your co-host today again or with Talking Tax. We're right here on Think Tech Hawaii, and your favorite community affairs programming. And Talking Tax is all about taxes, as you might have guessed. And the co-host with me is Tom Yamachika, he's president of the Tax Foundation of Hawaii. I'm with the Grass Street Institute of Hawaii. We have similar goals in some ways, but Tom is usually really just focused only on taxes. And that, of course, is what we're talking about today. We also have a very special guest, Rhonda Sparlin from Denver, Colorado. She's a partner in the state and local tax services group of Reuben Brown, which is based in Denver. She's joining us today from Denver. And she's going to talk with us today about Colorado's tax situation. They have a really interesting program there called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which helps limit government spending by putting a cap on tax increases. Tom Yamachika, Tom wrote about this in his weekly column a couple of weeks ago talking about, based on the governors, Jared Paul is Colorado governor's state of the state address, in which he actually called for tax cuts. And Jared is a Democrat, so we're kind of hoping that would rub off on our Democratic governor, who in fact has proposed some pretty significant tax cuts for this year, it may arose last year, and we hope that that will go through. But anyway, let's start talking about this column and how it all relates to Colorado. Tom, you want to set up the stage there? Well, sure. What we're talking about today is Colorado. It's a, I don't know if you could call it a blue state like ours, definitely it's not as blue as we are, but it has a Democratic governor. And one of the things that caught my attention about Colorado this year is the state of the state address that Governor Paulus gave. And we'll talk about that in a moment. But I also wanted to give some other detail about our special guest today, Rhonda Sparlin, is with Ruben Brown. Ruben Brown I think is headquartered in St. Louis, but it's all over the United States. And Rhonda is the partner in charge of state tax firmwide. Right, correct. So she is a celebrity within Ruben Brown and for us too. And she's the greatest Colorado tax petition director who ever walked the face of the earth, in my humble opinion. So what we want to talk today about is this passage from Governor Paulus' state of the state address. He said, as demonstrated by our healthy T-Bor, T-Bor being taxpayer bill of rights surplus in Colorado, taxes are simply too high. Income taxes, property taxes, and the state sales tax. We ignore that signal at our own peril and I challenge Democrats and Republicans to work together to improve our economic growth and success by not taking taxes we can't keep from people and instead working on a bold balanced progressive package, including cutting the income tax rate, which by the way, is that like 4%? It's 4.4%, yes. So it's not very high to begin with. It's not very high. It's like one of the lowest. Yeah, I mean, here in Hawaii we're talking about it's a top rate of 11%. Yes, right. Yeah, I was, and that's just the income tax rate. I mean, I was comparing the tax burden, you might say the whole tax burden of Colorado against other states and not just the income tax and depending on whether it's Wallet Hub or Tax Foundation, they come in very low like fifth, you know, for Wallet Hub at 8.59% of all, you know, that's the total tax burden, 8.5%, and Tax Foundation, it's 9.7%. They would rank number six in terms of the states there. Whereas Hawaii, Tax Foundation, we're almost 15%, 14.99%, and according to Wallet Hub, we're 12.29%. And that puts us up at 48% for the Tax Foundation, number 48 highest tax burden, followed by Connecticut and New York and Wallet Hub. Oh, if you think that's something, if you think that's something, Wallet Hub put out a list recently about, you know, which states take the, you know, take the top tax burden of low-income taxpayers, high-income taxpayers, and those in the middle. And one state and only one state was in the bottom five of all three lists. Wow. And guess what? And Colorado was way up there. Oh, hi. Colorado was way up there. So, Rhonda, tell us a little bit about the background of, you know, Tabor and what's been going on in Colorado. Yeah. So let's do talk about that because I think while each of you are, you know, pointing this out and pointing out this analysis, I honestly, I don't know that it's truly reflective of what's happening in the state. You know, I think, Tom, and you and I both know the devil is typically in the details, right? And so, you know, I think that there's a lot that's happening. Yes, we have a flat 4.4% income tax rate that has dropped to that level over, you know, through a number of voter initiatives, as well as legislative initiatives, you know, or passage of laws by the legislature over the years, quite honestly, over a couple of decades. But at the same time, we have a state, and again, we have pretty reasonable state sales tax rates. We have a very low state sales tax rate of 2.9%. And then if you're in the Denver metropolitan area, you've got special districts that are an additional 1.1%. So a total of 4% in the metropolitan district that's, you know, pretty much collected by the state. But then we have almost 70 home rural cities who it's like having 70 states in the state of Colorado from a sales tax perspective. And those rates are anywhere from 3% to like 5.5%. And so while the rates may be in line with what you see in other states, the complexity level for businesses to operate in Colorado is tremendous compared to other states. And then, and very quickly, and also I just came back from a Colorado chamber board meeting where, and you should have seen or would possibly heard, you know, there was a special session of the legislature called by the governor at the end of November, beginning of December last year. And we've had an interim council on property tax reform and they just gave their recommendations, I believe last Friday because our property tax rates are increasing tremendously as well as the valuations. And so, you know, just the number I can remember that was thrown out that's just expected this year is almost another $3.8 billion of property tax revenues just because kind of the foundational structure of how property taxes and in the various special districts and all the mill levies that get piled on top of those valuation increases. Well, if I may just to be clear, are you trying to say that because the various metropolitan areas, do they, they can levy their own sales taxes? Is that what you're saying? Yes. And the counties collect the property taxes there, right? Yes. Right. But okay, so that analysis though that I was mentioning was local and state and local tax burden. But what you're saying is even though it's really wonderful, there's always that push to keep raising taxes, right? That's right. Or that they can, or that the complexity because, because it's like dealing with, you know, you could have a state exemption for affordable housing. You could have a state exemption for projects that are structured a certain way and that meet the affordable housing need in our state. But the local, if it's in a, if it's in a jurisdiction where it's a local home rule city, they may not honor that exemption. And so, you know, you could have about 5% of the cost of that affordable housing project, basically go back to the government through sales taxes on the cost of materials and the construction materials and reconstruction and that type of thing. And so it increases, it's an, it's an artificially, it's increasing the cost of what, you know, they're trying to get affordable housing, but then there's a certain percentage of that that's going back to the government through the sales taxes or other taxes. Well, I guess the overarching principle though is that you have Tabor. Yes. Tabor, which is a constitutional provision. It is, it is. And it's, you know, you're going to get historical on me now or maybe I'm going to get historical on you, but go for it. It goes back to, you know, 1992. And again, we have local control through these sales taxes and other taxes. And there were a number of things that Tabor was meant to do. It was first off to, to try to limit the growth of government. You know, the un, the, the un, try with some guardrails about the growth of government in the state of Colorado. And that meant if there were laws that they wanted to pass through that would have a direct or indirect increase in the tax burden, they needed to be voted on by the electorate before they could pass. I would tell you that that, that, that's one of the provisions. There were other provisions, but that's probably, you know, one of the main provisions that everyone's aware of. And I will tell you that that's lost some of its, it's not as strong as it used to be. There have been some court cases over the decades that have limited, have said, look, if, you know, for instance, in the legislature, if you want to have a bill that increases tax, maybe increases the sales tax, broadens the sales tax base, but then in that same bill, you give, you increase the earned income tax credit or the childcare credit in the state of Colorado, those can offset. You know, you will have our legislative, you know, legislative analysis group do the analysis, but those could potentially offset and those don't have to be voted on. So you can have, you can have these tax increases in particular sectors, corporate, you know, corporate or business taxes versus individual taxes, as long as they're in the same bill and they, they have a neutral impact, then, you know, maybe you don't require a vote of the people. Well, but I think the, the remarkable thing is that you have guardrails in the first place. Right. You know, a lot of states don't, we don't. Right. And, and, and there was, and I know because I participated in this as, you know, with, with the NFI be amicus brief, there was litigation over, you know, the question of whether, you know, Tabor is constitutional at all, because, you know, a group of legislators were saying, well, look, the US Constitution guarantees this Republican former government. And that means we, the legislature gets the tax people, however we want, and with no limits. And the Supreme Court basically said, no. The people have the power. Right. Well, people have the power. Voting part, this voting part of the, if, if the legislature passes a tax increase or would like to pass tax increase, it's supposed to go to the vote. But what is that? Is that, do they have to wait till the following November? I mean, I'm not sure what the timeframe. Yeah. Yeah. So it becomes an initiative and we have, we have a, so I know there are referendums and there are initiatives and I will just say, you know, I will, you know, I kind of view it as, and I'll probably get this wrong because I am, I'm, I'm like both of you where you're used to doing these, these podcasts and your journalist and you, you've got all the terms correct. I'm a tax practitioner. So I kind of understand that there can be valid issues that either come from citizen groups or groups that get signatures of citizens or they can come from the legislature and be on the ballot. And so we, we have typically, honestly, I cannot remember an election, a November election for years now where there isn't something on our ballots in Colorado that deals with some aspect of taxes. And in fact, oh, we, at this meeting, I was just at earlier today. I mean, there's, there's probably four, there's anywhere from four to six, to six different property tax proposals that they're working through with the title board, the different groups are negotiating to which one will show up on the ballot. So does that apply to even County property tax increases? Or city or whoever who is the counties over there that raise property taxes? Yeah. So they, well, yes, there, well, there's all kinds of districts, water districts, fire districts, collective school districts, you know, the counties, that type of thing. So it, it applies. However, there's also, so this Tabor was the brainchild of a former legislator named Doug Bruce. And so it was also determined in the decade since it passed that local jurisdictions could have elections where again, the folks who live in that locality could choose to debruce as it's been called now because what it, what it basically was it was elections that would allow the localities to keep this excess revenue and to get back to what Tom read at the beginning of this podcast. You know, what happens at the state level is we typically get an income tax refund. There's a refund for everyone who files a personal income tax, a refund of a certain dollar amount, depending on how big that Tabor excess revenue is. And so at the local level, they can just vote to keep that. They can go through a vote and keep that. And so, yes, it does apply. However, most of the counties to my understanding have had, have held those types of elections and their electorate have said, if we, if we pay you too much, if it's growing too greatly, you can keep that excess revenue and put it to good work. I see. So is that what, is that what the, I was going to ask you, what is, what did the governor mean when he was talking about our healthy Tabor surplus? Right. Right. Is that, is that, so this gets, this gets, there's a standard. There's a certain limitation in Tabor about how, what the growth of state revenues can be, general fund revenues can be. And if every time, if the economy is going, growing well, again, you know, with sales tax collections have grown significantly, all of that general refund revenue or in the population has grown all of those things. If we grow above a certain limitation, then those are excess revenues. And there are certain refund mechanisms that apply when you hit certain levels. But at a certain point, if it's above all of those, then again, on the individual income tax returns, every individual, every resident individual who's filing an income tax return gets a specified dollar amount. And I'll tell you again, in some years, you know, it's, it, some years it's been, it's been phased according to what your level of income was. And maybe at the highest levels, maybe it was $50 or $70 or something like that. This year is $800. Nice. And it's, and that's for everyone. And what are the things that, that support this activity? I mean that, you know, what if they don't, are there any penalties? Is there a way that they can violate this Tabor? They've been trying for years. Yeah, I mean, it's, you know what it is really, Mark, I think it's, it just shows that it can easily, there can easily be a mismatch of the revenues and the tax revenues that are paid to the state or the localities. There can be a mismatch of that versus who bears the cost of the services. So for instance, you know, while the state gets all of the income tax revenues and gets, you know, a small portion of the sales tax revenues and that type of thing, you know, the localities in the counties, as you've mentioned a couple of times, they're the ones who are collecting the property taxes and they're the ones who are trying to provide all the local services and the, you know, so while the state may be flush with money, depending on a particular locality's demographic, they could have extreme needs and the monies aren't being, you know, they're not getting the surplus of funds to be able to meet those needs. You can compare that with what happens here in Hawaii. It's very, very different. I mean, we have a so-called general fund expenditure ceiling, but that can be overwritten by, I believe, a majority of the legislature and it happens every year. Two thirds. Two thirds, yeah, it happens every year.  So, and even when there were none of these other alternatives, the legislature complied with the constitutional mandate by giving taxpayers a refund of one dollar. One dollar. One dollar, yeah. Yeah, it was pretty swiney.  And the thing is, too, is there is no penalty, really, for exceeding the budget. Like Tom said, if they, there is a cap in the Constitution, but if they can all vote, in fact, the bills even go through sometimes now with a statement. And this bill will push us into the, you know, excess, exceed the limit, the budget limit. And they all just go along with that. You know, one of the virtues of a one-party state, I guess, pretty much. Right. Well, and please understand. I mean, when Tabor went into effect, it was a much more balanced government in Colorado. We're also a blue state where governor is Democratic, both houses of our legislature are Democratic. And the last election, every key office on the ballot at the state level was, you know, voted Democratic. So this has been happening. And we've been in that type of atmosphere or environment now for eight to 12 years. Well, apparently the governor there is somewhat of a libertarian. It sounds like he's, you know, maybe more Akamai about the economics, the principles of economics. But Tom did make the point in his column and that Democrats cutting taxes is not unheard of. And like I said, our own governor is proposing, I think it's about a $200 million tax cut. He wants to raise the standard deduction and the personal something else. And then he wants to index everything to inflation. Do they do that, by the way, in Colorado? The tax rates to inflation? Not the tax rates, but many of the other like the legislature has become very keen or very smart about that in the last few years. So that when they are putting some new provision into the tax law, they are making and it sets, you know, a threshold. They are making sure to put in the language as well that this will be subject to revision according to inflation based upon certain indicators so that it can grow, which is really important because I think again what we see as tax practitioners is even $100,000 that went into effect for a sales tax threshold in the last five or six years, I mean that $100,000 doesn't have the same meaning as what it had five or six years ago. Well, according to your governor in the speech that Tom cited, he said that President Kennedy didn't just launch the moonshot, he delivered one of the largest income tax cuts in history and he also talked to Tom about President Obama's calls for cutting income tax. Did he ever do that? Did Obama ever do that? Or was he just calling for it? Boy, that would be difficult for me.  And then they always talk about the Reagan tax cuts, but then I get different signals on that that maybe overall the spending did go up and whatever. I'm not really sure about that part of history either, but in Hawaii Tom, do you think Governor Green is on the right track or he could do more, right? Well, I mean what's the situation perhaps? He can only do what the legislature lets him, you know, I mean it's got to be a cooperative environment for anything to go through. That's true. So last year he proposed it didn't go through, this year he's proposing it again we'll see what happens, the jury's still out. Right. Well, what about a possibility of ever getting a table for Hawaii? That I think would be very interesting if we could, you know, get something in our Constitution that, you know, didn't have loopholes and ways around it and backdoor strategies that we've always been using up to this point. Do you think people in Hawaii would support that? Being a thing that would have to go to the voters? Of course it would have to go to the voters and yeah, I think they would support it. But I don't think that any existing legislator would want to put that before the people. No, we just have to find somebody, don't we? And so, Rhonda, thank you so much for being with us today. It was really nice. I know you and Tom used to work together with Price Waterhouse Cooper and accounting firm and you were never here in Hawaii of course, but you know, you're always welcome to come visit. Have you ever been to Hawaii? Oh, multiple times. It's one of my favorite places on earth. I love the big island. That's, that is just kind of, I would love to be there. Give me about four weeks. I would love to be there. I don't have that plan, but I just, I just every island, I've been I've been on a number of your islands and I just again, one of the greatest places on earth. Yeah, it's next season has to end first. That's right. Well, thank you again Rhonda for being here today and Tom good to see you again and we'll see you next week. Everybody, everybody next week or two weeks from now, I hope or whenever this next episode comes out. Thank you very much for joining us today on Talking Tax on ThinkTek Hawaii. If you like this program hit the like button below and feel free to go to our website and watch all the rest of our shows. Aloha. If you liked this show, why don't you give us a like or subscribe to our channel? Thanks so much.


A quick zoom tip for those of you who are in large live sessions where there are a lot of chats happening, I want to show you my zoom window and how I managed having all those chats happening at the same time and like not feeling like I'm, you know, I can't chat because there's always have to keep breathing. So here's here's how I do it. So you can see the chat log here. And what I did to get it to pause was to basically at the very bottom, you know, as new chats come in, it'll just come in if somebody go ahead and chat to see something Cynthia, new chats come in like this and they might come in quickly. But what I simply do is I scroll up on the chat there's a scroll bar on the on the right hand side if I scroll up on the chat. And those who are here please go ahead and chat below real quick. Just say hello. If you want new messages will will come in it'll say how many new messages, and it'll be paused for me, so that I can basically type my chat. Sorry, I'm just typing gibberish here so that I don't feel like I'm, and I think I can do shift enter. No, I can't. Okay. I thought I could do shift enter. Let's see. Nope. Okay. Well, anyway, I think on some computers anyway I'm not going to. So try that in the future, scroll up so that you don't have to see all the new messages pop up and you guys type more peacefully.


T minus 30 seconds, initiate systems check. Musculoskeletal system. Musculoskeletal system is go. Neurovestibular system. Neurovestibular system, go. Cardiopulmonary system. Cardiopulmonary system, go. Cardiobascular system. Cardiobascular system, go. All systems are go. We are T minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5. 2, 1, we have liftoff. We have liftoff. 9, 8, we have a goal for main engine start. We have main engine start. 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, and liftoff. Liftoff of the space shuttle, and it has cleared the tower. It's very small. It is small, but it's the case. Yeah, you're touching it. The Space Shuttle Columbia and Spacelab Life Sciences won. After 10 years of flying space shuttle missions, we're becoming accustomed to the strange things that can happen in space. But it hasn't always been that way. When we first went into space, no one knew how the human body would react to space flight. We wondered if we could survive in weightlessness. And we wondered if we could work in space. OK, I'm on. OK, he's out. He's low-frequency. 30 years later, we know that the answer to both of these questions is yes. But in spite of our successes in space, many questions about the effects of space flight on the human body remain unanswered. During the flight of Spacelab Life Sciences won, my colleagues and I will try to answer some of these questions. The human body is much like the shuttle.  Our bodies have systems like the cardiovascular system, the cardiopulmonary system, the renal endocrine system, the blood and immune systems, the musculoskeletal system, and the neurovestibular system. The shuttle systems communicate with each other to keep the spacecraft flying smoothly. In a similar way, our body systems also talk to each other to maintain what is called homeostasis or a stable internal environment. All of our body systems are affected to some degree by spaceflight. The most dramatic change occurs immediately after we become weightless. On Earth, the pull of gravity normally pulls our body fluids in our feet, legs, and abdomen. But when we enter space and become weightless, the fluid in our bodies is no longer pulled down toward our feet. Instead, it shifts up to our chest and head. Since 80% of our body is fluid, that changes the way we look. Our faces get puffy and our legs get skinny. We call this the bird legs of space. After we're up here for a while, we adapt somewhat to the fluid shift. But our bodies remain in this altered state until we're back on Earth. The weightlessness affects our bodies in another way, too. It's called space motion sickness. It's much like being seasick on Earth. But luckily, our bodies adapt to this new environment. And so it isn't really a problem after the first couple of days. The fluid shift in space motion sickness are easily recognizable changes that take place in weightlessness. But less obvious changes also occur, right down to individual cells. During the flight of STS-40, Space Lab Life Sciences 1, my fellow crew members and I will introduce you to the six major body systems. We'll learn how they function on Earth and how space flight may affect them. Our cardiovascular system is a network of over 96,000 kilometers of blood vessels, enough to go more than twice around the Earth. These blood vessels include arteries, which carry freshly oxygenated blood to all the tissues in our bodies, and other vessels called veins, which bring back waste-laden blood so that the process can be repeated. The driving force of the cardiovascular system is the heart. It's a pump that forces blood through the arteries and the veins. Our heart pumps or beats about 60 times a minute every minute of our lives. If you live to be 70 years old, your heart will pump more than 2 billion times. Our cardiovascular system works well in gravity. Whether we're lying or standing, we always have an adequate supply of blood for vital organs, like the brain. But when we go into space and take our hearts out of their normal environment, some strange things happen. The upward shift of fluid in our bodies tricks the heart and its sensors into believing that there's an increased blood supply. So our heart tries to compensate first the muscle structure of our heart stretches so that it can hold more blood. When this happens, other body systems tell our kidneys to eliminate what appears to be excess fluid. As the fluid level is reduced, we believe our bone marrow shuts down its production of red blood cells in order to keep our blood from getting too thick. Pretty soon, the amount of blood and the red cells in our body is less than we have on Earth. With less blood to pump, our heart shrinks. Back to about the same size that is on Earth. But when we return to Earth from space, gravity again pulls much of our blood back to our legs. Now there's not enough blood to go around and some of us will get lightheaded and dizzy for a short time until our bodies get more fluids and manufacture more blood. In spite of this, there's no indication that spaceflight causes any permanent problems for our cardiovascular system. But during this flight, we're going to investigate this matter more closely. Before we departed Earth, I had a long plastic tube inserted into a vein in my arm. This tube is called a catheter. The tube was advanced in a vein to a point just above my heart. During the first few hours of flight, when the fluid shifts occur, we're able to measure the central venous pressure near my heart. Central venous pressure is directly related to the volume of blood our heart pumps. Once we get back to Earth, we'll do the same experiment and see if the central venous pressure measurements differ. If our suspicions are correct, we'll demonstrate that the fluid shift caused by weightlessness increases activity and changes the control mechanisms of the heart in circulation. Information like this will help us to better understand the changes we go when we first center weightlessness and it will give us insight into the possible effects of long-term weightlessness as well as diseases of Earth-bound patients. The cardiovascular system works closely with another body system called the cardiopulmonary system. Cardio refers to the heart and pulmonary refers to the lungs. This lung-heart connection is right in the middle of the cardiovascular system, but not literally. Here's what I mean. The heart pumps blood through our arteries and veins. The blood in turn has an equally important job. When the blood is on its way to our tissue and organs, it is said to be oxygenated, meaning that it is carrying oxygen to all of the cells in our bodies. When blood is returning from the cells, it is oxygen depleted, meaning that the oxygen has been used up and in its place is carbon dioxide. Looking at a diagram of the cardiovascular system, we see that it's a closed system. If this is true, then how does the blood get a fresh supply of oxygen to carry back to the cells? That's where the lungs come in. Oxygen-depleted blood is pumped from the heart to the lungs. Think of the lungs as two large airbags filled with thousands of tiny blood vessels called capillaries. My friend here is gonna help me show what happens when we take a breath of air. When we breathe, air rich with oxygen enters the lungs. Now we've got two lungs full of fresh air and oxygen, and we have a network of small blood vessels filled with oxygen-depleted blood. Now something quite fascinating happens. The oxygen in the lungs and the carbon dioxide in the blood are going to trade places through the thin membranes that line the lungs. This phenomenon is called gas exchange. Now the air in the lungs is oxygen-depleted and the blood is oxygenated. Okay, now you can breathe. Thank you. The blood then returns to the heart where it's pumped out to the body to nourish the cells and give them oxygen. It then returns back to the heart and then again to the lungs where the processes get repeated. On earth, where gravity tends to pull blood toward our feet, the majority of the blood in the lungs stays near the bottom and the air stays mostly in the top. But in space, where the fluid in our body shifts upwards, it is felt that there will be a more even distribution of blood and air in the lungs. That means that the lungs should function even more efficiently in space than they do on earth. Space Lab's gas analyzer is going to help us determine if this is true. By breathing into the rebreather device, we'll inhale a mixture of traceable gases. When we exhale the mixture, the gas analyzer will identify each gas and determine the quantity that was absorbed by the bloodstream. Investigators back on earth will then be able to determine if gas exchange in the lungs is actually more efficient in space. If that is the case, it may help us to better understand certain respiratory problems that people have back on earth. If you're a healthy young person weighing about 120 pounds, over 60% or 72 pounds of your body is made out of water. That means that water is the most abundant and the most important fluid in your body. But how do we keep our body water at a constant level? Every time we perspire or go to the bathroom, we rid our bodies of water. And every time we take a drink of water, we add water back. So how does the body keep the water in balance? This is done for us automatically by our renal endocrine system. Renal refers to the kidneys and the endocrine system is a collection of hormone-secreting glands that include the hypothalamus, the pituitary, the thyroid gland, the pancreas, and the adrenal glands. The primary body compounds regulated by this system are water and electrolytes. When we drink water or other fluids, they go into our gastrointestinal tract. From there, water and electrolytes are absorbed into the bloodstream by a process called osmosis. The cells in our bodies then absorb whatever water they need from the bloodstream. The cells also dump water along the cellular waste into the bloodstream. As the blood passes through our endocrine system, it is monitored for different metabolic products. Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. Phew. Two of the endocrine glands, the hypothalamus, and the pituitary monitor fluid levels in the blood. If the fluid level is not right, they will release a hormone. And that hormone tells the brain there's a problem. If the fluid level is too low, the brain tells us that we're thirsty. But if the fluid level is high, the brain tells the kidneys to eliminate fluid. Through an elaborate filtering process, our kidneys remove the excess fluids and waste from our blood and store it in our bladder in the form of urine. When our kidneys are told by our body to get rid of the water, we make more urine in the body. Our bladder is filled and we get the urge to urinate. But what does all this mean for the space traveler? For one, it means that when we enter weightlessness, the body fluids shift upward. And our renal endocrine system will tell our bodies to eliminate fluid. What we don't know is how weightlessness affects the production of hormones that keep our fluid levels balanced. Here on SLS One, we're investigating all the changes that occurred during space flight, changes in the hormone production, changes in how the kidney functions, and the circulation. And with this new knowledge, we hope to shed new light on things like how and why we be conditioned during space flight, and on earth problems, like orthostatic hypertension and heart failure. All of us know that blood is essential for life. But do we really know why? Blood has two very important jobs. First, it transports oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from the millions of cells in our bodies. Blood is also a defense mechanism that allows our bodies to fight infection and disease. Blood has three components. Red blood cells, which do the transporting of oxygen and carbon dioxide, white blood cells, which fight infections, a watery fluid called plasma, which makes our blood liquid and allows it to flow through the blood vessels. Let's take a look at each of these components a little closer. Red blood cells could be compared to millions of taxi cabs zooming around in our bodies. As each red blood cell taxi passes through our lungs, it's flagged down by an oxygen molecule. The oxygen is wanting to go to one of the millions of cells that makes up our bodies. So the red blood cell takes off through the cardiovascular system toward that destination. Once there, the oxygen gets out and goes to the cell. Now, like any good taxi driver, the red blood cell doesn't want to make a return trip without a paying customer. So while at the cell, he picks up a carbon dioxide passenger for the return trip to the lungs.  White blood cells also perform an important function. They are a major part of our immune system. From time to time, foreign substances enter our bodies. These substances might be bacteria, viruses, or even something like a splinter. We might compare the white blood cells to a good watchdog in our yard. When someone or something harmful comes into our yard, our watchdog will attack it. White blood cells work the same way, except there are millions of them. When a foreign substance enters our bodies, the white blood cells attack and repel the intruder. There are several types of white blood cells, but the ones that we're interested in on this flight are called lymphocytes. The red and white blood cells would have a difficult time making it through our blood vessels if it weren't for our liquid called plasma. In the red fluid we call blood, cells make up about 40 to 45 percent. The rest is plasma. Since plasma is a fluid, it is really affected by the upward fluid shift that takes place in our bodies when we first encounter weightlessness, and that affects our body's overall blood supply. Here's how. When the fluid in our bodies drifts upward, sensors in the circulatory system and the endocrine system send a message to the brain saying that there's too much fluid. The brain then tells the kidneys to reduce the fluid volume. This is probably accomplished mainly through urination. Once the fluid level has been reduced, blood cells make up more than 45 percent of the blood supply. In other words, our blood becomes thicker. For one sake for this, we think the bone marrow decreases its production of red blood cells until the ratio returns to about 45 percent. So once again, our bodies adapt to the changes of spaceflight. But when we return to Earth, we face another problem. We find that we've lost both blood volume and red blood cells. The loss of blood volume is a problem immediately upon returning to Earth because Earth gravity is again pooling blood in our legs. The decreased volume makes it more difficult for blood to be pumped to our brain. This can lead to lightheadedness and a woozy feeling right after landing. We begin working to correct this problem even before we land by drinking lots of water. By drinking water, we begin to replace the plasma in our blood. But once the plasma level is increased, we face another problem. Now we have fewer red blood cells than we should have. This condition is called space anemia even though it doesn't actually happen until we're back on Earth. Space anemia will continue until the body manufactures enough red blood cells to bring the plasma cell ratio back to about 45 percent. During the SLS-1 mission, we're studying several ways in which spaceflight affects the blood and immune system. For example, in the past we have found that astronauts have fewer lymphocytes after flying in space. And the lymphocytes they did have were not as effective in fighting infection as they had been prior to spaceflight. At various times throughout this mission, we're going to draw blood from the prune. These specimens will be studied later on Earth to determine if the lymphocyte's ability to enter infection decreases the longer they remain weightless. This is an important question to be answered. Without a functioning immune system, our bodies would become easy prey for disease. Most structures are designed with a specific purpose in mind. The orbiter was designed to function in the unique conditions of space. Our bodies were designed to function on Earth where there's gravity. In fact, our body's musculoskeletal system needs gravity to function properly. Of all the body systems we're studying during SLS-1, the musculoskeletal system may be the only one that has serious problems adapting to the changes it encounters during spaceflight. By pulling against our bodies, gravity makes our bones and muscles work and become stronger. Each time we take a step and push our weight forward, we perform a weightlifting exercise for the muscles in our legs. Activities like climbing stairs make our muscles work even harder. But in space, nothing has weight, our muscles don't have to work the same as they do on Earth. When muscles don't work in their usual way, they become weaker. Most of us have known someone who's broken an arm or a leg and had to wear a cast while the bone healed. While in the cast, the muscles of that arm or leg didn't have to work. And once the cast was removed, the muscle was weak and had lost its bulk. The same is true for people who've been confined to a bed for a long time and could not use their muscles. In space, we work our muscles on treadmills and exercise bikes, but the results still aren't the same as they are on Earth. Imagine that every day we lift the barbell that weighs 100 pounds. Then, one day we go on a trip that lasts a month and we only have a 40-pound barbell to take with it. Even though we lift the 40-pound barbell every day, the 100-pound barbell is going to be hard to lift when we return from our trip. The same is true about spaceflight. Even though we exercise in space, we're going to be weaker when we return. Depending on how long we've been in space, it may take us weeks or even months to regain the strength in our muscles that we've lost. It could be even worse for astronauts who will someday live on the space station or at lunar bases. Not to mention a trip to Mars that could last a year or more. The muscles aren't the only parts of our bodies that suffer during spaceflight. Weightlessness also causes our bones to lose the minerals, calcium, and phosphorus. Many of us don't think of our bones as being alive, but they are really very active. In our bone are two types of cells, osteoclasts, which get rid of old bone matter, and osteoblasts, which build new bone. Because of the activity of these two types of cells, our bones are in a constant state of tearing down and rebuilding. The balance of these cells seems to be tipped slightly in favor of the osteoblast cells. That's why our bones grow stronger. But what happens in space is still somewhat of a mystery. Since there is no weight to bear in space, then there is no stress on our bones as they go through the rebuilding process. This seems to affect the structural integrity of our bones. Bone density recovers, but without stress, we cannot grow as strong. The only way to prove this theory is to test some of our bones for strength. And the only way to do that is to remove the bone. And so far, we've had no volunteers. So NASA is working on ways to study bone strength without removing the bone. Finding a way to test bone strength is going to help us to treat elderly patients who have a common bone problem known as osteoporosis. Here on SLS-1, we're going to measure the level of calcium-producing hormones and compare them directly to the uptake and release of calcium in the body. It will be the first time that this has been done in the weightlessness of space. It's a spectacular view out the window. But most of the time, looking outside doesn't tell us if we're flying in the way we should. Since there aren't a lot of visual references in space, the shuttle has a guidance system that helps keep us in a proper position. There's no guidance system in our bodies, too. It's called the neurovestibular system, and it's what keeps our bodies in the proper orientation on Earth. The neurovestibular system is very sensitive to gravity. In fact, it's gravity that makes it work. Deep inside our inner ear, in the vestibular organ, are thousands of tiny hairs. Resting on top of these hairs are microscopic clumps of crystals called otoliths. On Earth, gravity pulls the otoliths in different directions, according to the type of activity we're doing. This, in turn, bends the tiny hairs, sending messages that tell the brain if we're hanging upside down. Accelerating. Or any other sensation that has to do with body movement. The neurovestibular system also uses sensors in our muscles that determine sensations of motion or changes in position.  We might even say that the neurovestibular system's main purpose is to create a stable platform for our eyes. When our eyes can't lock onto what we're looking at, we can get a queasy feeling we call motion sickness. It's the same feeling some people get when they ride a wild ride at an amusement park. Everything rushes by in a blur. And before long, they think they might get a second look at the hot dog they just ate. Some of us who fly in space get a similar feeling. We call it space motion sickness. That doesn't mean riding the shuttle is like climbing aboard a tilted wheel at a carnival. But it does mean that space flight can confuse our neurovestibular system and disorient the visual references we rely on for stability. There's a reason for this. When we get into space, gravity no longer pulls down on us the way we're used to on Earth. Things start to float away. And for all practical purposes, objects become weightless. In this environment, the vestibular system functions differently than it does on Earth. And we no longer have a way to tell our brain what the right body position is. Without the vestibular system functioning the way we're used to, some of us get confusing signals in our brain. Our eyes tell us that our feet are off the ground. But our vestibular organ doesn't give us the sensation of falling that we expect. Usually after a few days in flight, our bodies adjust to the weightlessness and the space motion sickness goes away. Not everyone experiences space motion sickness. And that's one of the medical mysteries we'd like to know more about. The reason is quite obvious. Imagine getting off a ride at a carnival and someone hands you an algebra book and tells you to work a few problems. That's what it's like for an astronaut who's suffering from space motion sickness.  We want to have as much productive time as possible when we're in space. So to help us learn more about the effects of space motion sickness and how to treat it, we're going to do some experiments here on SLS-1. One of my favorite experiments involves this rotating dome. What the dome does is to help us see how visual cues affect the way our body responds. To do the experiment, Millie will put her head in the dome and look at the dots as they rotate. Her eyes naturally want to lock onto the dots. This causes her body to want to keep up with her eyes. And pretty soon, her whole body will feel like it is turning. But it really isn't. A camera mounted in the dome is recording her eye reaction. Back on Earth, scientists will study this and other data we've collected to see if they can answer some of the questions about how our neurovestibular system works and why we get space motion sickness. I'll leave you with a small bit of advice.  Our body systems are so different from each other yet they all depend so much on each other. They perform their jobs each day in a way that most of us never realize. Our goal at NASA is to enable the human exploration of space. But to do that, we have to understand how space affects our bodies. Space lab missions like this one are a step toward that goal, but only a small step. Orbiting laboratories will allow us even longer periods to investigate the mysteries of the human body. Hopefully, the benefits of all space-based research may someday help solve the puzzles of such earthbound problems as heart disease, emphysema, osteoporosis, and other disorders. The possibilities are as limitless as the stars themselves. Space Lab Life Sciences 1 has been a valuable learning experience for all of us. We're really glad you could join us on this voyage of medical discovery.


uiry. I hope that the positives that have come up in the committee can be taken forward and acted on. I again start by commending the committee's work to raise the issue of bank branch closures supported by many in the chamber here today. I welcome the constructive nature of the report, which looked at both the problem and suggested solutions to it. It is critically important that we continue to speak up for our constituents and communities who feel powerless in the wake of bank closures. Although banking remains reserved, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that the voices of customers, small businesses and communities are heard at the highest level. That is a responsibility that we have taken seriously over the past few months, particularly in the wake of the particularly damaging branch closures or RBS branch closures. I want to pick up on a few themes that we have heard here today. The first point to pick up on is the vulnerable people who are hit hardest by those branch closures. Gillian Martin talked about the human cost and the importance of social inclusion when it comes to looking at branch closures. Jackie Baillie highlighted the loyalty of customers, customers who are taken for granted by banks because we are less likely to switch banks. It is older and more vulnerable people in particular who are hit by those branch closures but not only them. It hits the retail sector in particular who are still highly dependent on cash and it hits ordinary people who suffer the loss and feel that banks are not accountable for the actions that they take. Rachel Hamilton talked about the importance of ensuring that there are alternatives before closing a branch and spoke about taking a gamble on the post office. She also highlighted the powerful story of a gentleman in iMouth who was caught out waiting for a mobile branch in particularly awful weather. The question is about the dignity of customers who are dependent on branches and face-to-face contact. Fulton MacGregor also talked about the lady from Christon who celebrated 100 years and I saw the picture on Twitter. Again, those people feel like they are being left behind. It is important that we not only talk about profits when it comes to those branch closures but also talk about the social needs of customers who feel abandoned. The second theme was about rural areas. I can certainly empathise because, as a Highland MSP, I have seen branch closures in my constituency in Malig, Buley, Keil and Avymor. In some cases, particularly the one in Buley, it was the last bank in town. That is one of the 10 branches that have potentially been reprieved, but it awaits to be seen with the outcome of the independent review. When it comes to rurality, there are significant distances to travel. There was mention of the average of 40 minutes of travel in rural areas, but that is an average. For some, it can be in the region of ours. As Alasdair Allan said, for others, it can be an entire day depending on ferries there and ferries back to get to South East. If you are taking most of a day to get to your nearest branch, that has obvious implications on work, on business and on other opportunities, whether that is education or training. The third theme was about cash, which is still essential in so many sectors and in so many parts of the country. Dean Lockhart emphasised the importance of the network of ATMs and the importance of cash in our society. The access to cash and the ability to deposit cash were identified by the committee as a key issue, particularly for small businesses. It is clear that there will be a continuing long-term need for access to cash banking services in Scotland. The Scottish Government has raised issues on ATM coverage with LINC and the payment system regulator and will continue to do so. As LINC changes to the network take effect, the impact on the network will become apparent. The PSR has announced that it will take regulatory action, requiring LINC to set out explicitly how it will maintain the broad geographic spread of free-to-use ATMs across the UK. That is vitally important. Keith Brown mentioned the promise that was made about not leaving if RBS were the last bank in town. As I have already highlighted from my constituency example, that has not happened. There are cash deserts, as Colin Smyth has highlighted, where people have no access to cash, and they are caught out. Although it was an amusing story in terms of being caught out with only a card, it can be far more serious when it is more than just a coffee that you are trying to pay for or when banks or businesses find themselves without cash and in need of cash. As the FSB highlighted, that is particularly difficult in areas that have lower than average broadband services. If it is a choice of paying somebody over broadband that you do not have access to or cash, you end up with a higher number of people and businesses who become financially excluded. Collaboration is key, particularly in the discussion between Lewis MacDonald and John Mason. There are other examples where banks work together. There is no reason, albeit with the commercial sensitivities, that they cannot work together better on other initiatives, whether that is hubs, whether that is open banking or whether that is ensuring that customers ultimately have access. Brian Whittle Mike Rumbles Can you tell me a genuine question? We have heard from some of the banks that they cannot do the hub idea because of regulatory restrictions that we know are reserved for the UK Government. Is it the case that that is true, or could they, on a voluntary nature, engage in hubs and communities? I would like genuinely to know the answer to that. I will answer in the spirit that the question was asked. I think that to make any of those initiatives work when it comes to collaboration, regulators have to be involved. It needs to be a conversation not just between the banks and not just between Government and banks, but to get the regulator involved as well. Regulation needs to be updated as well to recognise the changing needs of customers. There are models that work, such as the link system, such as talking about open banking. When it comes to the hub system, there will need to be considerations when it comes to the regulator for what works and what does not work. However, I do not think that that means that we throw out the whole concept of banks' sharing in an effort to meet the customer needs. It is not just rural communities, either. For example, as Colin Beattie mentioned, it is not just rural areas where people need to travel further. I find that a big disadvantage, particularly when they are dependent on public transport. The last point before I close is on consultation. There has been a lot of comment about what real consultation looks like. Stuart McMillan asked that question. Joan McAlpine talked about the fact that it is too little, too late to have discussions once communities have already taken the brunt of the closure. That communication needs to be effective with communities and also with representatives who often have to answer constituents at surgeries who are deeply concerned about the future of banking provision. There is a sense across the chamber of unanimity, of consensus, that the need for physical face-to-face banking services and access to cash remains there. There is a need there. Customers deserve choice, and there needs to be solutions for all customers. Thank you very much. I now ask John Mason to wind up on behalf of the committee. On behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee, I congratulate Colin Smith and Brian Whittle, who both got the title right. I think that other people were perhaps confused by the fact that the report says that the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work Committee now has a new name. Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to the debate today, the 19 speeches from the 18 speakers. I find it encouraging that the Parliament is as interested as they are in our looking at the subject of bank closures. First of all, I touch on some key issues as I see them, and I hope that the committee has seen them. If I have time, I will go on to some of the individual contributions that we have had. As others have said, online and phone banking are all very well, but cash is still needed, and that is stressed in paragraph 19 of our recommendations. Banks are there to serve the public, not just to drive change. Banks are not just an optional extra, like a sweetie shop or the bookies. They are a public service, and a number of members have mentioned that public service, such as Brian Whittle and others. There is attention because they are private businesses, but, as others have said, they are private businesses that would not exist if the public sector had not bailed them out. A real theme has been the lack of consultation with customers. Kate Forbes mentioned that. Edward Mountain, Gillian Martin, Stuart McMillan and others did as well, and I stopped writing down the notes. I remain unconvinced that that could not happen. I think that that is true of the committee as well. It happens in other sectors that there is consultation before a final decision is made, and I believe that it could happen in this, which is a public service even run by the private sector. When we come to the post office as an alternative, I personally am very positive, and paragraphs 23 to 26 look at this. I think that this is one of the best options going forward, given that we cannot recreate the bank network that we had in the past. I was interested in the post office response, which accepts that there is a lack of awareness and that only 40 per cent of the public realised that they could use the post office for banking services. I think that that was true for the committee that we had not realised how much could be done at post office. I think that there definitely needs to be an increase in that awareness, and I welcome the fact that the post office is committing to doing an awareness raising campaign starting, I believe, on 1 October. I was in one of the groups that went out to visit Leven, along with Colin Beattie, and that was where we were shown a letter from, I believe that it was the Royal Bank of Scotland who were closing their branch in that town, and they only suggested other Royal Banks and other members have suggested how far away those might be. They did not mention the post office at all in the letter, as far as I could see. There is clearly something very far wrong if we are hoping that the post office is the way forward, and the banks will not even tell their own customers that that is an option. I expect them to go 20 miles an hour or whatever it is to get to another branch of that bank. I am encouraged by parts of the response that we had from the post office, and especially on awareness raising. However, I was less happy with what they said about security in their letter. I am not sure if all members have seen that letter. It was addressed to the convener of the committee. I, for one, have to say that I feel less comfortable going into a totally open plan supermarket or whatever where the post office is at one of the tills, and we are expected to carry out normal banking services. There are still some post offices. I was at one in Portsmouth in the summer, where there is a separate place that you go to and do your post office or banking transactions, and I think that a lot of people would be comfortable with that. However, the post office even criticised the committee for raising this issue. It suggests that we are making this claim publicly as an open invitation to the criminal world and threatens the safety of our staff and customers. How ridiculous is that to get this kind of response from what is meant to be a national organisation, the post office? There is a real concern. Many people are really concerned. I have also heard from local post office owners in my constituency about the tensions that they have with the post office as a whole. It was Lewis MacDonald who mentioned the different rates that are paid to the post office as a whole, but how little of that works its way through to the post master or mistress, if that is the correct term. Rachel Hamilton and Colin Smyth both spent quite a lot of time talking about the post offices, and I think that that way is a bit of an interchange around that. The only bank that contacted me over the summer after the report was published was Lloyds Bank of Scotland, and I agreed to meet them. They were stressing the option of people having their money collected businesses by the bank's collection service. I think that that is an option. I think that it is something that maybe we did not look at a lot in the report, but clearly some businesses do not really feel that that is an option. The Treasury response was also a bit of a mixture of positive and negative. Positively, the payment system regulator and the impact on link, and others have mentioned that some of the reductions in charges will not be happening. That is positive and shows that the UK Government can have an impact on the banking sector in that regard. More negatively, in relation to the access to banking standard, they say that they think that it is working effectively at present. I think that the committee was pretty well unanimous in saying that that is not the case, that it is not working effectively and that it needs to be on a statutory basis. Others have mentioned link and the ATMs, and we are also concerned about losing some of those. More positively, as I was intervened on Lewis MacDonald, it is an example of banks working together and seems to me to show that it could be done and that community hubs or joint branches are a possibility. The fact that we can almost all get money out of any machine is very positive. Just if I can mention my own constituency in passing, we had an RBS in Shettleston and it was very busy. I used it often myself. As Jackie Baillie said, there was often a queue there, and yet they announced that it was going to be closed. I was so incensed at that time that I did something that I do not think I have ever done before, which was to work with the local Labour Party, and specifically with Margaret Curran and Frank Macavite. We did a joint campaign led by a community council, although we did not have a lot of success. Just to go on to one or two of the comments that were made, I am not going to have time for everybody. Obviously, the convener, Gordon Lindhurst, made a lot of good points. He made a biblical reference, and I was just wondering how I could respond to that. There is, of course, the example in the Bible of Jesus turning over the tables of the money changers, so I thought that perhaps he and I could go on a way of tour of Edinburgh tomorrow and turn over a few tables. Kate Forbes made the interesting point that digital progress should mean that things are more inclusive and others made the point that there should be more choice rather than less choice, which I would totally agree with. One thing that I definitely wanted to touch on was Mike Rumble's suggestion that a Scottish Parliament committee should do a joint inquiry with the Westminster committee. I am not sure whether that has happened. I am certainly open to the idea of it, although I think that there are some practical problems and challenges with that. I think that there is also the problem that we have to get the Westminster folk not to look down on us and treat us as equals. Having been there, I think that MPs have a lot more time in their hands than MSPs have. In conclusion, I am delighted that our inquiry has generated this level of interest. Many thanks to the witnesses, the speakers and everyone who has taken part. I think that I can say that, on behalf of the committee, we will not be forgetting about this topic. We will be keeping an eye on how things develop and we may well be back to challenge the different players in due course, thank you very much. That concludes our debate on bank closures on behalf of the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee. The next item of business is consideration of business motion 13984, in the name of Graeme Dey. On behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a revised business programme for Thursday, and could I ask any member if they wish to speak against this motion to press their request to speak button now? Could I call on Graeme Dey to move the motion? Thank you very much. No one seems to object. Therefore, the question is that motion 13984 be agreed. Are we agreed? We are. The next item of business is consideration of Parliamentary Bureau motion 13973, on approval of an SSI. I can ask Graeme Dey again on behalf of the Bureau to move the motion. We turn now to decision time. The first question is that motion 13912, in the name of Gordon Lindhurst, on bank closures, impact on local businesses, consumers and the Scottish economy, be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. The final question is that motion 13973, in the name of Graeme Dey, on approval of an SSI be agreed. Are we all agreed? We are agreed. That concludes decision time. We will move now to members' business in the name of Bill Kid on UN International Day of Peace 2018, but we will just take a few moments for members and ministers to change seats.