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

Jason Perry: Tonight on "The Hinckley Report."

Lawmakers work against the clock as the federal government shutdown deadline looms.

Leaders assess the potential impact of the new COVID variant as vaccine guidelines get a boost.

And as the dust from redistricting settles, Utahns sort through the implications of the new maps.

♪♪♪ CC BY ABERDEEN CAPTIONING 1-800-688-6621 WWW.ABERCAP.COM Jason: Good evening, and welcome to "The Hinckley Report."

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

Covering the week, we have Jasen Lee, cohost of the "Voices of Reason" podcast, Michelle Quist, columnist with the Salt Lake Tribune, and Thomas Wright, former vice-chairman of the Republican National Committee and former chairman of the Utah Republican Party.

So glad to have you with us tonight, a lot happening in DC, a lot happening in the state of Utah, I want to get right to it.

Thomas, let's start with you.

We began this week wondering if the government, federal government was going to shut down again.

That's what we were all talking about, the news was talking about, didn't quite happen.

Utah had a little bit of a piece of this through our own Senator Mike Lee, I want to get to that in just a moment, but talk about sort of what happened, sort of the negotiations that were happening at DC around that potential shutdown.

Thomas Wright: Yeah, it's funny what they can get done on a Thursday night when they all wanna go home for the weekend, and that's usually how it goes.

But you know, Jason, it has been since 2003 that our Congress has adopted a budget by the April 15 deadline.

The budget process and system in Congress is broken, it's hurting Americans, it's become a political weapon, it's used to leverage the issue of the day, and that's really hurting Americans.

Senator Lee's become synonymous with this.

In 2013, he used it as a lever against defunding Obamacare, in 20--was it 15--he used it against the surveillance program that the federal government was implementing, and then I think he did it again in 2019.

And so it's become a weapon for other issues, and that's driving our debt up, it's causing really irresponsible spending.

We need to separate those two, because I believe that all Americans, Republicans and Democrats, believe our national debt is our greatest national security threat.

We are doing our kids a grave disservice.

We can debate the hot issues of the day that are partisan over there, and we can be responsible with our taxpayer money and our budgets all at the same time.

The time has come.

I don't know about you, but I am so tired of the government operating on these continuing resolutions and just always kicking the can.

So, here they just kicked the can to February 18, we'll be back here in February saying the same thing that I just said, and they'll raise the debt ceiling, which is detrimental to our country.

The time for reform is now, it's not partisan, it needs to stop.

Jason: Michelle, to a couple of these points.

One I wanna get to is this idea of shutting down the government.

There was a time that I remember where that was something you didn't talk about, that would've been an embarrassing thing, maybe, but it's not necessarily the case anymore.

Is that true?

Michelle Quist: It's very normalized, it's very typical to be having this conversation all the time, and so no, it's not true anymore.

It's kind of as a badge of honor now to, you know, to use this, "Well, look what we can do?"

It's not a good idea for Utah.

There are so many federal employees in Utah.

It's not a good idea for December, when the holidays, when people are already under stress for extra spending, you know, to have this threat of not being paid.

That's huge, and for a Senator who's up for reelection in six months, it's, you know, it--sure, Utahns, you know, can coalesce around this idea of, you know, we're against this, you know, the mandate for testing.

I know a lot of people call it the vaccine mandate, I call it the testing mandate, because it's really about testing that's being--that what is being mandated.

But you know, yeah, Utahns are against that, and that could be a winning issue for Senator Lee, but stopping their paychecks, that's not a winning issue for anyone.

Jason: Jasen, talk about how Senator Mike Lee was trying to navigate this kind of through the Utah lens, because what Michelle and Thomas both alluded to is right, Utahns don't really love the government shutdowns, but the majority of Utahns also don't love this vaccine requirement that was put in place, and that is at the heart of what Mike Lee was trying to do when he was threatening to shut down the government, it was over the funding of this-- President Biden's vaccine requirement.

Jasen Lee: Let's go back to what Thomas said, you know, we're supposed to separate those two things.

If Mike Lee is supposed to serve the people's interest in Utah, with all these federal employees, for him to suggest that he wants to stop their paychecks--by the way, while he'll be getting paid by us, which is hypocritical on its face, he is part of the problem that we have in Washington.

These hypocritical--whether--I don't care whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, but in Utah, generally speaking, they're Republican, they use these issues as weapons to the detriment of the people they serve.

And so to me, to suggest that he was going to be the impetus for helping shut down the government, potentially, shows that he does not care as much as he purports to about the people who elected him.

But we get the legislators that we deserve, because he continues to be reelected, and if he--if this happens again, if he gets elected again, then it tells him and others like him in Washington that they can have these kinds of attitudes that are detrimental to us, the people that they serve, and yet we will still continue to elect them.

So, it is incumbent upon the electorate to do something about having people like him and others in office and making these kinds of decisions, using important issues as political weapons.

Jason: Thomas?

Thomas: Well, I mean, from a pure, political standpoint, what Senator Lee did was brilliant, because now he has 50 Democrat Senators on the record voting for a mandate.

And heading into a reelection when they're trying to take control of the Senate, that is going to hurt a lot of them in the states where the mandate is not popular.

But I get back to I said before, and it's not just Senator Lee that's the problem.

I blame every sitting president--the sitting president, and every president in the last 50 years and every member of Congress for where we find ourselves on the debt, and the budget problem.

We have to stop and realize that it's broken.

The government is not budgeting, they're not doing what every day Americans do, and in an inflationary environment where people are having a hard time affording their groceries and their gas and they're trying to adjust to this crazy economy and this pandemic, doesn't our government owe us the same responsibility that they require of us?

We don't get to pay our taxes late, we don't get that freedom to kick the can and pass a continuing resolution to borrow money against our obligations, why do they get to do it?

Why are they holding themselves to a different standard?

That's the problem, and every member of Congress now and over the last 50 years holds a responsibility for that.

And I'll just add one point, Jason, 50 years ago, 70% of the budget was discretionary, and 30% of it was direct, right?

Now 70% is direct, meaning that 70% of the funding is already set in place by Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare and a lot of these programs.

So, the amount of discretionary spending that this country has is shrinking, right?

Thirty percent of it left, with everything we have going on, we've got to stop fraud, waste, abuse, we've got to find overlap, we have to cut programs when we add new ones, we've gotta find efficiencies.

Think of all that's changed in the last 50 years with accounting, finance, and economics, and we're not using any of those tools in Congress to save the taxpayer's dollars and to make a more efficient government.

It's ludicrous, it needs to change, and now is the time to do it.

Jason: Jasen, you had a comment?

Jasen: Well, I guess that's one issue, but I still feel like he's obfuscating the other thing, that people like Lee and Chris Stewart and all these guys, and I guess if you were in a Democratic state, they'd be doing the same thing, right?

They--we know this is political, but instead of operating in our best interests, we, the electorate, allow them to continue to act-- behave this way.

So, I'm not letting them off the hook, but I'm certainly not letting us off the hook either, and I'm not letting him off the hook, him, Thomas, because you can't say in one way all of them are being irresponsible, and then on the other kind of say that the guy that is in his party is being irresponsible, but them let him off the hook for doing--saying it's brilliant that he did this so that he could make this point.

No, it--what he did was terrible.

It was terrible to the people he serves, it was terrible politically speaking.

You cannot operate in a way that hurts the people you serve.

We have to do better, he has to do better, and the people who criticize him have to be--you can't be hypocritical, you gotta call it straight up, right down the line, and sometimes I feel like we don't do that enough, we need to hold these people accountable.

Thomas: I wanna be really clear, Jasen.

I have strongly said on this program in this seat that I think the time needs to end, I think it's wrong.

But one person in Congress can't make the change, right?

There's a hundred senators and there's, you know, a few hundred congresspeople.

They are going to have to work together to solve this problem, right?

And because I think something was a good political move doesn't mean I agree with it, nor do I think it was the right thing to do, but politics does exist in Congress.

I wanna see a process where the budget is separated from all these political issues.

I'm a fiscal conservative, I think the national debt is our greatest national security threat.

We are in--we are burdening our children and our grandchildren.

There will come a day of reckoning, there always comes a day of reckoning on debt.

I'm a businessperson, I understand leveraged debt, this has gone way past that.

The time for having that discussion is now, it's not a partisan issue, and I agree with you.

The citizens of this country should demand that that be separated from these political issues.

Jason: Michelle, one last point on this that I think is interesting in terms of how it gives us a preview of what's going to come during this next election cycle, too, because what happened with this vote, really, is it was separated into two votes.

There was Senator Mike Lee and a few others, they sort of--let's take a first vote on this making sure we don't use any federal funds for this mandate, that's the one that failed, and as Thomas referenced, it didn't get a simple majority, got 50 votes.

But I'm curious what you see coming for that next election cycle, because after that failed, then they voted on the continuing resolution that we just talked about until February 18.

Is there anything you see through your--in your political lens from that discussion right there that may get into this next election cycle?

Michelle: I mean, vaccine will be in the next election cycle.

What won't be in the next election cycle is anything about the budget, is anything about the fact that, you know, that there's always this dooming, or you know, over-looming, I forget the--you know, I don't know what word I'm trying to think of, but this idea that, well, we could--if I don't like the issue that you're talking about now, I could stop the federal payments.

You know, that's not gonna come up in the election, but what is, is the vaccine.

Jason: Yeah, go Thomas.

Thomas: I mean, when it comes to American citizens now, it's every American citizen can say, "I have the right to life, liberty, and I owe $87,450 in debt."

And that's growing every single day, it's unsustainable, and it just has to stop.

So, I think we all agree that we've gotta separate that, and we've gotta come up with a new budget process.

The one that they implemented in 1974 is broken, it doesn't work anymore, and we've gotta factor in this political climate that we're in.

But I love what Jasen said about we the citizens have a responsibility as well.

It's not enough for us to sit here and point the finger at the elected officials, we are the ones that are electing them.

We need to find people who are willing to make these hard decisions that are less interested in their approval ratings and reelection and more interested in loving their country and doing the right thing for our kids and grandkids.

Jason: Another issue is kind of connected to the political consequences we're going to see this next election is what's happening in the state of Mississippi regarding their abortion law, which is a 15 week ban on abortions, and the Supreme Court this week decided--Michelle, I want to start with you on this--that they would take up this case.

And it's interesting that many of the arguments are not necessarily about that 15 week ban.

What it's about is who should be making this decision, who should be in charge, whether it should be at the courts, it should be at the states, the federal government.

Michelle: Yeah, that's what is at issue, you know, the Senator Lee had a quote about, you know, whether the nine justices should be deciding.

And you know, the fact that--listen, the abortion debate has always been about either a federal right or is it a state's right issue?

And if it's a--if Roe is overturned, that doesn't mean necessarily that abortion now becomes illegal, it means that the states decide whether abortion is illegal.

Listen, abortion has been, you know, legal since 1973, but has been happening since the beginning of time, right?

Like, this has been something that women have had to do for their safety and for their health for eons.

It's a state's right issue if it's a very straightforward, you know, Utah legislation, you can't have it here, but you can go to Nevada and have it.

It's not a state's right issue if you have something like a Texas statute that says you can't have it here, and if you go to Oklahoma, we're gonna imprison you, we're gonna fine you, and we're gonna imprison everybody who helps you along the way.

That can't be a state's right issue, because that person then can't go to another state and have that done.

It's also not necessarily-- I don't see it as a state's right issue anymore.

I used to.

I see it as a woman's issue, and not as an every woman issue, I see it as a poor woman's issue.

Because I'm telling you, if it becomes that Roe's overturned and each state gets to decide, wealthy women are still going to be able to have abortions.

They're going to be able to travel to a state that allows it and have an abortion.

A poor woman will not be able to do that.

That's what we're talking about here.

Jason: Mm-hmm, Thomas, I-- you brought up this reference that Mike Lee made in his quote this week.

Maybe let's discuss that for just a second, because I'm curious what you all have to say about that, particularly through this lens that Michelle just gave us.

Senator Mike Lee said about this abortion rollback, potentially, from the court, that "The issue was whether people, through their elected representatives, should be able to decide how to protect human life, and the life of mothers in the manner they deem fit.

The Constitution, nature and science all indicate that that is a right that the people have, not one that belongs to nine lawyers in robes."

This is kind of the heart of what Mississippi is saying in their argument also.

Thomas: Yeah, it is the heart of it, and the question that Americans and citizens of this country have is, do we want laws being created by the judicial branch, or do we wanna get back to a true constitutional sense of the legislative branch creates the laws, and the judicial branch interprets them, and then the executive enforces them.

And so he's arguing a strict, constitutionalist approach to this, saying that nine judges should not be making statute, that government belongs closest to the people, that there's not--abortion isn't listed in the Constitution, and the states should be making that decision based on how each state feels.

That's the position he's taking, it's not surprising, 'cause he is a constitutionalist.

He has been a constitutional scholar, and he's leaned on that position often as an elected official.

Michelle: But it's not a judge's right, and it's not a legislator's right, it's a woman's right.

You know, we wanna talk about mandates, this, you know, vaccine mandate, this a pregnancy mandate.

We're talking about a woman who gets impregnated by a man who's being forced to carry the pregnancy to full term.

That's a pregnancy mandate, why is not a woman's right?

If it's an individual right, then it's protected by the Constitution.

If it's a state right, then we're talking about something else, but you can't just say, "It's either a judge's right or a legislator's right," 'cause it could be something--it could be a woman's right too.

Jason: Jasen, I-- Jasen: Are we going--yes, I wanna jump into this real quick.

So, you know, we talk about individual liberty in this country all the time, all the time.

This is one of those cases where, as a man, never gonna have an abortion.

Other than one person on this panel, we will never have this decision to make for ourselves.

And if you're an individual, you should be able to control your own destiny as much as humanly possible.

To suggest that nine justices, or anybody else for that matter, are gonna be able to curb the individual liberty made by a person who has to deal with this by themselves, 'cause none of us have to deal with it going forward, whether it's if they want to have one or not, 'cause nobody wants to have an abortion, it's not any kind of fun thing you're gonna jump out and do.

We have to look at this as an individual liberty issue, and I hope the court--and we use the court as this final arbiter, because states make some laws that may not be constitutional, and the justices are there to interpret it so that the best interests of all the nation is served.

This is one of those opportunities, sadly, that's it come to this, that they're gonna make a decision that hopefully will be in the best interest of the individuals who may have to have to make this decision.

Michelle: Even more, this isn't just about state's rights.

This is about state's rights versus, you know, like I said, a woman's right to decide what's going to happen to her body.

We're having this entire conversation about health and our right to have-- make health decisions.

You know, I don't have a--you don't have a right to put a needle in my arm, but you have a right to have me, you know, take this pregnancy for nine months, ten months.

I'm the only person on this panel who knows what that means, right?

It is a huge health decision, and women are the only ones that aren't making it.

Jason: Mm-hmm, speaking to that point, just a final note on this, Thomas, is several states-- we have 12 states in the country who have passed what you would call trigger laws, and they're laws that have been passed, saying, "If Roe v. Wade is overturned, this immediately goes into effect," and Utah is one of those.

2020, a bill is passed by our legislator that is sort of waiting, in fact, that language, "If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then this prohibition with some exceptions goes into effect."

Thomas: Yeah, and I remember that bill being passed, Utah is one of those states, which is why they supported the Mississippi case and supporting it going to the Supreme Court.

This--these are interesting times we live on.

Roe v. Wade is one of the hottest Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country, it's been hotly debated over many, many decades, and it looks like the Supreme Court, at the end of the term, when they-- before they adjourn in June most likely will give us a ruling on that, and it will be interesting to see what happens.

But one thing I wanna add here is, you know, I am pro-life, and one thing that we haven't discussed is the rights of the unborn.

You know, they have rights too, and some people, like me, believe that that is a human life, and they don't have a voice in the process.

So, I wanna be sensitive, and I think it's interesting, too, that there's a lot of people in our country that are very conservative, and they don't want, you know, a vaccine mandate, but then they want a mandate on abortion, right?

So, it's an interesting, it's an interesting argument, but I believe that the unborn do have rights, and we should be fighting for those and factoring those into the equation.

Michelle: Can I just say, if we cared about unwanted pregnancies, we would do something to stop the unwanted pregnancies.

These abortion laws don't reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Education, contraception reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies.

We've seen that in Colorado, it's the only data that shows exactly what helps reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Jason: Mm-hmm.

Jasen: What she said.

[all laughing] Jason: Thanks, Jasen.

Let's talk about some of the people making the decisions that we elect here in the state, because I wanna talk about some things that are happening now, some things going forward, because there are changes in our legislature that I'm kind of curious about.

One, we're talking about redistricting a little bit here in the state, and we're starting to get a view of what might be a ramification of the redistricting.

It's interesting, the Republican state chair, Carson Jorgensen, Jasen, I wanna ask your thoughts about this, he's been going, you know, in his political circles, saying that he thinks that after the lines have been redrawn, maybe the Republicans pick up three more House seats, the House in our state legislature, and there's some interesting spots.

Clare Collard in Magna, Rosemary Lesser in Ogden, which is the only Democrat outside of Salt Lake City, and Elizabeth Weight from West Valley.

So, they're kind of looking at whether their districts became more Republican instead of less.

How does--how do you see this playing out not just for these particular positions, but for redistricting across the state?

Jasen: Well, it's sad to me, because I feel as though, as an exceptionally red state, we're only getting redder.

And that's not to say I have anything against Republicans or conservatives, it's just that it doesn't necessarily represent the entire electorate of the state.

It makes it so that one side, one point of view really dominates our political landscape, and I don't know that that's good for all of us.

So, in--with regards to this kind of--this situation that's coming up with these three districts that you mentioned, it, again, it skews the political power to one side to the detriment of others, and those people that they represent, potentially, from having a voice.

And we know that in Utah, the Republicans have a pretty large hammer, and they wield it, they use it daily, and so I don't know that everybody, considering how this state has a growing population that is a little less conservative each time-- each year that the population grows.

So, who's going to represent those people if the lines are drawn in a way that doesn't really allow for that, since the people making those lines are specifically doing so to retain political power.

Michelle: There's no surprise that redistricting skewed Republican.

The Supreme Court has already decided that political redistricting is legal.

It was expected, there's a Republican supermajority in Utah, you know, what else was going to happen?

The redistricting commission, nobody should've been surprised how that went, because it was not, you know, it was consultation--I'm, again with the words, Michelle.

You know, it--they didn't--they don't have the constitutional right to decide, the legislature does, so none of that should have been a surprise to anybody.

What I thought was a little unfortunate was that our minority communities were split, and you know, the demographics show that the minorities are growing in Utah, that that's how Utah's population is moving, and I don't think it does us any good to split those communities, because you know, they need a voice.

Jason: One in our last thirty seconds, Thomas.

We're also, apart from the redistricting, we have changes even with legislature, it's interesting.

So, higher profile legislators stepping down.

From Francis Gibson to this week Representative Paul Ray.

What does that say, just in the last couple of seconds?

Thomas: Big institutional knowledge there with Francis Gibson and Paul Ray, especially on health and human services.

They will be missed for sure, but turnover is good, change is good.

I appreciate elected officials who realize they've served, their time has come, they wanna go do something else.

That's, so healthy, I believe in that.

There's a deep bench in the legislature, people will step up and run and rise, and new ideas will come forward.

It's healthy, that's why we love this country.

I appreciate elected officials when they call it quits.

Jason: That's right, thank you all for your great comments, insights tonight, and thank you for watching "The Hinckley Report."

We're so glad to have you with us, stay tuned, we'll see you again next week.

♪♪♪