Congress defeated all of those presidents.
Congress right now is defeating this president, and at some
point, either they are going to have to--something is going
to have to change or he's going to have to accept that reality.
Doug: Can we talk about the emergency for a second?
You know, I've seen so many Oval Offices--Office speeches
and they are serious business.
I mean, they've been the Cuban Missile Crisis to Berlin.
I mean, you name it.
And again, are we going to weaponize that now?
Is this something--you mentioned, will the
courts, will the judicial hold up this emergency?
I would ask, "Will the American people uphold this emergency?
I respectfully ask, "Where is the emergency, other than
emergencies that have been created by the
president and the Congress?"
Julia: Well, the president has confused two very distinct
issues, which is border crossings
are at an all-time low.
So, there isn't really a case to be made, at this point, for
additional fencing, maybe reinforcing the fencing or
barriers that are already there.
The real crisis is in the families from Central America
who are actually entering the country through legal ports
of entry and seeking asylum.
That is where there the real crisis is, and that is where
Democrats and Republicans agree that more
immigration judges and more border
enforcement officers could help.
But because President Trump is confused over this very issue
that he's made a signature part of his campaign,
he's unable to break his own impasse.
Jason: Let's talk about the implications at home,
'cause you started talking about who's got the votes.
Matt, let's talk about this poll that we did recently about how
Utahans feel about the president and his actions,
and one of them in particular is the question that we asked
together, "The Hinkley" and "The Tribune",
is, "If the 2020 election were held today,
would you vote for President Trump?"
And interestingly, 41% of Utahans say would definitely,
or probably vote for him, 54% said, they definitely would not.
Matt: Right, well, in 2016 I believe that the president
got 45% in Utah?
So, it's a little lower, but it's--his staying power has
been impressive, you know?
No matter what's going on in the country,
he's roughly about in that, you know,
high 40s low 50s in Utah approval rating.
The one thing about our polls, we don't put them up against
anyone, and so, there's no one else that's getting
the bat taken to them.
But it's a bad sign in a state like this when you have
a president this unpopular.
It's been the same, and he's not been able to change those
numbers, and I also don't think he's attempted to.
He's a president who has played to that base,
and has not looked to expand his approval among other groups.
Jason: Julia, this is not uncommon to see presidents
kind of have these ebbs and flows, right?
How important for this next election is that border wall?
Julia: I don't know, honestly.
I wish I had better predictions at this point.
But it has opened up an opportunity for an inner-party
challenger on the Republican side to challenge Trump,
and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw someone try
to primary him in 2020.
Jason: Okay, so we may see that, but we see some interesting
Democrats coming forward as well, and Doug, I'm curious what
you about this Howard Schultz, the old CEO of Starbucks.
Doug: Well, it's interesting because he's basically saying
both parties are not doing their jobs.
They're not watching out for the American people,
and I think in many regards, he's right.
Plus, the number of Americans who do now say they affiliate
with a party versus that don't, it's amazing.
If somebody could energize that middle,
we might have an interesting scenario, whether we would have
a winner, but it could change the game.
Jason: Very brilliant insights.
Thank you for your comments today.
Well, that's it for "The Hinkley Report".
If you'd like to listen to "The Hinkley Report"
as a podcast, please go to
kued.org/hinkleyreport and subscribe.
Thank you and good night.
♪♪♪
For more infomation >> Ishq Me Ek Pal Ki Bhi Judai [Old Is Gold Love Song Mix] Supar Hite Love Dj Song 2019 - Duration: 5:28. 
For more infomation >> Premera is expanding its Medicare Advantage plan, covering new counties and adding new providers - Duration: 5:53. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét