♪♪♪ announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by the Cleone Peterson Eccles Endowment Fund.

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report," legislators continue to argue the case for tax reform as details of their plan come to light.

Newly-released revenue numbers signal a cap on a historic surplus.

And Utah's leaders weigh into a polarizing national debate and make calls for civility.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ 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 Senator Jen Plumb, Democrat from Salt Lake City; Daniel Woodruff, Reporter with KUTV 2 News; and Senator Mike McKell, Republican from Utah County.

I'm so glad we get to chat this evening.

We have one week left of the legislative session.

A lot is happening, but even as this air--this show is airing this evening, we'll be getting a preview of the budget, where things are going to fall down.

Senator McKell, let's start with you a little bit about kind of the themes we're going to see as the legislature decides what the top funding priorities are.

Mike McKell: I think it's a great question, and thank you for having me on today, Jason.

I think you'll see--you'll see a historic movement towards some tax cuts.

I think that's important to the Republican caucus, and it feels like there's really good support for that.

We want to tackle water.

What we're all concerned about what's happening with the Great Salt Lake.

And then you're going to see some historic funding for education.

We're concerned about our teachers, we're losing great, great teachers, and you're gonna see some historic funding.

We're really proud of what we've been able to do.

We've got large surpluses, and we're really trying to take those surpluses and take them and direct them, and it's something that's really beneficial long-term.

Jason: Senator Plumb, how is this happening?

Of course we have about $2 billion of money to appropriate, one time and ongoing, but about $3.2 billion dollars worth of asks.

Jen Plumb: The numbers are pretty astounding, aren't they?

I mean, I'll tell you as a freshman senator, that is one of the things that has been most kind of eye-popping to me is, wow, this is big dollars.

I will tell you there is a really concerted effort to be thoughtful to be making sure that those areas where we can put some additional impact in.

I think in addition to what Senator McKell mentioned, infrastructure, housing, looking at some of the crises surrounding being unsheltered and homelessness.

They're being very wise.

We are being very wise in the way that we look at it but also kind of mindful of the fact that the economy folks are anxious about what's up next.

It's great to be in a surplus.

It's awful to be in a deficit and have to take funding away.

So there's there's going to be, I think, a lot of thought put into what we fund and what we hang on to.

Jason: Daniel, talk about what's going to happen going forward, because this last week the legislature and the executive branch got together, they come up with a consensus revenue forecast number for the coming year, which gives us a little preview of what's happening right now, but what's to come.

They've identified about $400 million of ongoing money next year, about $800 million dollars of one-time money for next year, but there's some caution in the words that they're using now looking forward to the next year.

Daniel Woodruff: Yeah, I think when the new revenue projections came out earlier this week, they were waiting with kind of bated breath what is it going to look like?

Ultimately it came out what they're calling flat.

So the numbers that they got in over November are basically the same as the numbers they just received.

But that alone, I think, has caused caution on the part of leadership.

In fact, I talked to Senator Jerry Stevenson a few weeks ago, he was telling me about some of the asks he'd gotten.

For example, Layton wanted a reflecting pool, for-profit companies were asking for money for some of their things, and so there was a lot of money that he was getting hit up for, but the minute those new numbers came out, he said we are going to need to tighten our belts.

And so I think there's a recognition that while we do have a surplus in the state, it's not potentially the amount that some thought there might be, and it may not be prudent in their eyes to go out and spend as much as we possibly can.

Jason: Right, Senator McKell, this has happened the last couple of years is we get to that revenue time, and it's like surprise, we've got more.

Not the case, how is that impacting how you all are looking in the budget?

Mike: I think Daniel hit it right on.

I think legislative leadership, especially the executive appropriations chairs, they got out in front of it.

So I'm the BEDL chair, so I get some of-- Jason: Explain what that means.

Mike: So business and economic development, it's the committee where some of the nonsense comes to my committee, I'll just be really honest.

The reflecting pond, for example, that comes to my committee, and what we really try to do is look at every single request and make sure that every single request has statewide impact.

Is it something that would benefit the state?

Is it something that's gonna cause an ongoing liability for the state?

And if it didn't, if it was a sheerly local request, we just eliminate it from our list.

Jason: Okay, one of the things that when we're looking at surpluses is what we're going to do on tax reform.

So Senator Plumb, a lot of conversations right now, where do we see this going?

Let's talk about what's happening with the Democrats, the approach to tax reform, and then we'll see what's happening in terms of the bills.

Jen: Well, and I think one of the interesting things for me to watch is some of these concepts that, for example, Representative Lesser has been talking about taking out the tax on food for a couple of years now.

And that really got traction this year.

And it looks like there's actually a bill coming out of the house now that would do that, would require a constitutional amendment as well.

But I think in general, you know, from what I'm hearing within our caucus is is we would really like to make sure that the things that need to be funded and need to be taken care of are handled, education, making sure that our families are still going to be able to stay afloat.

The cost of living is not getting any better, the cost of housing, the cost of pretty much existing, and so, you know, I'm really looking forward to seeing how we can take those pieces, and to me, it doesn't matter which party gets credit for it, right?

It's that it actually happens.

But I love to see some of these ideas getting more kind of legs.

Jason: Senator Plumb--Senator McKell, talk about this food tax, uh, removing that.

So that has some traction.

Looks like it's going to come to you all in the Senate.

Talk about what kind of tie that might have to the constitutional earmark for education, because the two seem to be connected.

Mike: Yeah, they do seem-- they are connected.

So there is an earmark, as your viewers probably understand.

Our income tax funds education, both higher ed, public ed, and some social services, and that's a difficulty because sometimes our income tax is really, really high, and it ties our hands with--it takes away some of that flexibility.

So we are going to look at the food sales tax, and we probably will tie those together.

That's something that we'll put out on the ballot.

It would take a constitutional amendment, take the voters to do that.

And I think there's a lot of wisdom in doing that.

What we don't want to do is create a situation where we don't have stability in our budget.

We are very, very well managed state.

We take our credit rating very serious, and we really want to make sure we have stability moving forward.

Jason: Daniel, what are you hearing as you're talking to people and talking to legislators on the hill about these two issues coming together?

Daniel: Well, we're hearing now that the earmark may stay, but it may be revised, so it would still require voter approval, but it would basically say--and this is as of yesterday, that the discussion is education will be funded, and it will factor in inflation, it will factor in growth, but after that, then other needs in the state can be funded.

And I should also note children and disabilities are funded with that earmark too.

Jason: Which we've already had a vote on.

Daniel: Correct, but the point is they're working--lawmakers and education groups have been talking for a while, as of yet no agreement, but there is that discussion about possibly keeping the earmark on, just changing it so that there-- as Senator McKell said--is a little more flexibility in terms of funding both education, public and higher ed, as well as these other needs.

And getting rid of the food tax would cost $200 million.

That has to come from somewhere.

Jason: Senator McKell, this is Senator Dan McCay's bill on the constitutional amendment.

How is that sitting right now?

Likely to go forward, your colleagues?

Mike: I think it is.

My impression is there's good support to see that, and I like the idea of doing that, involving the voters on that issue.

I think we do need a little bit of flexibility, especially, you know, as Daniel mentioned, if we pull out $200 million from the sales tax on food, we do need to make up for it somewhere else.

And I think it's helpful, and I think it's got some good support.

Jason: From your side of the aisle, talk about what your conversations here.

Jen: Well, you know, the most interesting thing to me is kind of--and this is a newbie, right?

The going into the EAC process, the scene where it's all gonna come out.

How do you best advocate for those that don't have the voice?

So again, for me that's the kids, that's the families, that's the people right on the fringes, and again, I'm hearing a lot of openness to this concept, too, that flexibility, because there are other needs.

Education, we absolutely have to make sure that it's funded, and we're--from what I'm hearing going to fund it with higher numbers than we've ever done before, but that we--having some flexibility as long as we have guaranteed that space for education to be covered is a good idea is what I'm hearing.

Jason: I want to get into some specific bills, but maybe as we get ready to do that, Daniel, seems like we might have a lot more of them this year than we've seen in the past.

You've been doing some reporting on this.

What does that look like?

Daniel: Yeah, well, and it changes by the minute, really.

So the latest numbers we got, we--there have been nearly 1400 bill requests between the House and the Senate, and of those, nearly 900 of them had been drafted.

There was some discussion about whether that was a record number, but I think the consensus generally among the senators I talked to was that's a record number.

There's a lot of bills.

Jason: Yeah, there are, biggest number I've seen.

Mike: Too many, too many.

Jen: Those drafters, ooh, they've been busy.

Jason: They have indeed.

The office of legislative research and general counsel spending a lot of time getting these bills ready.

Do you mind if we talk about a couple of these bills and then some of the things that you see coming?

I want to start with one that's interesting, 'cause it has bipartisan support and a little bit unique for the state of Utah.

Senator Plumb, let's talk with you.

This bill, it's Representative Michael Peterson from Logan, unprofessional conduct amendments, House Bill 228, it's about conversion therapy.

Talk about that particular bill, what it does, and let's see why this is a bipartisan approach to this issue.

Jen: Well, I think when this bill came out, and when we first started hearing about it, there was a lot of anxiety, especially in communities, because this dealt with conversion therapy, and this dealt-- Jason: Which means?

Jen: So for example, the concept that someone's sexuality, LGBTQIA populations in particular, that things that have been reported to happen in the past to convert someone away from their true identity, their authentic selves, that there's no bearing in science, that there's no basis for that this is right, that this is effective, that this is even okay.

There had been efforts in the past to go ahead and say this isn't alright in Utah.

We thought that was kind of handled and then the topic came back up again, which I'll tell you honestly really made a whole lot of folks anxious about, oh, we're going here again.

Is this gonna be possibly happening?

So the bill came as it passed through, and I think in really kind of a credit to the way things can go well, all sorts of groups got together and weighed in and had expressed their concerns, and from the far this side to the far this side came together to decide that we really needed to codify that there is a conversion therapy ban.

Now, is it perfect?

No, of course there is no such thing as perfect, and I think, you know, we all want agreement and protections in place, but I also really think it's important to acknowledge for me, the most important thing about this is the law is done.

Folks who live particularly in these spaces don't have to keep worrying we're going to keep coming back to it, it's done.

And for me, I like that.

Jason: Senator McKell, Utah's now one of 20 states to ban conversion therapy.

Mike: Well, and I'd say I'm proud of the work we've done there to see the Eagle Forum to the far right, and Equality Utah, the far left come together.

I'll just say this conversion therapy is insane.

A lot of it is insane.

I think we all get that, and seeing both sides work together in our state with compassion and in an appropriate way.

I'm really proud of what we've done there.

I know 20 states have banned it.

There's a lot of other states that just don't--they just don't use it, and we certainly don't want to be in the minority of states that allow that to continue.

And I'm really proud that both sides got together and came up with a really good resolution.

Jason: Another issue that seems to have bipartisan support, Daniel, let's talk about the Great Salt Lake.

Everyone's talking about this.

I want to talk about a couple of bills that are out that are going forward to help the Great Salt Lake.

One of those, which is interesting, this is Mike Schultz, Republican from Hooper, amendments related to the Great Salt Lake, creating a Great Salt Lake Commissioner with a charge to bring parties together for the benefit of the Great Salt Lake.

Daniel: And to create a strategic plan.

And Representative Schultz--who is the House Majority leader, so it brings the weight of the office there--has said that there are a number of state agencies in the past that have not communicated well about the lake.

He gave one example about how one agency did something that directly contradicted another agency on the lake, and he said there needs to be essentially a single point that says here is what we are going to do for the lake.

Let's make sure everybody is on the same page.

I asked him will this get water to the lake?

He believed it will once that communication is better.

And then concurrently there's another bill from Representative Owens that actually would mandate that conserved water go to the lake.

So I think you see Republican, Democratic proposals kind of coming together in an effort to both streamline communication and work on the lake that has not been there in the past as well as practically let's moving--move some of this water from up in the mountains, down into the Great Salt Lake.

Jason: This bill, Representative Owens, it talks about when you can water.

No watering lawns from October 1st to May 1st.

That's part of this bill here.

Just trying to get to the usage of the water as well.

And this certainly does seem like a bipartisan issue.

Jen: It does, and I think that it brings that kind of attention of--and there was a candidate who ran in the last session that would say water, water, water, everything that we talked about, we should have a water eye on it, and I think that that's kind of what's coming together here.

Whatever bill you're doing, what's the water implication?

What's--how can we insert something that may improve our water situation?

And I think that's wise.

Jason: Let's talk about education for a moment, Senator McKell, full day kindergarten, something that we've talked about the state.

It didn't have traction for a long time.

It started last session but really got some attention this session.

Mike: Well, I'm excited about it, and last session, to your point, we kind of passed it.

There was a you know, I think $48 million funding note, and that got knocked down to $12 million.

I'm excited for it, I support it, I think the science and the data is really clear the sooner we get these kids started, the better.

And I think we've been proactive, and I think it just goes to show if you've got a good idea, sometimes it takes a few years.

You followed--you've all followed the legislature for a long time.

A lot of these big issues take a few years to develop.

It feels like we're at the tail end of this issue.

It feels like we're finally getting this one across the finish line.

Really appreciate those who have worked on it.

Senator Millner on Capitol Hill is an absolute champion and has fought that issue for years, and I'm really proud of what--where that's going.

Jason: Go ahead, Senator Plumb, you look like you have a comment.

Jen: Oh, I just as a pediatrician and as a mom and as someone who really thinks a lot about our kids, I'm really happy to see that, like you said, coming to the tail end of that, that it really feels like the will is there, now we just have to figure out the nuts and bolts and the dollars.

Jason: I want to talk about another issue here.

It's one of your bills, Senator McKell, and then, Daniel, I want to talk about it from the media perspective as well.

Social media, all right, you've got a bill on this, you've talked about it a lot, what is the goal right now with our legislature when it comes to social media and our children?

Mike: Let me just start by saying this, social media is bad, and it harms our kids in a really, really bad way.

CDC released a report just this last week.

They surveyed 17,000 students, 9th through 12th grades, and some of the data was absolutely startling.

More than 50% of those girls felt a sustained loneliness for long periods of time, and even more frightening than that, 30% of our girls in that survey had seriously considered suicide.

So we're trying to get out in front of it.

There's a lot of a lot of research that ties that back to social media.

So I've got a bill that's going to engage parents in a really powerful way.

I want parents involved, I want some parent control tools, I want parents to be involved in the process.

But let me just tell you two other things that I think are really important.

Number one, I don't want social media companies collecting data on our kids, and that includes not collecting data and not advertising to our kids.

And number two are messaging services.

Old men reaching out to young girls, that is a serious, serious problem, and that is banned under--we banned some of that type of messaging in the bill.

There is great bipartisan support.

In fact, I would say Senator Plumb had some really powerful comments that I appreciated on the Senate floor in regards to mental health and social media.

Jen: Yeah, it's--as Senator McKell was presenting the bill and I shared that I work in the pediatric emergency department with kiddos in sometimes their very worst times, and I can tell you over my 20 years, I've never seen a time like this where there are--we can have an ER with 12 different kiddos in their experiencing medical crises which--where we call a space where they're coming in needing psychological or help.

And one of the most challenging things for me to kind of embrace was we want to make sure they're safe, we want to make sure they don't have anything that can harm themselves with, we get them down into the gown, et cetera, to take care of them.

And consistently one of the most challenging pieces is how upset they are when we say you can't have your phone.

And then to me, there's a big link there, like, there is this connection that we've got to find some way to get in between, because it's not good for our kiddos.

It's not good for us as adults even.

I mean, I think we can all find ourselves in those rabbit holes, so, yeah.

Jason: And Daniel, you're in that sort of the intersection there as well with the social media and media itself.

Daniel: Yeah, and just hearing from a lot of people, I think the striking thing about this issue is just how many opinions there are on it.

I've heard a lot of the opinions that have been shown by both senators here about the harms of social media.

I've also heard from a lot of people, and we hear it in committee about don't get in the way of parents and let us make our own decisions.

We've heard from people saying don't impose any further requirements about me giving any data to social media companies so that they can verify ages or verify identities.

So I just think it's been interesting to hear the discussion on this.

There are a lot of very loud opinions, and I think also overarching that, the governor has used his bully pulpit a lot on this, too, announcing that the state is planning to sue social media companies in some respect.

We don't know yet how and who, but this has been an issue that has really dominated the session.

But I would argue or say that there have been a lot of arguments on many sides of this.

Jason: Yeah, also on the federal side, we have some members of Congress are looking this including our own Congressman Chris Stewart.

Daniel: He's proposed a ban, 16 and under.

Jason: He has, how are you engaging with the federal-- on the federal level?

I mean, is that where--should it happen at the state level?

Is that your experience, or we just waiting on the federal government?

Mike: This is what I'd say, absolutely it should happen at the federal level.

And I'm glad you brought up Congressman Stewart.

You've got Senator Hawley, you had President Biden, it's a bipartisan issue.

President Biden in his State of the Union address called out social media companies, but absolutely should happen on the federal level.

Oftentimes they're slow to react.

For me, having states move forward, it's gonna put pressure on Congress, and I think that's helpful ultimately.

Jason: Okay, may I ask, what are we gonna see this week?

All right, we've got one week of legislative session.

Daniel: A lot of tired people.

Jason: Chaos, chaos, tired, all of that.

Some bills or themes just you may see coming in this last week, Senator Plumb.

Jen: Oh my, you know, my honestly my biggest fear--and I've tried so hard to keep up with what's coming through, read the bills, know what's there-- I just don't want to miss anything.

And so I don't know--Senator McKell, I'm looking to him for advice.

Like, I don't want to miss anything that, oh my gosh, I just--that bill was that?

I don't know that I feel that there's any particular theme.

I think there's still some really important pieces of legislation that need to get across the finish line maybe needs a little fight in the final polishing points.

That's what I may be watching for is that those good bills make it across and hopefully that some chaos-introducing bills don't take the wind out of the sails of those important bills.

Jason: It's interesting, Daniel, some of the legislators--and you can all comment on this, too--thought we'd get some of the more controversial things done at the beginning, and we certainly did have some of those at the beginning.

Any of those you see coming in this last week that have potential?

Daniel: Potential, I mean, we're seeing some election bills that are--they're somewhat controversial.

We're also seeing some that are being introduced that may or may not get hearings, for example.

One was released that is very similar to Florida's what critics have called the Don't Say Gay bill.

It's the one that requires that certain discussions not take place in grade school.

That got a lot of nationwide attention when Florida passed that.

That was just dropped within the last day, unclear whether that moves, but we are seeing some of those bills that get a lot of attention and maybe they move, maybe they don't.

I also think next week we're going to see a lot of work still on the food tax as well as that big question of how do we spend this extra money that the state has.

How is--how are lawmakers gonna spend your extra tax dollars.

Jason: Senator McKell.

Mike: I've been up there 11 years now, and I just complement both the House and the Senate.

I think a lot of the big rocks got taken care of early.

You mentioned some of the controversial issues were taken care of earlier in the session.

I think that's true.

I think we're going to tidy up our budget as we move forward this last week.

I think the tax issue, as Daniel mentioned, I think that is going to be a big issue, but I'm hopeful--this is me being optimistic--that this last week is smooth, smooth sailing.

I'm hoping we're not there till midnight every night, and I'm an optimistic person.

So I think I think we have tackled most of the big issues already.

Jason: Okay, can we talk about civility for just a moment?

This very interesting thing happening on the national stage.

Of course, all three of you are good examples of civility, but it's interesting.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene had an interesting comment this week.

Of course, she's from Georgia where she said we need a national divorce is how she said this, to separate the red states and the blue steaks and shrink the federal government.

She said everyone she talks to says this.

And Senator Mitt Romney had a comment very quickly about this that we that we got caught on tape here, and Daniel, you were there.

So a little comment about this and see what's happening nationally and what we're going to do locally about it.

Here's the clip.

Mitt Romney: You know, I think Abraham Lincoln dealt with that kind of insanity.

We're not going to divide the country.

It's united we stand, divided we fall, and look, there's no question, but there are some people in my party and in the other party that say things to try and get a headline and get people to send them money.

And that happens to lead in today's loony left, I should say loony right.

Jason: Wow, Daniel.

Daniel: He didn't mince words, but on this issue he really doesn't.

And that's what we've seen is that he's not afraid to call out his own party on this issue.

And others in the Republican Party have done the same.

Spencer Cox, Governor Spencer Cox also had pretty harsh words for Representative Green.

Jason: Senator McKell, the governor got involved, members of Congress, even our own legislative leadership about this.

Talk about this and why we're seeing these kind of comments nationally.

Mike: Look, I'm gonna say--and I hate saying this when we're talking about civility-- she's totally nuts.

And Mitt Romney said it best.

Go look at her on social media, you drop these comments that are totally insane, your Twitter following, your Twitter handle goes up, and it's really, really tragic and disappointing to me that we drop these comments out in the media to have a bigger following.

Thankfully, that's not the Utah way.

That's not the way we do business here.

That's not--we do a little bit of that on Capitol Hill, but it's not like they do in D.C.

I'm really proud of how well we work together.

I mean, I'm here with my freshman colleague, Dr. Plumb, Senator Plumb.

We've got a great working relationship, and that's what we see in the state of Utah.

But I mean she's nuts.

I think we all realize that, and I hope the Republican Party, you know, if there is a divorce, I hope we divorce ourselves from people in our party who are just--who are just crazy, right?

And nuts and loony, whatever Mitt Romney--however he labeled it.

In our last 30 seconds about this one.

Jen: I mean, there really is no place for contempt.

Having contempt for one another because we view the world through different lenses does nothing.

And I think we can agree to disagree.

We can also say, hey, there's some points from this side that helped me be wiser, smarter, better.

Hopefully, I have some points that can help as well.

I don't want to live in a state that's an entirely blue state.

I hope nobody wants to live in a state that's entirely red state.

We're good together.

Let's embrace that.

Jason: It's interesting word that Senator Plumb just used when she talked about contempt.

So we'll follow that one closely going forward, 'cause of course, we're looking for a little more civility in all of our dialogue.

Thank you very much for your comments tonight.

And thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

This show is also available as a podcast on PBSUtah.org/HinckleyReport or wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪