>> welcome back our guest this week is Patrick Anderson fighting efforts to change the state's term limit law which he wrote.

>> our lead story legislative Republicans push for a gas tax reduction what will the governor do?

On the panel we have Craig Lauren and Sergio sitting with us as we get the inside out off the record.

>> production of off the record is made possible in part by Martin Wehmeier a full-service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations digital marketing and public policy engagement.

>> now this edition of off the record.

>> think you and welcome to off the record on this wintry morning I thought we were going into spring but apparently not but thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to join us and later we will talk to Patrick Anderson about the term limit issue and other gas tax issues but let's talk amongst ourselves now, the Republicans have the governor in the proverbial political box and they want to pause the 27 cents per gallon gas tax hike and they want to bring it back on one month before she's up for reelection I'm not sure that's part of the story are not but where are we on this?

And he is winning -- and who is winning?

>> the Michigan house put together and passed it this week a plan to temporarily pause the fuel tax on gasoline and diesel through the end of the fiscal year, October 1st would be when it restarts and the Senate has already planned to pass that next week, there was a bit of bipartisan support in the house and it also is looking like it has passed the Senate now, the governor says she prefers tax suspensions which would be less money, less of a direct hit to the existing funding available to fix this in Michigan and the Republicans backing the proposal says that they would like to see some of the available surplus revenue go toward this obviously the governor has set out some plans that she would like to use the money in a bit of a different manner and so I think at this point, the -- it's not even the first tax cut proposal that the legislature has sent her way, especially when it comes to gas taxes and singing how much the prices are going up at the pump it could be putting in governor in a bind just based on a public public standpoint.

>> of the governor afford to take the publicity hit that she would get it to she vetoed this stuff -- does she have any way to wiggle herself out of this predicament that she is in?

>> I think that's what her team is thinking about, the reality is that it's no secret that when you go out there and are driving you can see those prices at the gas station, everyone is about to have a heart attack because they're pretty high end so anything that could help everyday people would be welcome and that would help her but I also think one thing that is a house proposal is that they have which we want to talk about is that it will take $725 million from the Michigan transportation fund and that means that we would see a reduction in the money allocated to fix it the bridges in terms of state and local bridges and the roads and the money that would go to the county road commissions.

They were fixing the bridges.

This house proposal could reduce that amount.

And Lauren said the Republican said that they can absorb those costs with the billions that we have in revenue and we can see.

>> who look, they said they would replace the 725 million but that language was and not in the legislation at the Michigan house voted on which you gave some Democrats pause it may be they can't or will not do it.

>> I would say we are in a phase of this negotiation that I call posturing.

Everyone is getting out of position and we will see in the next couple of weeks or everyone Lance, can they reach a compromise on this?

Yes it appears right now the Republicans have the governor boxed in but at the end of the day she has time and time again worked herself out of these types of situations and she ultimately has the bully pulpit, the governor's office.

>> the Republicans have it queued up if she vetoes it it will go along these lines, first, the governor wanted to raise your gas tax by 45 cents per gallon and now she had a chance to reduce it by 27 cents and she did not end of commercial and the question is, Jim has proposed an alternative which is to leave the gas tax alone which would leave the pothole money still there but take the sales tax off and he says the state can afford to do it so now we have another counterproposal on the table.

>> crag is right, this is definitely the negotiation, the setting of priorities and as we get closer to the budget in -- and it coming together and as we start to see -- we see where everyone stands on these matters and I do think the sales tax is another arena that the legislature could look at if they are thinking that this is the best way to reduce taxes, in terms of how much the average person will see a difference at the pump that does remain to be seen but people will definitely notice a difference if pothole start getting filled and they have to go and get their car fixed here but it is all at this point like a hypothetical discussion in terms of what actually comes together, as Craig said, we will see in a couple of weeks and months here.

>> and member the house fiscal agency said there is no guarantee that you will actually save the 27 cents at the pump and so how do you prove that?

That adds the conundrum that everyone is trying to figure out but speaking of problems, your friends over at the redistricting commission met and they took some action, what's going on?

>> yes, this week the redistricting commission is stood by its previous decision to give themselves the 13 commissioners a 7 percent raise, salary rates, and that has been controversial because of a couple of things.

They approve the maps on December 28th, they're about to go into effect if the courts allow them later this month and so their work is done and the Constitution amendment that created this commission says that the commission terms will expire when one of two things happen, the work is done in pending litigation against the commission is resolved.

So we still have two lawsuits against the commission and the court system but the interesting thing is we don't know how much longer they will be working, we don't know how much longer they will be getting and that has created some controversy especially when you see some of the commissioners like Democrat Justin witches is who says he sees this role as a full-time job and that's why 7 percent raise is justified especially because of the inflation we are going through.

>> since you're the expert, what does miss -- why did Ms. Hammersmith leave, the executive director?

>> I don't know I believe she was very tired, she has been going to all these meetings and has been super involved with the commission, she announced that she is retiring which of course it's interesting but again, their work is done which stretches the point of why are they then giving themselves a raise when everyone is jumping off the ship because their work is arguably done.

And Hammersmith's announcement comes a few months after the General Council announced her resignation in an abrupt matter in fact she left the commission and didn't speak to the press about the reason why she laughed and we knew there were issues between her and other commissioners as well before her departure.

>> please keep your eye on those folks for us, I'm sure there will be another story there soon.

Let's talk by the Attorney General's race, what happened in Florida this week?

>> we saw a flood of Republican candidates from Michigan head down tomorrow Largo for a fundraiser for candidate Matthew to fern out with Donald Trump and what we are seeing is that Donald Trump is fully engaging in this convention raise for the Republican nomination for Attorney General and Michigan he said he cannot overstate essentially how important this raises to the country in his mind.

It will be fascinating to watch this play out, you have Tom let her former state house speaker also seeking the GOP nomination, he has been involved in Republican politics for many years, he is well liked by many Republican delegates, and essentially this will turn into a test of Donald Trump's strength within the state party.

>> we had other people that were on the stage including a candidate for Governor.

>> that's right.

Johnson was one of three candidates down there.

Johnson really did the most to publicize his participation in this event and it is a full on fight among the is 11 GOP candidates for governor to get the former president's endorsement and as of now, the former president isn't tipping his hand and seems to be enjoying this battle for his favorite.

>> on April 23rd when there is the Spring convention, we will finally be able to decide which Republican Party is running the Republican party, the establishment of the Trumpet people?

It's a tremendous story isn't it?

>> absolutely.

I think these these attorney general and Secretary of State races will be really indicative of where the Republican party is hoping to go I think we are also seeing as we see some of the special elections play out and the of the candidates coming forward in the new district for 2022 I think there are in a lot of tricks going to be the choice for Michigan Republican primary voters, are we going with people who are still on the Trump train?

Or still having further to the right views in a lot of these cases and some of the more moderate Republicans or even Republicans who acknowledge Trump's election laws, it is a big decision for a lot of Republicans and this is something that not only we will see at the convention that will be a big indicator but also as we start to get into the primary races here what is the direction the party plans to go.

>> what your take?

>> that is the story, where is the direction of the party and it will be interesting to see where outside group stand on this and who will receive the money from the outside group who also want to.

>> not only do you have the Republican Party itself but the special interest group that will have a lot on the line as well.

>> there are a number of interest groups and the police office Association.

And right to life all lining up on Tom Leonard.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets more endorsement for April 23rd and this is turning in to a battle for the identity of the party, there's one group of candidates that seems to be first aligned with Donald Trump and another group of candidates that seem to be first aligned with where the GOP has been and his principles and where is the party going ago?

Will it go with Donald Trump wherever he takes us and with whatever issue he talks or it will be more aligned to where the party has been in the standards at the party has set in the pass and there will be a ton of national attention on this race.

>> in addition Michigan Democrats have their fingers crossed that Donald Trump wins because why?

It will result they say or hope that there will be people on the ballot in the general election not primary but general where everyone is voting.

Where could this be headed?

>> I think this is something that we see a lot of Republicans not necessarily worrying about that as well but certainly it is a little bit of a different race if you don't have a Leonard nestled match, if you have the Trump endorsed candidates and it race.

It's not just courting.

It's not just acknowledging the future of the Republican Party at this point.

It's putting it up toward voters of President Biden's term a good sign for the opposing party but, with that said, how this plays out at convention really could have an impact in November in terms of Democrats chances.

>> the fear among moderate and established Republicans is they have the wind at their back with Joe but in the White house this could turn it around implode in their face and blow up at the polls as well let's Colon Patrick Anderson former Chief of Staff for Candace Miller who was there for Secretary of State but let's start with the gas tax that's going on we spoke earlier this week and you told me you were a reluctant supporter of the gas tax as that has your position changed?

>> I think the idea of all of a sudden causing a tax coincidentally right before an election is just fraught with problems I think we need to work and getting your tax burden more competitive and with the gas tax in particular we have not, we have not.

Absolutely we have not addressed the number one issue that we have had for years which is the bad condition of our roads and that the sitting governor campaigned on and so many other people in particular business groups are saying is necessary and I think we have some some tomfoolery going on here that is now moving the state in the right direction.

>> the tomfoolery being that the Republican want to put the governor in a box to force her to veto this so they can use it politically against her?

Yes?

No?

>> I would not say there is a monopoly on tomfoolery in Lansing right now.

There is a lot of tomfoolery.

And we will talk about tomfoolery exhibit a in a few minutes by, in this particular case I think we should have a permanent solution and definitely as I said earlier on repeats now given the extraordinary situation with the war in Ukraine and that the de facto embargo on Russian oil and the huge amount of Federal dollars that have gone into Michigan and other states I think there is an opening to have a pause with the sales tax in the gas tax but this is not affixed to our fundamental problems and I do worry that it gets us in a situation where we start down the road of what other states have done and what we have done on occasion which is not addressed problems and keep kicking the can down the road.

>> you did not answer my tomfoolery question I suspect that you won't so we will move to Lauren.

>> okay.

>> to continue a little I know that there is a question of tax cuts and that's not the only proposal public and to put on the table, there are a number of suggestions put forth with more permanent tax cuts and do you find that the legislature is going in the right direction on this?

Do you think what has been put on the table so far that's already been said to the governor's desk in terms of lowering some of the taxes has -- is that going in the right direction?

>> I think making Michigan a more competitive place to hire workers and live and work is going in the right direction and so I will say it's in the right direction, I don't have a detailed this is the right number of percentage points to take I haven't analyzed all of them but I'm glad you're talking about reducing taxes in Michigan and I will note that we as taxpayers for the country are on the hook for these trillions of dollars of expenditures that are coming up by the Federal government and it get started on the Trump administration but it has been super charged under the Biden administration and we are going to pay for this and so I would rather see us use some of the Federal money to either reduce the tax burden because we have to pay more taxes elsewhere, or to solve serious problems.

>> follow-up?

>> sure, while this is not quite a follow-up but let's get into the term limits question, this is something that you had obviously championed and now they are looking to go back.

Can we talk about how -- I guess your thoughts on this proposal and what you plan -- what your stance is on where they're going with this?

>> that's a good question, and it's obvious, term limits limit the number of times you can be elected to the same office.

It has been that way since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson talked about them 240 years ago in fact it was George Washington that said it will be elected no more than two times as president and then I will stop and we in Michigan adopted a limit of three times for the house, and two times for the Senate, two times for the Governor, Attorney General, that is what our citizens said that we wanted.

We wanted a limit on the number of times you could be elected to the same office and this particular proposal which is obviously supported by people and I will say good people, people that I've worked with before, people have done good things for the state and they want to make it possible for someone to serve twice in the length of time in the house of Representatives so they can be six times running, they could run 50 percent more in the Senate and basically would encourage people to stay in office for much longer and so that's not something that I do >> Serbia.

>> yes on this topic, of term limits, we have heard from those out there who said term limits have a negative impact in the state and they spoke about the loss of institutional knowledge and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that and if you see anything that could be fixed from the law that he wrote?

>> I acknowledge completely that term limits make things harder for interest goods that are involved in Lansing all the time and it unambiguously makes the job of lobbyists -- lobbyists more difficult, more time-consuming and more frustrating however, the citizens knew that when they adopted this and that is not something that means though law needs to get fixed.

We as citizens said we want to limit the power of incumbency and force people to go up to ask the government to change things in the legislature to tell your story and we also want to get people in there to have the lived experience of the citizens and turn it over more often.

That was the goal.

I don't see a solid well presented case for how we should change this, I have said this and I want to repeat because apparently Jase of all people brought this up last week and even as the person who actually for this particular section that was offered by the voters the principle of term limits limiting the number of times people are elected to a specific office is a very important to us, the actual number of terms I think people could have a discussion over that but we need to have an open discussion and not one like this we have a proposal where essentially we are telling people that we don't like term limits but we do like them we will shorten them but extend them and where we put this transparency in it obviously to distract people from what's actually going on, this is not setting up the kind of debate about term limits or their length that I think folks that raise honest questions about whether we have the right number of terms should be making happen.

>> we will do an overtime segment but before that let's get to Mr.

Moniker please.

>> let's have the open conversation that you just mentioned, is in the best interest of the state to have people in the state statehouse leading the state house who only have four years of legislative experience and then push them out as soon the two years or over over and over again?

Is that in the best interest of the state?

>> it is in the best interest of the state that the citizens choose their representatives and that in fact that they have turnover in the house of Representatives on a regular basis.

If you go back to pre- term limits that was not the case.

We had powerful committee chairs the basically ordered governors around that had buildings named after them all over that were able to just consolidate it so much power that people that were actually elected were just told to go sit in a basement someplace and would be asked when it was time.

It's in the interest of the state to have turnover as interest of the citizen and the debate we had to with the actual citizens and part of the criticism I have of this proposal is that it's not based on any citizen effort, this is an effort designed with consultants and pollsters.

It's not really designed to satisfy any need that has been articulated by citizens.

>> I was six years of the house better than 12 years in the house?

>> the number one reason I will say is that is what we as citizens of to -- adopted.

I think six is an entirely reasonable amount of time there.

If someone came to me and said we should make it for terms it transparently to the citizens that is a discussion I am willing to have but I am not open to this kind of proposal where we have a claim to transparency provision and then we change the rules so it looks like we are reducing them when we actually extend them.

I do not like that kind of misdirection of the voters.

I want a straightforward discussion and I decided that I would have a before and I will repeated again here.

>> let's say we have a committee hearing and the person in the chair has 30 years of experience in the DNR and the Republican or Democratic has two years, do you think that some bureaucratic it might snicker that two-term person who doesn't have the depth of knowledge across to examine is that the case?

>> there definitely is the case of bureaucrats and lobbyist time to snicker legislators all.

>> your proposal enhancers this.

And the point was that it's a disservice to the citizens.

>> the proposal that I and others supported was adopted by the citizens.

This group is now coming up with proposal and they want to change the number of years and the structure so it's no longer a limit on terms but a limit on the number of years in some kind of combination plus there is some requirement at some future time for the third law of protection that conflict with the other two that would be effective sometimes in 2024.

>> I have to jump out.

I'll give you a chance to consider your thoughts after close closed credits.

We will see you on the other side go to WK AR .

org.

>> we partner with clients to public relations digital marketing and public policy engagement learn more at Martin .com.

For more off the record visit WK AR .org.

Michigan public television stations has contributed to the production cost of off the