Good evening. Welcome to this evening's candidate forum, featuring two candidates for the office of Vermont Lieutenant Governor. This evening's program is part of a series presented by the bridge and Orca media. With the aim of helping voters get to know the candidates better, I'm not frothing him, the evening's moderator. And before I do one more thing, I want to at least mention the first names of the team here that's making this broadcast possible. And it's in no particular order and in no particular seniority. Kenrick, Zach, Gilberto, Robin, and Chris, thank you for the work you're doing to put this together. These forums are intended to give candidates the opportunity to share their views on a number of public issues and to explain why they think each one of them thinks he should be elected. This is not a debate, so the candidates will not be questioning each other. Let me talk a little bit about the format. First, we have invited the public to submit questions in advance. And we've used these questions from the public to help us develop a list of questions. Here's something else. We'll also be taking call-in questions during the broadcast. When you phone us, you'll reach a volunteer who will take down your question and pass that question to me. And we'll answer as many questions as we have time to answer them. Let me add, the candidates have not been given the questions in advance. Pretty sly. Let me just, in the spirit of the call-in, let me just give the phone number in case anyone has a question they're burning to ask. To suggest a question, please call us at<PHONE_NUMBER>.<PHONE_NUMBER>. Now let's turn to the clock to issues of time. As we begin, each candidate will have two minutes to introduce himself to explain why he is running and to make an opening statement. After the opening statement, candidates will have a minute and a half to answer each question. And as we reach the end of the forum, each candidate will have a minute for a closing statement. As moderator, I'll have the discretion to make adjustments. And I doubt that that'll be needed. We have a timer in the studio that will help candidates keep track of how much time they have left. In introducing the candidates, I will give their name, the city or town they live in, and their party affiliation. I will be following the order in which the names are listed on the official Vermont State ballot. So let me start by introducing the candidates. Joe Benning, Republican from London. David Zuckerman, Progressive and Democratic Parties from Heinsberg. Now that we've got that formality over, I'd quickly like to go on a first name basis. So Joe, you've got two minutes for an opening statement. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the first name basis as a Rotarian. Since 1988, that's one of the joys of the Rotary Club. You always use first name basis on whoever comes to be with you. I want to say first off to the viewers, thank you very much for coming out tonight. This is one of the finest Friday nights in October, turning out to be. And I was kind of sorry to come in off the street because it's turning out to be a very nice evening and the foliage is absolutely gorgeous around the state. I'm Joe Benning. I'm running for the candidacy of Lieutenant Governor in the great state of Vermont. And I tell you why I wanted to run. I've been in the Senate for the past 12 years. We have gone through two years of COVID that has left pretty much everybody in the building, the legislature that is exhausted. I noticed that the current Lieutenant Governor, Molly Gray, decided she was going to be there for one term. And that kind of left me feeling uncomfortable because frankly, I think that the office needs to have some historical knowledge and some institutional knowledge as well as some knowledge of the players. The players are going to have a major turnover, about one third of us are actually leaving. But for the remainder of those players, I've been with them for the past 12 years for the most part. We have at the institution of the Senate what I consider to be one of the greatest places of civil discourse there is. And I want to step into the role and make sure that that entity runs accordingly. I also have a great desire to be a Vermont spokesperson. I want to use the platform as a megaphone, if you will, in order to go around the world if necessary and broadcast about Vermont. Vermont's people, Vermont's historical knowledge, Vermont's work ethic, Vermont's brand and these great green hills and silver waters. I want to promote Vermont. I think I have the skills necessary to do that. I have one advantage here in that I've been working with Phil Scott for a very long time and we get along great and that I think is bringing my candidacy one level up above where my opponent might be. Thanks, Joe. What would you, David? Oh, well, thank you, Nat and Orca Media for hosting. And I also just want to mention, I noticed as I came in the door that this is the John Block Studio and John was a longtime friend of mine as a real political leader and community organizer here in central Vermont. So I just want to acknowledge that and thank you for dedicating this studio to him. My name is David Zuckerman. I've served you, the general public of Vermont for 22 years as a legislator and including four years as lieutenant governor. But I'm also a father, a farmer, small business owner. And I want to bring all of that experience both in the private sector and as a public servant back to the office of lieutenant governor. Let's be clear, Vermont is not affordable for the vast majority of Vermonters. Folks are struggling with housing costs, price of fuel and food. Health care is often difficult to obtain. We know there's a lot of trouble finding childcare and there's a lot of stories now just today and digger about a lot of senior care and the lack of folks able to do the work to provide the care necessary for our seniors. Right now, there's a lot of challenges out there and a lot of the issues have been nibbled around the edges or addressed when there are crisis. But I really believe in working not only to solve the crises of the moment but thinking long-term so we can create long-term solutions that don't lead us to crisis management moment after moment. I want to ask you to ask yourself, do you feel better off today than you were six years ago? That's one of the issues around the governor and the connection with my opponent and the governor. I think in the situation most people find themselves today, you're struggling harder. You're not seeing Vermont be as affordable as it could be. I want to say that as lieutenant governor, I worked hard to bring Vermonter's voices into the system. I was very effective at doing that as a legislator around marriage equality, raise the minimum wage, organizing with Vermonters around Lyme disease, healthcare and many other issues. I hope through today's debate, you'll find that you get good information out of both of us and I hope you'll choose me for your lieutenant governor. Thanks, David. I have thrown in what I'm calling a warm-up question. However, it speaks to what elections can do for the state and for the public and for public understanding. As you move from place to place in the state, you probably are meeting hundreds if not thousands of Vermonters. What are they saying to you? What's the public mood? What are people excited about? What are they worried about? What's going on out there? What's going on out there in the public consciousness? David, start off, please. Sure. Well, in my opening, I talked a bit about a lot of what I'm hearing.  I was at the Champlain Valley Fair a number of weeks ago and a couple, probably in their 50s, maybe low 60s, both working, had just been evicted. The property, the duplex they were renting, turned over, and the rent went from $1,600 a month to $3,000 a month. They couldn't afford it. And now they're renting motel rooms and are figuring out what they're gonna do when their money runs out. That's not the way we should have a functioning society. We should not be booting folks out who have lived and worked in Vermont for a long time and then productive members of our community. I'm hearing from a lot of young folks around the climate and their future. I have a 16-year-old daughter. There is a lot of anxiety about what are we gonna do about our future? We're enjoying this incredible beauty of our maple trees. I think of the maple tree as sort of the soul of Vermont from both our winter into spring tapping season and how we all cherish that through what it does for us in the fall. What's gonna happen 50 years from now when we don't have that soul as present in Vermont because our climate has changed so much? So there's real struggle. On the other hand, there's incredible pride in how we come together as we did around COVID to help our neighbors, both from a government perspective and just a neighborly perspective. And the way that we do look out for each other and treat each other well, despite our differences at times, I think we can hold our heads proud with that. Thanks, David. Joe. So the first thing I did when I got into this race was I joined the 251 Club. And for those of you that don't know what that is, it's an opportunity that Vermont provides where you visit literally every single town in the state of Vermont. I did that over the course of about five weeks. This morning, I spent a great deal of time with a group of gentlemen in Hardwick who were all in their 70s and 80s having breakfast with them this morning to talk about this very question. And every place I have gone in Vermont, the number one concern of people is the affordability situation for each person. The greatest thing I hear from people is what's going on with my gas prices? What's gonna happen when we arrive in the middle of winter and I can't afford to pay for the next oil bill? Those are critical questions and we're not paying attention to those. Now realistically, a lieutenant governor has very little ability to affect legislation and bring about change to protect people there, but you can use the office as a megaphone, if you will, in order to keep broadcasting the fact that people are having a hard time making ends beat. I hear too many people saying I'm moving out of state. That's very concerning and I wanna try to bring back Vermont as we all knew it and could accept it as affordable. We're not there yet. Thank you. The next question, curiously enough goes to you, Joe. It's a two-part question and part of it you may have already answered a part of it in your opening statements. First, as you understand it constitutionally, what are the clear responsibilities of Vermont's lieutenant governor? And second, how would you personally use the office to deal with the problems facing Vermonters and to lead to improvements in our lives? It's a great question and I appreciate the fact that we can explain the mechanical structure of what this office actually is because a lot of people think that we can advance legislation. We cannot introduce legislation. We cannot bring a bill. We cannot go into committee to discuss legislation. The fact is the office is three basic components. First, you moderate the Senate in its day-to-day activities. Secondly, you serve on a committee of three, known oddly enough as the Committee on Committees, where you appoint people to their respective committee assignments and you appoint the chairs to those respective committees. Finally, if the governor should be unable to fulfill the governor's role at any point in time, you are expected to step into that role. One advantage I bring to the table in that discussion is that I have known and worked with Phil Scott for the better part of 12 years now. We have advanced legislation together. I have campaigned with his team. I've worked with his administrative team, especially as Senate Minority Leader and the Institutions Committee Chair. And on a day-to-day basis, I know how to connect with those people. So if you're a constituent coming into the lieutenant governor's door and you need to get an answer to a problem, I'm pretty good at knowing exactly where you need to go and who you need to talk to to get there. Okay, thank you. David? Well, thank you. I appreciate the description of the office. My opponent is quite accurate in that. We've served together for a while and I both know that role well as far as the town moderator of the Senate, the Committee on Committees, and of course being prepared to be governor or the governor to be unable to complete their job, unfortunately, as Governor Snelling did, when Howard Dean became governor. How to use the office? You know, in many respects, it's sort of like an influencer to use a current term in social media. As a legislator, I spent 18 years working both inside the building with the legislative colleagues to draft legislation and change policy. But I was most effective in doing that because I also worked with Vermonters all across the state. I worked and had meetings and coffee shops, living rooms, church basements, town gazebos, sort of every place we meet in Vermon to really help Vermonters understand more how they can influence what the policies are because sometimes it gets a little closed in the building and folks don't really feel like they can influence what's going on. As Lieutenant Governor, I took that to another level because you have that time as Lieutenant Governor. I traveled the state. I helped people understand how best to really influence with respect to those issues they're facing from housing costs, food shortage, with respect to the inability to pay for it, whatever the issue that might be important to them, the climate, and I would continue to do that as I did very effectively as Lieutenant Governor for four years. Let me interject. I want a little bit more detail from you both. You've both had the legislative experience, you and the house, I guess, in the Vermont Senate and as Lieutenant Governor and you in the state Senate, but could you expand on your public service? Just give me the details yourself for a moment. I'll go over to you, sir. My very first bill that I signed on to was an expungement process. Oh, goodness. I knew coming into the building, there was no such thing in Vermont, but I knew it existed in other states, and as of last week, we are approaching 45,000 expungement cases that have gone through our court system, where people have cleaned up ancient minor court records in order to clear their record and be able to go about society without that cloud still hanging over their head long after they have paid their debt to society. That's one of the proudest things that I have done in the legislature was to be able to give those people a chance at getting a second chance, literally, at life. The process itself as a legislator, you are always talking to constituents who come to you with various problems. Sometimes those problems translate into something you can accomplish. I'll take Leslie Mulcahy, for instance, who is the owner of the Rabbit Hill Inn in Waterford. She came to me describing her experience as being a breast cancer survivor. She had what's called dense breast tissue. We worked together on a bill and now every doctor who is examining a woman for potential breast cancer has to follow through beyond a simple mammogram for any woman that, hey, have for a patient that has dense breast tissue. I don't know how many lives have been saved, but I know she is extremely thankful for having that happen. Thank you. So, David, how long did you serve in the house? I was in the house for 14 years and then I was in the Senate for four years as well before being Lieutenant Governor for four years. I remember how many four years as Lieutenant Governor. I think that gets the marbles out of the box and out of the table. Thank you. Might I speak about a couple of issues that I worked on as well? Well, go ahead. Given the opportunity. I did serve in the house for 14 years and I led the way as one of the lead introducers of bills around GMOs and GMO labeling, which Vermont was the only state in the country to pass such a bill. I introduced cannabis reform, which I worked on with legislators and people across the state for many years through the multiple steps, including with my colleague here, to get us to where we now have an aboveboard regulated legal system. I worked with citizens all over the state to organize around raising wages and the minimum wage to establish not only increases to the minimum wage to make Vermont more affordable for everyday folks, but also to index it to inflation so that it wouldn't fall further behind as it had for many, many years. I worked on issues around end-of-life choices. I was the lead introducer of that bill, which I've had many folks around the state meet me in stores and other places as they were with their family member who was at far more peace as they passed on in that circumstance. I've worked with Vermonters across the state from loggers to farmers and everyday hikers around Lyme disease to expand what our medical doctors are allowed to do to help treat folks who are facing this horrible chronic illness in Vermont as we are one of the epicenters of Lyme disease in the country and other tick-borne illnesses. I've been recognized by the Children's Forum for work around youth and kids. I was recognized by Renewable Energy Vermont as a leader on renewable energy. So it was a wide range of issues that I worked on over the years. Thank you, David. I'm gonna go back to you, Joe, on I wonder how many, if you had 10 people walking down Main Street in Montpelier and you asked them for the definition of expunge, how many of those 10 people would know what expunge means? I think I do, but I need your help. A really clear definition would be great.  Minor issue, let's take possession of marijuana as for instance.  We now have a process in place that enables you to clean up that record. And as I said, we're approaching 45,000 people who have gone through that process. I don't believe everybody knows what an expungement is, but if you happen to have a criminal record and you're wondering if that's gonna be something hanging around your neck literally for the rest of your life, you have a process now where you can approach the court system and see if you're able to get that record cleaned up. So it disappears. It does. It disappears. The record you had disappears. That is correct. Thank you. And I want to appreciate my colleagues working on that. I think that we as a society are starting to recognize that folks deserve a second chance. Yeah, we heard ourselves when we limit folks based on one indiscretion at some point in their life from the workforce to things like this. And I think Joe did great work. Well, that's a fabulous number. Did you say 45,000? Yes, we are approaching that number. I know we're at least 43,000 and that was about two weeks ago. We learned about that and I know there have been many more since. So here's a question that's based on the frailty of our lives a little bit. What if you became governor? What if you became governor? In what direction would you take the state? What are the problems you see? And what would be the top, the top one or two things that you'd get going right away with? Now, who's supposed to do this one first? David. We can help you out on that. Sure, we're keeping track of that. Well, certainly as many folks know, I ran to try to be governor two years ago. Of course, COVID hit and circumstances changed. And so was the result. But I think the issue around housing is critical and along with housing, childcare, the issues around fundamental economics for folks is at the top of the list. We need to have long-term plans, not just the $90 million or so that was put into housing from the incredible amount of money that Senator Leahy and our federal delegation acquired for the state of Vermont. I'm glad the governor supported that. I'm glad the colleagues in the Senate and the House put money into housing. But that money's not gonna be enough. We know that housing is gonna be an issue well beyond the next two to three years when that money runs out. Childcare is an area we have to make an investment. This is critical not only for folks' economic wellbeing, it's also critical for our employers. I run a farm. We are shorthanded. I know almost every business I run into is shorthanded. They've tried to attract people both in Vermont and from outside Vermont. Without housing and childcare, we will continue to have a workforce shortage. So we have to work towards that. And ultimately, none of this will be relevant in 30 or 50 years and even over these next few years if we don't continue to address the issue of the climate crisis. And so weatherization, saving Vermonters money in their heating fuel bills while also reducing our climate impact is critical. Okay, let me just, I hope that I address the question in a clear way. You suddenly become governor. And in what direction do you wanna take the state? And what are the first two or three things that you wanna do? I'm just restating the question over to you, Joe. Well, I heard the question and I appreciate the fact that David has given you an answer sort of at a high platitude level. But the most immediate concern for somebody stepping into that role, we've just spent $8.2 billion in our last budget. Anybody stepping into that role, their number one priority is going to have to be learn who the team is that is delving that $8.2 billion out to the various agencies, figuring out how it all works together. And I've been in the governor's office when Governor Scott was initially taking the office.  There was a wall about the same size that had a schematic of all of the players, all of the different departments and how they all fit together. That's the number one priority of anybody stepping into that role. You technically are becoming the CEO of what all for lack of a better word term, a corporation that has to run and it has to run smoothly. The second thing that's top priority for me and should be for any government agency is the safety of its citizens. We have a very bad drug problem in this state right now. Making sure that our citizens are protected would be the second thing on my list of priorities. It would actually come at the same time, but you've asked the question in such a way I have to give something first. To me, I wanna make sure I understand how those players are reacting to a budget that's incredibly large. And then also concentrate at the same time at trying to make sure our citizens are safe and protected. Then get back to what Phil Scott had originally talked about. The affordability crisis and keep working on that issue. So David, I did restate the question. Is there anything you wanna add to your answer? No, I mean, I would add that certainly the day-to-day function of the government are a critical aspect of being the governor. However, ultimately, you've delegated a lot of that responsibility to the secretaries and the commissioners. And we're right to become governor on short notice in that regard. At first, I would keep the folks in place for that stability. And I think that would address a lot of what Joe was talking about. And then it's really about what is the direction you wanna go? How do you start to shape that future to improve a monitor's lives? And that's why I brought up the issues I brought up. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Now to arrange your questions. Maybe some of them can be answered very quickly. Maybe some of them require developing some analysis. I don't know. This question is about emergency housing.  We're not ready. We're not ready for emergency housing. That's the basic issue touching here. It's a local issue here in Burying, Montpelier. So if we're not ready, why aren't we ready? Can we get ready? And what should we do to get ready? Yes, it is actually. You know, we have a very large contingent of people who have been living in places like motels that we have kept afloat for some time. We have to, in my eyes, have a two pronged approach to this issue. Of course they have to be safe through the next winter. But we've also gotta have incentives that encourage them to get on and move out of the public housing that has been provided to them. I think we have failed miserably on that score, but we also have to protect them in the short term. There is money that has been set aside and is available in case we need to have it for emergency purposes. And I think that there is also an opportunity as this winter comes on, that we can find other monies in the budget presently. We may have to shift some things around in order to make sure that the emergency is taken care of. But it has to come with an overall game plan on what do you do in the long term. Brenda Siegel is running for governor. She and I had a conversation about this very subject on the day that she was out on the state house steps, sleeping overnight. We had a conversation and we both agreed. There was a short term problem and a long term problem. And neither one of us at that moment had an answer to that question. I acknowledge there is a problem trying to figure out where in the budget to get money for the emergency is always an ongoing problem for legislators. But we always end up finding the money. The long term problem, however, has not been properly addressed and we need to address it to make sure we take care of this problem. Okay, David. Well, a few things. I was just listened to Joe here and he talked about incentivizing these folks to find housing or find a better future. I know hard working people who are struggling to keep a roof over their head. We have a housing crisis. It is not the fault of the individuals who are working at the basic wages that Vermont offers in the various jobs. So I'm not gonna sort of point the finger at the folks out there who are struggling to find housing as that they're either not motivated or not working hard enough to find a way to pay the bills. I think a lot of them are working 50 or 60 hours a week right now and they're still struggling. This is a real fundamental difference. Now there's discussion about short and long-term solutions. We just heard we had an $8.2 billion budget. Why in that budget these last couple of years that my opponent was a part of the legislature working closely with the governor, were they not thinking about both aspects of this? The current governor said, whoops, we ran out of money sooner than we thought. We weren't keeping particularly good track of how quickly that money was going out the door. To me, that's why we are where we are is not very good governance of these amazing resources that we had but also not planning the long-term solutions while dealing with the short-term challenges. So I would look at some issues like the fact that second homeowners, Vermont is the most second home-owned state in the country. Most second homeowners pay a lower rate of taxes than folks in primary residences. Maybe that could change and that could be a source of revenue for affordable housing or to relieve some of the tax burden in our education system. Thank you. We had a, by the way, this would afford me an opportunity to give our call-in number.<PHONE_NUMBER>. We are accepting calls from listeners, viewers, others, questions that you have for Joe and David, David and Joe. So please call<PHONE_NUMBER>. Thank you. Should the state of Vermont strengthen Vermont's same-sex marriage laws in case the U.S. Supreme Court moves to reverse existing protections? David. I think it's definitely a conversation we should have. I know then in the legislature, and Joe was a part of this, at looking at the Proposition Five right now around reproductive liberty under those fears that maybe that would change with the court. No one projected that the court would go so far as to then literally indicate that this law might also be changed at the federal level, even just a few years ago when the court had ruled in favor of same-gender marriage equality. So I think it's time to have that conversation and I think a lot of Vermonters are looking at that conversation around starting the Proposition Adjustment to our Constitution, which is a four-to-five-year process, which I think is actually a good thing. You wanna be very thoughtful when you're gonna change the Constitution, but we should very much look at instilling it into our constitutional rights in case this court continues down the horrific path that's on due to President Trump's appointments. Joe, what's your answer to that? I think first, we recognized several years ago that the Supreme Court might be coming down the pike of disrupting Roe v. Wade. And as a result, we began having conversations which led to Prop 5, and David and I are on the same side on that particular issue, so it's not really a controversy between us. But understanding what the Supreme Court is and is not doing is an important part of the process when I come to answer your question. If I don't envision the Supreme Court in the midst of trying to attack basic marital rights, then I have a somewhat different viewpoint from David. I don't think we need to embroil the legislature in any kind of discussion when we don't anticipate an actual problem coming down the pike. But let's say that the Supreme Court is continuing to move in that direction. And I suppose that there is reason to be concerned about some of the language from one of the justices in particular. But I don't envision at this point in time the Marriage Act being subject to that conversation, at least not realistically with the remainder of the Supreme Court justices. If it is a topic of discussion, then yes, I certainly would agree we need to be taking care of that on our own. Thank you. David, I think we're starting with you on this question. Governor Scott has said that Vermont needs to attract younger people and families who can add needed numbers to our workforce. In fact, I think I've heard that from you guys already. So how do we attract these younger people to the state? How do we do this? David. Well, sure. I will say at my farm stand at the farmers market where I'll be all day tomorrow in Burlington if anybody wants to come up and ask me any questions. I have met numerous young couples and individuals moving to Vermont in numbers that I've never seen in past summers. Folks have said I've moved here three weeks ago, four months ago in the last year, in large part because of climate migration, which I think is going to continue now for decades because of the path we're on with the climate, because of the political situation which we're on due to these last four years of Trump and the divisiveness of his presidency and then what's now become the Republican Party across the country in states all over the country taking away people's rights. And because of the leadership in Bernie's campaign and Phil Scott's leadership on COVID with respect to how we treat each other and folks looking to Vermont as a sane and safe place. The issue is not as much attracting people. There are people that want to move here. Businesses are attracting people and then they're learning their person can't take the job because there's no housing. So we have to set ourselves not only on a path to address the housing crisis immediately but also how are we going to continue to have a long-term affordable housing plan and childcare plan and that will greatly attract young people, especially those interested in starting families to come here to raise their children in a safe, healthy environment with good paying jobs. Okay, Joe. I found it quite interesting that David has met lots and lots of people at the farmers market who have moved here. That's demonstrative of the fact that in fact a lot of people out there really like the Vermont brand. As a lieutenant governor, that's the exact thing I want to go out and sell around the world if necessary to attract people to come here. I acknowledge that we have a housing problem but the legislature over the past two years has donated, set aside, I should say, $90 million to attack that problem. And I can give three, four instances in the last month and a half. We've had a project in Franklin County, a project in Lamoille County and a project in Rutland County. All part of the public-private partnership where developers have stepped in, managed to secure public funding and are attacking the housing problem on the ground. The customs building in St. Albans as a classic example sat absolutely vacant for I think about 80 years. It's now being transformed into a place where we can provide affordable housing. Legislators can't go out with a hammer and nail and start building houses. But we can, as lieutenant governor, go out and try to say to people, this is a great place to live, work and play. Here's the examples of why that is.  They are coming, as David just mentioned, and they're appearing at places like the farmer's market. I'd like to push this question a little, just a little bit, if you don't mind. I'm gonna make a statement that that may be, it isn't researched and I can't produce the figures. This is based on some contact and a lot of intuition. So I'm not stating this as fact. I'm stating this as surmise. I think the workers may be here already. And for one reason or another or 100 reasons, they're not enlisting in our workforce. Could you grapple with this surmise? Oh, I certainly could grapple with it because I'm a criminal defense attorney by trade. And when I hear David making comments about people who are out there working 70 hours a week, unfortunately I deal on a day to day basis with people who are enmeshed in the criminal system in such a way that I am now, after 40 years, looking at the third generation of people who have never learned how to function in society. They are constantly looking for an easy way out. I don't say that to disparage them. Somewhere along the way we have failed at making sure they fit into society in such a way that they are able to get those jobs and function. But the situation that we have right now that is causing a lot of our problems are many hotel rooms that are jam-packed with people right now who are in the criminal justice system. They are not working. I know this because I'm meeting with them on a daily basis. And it's frustrating to know that the government is providing housing for them. They are not interested in leaving their rooms and we have those workers out there available who could be earning their way as we provide them with housing. Bill Clinton actually had a wise program to get people off of welfare. He put a requirement on it that if you are going to receive welfare, you're going to have to demonstrate that you're pursuing an education or you are working at the same time. It's a simple concept. People do respond to it. They become workers and they function in society. I've seen it through three generations. It works when you apply it. We haven't been applying it. David, could you contend with this? Well, there's no doubt there are individual examples such as my colleague here has indicated. But for the most part, what I find is folks are working hard. I was at an event last night with a couple of young folks who didn't grow up in particularly good circumstances. They both were working incredibly long hours and lived in two different mobile home parks actually relatively close to me, one in Heinsberg, one in Starksboro. And they were taking great pride in trying to build their situation better to pay off the debt of the mobile home and then to invest in it for weatherization and getting excited about the opportunity for their future. But there's no doubt we have to help people understand or train, I would say, to be able to fill the jobs that are here. We have to help folks with occasionally work ethic and sort of what it means to show up every day on time. But I don't think the issue is so great with respect to all the jobs in Vermont would be filled if suddenly the folks who are on the system came out of the woodworks. Many of the folks who are struggling have tremendous mental health issues. So we have to invest in mental health support counseling and efforts to help them overcome whatever they're struggling with. Or others have substance abuse challenges. And we need to make sure we have more programs to help those folks get clean, have the pride in who they are and what they can do, get over the hurdles of having an addiction to be able to come back into the workforce. These are not quick solutions. They are investments that we haven't made the way we need to. Okay, thank you. Thank you for taking that question on.  Additional steps needed were, I'm told, I read in the press that we're missing our goals. What steps and when? What's the urgency? What do we need to do? What can we do? Climate change. Joe, you're up to bat first. I have looked at what we have tried to do with respect to climate change and have become concerned about how we're approaching things. Let me say, first, I believe the climate is changing. Secondly, I believe humankind is having an impact on that. And thirdly, that we need to do something to have that adjusted. But making sure you use the proper tools to attack that problem has been all the difference in the world between David and I and our legislative procedures thus far. We have now enacted something that attaches us to the California carbon emission, I'm sorry, reduction standards. California right now is paying about $6.50 on average for a gallon of gasoline. If that is imposed upon us in order for us to maintain those California standards, it's going to devastate our economy. Why are we doing that to ourselves? Is the answer because we want to make a statement? I would suggest the statement that needs to be made should be made at the national level with the US Congress, not the folks down the street here in the Montpeliers Golden Dome. We have an ability to some extent to make corrective measures that will help make our citizens resilient to the climate change that we know is coming. But we don't have the wherewithal to say to Toyota, to Chevy, and GMC, you've got to have X number of vehicles in an electric fleet by such and such date. We don't have that in our power. And we certainly can't tell China and India to stop building coal-fired power plants. Okay, David. Well, I do agree. We have a pretty big difference on this one in terms of what can we do? What should we do? And I'm not going to exploit fear to sort of win this race. California gas prices have been higher than Vermont's for decades. It has nothing to do with current laws or the comparison of how we are seeking similar goals to reduce our emissions. What we need to do is invest more than we have been in things like weatherization. For the many years, Joe was in the Senate. The weatherization budget was not fundamentally increased as much as it could have been. And folks' fuel bills would be lower right now had we had more weatherization done over these last decade. I've talked with weatherization businesses and they've said this one-time big boost of money that they just got is great, but they don't have the workforce to do it. And one-time money doesn't give them the predictability and stability to make an investment in a workforce for long-term. Had we been doing that for the last many years, many Vermonters would be better off and our emissions would have been reduced. We also need to look at alternative transportation, better bus systems for many Vermonters who have to travel much too far to work. We have to look at how we use our state investment dollars in infrastructure from water systems to sewer systems in our town villages to rebuild those towns that are sometimes depopulating where builders could then build affordable, efficient, small-scale housing to rebuild the communities that we want in our rural areas. So I think there's investments we can make. Thank you. Somebody, one of our communities submitted a question that's certainly been discussed over and over again. I'd be interested in how the two of you attack it. Yeah, I'm not suggesting you need to attack it. Well, what do you think of the claim that the 2020 president's election was stolen? Is any part of that claim believable? And what proposals, if any, have you to make for election reform here in Vermont or nationwide? Sure, I think I'm wrong. I think, David, you're the first here. Well, the election was not stolen. It is very clear from all kinds of audits to third-party reviews that the United States election system is as fundamentally sound as any in the world. I'm greatly appreciative of the leadership of Secretary of State condos who work with Secretary of State across the country and with our town clerks around Vermont's system, our vote-by-mail system, which everybody should have your ballots unless you're about to register, in which he has please go do so. You can register and vote up through election day till seven o'clock at night. I think we need a system that encourages voting, that does have the checks and balances that we have in Vermont, but encourages voting, unlike what's being done in other states, where in order to meet some sort of strange fear and really lie about the last election, states are passing laws to make it harder to vote. They're purging voters, particularly in global majority communities that are in those states. Because of disenfranchisement, we have to set the tone, as we have, to welcome people into democracy, not to push them away. And I think this is one of the biggest challenges we face in our country right now for the stability of our economy and the stability of our nation is rebuilding faith in our system that's been, has every reason to have everyone's faith, what has been broken down by a real demagogue who used to be our president. Joe, how do you look at this question? Let me start by addressing the demagogue, as David calls him. The bottom line is, no, I don't believe that the election was stolen. I believe that it was conducted fairly and there are a lot of people out there who still don't believe that. And I will concede that the majority of them are in the Republican Party. One of the best books I recommend to Republicans to read is a book called GOP 2.0. It is a book written by Jeff Duncan, the Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, who was literally in the middle of the mix of Georgia's election in 2020. He was a Trump fan. He campaigned for Trump, so did his family, but he was in the inside of the mechanics when that election was conducted in Georgia and recognized right away what people were saying was happening was not happening. It's a very enlightening book and I think I would recommend to all of my Republican friends, they should read that and understand what the difference is between a lie, if you will, and what actually happened on the ground. There remain concerns. I have an address in Lindenville, Vermont. I now have two ballots that have been sent to me by my town clerk with my name on it. My wife has two ballots that have been sent to her as well. I don't know what the problem is there, but when you get those live ballots sent out to people and they come in multiple forms, there's an issue that needs to be corrected. It only breeds mistrust. I think it is a discussion worth having at the table to make sure people are comfortable and safe in the way that we all approach the elections. Well, it's a huge, huge, huge moment when the country votes and millions of people turn up to vote. And there's a lot of money involved. There's a lot of influence involved. And I'm not certain that we're gaining in citizen participation for all of the money and all of the talk. I'm not certain we're gaining in belief. What do you think? Are we gaining in belief, David? Well, I think we do have some problems in our election system. Voter fraud and or the voting system is actually the least of the issues. I think campaign finance is a tremendous issue and with Citizens United, that just blew it up to make it even worse. But the decision that money is speech, we have made it so that some people have far more speech than others. And that has greatly influenced the system. I believe our voting system with a sort of a bipolar, you've got two choices. Often in other states, thankfully, I think we have good rapport and respect each other, but on average around the country, it's about demonizing the other in order to get folks to vote for you. Well, who's gonna be excited about a system where you're basically learning from outside money and or the candidates themselves that the other person is terrible and evil? The way we will rebuild trust in the system is implementing both policies that actually make people's lives better on a day-to-day basis. They mostly think we're a bunch of talking heads who don't get things done. By changing the voting system to where you have more choices, I support ranked choice voting. It allows for more voices at the table, more diversity of opinion than just two people. It will reduce some of that negativity. And I support public financing so that you don't have folks dialing for dollars, which I'm sure Joe has done and I've done as well to try to raise money because who do you spend time calling as much? Folks that can write $250, $500 or $1,000 checks or folks that can barely squeak out $5 donations. I'm lucky enough to have a grassroots supply of lots of folks that give small donations, but that's not the norm. And I think those are the things we need to do to rebuild trust in the system. Any further comment, Joe? I'm enough of an historian to know this is not a recent problem in this country. I mean, you go back to the days of Tammany Hall and where beer kegs were rolled in to try to convince workers to vote for candidate X. There has always been some cloud over the way we elect our representatives. But the bottom line is this is still the greatest country in the world. And I think we have at its base a wonderful system that works if we keep plugging away at making sure all of the system is protected. I'm somewhat concerned because just, I think it was this morning, I was listening to what used to be called VPR broadcast about young people who are not gonna be voting in this election. And the prediction was that probably up to age 35, I believe it was, you'd see less than 50% of the voters turning out. That's very disturbing to me. What are we not doing that we could be doing to turn that around? A Democratic legislator named Dick McCormick and I have consistently, through the years, introduced a bill to require civics before you can graduate from high school. That bill has been constantly shot down for reasons that I just don't understand. But clearly we are failing our youth in some fashion because they are not getting excited. The people who are getting excited are the people who love to hear us vilifying each other at the end of the day. Those are not the kinds of people we should be working to try to attract. We should be trying to reach our youth who are saying, you know what, I'm tired of that nonsense. I'm just not even gonna participate. And how you turn that around is you have to reach them when they are very young. I'm gonna go to my team here that's making the broadcast possible. Are we within four minutes of ending? Yes? Pardon? Six minutes. Six minutes, all right. That will help me, that will guide me through the questions. Here's one that I contributed as a community member. Some 250 scientists have gone on record to call for independent research to determine if 5G or fifth generation wireless is safe. Or is it a threat to human health? Now this is controversial. With the current broadband rollout, are you satisfied as to the safety of 5G technology? Are you concerned? If you are concerned, what are your concerns? My first concern is getting any G technology to most of the parts of this state because I live in a rural part of the state that has a very large problem with that. But secondly, I'm not a scientist. I have not weighed the evidence. And normally in trying to answer a question like this, I would wanna see the evidence before I started to make decisions about whether I thought I was looking at something safe or not safe. I know there is controversy. I've heard about this particular petition. That's enough of a red flag to start asking questions. But whether I leap to the conclusion it's not safe, I'm just not at that point yet and don't feel comfortable in trying to answer a question that I don't have enough information for. Okay, David. I'd say we're probably pretty similar on that one. I'm trying to understand it as well, not as a wavelength scientist who understands the impacts of such things on our brains and on our bodies as this goes through the air that we live with every day from TV broadcasts to others. But I will say that these devices, telephone devices, et cetera, we were later to give our child one than most of her peers. And when I think about just the nonstop information that is coming at people that, I'm not gonna restrict anybody from getting a phone or anything like that. I don't wanna imply that. But I do think we have sort of lost touch with some of the important things in society around what's around us in our community and working with our neighbors and not spending as much time on screens and computers. Now I recognize that's a big piece of our economic future and I think investing in broadband and investing as Burlington did many years ago in high speed internet cable has really helped the economy. But I think a bigger issue is also just finding that balance and making sure that we are investing in critical thinking, that we are investing in education around civics. As Joe mentioned, as Lieutenant Governor, I used to travel to state and go to schools all the time and we just had a debate in Williston, a forum last week, it's all blurring together. But the youth were very, very interested. So I think if we bring these issues to people, young people, they'll vote more. And I think if we also discuss both the importance and understand the science better around these technologies, we'll be better off in the future. Positives, as we look out on the future, why are so many people moving to Vermont? What are some of the state's many advantages, many positives? Who's up for battery? I guess you are, David. I think Vermont offers a lot even to civics and civility. We still look out for each other. I think how we handled COVID, how we handle seeing someone by the side of the road with a tire broken, a flat tire, helping each other with firewood. We do still have a sense of community that I know when I meet folks who are moving here or visiting here, just go, wow, this place is different, it's special. Not having billboards. People don't know what it is until you name it. And then they go, you're right. And they have a sense of place that I think is much stronger. We have the fourth best education system as a statewide tally of any in the country. People look to Vermont as a real beacon. We led on marriage equality. We've led on handling COVID. We do look out for each other. We have an environment on a climate sort of named for ourselves around the country. We have to make sure people can move here as we've talked about, housing, good paying jobs. And we need to make sure that folks recognize what our community is all about and not to necessarily come here to change Vermont, but to really be a part of Vermont. And I think a lot of folks recognize that, whether it's Ben and Jerry's ice cream, Bernie Sanders, when you look around the country, that's what people know Vermont for. Handling of COVID, our foliage, our sense of place, our agriculture, these are things that I hold dear. And I think a lot of folks who know about Vermont think about Vermont, that's how they view Vermont. Joe, could you reflect on the positives? The positives are the Vermont brand, the image. David is right in a lot of the things that he said. I happen to be blessed to be able to live in a small town where people go into the post office who don't know each other but approach each other on the sidewalk, look up and say hello. That's something that sort of is, it makes me uncomfortable that when I walk down the streets of Montpelier, that doesn't happen. And it makes me feel a lot when I look up at somebody and I say hello, who's coming by and they don't respond or they continue to look away and pretend I'm not there. There is something very unique about Vermont in the vast majority of our small communities, which thankfully remain the bulk of Vermont. And I think that people from away understand when they get here, they're experiencing something they never would have dreamed about. I've given 100 tours plus at the State House. By the time I get off the first floor, I say to every person I've given a tour to, what did you miss coming in the door today? And it takes them a minute or so, but suddenly they realize there were no metal detectors. There were no police officers patting them down. And they recognize all of a sudden that this is something totally unique in their experience. And I wanna be able to use the office of Lieutenant Governor to make that clear to anybody. You come to Vermont, you're coming to a great place to live, work and play. It's like no other experience you could have. I really cherish the idea of being able to be in that role. So we're going to go, thank you. We're going to go to closing statements. And I'm gonna, maybe I'm gonna, David, I'm gonna give you the first shot at that. And then move over to Joe. But I guess it's a minute. Thank you. Well, I wanna thank all the viewers for watching today and for your hosting and having a pleasant conversation. I would argue you have a clear choice before you. Thankfully, I think two decent individuals are running for the office with decent respect for each other. But I bring both more experience to the role of Lieutenant Governor, as well as years in the legislature and having started a farm, a small business in Vermont. And I can bring both of those experiences to represent you in Montpelier as Lieutenant Governor. I wanna make sure our children, my daughter, your children, your grandchildren can thrive in Vermont. We have to deal with the issues of today, as well as those in the future. You can have business as usual, or you can have someone who feels that there are some changes that need to be made to make sure we have a better future for our kids. I think we can do this in both reducing the impact on our climate with the climate crisis by investing in ways to save Vermonters money, weatherization, compact affordable housing, investing in our village centers so we can rebuild our towns and villages. We can stand with Vermonters for reproductive liberty and body autonomy. And I would ask for your support and the opportunity to serve with you and for you the next two years as your Lieutenant Governor. Thank you. Thanks, David. Joe. So let me start by saying we began this conversation identifying the three main components of a Lieutenant Governor's role. I have the experience to run a meeting. I've listened to three different Lieutenant Governors running the Senate. I've been a moderator in the town of Linden for 10 years. I also served as Vermont's past Human Rights Commission Chair. I know how to get through a calendar with a group of people commonly known as a meeting. And the Senate is exactly that, a group that meets and runs through a calendar. I've also known the players for 12 straight years. And I think I have a pretty good handle on who they are and how they fit together, sometimes how they don't fit together. So appointing them to a committee from the Committee on Committees is a role that I think I could fulfill very well. The greatest advantage I have over David is that I have had a very good working relationship with Phil Scott. I absolutely believe he will be reelected as governor. David's relationship with him has been somewhat rocky through the years to the point where he ran against him. In the two top constitutional officers in this state, the question is, do you want cohesion and harmony or do you want conflict? That's the difference between David and I. Do you want to respond to Joe in any way? I think our statements stand for themselves. I've worked with people across the state, including the governor for many, many years. I think we in Vermont know how to disagree and work together. But if it's characterized as the way it is, I think that stands as his statement. I don't need to say any more. Well, it's not just my statement. The governor has actually endorsed me in this race. Gentlemen, thank you. Thank you for answering the questions and infusing the discussion with your own personal identity and affection for the state of Vermont, which I think we all share. Thank you very much. Thank you.


What's up everybody, Jason here for Jasper's Case Breaks.com. Another team random sold out, but this time for the brand new release today, it seems that HTA Choice Edition wasn't able to make it for Wednesday's release, so they pushed it back till today, Friday, and happy new release day guys. So this is 2022 Bowman Chrome. We have a little team random here where everybody's guaranteed a team, and this sells out picker teams one, two, and three, so those will be coming up back to back to back. Now again, pretty simple the way this works, we have 32 teams throughout three breaks, so Guardians picker team number one, Guardians two, Nationals two, Guardians three, etc. all the way down here. So these were all the remaining teams from the three breaks. So we put them all together, price point all together, teams all together, 32 spots times 180, but guess what, we gave you a little $60 office spot, it's only charging 120, and again very simple guys, 32 teams throughout three breaks, 32 spots we sold, so we're gonna randomize the 32 customer names, and whatever team you match up with on the sheet is what you get. So if you become a number one, you're gonna get the Guardians number one, you come in last, you're gonna get the Tigers in three, and of course, etc., etc., how the list plays out, sorry. So here's the dice roll, here's all 32 customer names, and last but not least Aaron, let's click the dice roll, it is a five and a six, excuse me, for 11 times, good luck. One, oh no, Round Door was working great, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and 11th and final time, five and a six, boom. So everybody else here, that's where you guys are at, but at the top we got Jacob F, congratulations. So boom, all the way down to Barry, and again, I believe only, I think the last like, teams from like 27, 28 down to 32 were all teams like under 50 bucks, everything else was 100, 150, 200, 250, 3, and then like 400, so pretty solid there, so everybody's still gonna walk away with some good teams potentially, but there are gonna be a few that, you know, might lose a little, but you never know guys, doesn't mean, doesn't mean you still kinda get good hits, but here we go, so Jacob, you have the Guardians in number one, Scott Goodman, you have the Guardians in number two, Steve Gilbert with the Nationals in number two, Chuckster, got the Guardians in number three, Barry, and I believe those here, actually Nationals were the last team, yeah, so number three, those teams there, I think were 400 each, so pretty nice teams right there, then of course Mariners, I think were a couple hundred bucks, John Watson, you have the Mariners in number two, and then Chuckster with the Mariners in three, Shawn Matic with the Rockies, solid team in number one, Jose, Rockies two, Steve Gilbert, Reyes two, John Rocky, Shawn Matic, Reyes three, Chuckster, Red Sox two, which also have some good prospects, same thing, Ryan number three, David with the Orioles, and Shawn Matic with the Royals in one, then Michael A with the Orioles in two, Adam Coving with the Royals in two, Orioles and Royals, then Orioles again there, John D with three, Jacob with the Royals in three, Steve with the Angels in two, Johan with number three Angels, Travis with the Giants in number two, Travis with the Giants in three, Mark with the Braves in two, Aaron Braves three, Aaron, I know what you're talking about man, sorry man, shit, I didn't realize that, and then Mark, Aaron Pirates three, but Braves aren't too bad, you know they're pretty close to the spot price, but I feel you man, shit, all right, and then Mark with the A's, Anthony with the A's, three, and then Aaron Tigers, man, last time I told you they're not work out today, what the hell, D-backs three, and then Barry, David, sorry as well, I mean a couple of these teams are at the bottom, you know, around 50 bucks, 40-50 dollars, but again, you never know guys, still gonna be some big hits, never Tiger Styles and Torques and Rookies potentially still in there as well, so again guys, appreciate everybody, so now I'm gonna paste in the names one by one, boom boom, and then we will get the next three breaks going, so we have kind of a schedule here, we'll start the next breaks in about like 10 minutes, I'm gonna put all the sheets together, and then we'll start number one, two, and three like that, but appreciate it guys, jaskyscasebreaks.com


I'm Jay Fidel, the handsome young man, Tom Yamachiko. We're here today for Talking Tax with Tom. The title of our discussion this morning is More Tax Laws to the Governor. And what's interesting without getting even to the detail of that is, didn't we have a kind of a surplus this session, Tom? Why do we need tax laws? Well, some actually go in the right direction to give relief to taxpayers. We were talking last week about giving the rebate to taxpayers, you know, the $300 per exemption, and to lessen some of the GE taxes on nonprofit fundraising and also in the shipping industry. So some of these are going in the right direction. Maybe they'll be signed. Maybe they'll be signed. At least they got that far. Let's go down the list that you made. This was a list of questionable bills. Yeah, this week we're going over the bills that make you want to go, hmm, because some of these are very interesting. The first bill is sponsored by our Department of Accounting and General Services. This is set at Bill 3040. And what it does is it basically says they can buy a new purchasing system, you know, a big software upgrade, five, six million dollar beast, but it'll be paid by user fees and the user fees are going to be paid by whoever the state purchases goods or services from. So basically, you get taxed when you sell to the state. Yeah, that does sound like a tax. Isn't that a tax? To me, it sounds like a tax to them. It's, oh, it's just a user fee. Because we have a, you know, a special little contrivance that we're, you know, building and we're, you know, just making people pay for it. But problem number one is it doesn't exist yet. Number two is we're already, you know, we're already charging people tax for, you know, sales to and from the government and this is going to be something else on top of it. Well, the other thing that strikes me and you can comment is the key was, you know, it's hard to do business with the state and the state. There's a lot of bureaucracy. Some businesses will not do business with the state. It won't leave some office space or land. They won't sell them things. It's too much trouble to get paid. You have to go around the bush on every transaction. You run into these bureaucratic issues. Am I right? And this is now, this is a further impediment, isn't it? Not, not so much a further impediment is, you know, open up your wallet and we'll take some more money from you. That's nice. Yeah, isn't that nice for the privilege, for the privilege of getting paid by the government for services that you provided them. In a bureaucratic setting where you may not even want to do business with them anyway. If they're trying to incentivize you to do business with them, this is not one way to do it. The other thing is they don't need the money, as I mentioned, do they? I think that this, you know, money for the, this new computer system should come from general fund. It benefits all of government. I would add one to that and say it should have come from general fund a long time ago. It would have, yeah, I definitely don't disagree with that. I mean, Neil Abercrombie was talking about how he was going to remake the computer system in the state, because Sonny Bagualia, you know, the fellow they hired to evaluate the state of affairs in the computer system had found that it was behind the curve by decades. And Neil, Neil said, oh, we're going to fix that. He never did, unfortunately. And even till now, it's behind the curve. Of course it is. Okay. Ready to go to the next bill? Yeah. Okay. Oh, by the way, 3040, it's, you know, the probability of it's going to be signed is close to 100%. Because it was sponsored by the governor's department. So when it goes up to the governor to sign, he's going to do it. He's going to do it. The second bill, House Bill 2179 comes from the Department of Taxation and sponsored by them. And what it says is that it allows the department to convert tax liens into civil judgments if 365 days pass from the date of recording with no response or action by the taxpayer. Okay. So why do they want to do this? Because, you know, you and I, other people who have practiced in litigation before, know that the judgment comes first, the lien comes later. Right. You get the judgment first, and then you record against, you know, specific assets that the taxpayer may have. Yeah, right. Yeah. So this is backwards. So why is it backwards? Because there is a 15 year statute of limitations on collection action by the department of taxation. And the 15 years has started to bite because that legislation was signed into law 15 years ago, or almost 15 years ago. So they're trying to find an end run around it. And here, and here it is. Judgments have an independent 10 year life from when they're entered. And they can be extended for another 10 years. They have a 15 year collection statute of limitations that is basically being extended to 35 years. I'm sure the, you know, the sponsor of the original legislation to put a collection of statute of limitations in the department in the first place is probably ruling around and going nuts. Because that's the effect of this bill. Now.  For example, if you petition the court. To enter a civil judgment. The court's going to want you to serve the taxpayer. And if we were talking about a taxpayer. Who has never responded or or acted. You know, with respect to the department for, you know, more than a year. You think the taxpayer is still around. That'd be highly unlikely. So how are you going to serve that? How are you going to serve the taxpayer to get this civil judgment? Maybe, maybe what they're going to want is something that says you can get the judgment without serving the taxpayer or you serve the taxpayer by publication. Which, which makes it even more and more questionable. Service by publication, by the way, is a means by which. You publish the taxpayers name in the paper. And. That gives the court enough jurisdiction to say, okay, well, the taxpayer should know about it now. So we'll, we'll go ahead and proceed against him anyway. I'm troubled on both sides of this. Number one is that I always wondered, Tom, why you, why there was a limit on it, why you had to renew. A judgment in the first place. Or for that matter of land. Why doesn't it just go on in perpetuity? Well, I mean, there, there are purposes for any statute of limitations.  Records get old. Some, some, some tend to disappear. They can get destroyed by, you know, fire, flood or whatever.  If it's, if it's, you know, old and older and older. Yeah, but you want, okay, I mean, I'll take the devil's advocate on this, although I, this is not my, my favorite position. But okay, there's, there's no question that the money is owed. No question.  If, for example, he can't sell property and other land, you know, affects his, his property or his business.  Yeah, but hasn't worked for the first 15 years. Well, I, yes, I guess that's true. And is that because the government isn't doing something it should have been doing over the 15 years? Well, you wonder about that. I mean, but, but the practical reality is in each of these poor collectors has a, has a case load of three or 4,000. So how can they possibly keep track of, you know, that many people and assets are lacked thereof? You know, some people move away. I think a lot of them do.  I recall it to be like fishing, you know.  You drop the land out there in the water and after a while, this guy gets into a mousetrap where he buys property, not realizing that as soon as he takes title bingo, there's a lien on it and he can't, you know, sell it or mortgage it or anything until he clears the land. And so you may not, you know, have recovery in each case in which there is a lien on some taxpayer, but once in a while you score 100%, right? Yep, absolutely. So I mean, they're playing a game of odds on that one on the 15, 15 years. So 15 years is a long time. Even the government gives up after 10. I mean, the federal government. Yeah. They have a statute of limitations on collection of 10 years. Why, why are we longer? Because it used to be forever. And, and, and then taxpayers thought, well, we'll experiment with 15 years and see what happens. Okay. One last question. And that is all right. So it is backward, but I suppose they could take the land, which has not been reduced to a full, a full, a full rights, a full empowered judgment yet. It's only a land on property. And, and the powers of enforcement are limited because it's only a lien on property. So now the government wants to make it a full tilt judgment and use other, you know, other remedies to collect it. They don't have to. Well, theoretically they don't want to let it die. So they make it because after the taxes assessed. You have all kinds of collection tools already available. You can go levy somebody's bank account. You can, you can record a lien on property, even if you don't know what the property is. Okay. You can, you can destrain taxpayers property if you find property. Okay. You can do all of this with the assessment. You don't need the judgment. So what's the point. The point is to get around the statute of limitations and collection. Increase the 15 years through 35. I don't know. I mean, that's one of the things that makes me want to go. Hmm. About this bill. Because you know, the. When you, when you kind of look at it, it's really, you know, something is being gained. Okay. There is an element of dishonesty in this bill. It's not forthright. Okay. They're doing this because they want to gain the taxpayers. Yeah. Well, it's going to cost them some money because they're going to have to, you know, if there's just like the land stay in place, that's one thing doesn't cost them anything. I mean, if it was say 20 or 30 years instead of 15, but it's going to cost them some money to go and publish.  Have to go into a newspaper of general circulation, publish it for X days, weeks, months, whatever it is. And you have to pay the bill. For that. And if you're fishing with the, you know, with a limited prospect of actual success. You've just spent money for no good reason. Yeah. So I think the next thing that they're going to do is they're going to do a bill that says a service includes publishing the name on the department's website, which is something they've already done. Okay. So that's the, that's the next thing they're going to do. Uh, is that two process? Uh, that's not been tested yet.  Some publication that nobody in the world reads and say, Oh, bingo. We got you. Uh, that doesn't sound like it comes anywhere close to actual or even, you know, reasonable constructive notice. Yeah, that's a problem we had with it. We testified to that effect, but, you know, to no avail. Again, this is a head administration bill sponsored by the Department of Taxation. So the chance that the governor signing it are, you know, probably 100% are close to it. So what, you know, I know we have other bills to discuss, but let me ask you it. But can we get a kind of a handle on the character of this session on the character of where the legislature is vis-a-vis taxpayers from looking at bills like this? Well, these bills are the outliers. Okay. Usually you have a session with a lot worse stuff going on, like tax rates being increased or fees being increased or, you know, combinations of the above. But this year it's more about giving back to the taxpayers probably because there's an election going on this year. And each and every one of the people in the capital is, you know, is facing the reality of that fact, that they are facing the voters in this November and possibly before. Okay. I guess then the question is, if that's all true, we have a surplus, which we're doling out in swatches of hundreds of millions. And we have an election year. Nobody wants to offend anybody. Why are we having bills like this that are really questionable? Because I think they'll squeak by and nobody will notice. Do they know, the administration agencies, you know, the departments who suggested these bills, and the Attorney General and the governor, do they know that they're questionable? Of course they do. People, not only the tax foundation, but others have been testifying to that effect all, you know, all through the process. Well, squeak through. This is the squeak through theory. Thank you for that. Let's go on to the next one. House Bill 137 is a 2021 bill that got dusted off this session. It deals with the county liquor commission and its powers to investigate liquor licensees. So right now the law says that if a liquor and a commission investigator finds out the liquor tax hasn't been paid, you know, if, if there's like cash transactions or stuff like that, then the investigator has, you know, the power and the duty to rat them out. To the department of taxation. This bill would break that cooperation. And say basically, the department of taxation would need to use its own investigative resources period to root out liquor tax scoff laws. So that means we're going to have some department of taxation investigators being sent to local bars and probably buying drinks at taxpayer expense to figure out whether they're paying the proper taxes. Who would propose such a bill? It's a backward step. The whole liquor commission did. And why is there some political reason? It sounds like there is. It sounds like this is a political bill. And that the, you know, the those who would call for a bill like this do not have the public interest in mind. That's, that's what I think. I mean, it was, you know, it was, you know, it was pushed very heavily by the, the city liquor control administrator. One of the, you know, supervising staff. You know, one of the supervising investigators wrote testimony against the bill, which means that they don't think, you know, something's entirely correct with what's, what's with what's being proposed. Number one, the department needs all the help it can get in terms of enforcing the law. And if, you know, law enforcement officer a finds something wrong. Why do, why do they have to silo themselves?  To the particular agency for, for a follow-up. Yeah, there's something hanging out in public here. This is really strange because I, let me, let me tell you how I understand it. You can tell me if I'm right. This hampers the effects of the, the, the enforcement possibilities by the department of taxation. It allows those enforcement possibilities to stay in this silo with the liquor commission. If the liquor commission is somehow compromised on a given case, then the department of taxation never finds out about it. And the tax is essentially written off, forgiven. Or it's never found out about it. Yeah. Never found out about it. So if the liquor commission goes soft, the taxpayers, I mean you and me have a negative result because it's hidden. It can be hidden this way. And so this all relies on the, you know, the enforcement capabilities of the liquor commission, which are questionable. Yeah. Now during the testimony on this bill, there was a lot of discussion about, well, you know, liquor commission investigators are requiring applicants to give tax return information. And we don't think that's right. And, and, and I, and I look at the bill and go, this bill has nothing to do with that. Nothing. He doesn't say that. He doesn't say that at all. Did anybody catch him on that?  Wow. So who, so it sounds like you guys were opposing the bill. Who, who was, who was supporting the bill? Like I said, the primary proponent was liquor commission administrator. This is very fishy bill. So you think it makes me want to go. Yeah. Interesting. Well, it'll squeak through. Why? Because it's the liquor commission speaking to the governor. Is that what'll happen here? Maybe. Well, you think it says less of a chance to squeak through as the, what, 3040 or 21 79. Yeah. I mean, I think so. I mean, you know, 3040 and 21 79 of the governor's own agencies, right? I mean, this is not. This is a city agency. So, you know, it's, it's. You know, a fellow government, but you know, that only goes so far. A larger, larger sense though, it seems to me that you want government agencies to cooperate with each other. I mean, this is. Of course you do. Yeah. Come up with Merrick Garland asking for the transcripts of the select committee on the insurrection, you know, they're being some resistance on that for reasons I think that will disappear. But the bottom line is you want government agencies to be efficient. You want them to collaborate. Yeah. What's the downside? Here's the question. What is the downside of collaborating? You got me. I mean, I think that if we're, you know, if we're paying folks to go investigate this stuff, I mean, the investigation results should be available to everybody. Right. Otherwise, otherwise you're having a duplication of effort, aren't you? You have two people investigating ostensibly, theoretically investigating the exact same issue. So I paid a commission at right and the tax office at taxpayer expense. What's wrong with that picture? What's wrong with that picture? Well, good for you for going in and speaking on it, but I would really hate to see this pass over your objection. Well, you shall see. We have a couple more months to wait and then we'll find out. Yeah. Okay. And last, and last but not least, there's Senate bill 2379, which allows the department of taxation special enforcement section to examine any sector of the state's economy, initiate civil investigations, and use enforcement and education to deter taxpayer noncompliance. Okay. They can do that anyway. The part of the department of taxation is part of their mission.  Answer. Because the special enforcement section can tap into the tax administration special fund. Okay. So it gives them an additional way to use the slush fund money. Director of taxation just do that with the stroke of a pen. Apparently it's a little bit more difficult than that. But I think it's a little bit more difficult than that. I think that's why he wants this bill. He. The department supporting bill. Departments. It's not an officially sponsored bill. But the department is supporting it. So you consider it questionable. Because they may not even actually need it. Or they, it's not telling us why. It's a budgetary artifice. This, this bill is a budgetary artifice. It's, it's. I think only salient purpose. Is to get. The tax administration special fund. More. You know, more use and in use and mobilized. By this special enforcement section, which is already legislatively authorized to use the special fund. Okay. Aside from the. The funding issue and the. You know, a sensible purpose of this bill. What about that?  I mean. Does, does the tax, does the tax office actually engage. In this kind of investigation. Is it helpful? Is it useful? Is it worth the money? Well, it. They, they engage in this. Of course it's useful. You know, to bring tax golf laws to the light of day. But. But really what's happening. Is, Hey, other departments have special funds. Why can't we. Okay. We have this tax administration special fund. It used to be, you know.  It pays a few. For, for, for, for. Attorneys to, to investigate QH TV applications and review them. And that, that was fine. No, no, no. Now it's $10 million juggernaut. Okay. Last year. Last year alone, the legislature rated that special fund for, of the requirements of such fund. You oppose this bill. We don't support or oppose anything, we just provide comments. And your comments were they, to put it in the context of a questionable bill? I suppose you could say that, yeah. Well, let's talk about special funds, you know. If you asked a man on the street, what is this with special funds? He really wouldn't know why the state of Hawaii government has special funds, little pockets, little silos of money, hither and yon, not controlled by any one source, controlled by a multiple number of sources. It's like when you have- It's controlled with the department, with the department, it's controlled by the department to which they're attached. Okay. It's not controlled by the way it's supposed to work is the legislature has purse strings and they're there for a reason. And the reason is so that the legislators, representatives of the people can go review the activities of each and every executive department and evaluate the merit of what they've done and say, okay, you've done a good job, here's some more money or yeah, this program isn't doing what it's supposed to, let's cut it off. That's what they're supposed to do, but special funds are a huge hindrance on that objective because it allows a program no matter how inefficient to proceed anyway because the legislatures aren't controlling it. Yeah, so they're not doing what they should be, what we expect them to do and we're leaving this discretion in the hands of the departments themselves, the leader of the department. It's like putting the hen house in charge of the fox, right? Yeah, but there's another thing too is that you leave the money in there. I mean, this is Linda Lingle complained about this, not that she was right or wrong, I'm not saying that but she did complain about it. And what she said was if you have all these special funds around you're leaving hundreds of millions of dollars dormant, not available. So if it's stuck in one fund it can't be used by the other fund. And so we have a huge inefficiency across the landscape of the government. Yeah, that's absolutely true. So you have one department that's long for crazy reasons, you have another department that's short for crazy reasons and there's no easy way to equalize it. That's right. The way you equalize it is by rating the funds which is what happened last year. How do you do that? You pass a law? Oh, okay. But that doesn't sound very constructive to me. Why can't it be in the general fund all of it? I guess you've already answered. Yeah, I mean, that's what Governor Ben's philosophy was, you know, Ben Cayetano. He says, you know, we're all in this together. Let's all rise and fall together. Yeah. Well, do you see any prospect of a reform on that? Well, there hasn't been one for the past 20, 30 years. So it's not going to end anytime soon, but you know, we can chip away at it. And that's kind of one of the things that I'm worried about because as you know, Sylvia Luke, Chair of the House Finance Committee has been relentlessly chipping away at special funds, but she ain't going to be there anymore. After this next election, there'll be a new finance chair. And this bill that we're talking about, what is it, 2379, it actually in its own way confirms the special fund system, doesn't it?  And it's something that I would expect from Isaac Troy being a former legislator. You know, he wants to get, you know, what he can for his department and I don't blame him for that at all. Yeah, but it doesn't sound healthy to me. Yeah, but for overall government health, it's not good. Yeah. Well, okay, so here we are. The bills are, the conference committees are done, the bills are passed or not, waiting veto practice. What's the calendar look like and what's our next discussion going to be about, Tom? Well, the next important day on the calendar is I believe June 27th, which was at the 29th, June 29th, the date of notice of intent to veto. So the governor has to let us know by that date, if there's gonna be any bills that are on his list, if there is any bill that is not on the list is going to become long. And if it is on the list, can he change his mind? Yes, he can. But if it isn't on the list, he can't. It'll become long. Yeah. He cannot. That's right. He's done. So if you're a cagey fellow, then you put things on the veto list, which you may or may not veto. That's right. And that is supposed to begin a discussion with the legislative heads on, how firm they are on getting a certain measure passed.  Mm-hmm. What about the possibility of changes in the course of the veto practice? Is it possible to get a change? It's also possible. Bills can be amended after a veto by the governor to meet the governor's objections. If they are so amended, they just need to pass one reading in each of the House and the Senate, then it goes back to the governor with the corrections. You know, there's this thing called the biennium. My guess would be, not knowing more about it, my guess would be that the biennium ends, the end of the two-year period ends this year. That's correct. So what does that mean in terms of the legacy of bills that haven't been treated? They're not automatically carried over. You start completely fresh in 2023. That's correct. You start the slate over in 2023. There's, of course, nothing that prohibits people from using copy and paste and putting stuff from an old bill into a new one. And that's what happens all the time. But the biennium was adopted for fiscal purposes also in our constitution. And it has budgeting and, you know, as a practical matter, it's the end of the representative's term. All representatives have to go stand for re-election every two years. Yeah, re-election thing, as you mentioned, tends to affect the legislation in that last year, for sure. Yes. So last question is this. You know, all that we've discussed over the last several weeks, you know, during the session, and of course, some of the bills here, looking back on, you know, whether they're questionable or not, how do you rate this session? How do you rate the tenor and time of this session? Would you say it was inspired or otherwise? Well, I think it was it'd be a little bit less activity than other sessions. There was a lot less bad stuff to get worried and excited about. There were sessions where, you know, I had no nights and weekends because we're constantly reacting to stuff. This was not one of them. But, and so, you know, good. We need something like that every once in a while. Otherwise, you know, otherwise people like me could kick the bucket really easily. We don't want that. Tom, you know, we'll have a new governor soon. And who knows who that might be? I mean, there are guesses going which way. But query, how much effect does the governor have on the sessions now to follow? Is it a remarkable, are remarkable changes possible in terms of the legislation that comes out of the legislature because of the governor or leadership or otherwise? Well, it's always an interesting dynamic. You have the executive was headed, executive branch was headed by the governor and you have the legislative leaders. I think a lot is going to depend on how well they do or do not get along. And if there are any common goals for advancing how the welfare of the state. So at the end of the day, the quality of the legislative process and outcome depends on how well they're getting along. I think that's correct. I think it's human nature. I think it's human nature. It's the reality. Yeah. Thank you, Tom. Tom Yamachiga, president of Tax Foundation of Hawaii are helping us understand what goes on in tax and in legislation on tax. Thank you so much. Thank you for having me on the show. Aloha.


There's more than one million Russian Jews in Israel who celebrate the festival of Novikod, which means in Russian New Year which basically is the 2022 coming up and that everyone has a party needs certain Russian food including the Olivia potato salad and lots of other things and So we're here with the Russian community celebrating Novikod. We're starting with the soups Georgian pastry kachafuri coming in a few minutes and we're in the middle of Jerusalem Experiencing the real exciting culinary Jerusalem We're in the middle of Jerusalem This is not the right way to do it It's not the right way to do it This is the way it looks like in Georgian Sign language I'm going to open it now and start it Do you need to cut it like this or in the hand? It's not the same It's the same, it's easier to cut it Let's see, we're going to cut it in half How do you cut it like this?  You have to cut it This is one of the first things that I do here I realized that I don't know how to find the taboos that I want to find in my products I want to build it myself The taboos are made of 800 stones Each one needs to put the knife in the hole so that each one of the stones will have a hole and also a hole that will allow it not to get into the hole but to make a hole without getting into the hole This hole I built it and built it from the moment I started working I think it took me a lot of time But that was interesting I like you and you're a great artist and you're a great artist