♪♪♪ male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪ Jason Perry: Good evening and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

I'm Jason Perry, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics.

Covering the week we have Robert Spendlove, senior economist for Zion's Bank; McKenzie Romero, editor in chief for Utah News Dispatch; and Chris Bleak, partner with RRJ Consulting.

Thank you for being with us on the program.

This is a very interesting week in the political world, and Chris, I want to start with you, because we had some very, very high profile people visiting the state of Utah.

Wherever you are on some of these issues, it's interesting how the Trump administration--we had the very first state visit by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the EPA director Lee Zeldin was here, and also the Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, all on the same day visiting various parts of Salt Lake City, talk about that for a moment.

Chris Bleak: Yeah, I think it's always important and helpful for the state when cabinet secretaries are visiting the state and have the opportunity to interact with leaders, talk about their positions and the things that they're trying to push, but the state also gets the opportunity to advocate on behalf of itself in terms of what it's doing.

One of the things that really stood out to me about these visits, I watched Senator John Curtis and Representative Malloy talking with Secretary Duffy.

Where were they having that visit?

On a FrontRunner train and, you know, historically, you think about the transportation secretary, he'd be out on the freeways, they'd be looking at bridges, but here we're talking about our transit needs.

I just think that is such a parallel shift from where we have been in the past, and I loved--I love to see it and I thought it was great for the state to be able to advocate the things that are important to them as well.

Jason Perry: McKenzie, on that particular visit with the Secretary Duffy, you--I understand you were on the train.

Maybe talk about that just a little bit, the conversation, what you think Utah was trying to show while he was here.

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, it was a crowded train car.

There were a lot of people that wanted to ride the train with the transportation secretary and a lot of enthusiasm, kind of a field trip vibe.

And it was a short ride, under 30 minutes there and back, but it was an opportunity for the people who did make it onto that train car to make their pitch and to help tell Secretary Duffy about what Utah's transit transportation needs are and, particularly, how our population growth fits into that.

They pitched the need to support transit to accommodate our ever-increasing population, and they also pointed out to him how our housing crisis and affordability and supply play into that.

Jason Perry: There's some conversation there, too, about, with the Olympics coming, what some of the needs are going to be of the state of Utah.

What happened with that conversation?

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, Secretary Duffy brought that up, that he wanted to make sure that as Utah prepares for the 2034 Olympics, because we are representing not just ourselves as a state but we're representing the United States, that we're putting our best foot forward.

And part of that is making sure that we have appropriate and enough transit to get people around when the world comes to Utah.

Jason Perry: You know, Robert, you've, you know, not just a former legislator, you've worked with the governor, you've done so much in the state of Utah.

Talk about that approach and what it means to Utah to have this kind of attention, because we've often talked about the Utah way to things and, as we get ready to talk in just a moment about some of the press conferences and things, it seems like that Utah way was on display.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and, you know, that's a big part of this motivation.

If you think about it, states are the laboratories of innovation, so there's always thousands of different ideas coming out in legislative sessions around the country.

And sometimes, these kind of rise to the top and they align with the interests of the administration.

So, this is the way of the Trump administration saying, "This is what we support.

This is an innovation or a policy that we really support."

And they're also sending the message to other states.

"If you do similar things to this, we're gonna support it as well."

And that is different than Utah--the different position than Utah's been in for the last, you know, several years where we were kind of in opposition to the administration.

So, now there's that spotlight and, really, an opportunity for other states to do what Utah is doing, but also for us to kind of brag about what we're doing.

Jason Perry: He was here specifically on a couple bills that were passed.

Chris, we--let's talk about those for a moment because, and I want to show a video first, and then maybe we break these down a little bit, because he was here to sort of praise the state of Utah on the bill.

This is Representative Gricius eliminating fluoride from the water, Kristen Chevrier on the SNAP funds, let's talk about that, and then the food additives in schools.

He's gonna talk about this in this video clip, and let's break this down because he sees this as a Utah approach, at least this is one that he agrees with.

Let's watch this video.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: I'm very proud of Utah.

It has emerged as the leader in making America healthy again.

It was one of the first states in the country to restrict cell phone use in schools.

They've now cleaned the chemical additives out of the school lunch program.

They've applied for a SNAP waiver to get rid of sodas on SNAP, and they've led the nation in banning fluoride.

Jason Perry: Talk about those issues for just a moment.

So, there's things that he's been pushing, but as you can see, he's also flanked by members of our Utah legislature in that press conference.

Chris Bleak: Absolutely.

One of the things that's interesting here is these issues have been discussed and talked about for a number of years.

Representative Spendlove, then in his time, actually opened a bill similar to the SNAP bill that got passed this year.

So, these issues have been around.

So, what's interesting here is the attitude, both what's coming out of Washington but what's here in the state, sort of aligned in a way that made these bills more palatable, made it easier to move them forward.

To be honest, I was a little surprised watching them, particularly around the fluoride issue, which I remember from probably 20 years ago it being a real contentious issue.

It was really not that contentious this year.

Representative Gricius might feel it was a lot more difficult than I'm making it out to be, but I think what you saw is some alignment that allowed issues to pass, and that's often really important, is you have the right alignment from not only the people doing it but the--sort of the sentiment that's out in the community and in the legislature to allow those bills to pass this year.

Jason Perry: Yeah, Robert, why don't you give us a little bit of history on that because it's a very good point, because this is close to something you worked on in the past.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, so there's always these policy options that are being considered.

So, you have all these different ideas and you--so this was about five years ago and I, you know, I was saying, is it better to have full freedom in what is bought with food stamps, or do you wanna say you should just be buying healthy food?

So I opened a bill file, it went nowhere, like no one liked it, and so I'm like, okay, it's not--we're not ready for this.

And so, I just pulled it back.

But then Representative Gricius, so I was actually talking to her about this, she said a constituent came to her, said we should be working on this, kind of aligned with what she wanted to do, she started pushing it, and it just happened to come in that window of opportunity and just, you know, move through really quickly.

McKenzie Romero: In the MAHA moment.

Jason Perry: MAHA, the Make America Healthy Again.

But talk about that because you've done some great stories, you've been interviewing people, too, McKenzie.

Everyone in Utah is not on board with these particular bills.

There were some protests involved with this at the time and even before, talk about that for a moment.

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, I mean, in terms of the fluoride, we know that there are just a few communities in the state that have their water fluoridated, and that's because they made that choice.

So, this supplants that local control, their ability to make that choice.

The argument, of course, being that the local control has now been moved to the individual to then choose how they want to get their fluoride through toothpaste, which they'll now be able to get from a doctor through the bill.

And then, when it comes to the SNAP bill, when you take away someone's ability to choose what food they have just because they need help for the government, the argument has been made that that's, you know, kind of belittling to them.

Chris Bleak: And I think McKenzie makes a really interesting point there, this concept of local control and who's responsible, because what you are seeing a lot of the discussion in this--these issues around MAHA is the individual being able to make the decision that's best for them, and that has some tension relative to the larger community and I think is going to have some impacts.

You know, whether you think about that on vaccines or fluoride, you know, those decisions will have impact on the greater populace.

Is that the right place to place it?

I assume at some point the pendulum will swing in such a way that we'll have that conversation again.

Have we made the--found the right balance?

I think that's the great thing about a democracy, is that it's able to swing and you're able to have those conversations, but it's a really interesting sort of political philosophy point, like who gets to decide what's best for them individually, versus the kind of a community aspect there.

Robert Spendlove: And you can almost split up those two bills.

One of them is saying, "How much do you want the government to do?

You know, add into a product that you have to have?"

The next one is, "If the government is, essentially, providing the funding for you to get this, should the government be endorsing these food choices?"

So, it's not saying you can't have junk food, you can't have soda, it's just saying, "Should the government be providing that for you?"

Jason Perry: Go ahead, McKenzie.

McKenzie Romero: Well, if I can make one more point about the food additives bill, I think I see some work that we need to do here because feeding kids in schools takes money.

It's been a challenge for schools to build their school lunch menus based on the money that they have.

And so, if we're going to have this requirement, that means that there's going to need to be financial backing in order to support the kinds of foods that are going to be in compliance with the bill and with the new law so that those new school menus, free of additives, can be built within the budgets that we're willing to give to the schools.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and I'll make a note here.

You know, there--Michelle Obama, this was sort of her key issue many years ago where she talked about healthier school lunches.

She was ridiculed for that.

And we now, I guess, come full circle, or come around the other way, where we're talking about that again.

I think this is important, and another key point here is, and I give Representative Chevrier credit for this, she decided to expand the number of students--like, if an LEA has less than, I think it was 5,000 students, they're not required to make those changes, because there are some economies of scale that come for bigger school districts that are able to feed their students relative to a smaller charter school or a smaller LEA, a rural LEA, that may not have the options that they need in order to make that work.

I think if the food industry sees this is the direction we're headed, it'll be more cost-effective and easier for those smaller schools to ultimately adopt that.

But there is some challenges there, and they did address that in the legislation this year.

Jason Perry: I want to get into a couple of these issues with the director of the EPA Lee Zeldin because I know, Robert, you've been grappling with some of these issues from your time in the governor's office.

It has to do with this attainment status.

You know, there are times when we have certain elements in our air here, which Utahns, or at least policymakers, will say, you know, the air is not great here, but some of it's coming from somewhere else.

He talked about him wanting to loosen some of those standards for the state of Utah for, sort of, this transported pollution that comes from other places.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and so kind of the example that we often use is Cache County in Logan where it's a relatively small community, but it's the geography, where it's built like a bowl, and so you can trap some of that air pollution.

But their point is we're not causing the air pollution, but we're being punished because of the air pollution that is happening.

But that air pollution is coming outside of the county, sometimes outside of the country, and they're saying, "Why should Logan be punished for the actions that are happening in China?"

Jason Perry: Go ahead, McKenzie, because I know you followed this issue as well.

But that was sort of his argument.

Utah's been making some of that, but we do have some moments here we're in clear non-attainment here in the state of Utah.

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, and the state's position is, how can you expect us to reach a level of attainment that isn't possible and then hold us responsible for not being able to?

But the argument that we see being made on the other side from people and groups who are concerned about the air quality is that they hope that the state just doesn't stop trying.

Once that these--once these barriers come down, once these restrictions come down, shouldn't we still at least keep trying to improve our air?

The state has made strides in the past years.

We don't want to give that up.

Jason Perry: I wanna get to one more issue, and Chris, you kind of brought this up a little bit about about the state's rights and what the state should be doing.

It was interesting, some comments from the Speaker of the House Schultz, Speaker Schultz, this last week about maybe some of these federal programs should be pushed to the states, you know, that maybe there's some programs that, you know, he feels like we would be able to run better here.

I want to show you this video clip and then, given your political experience, let's talk about the realities of what he is saying he would like to do.

Mike Schultz: But we'd like to stand as a national experiment, allowing us to keep, the state of Utah, to keep some of its federal dollars and tax dollars and run some programs.

We want to be a pilot project, help discontinue the federal oversight.

Whether it's education, transportation, Medicaid, public health, public lands, we manage more effectively, more efficiently, and more affordably.

Jason Perry: Now talk about how that might work.

Those are not inexpensive programs.

He's talking about some block grants and pushing this back to the states, talk about that.

Chris Bleak: Obviously, this has been something that has been discussed for a long time, and a number of folks have wanted to pursue this.

I hope, as the Trump administration is looking at, you know, they're willing to change and make some significant changes on the way programs have been run, I'm hoping that they're willing to give states an opportunity to do this.

You and I recently heard a speaker talk about a deal that Reagan proposed to the governors where he said the federal government will take over Medicaid if the states will take over education.

You think about that now, I think all of the states would be willing to make that trade because of the growth that they see in Medicaid and the desire that they have to take over education and have more control over that.

I hope the Trump administration is actually willing to give states the opportunity to do it, to give some block grants, because I think the state could show real advances and is willing to be effective in that regard.

It's something that they want to do, that we've talked about.

Let's make it happen.

Let's at least try one area where the state can take over, get the block-granted money, and have some latitude to be able to do what they would like to do from a policy perspective and pursue those initiatives.

McKenzie Romero: And if there's a moment to do it, it's now.

If you watched Speaker Schultz's expression in that video, he could barely contain the enthusiasm, right?

There's a smile there, he's excited as he's pitching this idea, which he's been enthusiastic about for a while.

And just like we talked about at the beginning, Utah is kind of having a moment.

We have visiting cabinet members, we have first in the nation bills being passed.

There's a lot of momentum and enthusiasm behind some of these priorities from our Republican majority, and a receptive administration it appears on the other side.

So, if it could happen, it--now seems like a good time.

Jason Perry: What says the senior economist about this particular issue?

Robert Spendlove: Well, so the--you know, the fundamental question is: What is federalism?

What should federalism look like?

And I think that's part--part of the discussion, this is kind of lost, so often we hear, "Should we be doing something, yes or no?"

This isn't yes or no.

It's saying, who should be doing it, what's the best way to do it?

Do we want Washington running these programs?

Do we want Washington in charge of it?

Or do we wanna have the states doing it, or even have the private sector doing it?

And so, that's where I think we really need to have this discussion, is saying, what's the most efficient and effective way to be providing these services?

Chris Bleak: And the key here, though, is, as Robert's talking about, it's not just sending the money to them.

It's a lot--giving them the latitude to make some decisions, because that's the--that's always the tension right now.

You look at the State Board of Education, a lot of federal money flows through them to LEAs, but then they also tie all the rules, and so the state is really limited in what they can allow the LEAs to do, the school districts to do.

And so, they need to not only be able to send the money down, they need to be able to--be willing to give them some latitude on rules and to be able to manage these programs effectively and show that they can do it more effectively.

Maybe they can't, but at least give them the opportunity.

But you've got to give them the full opportunity to go and do that.

Jason Perry: Let's talk about the money side of things for just a moment, Robert, if you'll take a second for us on these tariffs.

People are watching their wallets, they're watching their 401(k)s. There's some concern out there.

Talk about what, from the state's perspective, we should be looking at when it comes to these tariffs?

We have a 90-day pause on most of them, except for those dealing with China.

Talk about the Utah perspective.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and so, you know, this is a global phenomenon.

This is a trade war, so there's no doubt about it, and the trade war is really--it's clear now that it's between the United States and China.

Just recently, the US raised the tariff rate on Chinese goods to 145%.

So, China raised their tariff rate to 125% and they said, "We won't go any further because this effectively shuts down the US market to China."

So, we're kind of getting in this standstill between the US and China.

And how do you navigate in that?

You know, and even with the 90-day pause, you know, businesses and individuals are saying, "Okay, if I at least know what the plan is, I can adjust to it," but it's the uncertainty and the risk and the fear and the shock that is really having those big impacts.

Jason Perry: That certainty is a very interesting question and all the economists in the country are talking about that, is you have the tariffs themselves, but the reaction, the uncertainty is what the biggest concern is.

You--it seems like you agree with that.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and we still have that uncertainty.

So, it depends on whether you're looking at the hard or the soft economic data.

I can tell you, the hard data still looks good.

The under--the fundamental parts of the economy are strong, but the fear is that we'll start to weaken, we'll start to see people reacting.

And we're starting to anecdotally hear about this.

You know, businesses are struggling, we're seeing prices starting to go up.

But how do we adjust?

Jason Perry: Now, McKenzie, talk about that because, you know, you have, like, Congressman Blake Moore saying, you know, he's talking about the tariffs themselves, he's happy he got the 90-day pause, but he's telling personal stories from his district of small businesses that are being impacted in ways that he might not have even thought of.

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, I think we've seen a good game of poker from our congressional delegation and from Republicans across the country who, throughout the uncertainty, have been reluctant or hesitant if they have concerns to vocalize those.

They're not speaking out against the tariffs, they're not speaking out against the president.

What they're doing is they're sharing examples of how constituents and people in their areas are being impacted by the uncertainty and could be impacted by the imposition of the tariffs, and so, they're using those kinds of stories to make their case.

Jason Perry: Yeah, how does that play politically?

Go ahead, Chris.

Chris Bleak: Yeah, I was gonna say, I was thinking about what Robert said for businesses wanting stability or certainty in terms of their planning.

I think political leaders are really caught in kind of the same bind right now, is they would like to know what the endgame or the strategy is in terms--so that they can make decisions and that they can help advocate for what the president wants.

I think many of them think that if this results in trade barriers coming down across the world, that's a positive.

And so we have to react this way in order to get that, that's great.

I'm not sure some of them believe that's actually the endgame, and that's where the uncertainty comes in for political leaders as well and why you see some saying, "Well, maybe we need to take this power back for Congress," which I think is appropriate from, you know, kind of a strong legislative branch perspective.

But they're not quite sure what the endgame or strategy is, and so they're caught in that same uncertainty that Robert's talking about with businesses as they plan, you know, make economic decisions that's impacting them.

Jason Perry: McKenzie, of course, we talk about the businesses, but this is also--on this political issue, you know, these sides are being played, but in the middle are some of those people are, you know, looking at their retirement funds and their ability to afford their groceries.

McKenzie Romero: Yeah, we went from the campaign last year with a lot of messaging around the unacceptability of high prices and high cost of living to now in 2025 asking Americans to be willing to tighten their belts for the greater good.

Jason Perry: Let's get to a couple other very local issues, and one is interesting because we got some timelines coming up.

Robert, just kind of leaning your hat as a former legislator, there is a referendum underway on a bill that was passed.

This is House Bill 267, the public sector labor union essentially got rid of collective bargaining.

So, we've been wondering whether or not they're gonna get a signature--enough signatures.

You know, for our viewers, they're going to need 140,748 signatures by April 16.

We have--at least had one report that there are about 130,000 already.

Talk about this because there is some momentum right there, and the next steps we just have to talk about here.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, so there's momentum as, you know--and this is what's really interesting about democracy.

So, you have the legislature taking action, and then we have this process for kind of responding, the public responding to that legislative action.

And once in a while, the legislature oversteps and it gets pulled back.

We saw that with taxes a few years ago, we saw that with vouchers a decade or so ago.

But there is a countermeasure.

There's another group going out trying to convince people to remove their signatures.

So, we're kind of seeing this in real time, and it'll help us understand the real will of the people.

Jason Perry: Chris, this is so interesting, the maneuvering that happens on this.

So we know the number of signatures and it has to be done in 15 of the 29 Senate districts, but talk about--there is a counter movement right now.

Is, you know, "We want you to sign this referendum," but there's a counter movement going around to all the people saying, "Maybe you should take your name off of that," and that has interesting political calculation.

Chris Bleak: Well, one of the interesting things when I--I was walking up and a signature gatherer approached me and said, "Do you want to help teachers and firefighters?

We're doing that," and you know, I know a little bit about the bill and I was interested to hear what their spin would be in terms of how they were presenting it.

I think what the people that are trying to remove signatures, those groups that are working on that, they would say that there's not enough information given when somebody puts their signature down on this referendum.

Yeah, certainly I wanna help my teachers and firefighters and police officers, but what information are they getting?

How much can they understand the bill?

And so right now, even before the vote of the people, which would be the next step if they get the signatures, there's an opportunity for those to give more information to say, "This is what this bill is actually doing.

Do you really want this to be considered or voted on?"

and people have the opportunity to remove their signatures.

And that could play out, really, in some Senate districts.

Let's say they get the signatures, they're well past the signature mark, but they're really close in one Senate district.

That one Senate district could be the battleground to try to remove signatures to keep it off the ballot and allow the law to go into place.

McKenzie Romero: I do think that we have some people who are coming out to sign this referendum, though, who are well aware of what the bill does, what they saw during the legislative session, and how they felt about it.

I know that was the sentiment of at least one signer that I spoke to on the first day that signatures were being gathered, that he was not a union member, he was not a public worker, but that he did not agree with the bill and he was going out looking for an opportunity to sign the petition.

So, I think the question will come down to how many of the people behind those signatures are in that camp, that they're pretty convicted in putting their name there.

Jason Perry: So, Robert, this is April 16, and so the next steps, it looks like, you know, if they do get their signatures, this may be in the next general election.

Robert Spendlove: Yeah, and that's exactly what--that's what they're pushing for.

They want this referendum.

They want to send that message.

And it would actually recall that bill.

That's the, essentially, the effect of it, is telling the legislature, "You went too far.

The public isn't actually behind you.

Now we're gonna put it in front of the public and let them decide which direction to go."

Jason Perry: Okay, I wanna end with just--with last interesting issue because we have this period of time where there might be a--there may be a veto override.

Chris, maybe just give us a little primer on this.

The date is May 5, that's the last day, you know, for a veto override.

What are you hearing from our legislators or the appetite on The Hill for any of these--these six vetoes that were put in place by the governor?

Chris Bleak: Yeah, and a number of the vetoes came on bills that key senators really feel strongly about.

So, I know there's been a lot of enthusiasm in the Senate to do an override session, maybe a little bit less so in the House, although Representative Ivory and the bill dealing with gold, he is very motivated and believes there's enough votes to do an override there.

The thing that's interesting, sort of a legislative psychology, is once they get--if they get into an override session, you could see all of the bills potentially being overridden or at least having conversations on that.

That happened back on a bill dealing with the--for the four-day work week, and that bill got overridden largely because they were in session, not because that was the reason to come back and do it.

Jason Perry: Your final comment on the veto override process as a former legislator.

Robert Spendlove: Well, so what leadership does is they ask the members whether they want to go through with this, and that's what they're deciding right now, if they have the strength to override.

Jason Perry: All right, we'll watch this one closely.

Thank you so much for your insights and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

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

Thank you for being with us.

We'll see you next week.

male announcer: Funding for "The Hinckley Report" is made possible in part by Merit Medical and by contributions to PBS Utah from viewers like you.

Thank you.

♪♪♪ ♪♪♪