WHAT'S WORSE, THE SITUATION AT THE BORDER OR IN WASHINGTON?

COLLEGES ARE OPTING OUT OR TEST-- OPTIONAL ADMISSIONS AND PASS THE SALT?

• THE PUSH TO RAISE THE CAP ON STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTIONS STAY TUNED, IVORY TOWER IS NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO "THE IVORY TOWER."

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

I'M JOINED AROUND THE TABLE TONIGHT BY CHAD SPARBER FROM COLGATE UNIVERSITY, SARAH PRALLE FROM SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, ANIRBAN ACHARYA FROM LEMOYNE COLLEGE, AND LUKE PERRY FROM UTICA UNIVERSITY.

THE MESS AT OUR SOUTHERN BORDER SEEMS MATCHED ONLY BY WASHINGTON'S RESPONSE TO IT.

THIS WEEK SAW THE DEMISE OF THE BIPARTISAN SENATE BORDER SECURITY BILL.

AFTER DEMANDING CONGRESS PASS A LAW TO ADDRESS THE BORDER, HOUSE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON NOW SAYS A NEW LAW IS UNNECESSARY AND PRESIDENT BIDEN HAS ALL THE AUTHORITY HE NEEDS TO SHUT IT DOWN.

ANIRBAN, DOES HE HAVE THAT OR IS THIS POLITICS AT ITS WORST OR ARE WE SEEING HONEST DISAGREEMENTS ABOUT THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM?

>> I THINK IT'S POLITICS AT ITS WORST EXACERBATED BY BASICALLY THE REPUBLICANS UNABLE TO GET THINGS TOGETHER.

LET'S HAVE THIS PROSPECTIVE, RIGHT?

$118 BILLION BILL THAT INCLUDED SWEEPING CHANGES TO THE ASYLUM SYSTEM, EFFECTIVELY ALLOWING BIDEN TO SHUT DOWN THE BORDER BASED ON THAT BILL IT WAS ENBORESSED BY THE STAUNCHLY CONSERVATIVE BORDERS PATROL OFFICERS AND IT IS THE MOST EXTREME ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROPOSAL THIS COUNTRY HAS SEEN IN 100 YEARS AND IT WAS BEING NEGOTIATED.

THEN APPARENTLY TRUMP THREW A HISSY FIT SAYING THIS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE AND HE COULD CONTINUE WITH HIS RACIST RESISTANT RANT.

NOW THE WHOLE IDEA IS SHOULD WE HAVE A SEPARATE SECURITY BILL BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SEPARATE SECURITY BILL, THE HOUSE IS SAYING THAT'S A NO BRAINER.

WE CAN NOT GIVE ANY MONEY TO UKRAINE.

SO I'M AS FLUMMOXED AS EVERY AMERICAN IS.

I DON'T KNOW THE REPUBLICAN GAME PLAN.

THEY HAVE THEIR BILL, THEY WERE NEGOTIATING THAT BILL.

ONE OF THEIR PARTY LEADERS SAID SOMETHING WHO IS ALSO BEING CRIMINALLY INDICTED AND NOW THEY'RE GOING AGAINST THEIR OWN BILL.

IT FEELS LIKE POLITICS AT ITS WORST RATHER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

>> NOW THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME THAT A BIPARTISAN SENATE IMMIGRATION BILL HAS GONE DOWN IN FLAMES.

SO ARE THERE ANY COMMONALITIES HERE TO EARLIER?

>> I THINK THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, WHICH IS I THINK YOU ALLUDED TO, ANIRBAN, WHICH IS TYPICALLY HISTORICALLY, WHEN THESE BILLS COME UP, SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE ON IMMIGRATION, THE DEMOCRATS USE LEVERAGE, SO GIVE REPUBLICANS SOME BORDER SECURITY IN EXCHANGE FOR THINGS LIKE MORE ATTENTION TO THE UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS HERE, A PATH TO CITIZENSHIP FOR THEM AND FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

AND SO THEY USE IT AS A LEVERAGE.

AND HERE THEY JUST COMPLETELY GAVE THAT UP, AS AN ANIRBAN WAS SUGGESTING, MET THEM MORE THAN HALFWAY, ALMOST ALL THE WAY.

SO IN THAT SENSE, I THINK THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DYSFUNCTIONAL.

IT JUST REVEALS HOW DYSFUNCTIONAL THE REPUBLICANS ARE.

THEY DON'T-- YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE NEEDED ANYMORE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO REALLY GOVERN, I THINK THIS SHOULD ALERT PEOPLE THAT THIS IS NOT-- >> NOT A RIGHT TO GOVERN, SARAH?

>> WELL, OKAY, THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT STRONG.

BUT THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS GOVERNING.

AND IN FACT, EVEN A REPUBLICAN THEMSELVES SAID THAT TO ONE OF THE JOURNALISTS THAT SAID WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUSINESS GOVERNING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THERE TO SOLVE PROBLEMS.

>> SO THEY WANT THE PRESIDENT TO CLOSE DOWN THE BORDER RIGHT NOW AND HE SAYS HE DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.

DOES HE?

CHAD?

>> WELL, OKAY, LOOK.

I THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY BORING PROGRAM IF WE ALL SIT HERE AND AGREE AND NOD IN UNISON ABOUT LIKE THIS IS POLITICS AT ITS WORST.

OF COURSE IT IS BUT LET ME EXPRESS A LITTLE BIT, PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE, SOME OF THE REPUBLICAN POSITION HERE.

AND RECOGNIZE THREE WAYS THAT BIDEN DID UNILATERALLY INCREASE IMMIGRATION IN WAYS THAT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

THE FIRST IS THAT HE GRANTED TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS WHICH IS THE RIGHT TO WORK AND LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES TO ABOUT HALF A MILLION VENEZUELANS.

THE SECOND IS THAT HE GRANTED HUMANITARIAN PAROLE WHICH IS TEMPORARY ADMISSION FOR BROAD CLASSES OF PEOPLE WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY THAT WAS DONE ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO PEOPLE SEEKING PATROL PAROLES FROM 20,000 TO OVER 300,000 NOW.

AND THIRD HE EXPANDED WHAT COUNTS AS FEAR OF PERSECUTION IN ASYLUM CASES.

SO MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING ASYLUM NOW ARE REALLY MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBED AS ECONOMIC IMMIGRANTS.

NOW YOU MIGHT THINK THAT ALL OF THOSE POLICY CHANGES ARE GOOD CHANGES, OKAY.

BUT THOSE ARE THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WOULD POINT TO, I THINK, WHEN THEY'RE CLAIMING THAT BIDEN HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING AND HE DIDN'T DO IT.

HE HAS DONE THE OPPOSITE.

SO ALL THAT SAID, DO I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE WRONG HERE?

TRANSPARENCY THEY'RE PLAYING POLITICS.

BUT THAT'S IT.

>> THE ASYLUM ISSUE, YOU ARE SAYING THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE COMING IN NOW WHO ARE CLAIMING ASYLUM ARE CLEARLY NOT PERSECUTED; THAT THIS IS ECONOMIC.

>> THE PERSECUTION RULE IS VERY SPECIFIC LAW THAT COMES FROM POST WORLD WAR II LANGUAGE ABOUT BEING PERSECUTED ON PARTICULAR GROUNDS FOR, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS IS.

SO LIKE BIDEN HAS EXPANDED IT TO INCLUDE THINGS LIKE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

THAT'S A REAL FORM OF PAIN AND SUFFERING, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S TRADITIONALLY BEEN COVERED BY ASYLUM LAW.

>> SHOULDN'T WE MAYBE WE THINK THAT?

I UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE COME IN AND CLAIM ASYLUM AND DON'T END UP GETTING IT, RIGHT?

>> DIFFERENT QUESTION.

SHOULD WE RECONSIDER IT?

MAYBE, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT BY BIDEN'S EXPANSION OF THE DEFINITION, IT HAS INCREASED THE IMMIGRATION FLOW.

>> THIS LAW HAS THE PROVISION THAT HAS BEEN KICKED BACK AND FORTH ABOUT 5,000 MIGRANTS A DAY COMING ACROSS.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, THEY REACH THAT LEVEL, THEN THE PRESIDENT THEN COULD SAY NOBODY COMES, SLEERKS OR SLEEKER ASYLUM SEEKERS OR NOTED.

HE COULD TAKE STRONG STEPS IMMEDIATELY, BUT NOW HE WON'T HAVE THAT SHOT.

>> WE'LL SEE.

I THINK DEMOCRATS PRIVATELY WILL ACKNOWLEDGE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT CHAD JUST SPOKE TO, RIGHT?

THEY'LL SAY THAT BORDER ENFORCEMENT IS A PROBLEM.

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE ABOUT IT.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE DIFFERENT FACTIONS WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT THINGS IN TERMS OF IMMIGRATION POLICY.

THE-- SO THEY'RE PLAYING POLITICS, TOO, IN SOME WAY, TOO.

THEY ESSENTIALLY CALLED THE REPUBLICANS BLUFF AND THE REPUBLICANS, IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR, SO THAT SCRAMBLES EVERYTHING.

I THINK THAT HELPS EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON, TOO.

AND THE LEADERSHIP OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT UNIFIED.

DONALD TRUMP IS NOT A GOOD PARTY LEADER IN A NATIONAL SENSE.

MITCH McCONNELL HAS DONE A STRONG JOB FOR THE REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE FOR QUITE A WHILE BUT BECAUSE THE HOUSE CHANGED THE RULES AND THEY CAN BOOST THEIR SPEAKER ANY TIME, MIKE JOHNSON IS IN A TOUGH SPOT AND THOSE DYNAMICS HELP EXPLAIN.

>> McCONNELL CAVED ON THIS AS WELL.

>> HE DID VOTE AGAINST IT.

>> HE CAVED AS WELL.

>> CAVED OR LOST?

>> LOST.

>> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN WORSE FOR HIM TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE HE IS TRYING TO HOLD ON TO HIS JOB.

HIS DAYS ARE NUMBERED.

>> THIS WHOLE MESS STARTED OUT BECAUSE REPUBLICANS LAST FALL SAID THEY WEREN'T GOING TO FUND UKRAINE ANYMORE.

SO THIS WAS-- THIS IS WHY THE DEMOCRATS WENT SO FAR ON IMMIGRATION BECAUSE THEY'RE DESPERATE TO HELP UKRAINE.

SO I THINK SOMETIMES THAT GETS A LITTLE LOST.

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO THIS COUNTRY WHO IS FIGHTING FOR ITS EXISTENCE.

>> ANOTHER ONE OF THE BIZARRE THINGS OF THIS, TOO, THOUGH, IS THAT IF YOU GO BACK A WEEK OR TWO AGO, YOU HAD THE SPEAKER CLAIMING THAT NO, WE ALREADY HAVE A BILL.

IT'S HR-2.

HOUSE RESOLUTION 2.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE SENATE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING.

SO TWO WEEKS AGO THEY WANTED THEM TO CONSIDER THIS LAW AND NOW THEY'RE ARGUING, NO LAW IS NECESSARY.

THAT'S A LITTLE BIT SCHOOL DISTRICTLY.

>> AS LUKE POINTED OUT, HE HAS A VERY DIFFICULT JOB RIGHT NOW IN.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER HE IS SUCCEEDING OR NOT.

IT'S HARD TO TELL.

NOW, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE ANNOUNCED THIS WEEK IT WILL GO BACK TO USING THE S-A-T TEST IN ADMISSIONS.

THE COLLEGE SAID A STUDY BY THREE OF ITS ECONOMISTS FOUND THAT STANDARDIZED TESTS WERE MORE ACCURATE INDICATORS OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS THAN HIGH SCHOOL GRADES OR TEACHER RECOMMENDATIONS.

THEY ALSO FOUND THAT -NOT- REQUIRING THE TESTS HURT LOWER INCOME APPLICANTS WHO UNDERESTIMATED HOW STRONG THEIR SCORES WERE.

SHOULD MORE SCHOOLS GO BACK TO REQUIRING THE S.A.T.

AND A.C.T?

FOLLOWING DARTMOUTH'S LEAD HERE?

>> I THINK IT DEPENDS.

WHEN I APPROACHED THIS QUESTION, ONE OF THE THINGS INITIALLY THOUGHT IS WHO AM I TO TELL DARTMOUTH HOW TO MANAGE THEIR APPLICATION SYSTEM.

THEN I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO ON THEIR OWN TERMS SO I WENT TO THEIR MISSION STATEMENT AND THEIR MISSION STATEMENT TALKS ABOUT SERVING THE MOST PROMISING STUDENTS.

THAT'S THEIR LANGUAGE.

SO IF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO IS BE EXCLUSIVE IN REGARDS TO WHO THEY ADMIT, AND WE KNOW FROM THEIR ADMISSIONS PRACTICES, THEY REJECT SOMETHING LIKE 95% OF THE APPLICANTS, THEN IT SEEMS TO ME IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE AS MANY DIFFERENT MEASURES OF ACADEMIC SUCCESS IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO IS GOING TO COME INTO THEIR PROGRAM.

SO MOST PROMISING TO THEM MEANS ACADEMIC RESULTS.

THE ONLY THING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE ABOUT THAT WHEN IS WE THINK ABOUT ELITE INSTITUTIONS AND WHAT THE GRADING DYNAMICS ARE LIKE AND HOW SOMETHING LIKE 80% OF THE GRADES UNDERGRADUATE THAT YALE GETS ARE As.

IT MAKES ME WONDER IF THEIR DATA IS SKEWED.

FOR AN INSTITUTION LIKE THEM, IT MAKES SENSE.

FOR OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE NOT AS EXCLUSIVE, IT PROBABLY MAKES LESS SENSE TO REQUIRE S.A.T.

>> I THINK IT IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

DOES THE S.A.T.

APPLICATION KIND OF REQUIRED FOR THE KIND OF MISSION THAT YOUR COLLEGE IS IN, THE MISSION STATEMENT OF THE COLLEGE AND THAT MISSION OBJECTIVES.

IF THEY DON'T ALIGN, I DON'T THINK S.A.T.

IS REQUIRED.

ZACHARY BLEEMER, AN ECONOMIST FROM PRINCETON DID A STUDY WITH STUDENTS IN CALIFORNIA WHO HAD LOWER S.A.T.

SCORES BUT HIGH GAP GPA SCORES AND DID BETTER THAN EXPECTED.

IT SHOULD BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS, DEPENDING ON THE COLLEGE'S OWN VISION AND MISSION AND ALSO, TOO, ACKNOWLEDGE S.A.T.

DOES TRACK INCOME, RIGHT?

LIKE WE HAVE INEQUITIES ANYWHERE.

BETTER TEST SCORES AND BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS DON'T HAVE MANY RESOURCES TO WORK WITH AND HAVE LOWER TEST SCORES.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT S.A.T.

SO I MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE TEST.

I TOOK A TEST FOR Ph.D. AND THOUGHT IT WAS A WASTE OF MONEY.

>> THAT MAY BE TRUE BUT FOR THAT TO MATTER, YOU HAVE TO THINK THESE ADMISSION OFFICERS ARE MYOPIC AND NOT CONSIDERING THE FACTORS AS WELL.

PART OF THE STORY IS LIKE LOOK, MANLIUS PEBBLE HILL AVERAGE S.A.T.

SCORE IS A 1290.

THAT'S THE 86th PERCENTILE, THE AVERAGE DOES 86% BETTER THAN THE WORLD'S S.A.T.

TAKERS, COMPARED TO SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOLS, THEIR AVERAGE SCORE IS 1050, 50 PERCENTILE.

ADMISSION OFFICERS KNOW THAT.

AND SO IF YOU ARE A SYRACUSE CITY STUDENT WHO SCORES SAY A 1250, THAT'S REALLY GOOD.

BUT THAT STUDENT MIGHT NOT REALIZE IT, RIGHT?

THAT STUDENT MIGHT THINK THEY'RE LOWER BY COMPARISON WHEN APPLYING TO AN ELITE SCHOOL AND WRONGLY DECLINE TO REPORT THOSE S.A.T.

SCORES, THAT HURTS THEIR ADMISSION CHANCES AND ALL THAT STUFF.

SO WHAT DARTMOUTH IS SAYING IS LOOK, WE HAVE TO RETURN TO THIS UNIVERSAL THING BECAUSE THEY CAN ACCOUNT FOR THAT.

THEY LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY IS TERM THEY'RE USING.

>> THE 1050 IS PERSONAL FOR ME BECAUSE THAT WAS MY S.A.T.

SCORE, VERY AVERAGE.

AND I'VE GONE ON TO BE THE FIRST PERSON IN MY FAMILY TO EARN A Ph.D.

SO TO ME, AT THAT TIME REFLECTS ONE MEASURE OF PEOPLE'S PROMISE TO USE DARTMOUTH LANG BIJ, AND-- LANGUAGE AND IT GIVES ME SCEPTICISM TOWARDS STANDARDIZE TESTS IN REGARD TO THEIR UTILITY.

>> THE HISTORY OF IT, TOO, IS IMPORTANT.

SOME SCHOOLS WENT TEST OPTIONAL, BATES COLLEGE, MY ALMA MATER WENT TEST OPTIONAL REALLY EARLY ON AND THE REASON WHY THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD INCREASE DIVERSITY, RIGHT BECAUSE WHEN YOU SEE TEST SCORES, THERE ARE DIFFERENCES BY RACE AND CLASS AND THEY THOUGHT THAT HURT THOSE GROUPS.

TURNS OUT, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS RESEARCH IS TO SHOW THAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE A REFLECTION OF INEQUALITY.

THE TEST ITSELF IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY.

INSTEAD, IT'S AN INDICATION THAT BEE HAVE A VERY UNEQUAL SYSTEM SO SOME STUDENTS DON'T HAVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITY FOR A GOOD EDUCATION COMING UP TO COLLEGE PRIOR TO COLLEGE.

AND THAT THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO INTERVENE AND TRY TO FIX THINGS.

TESTS ARE JUST A REFLECTION OF THAT.

AND LIKE MY COLLEAGUES HAVE ED IS, WHEN A STUDENT WHO IS GOING FROM A HIGH SCHOOL THAT'S NOT THAT GREAT GETS A REALLY, YOU KNOW, SOLID SCORE, THAT'S A SIGN THAT THEY HAVE A LOT OF POTENTIAL AND COULD DO REALLY WELL IN COLLEGE.

AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH DARTMOUTH AND I THINK OTHER SCHOOLS SHOULD TAKE IT ON AS WELL.

>> ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE COULD BE THAT SCHOOLS OR UNIVERSITIES CAN HAVE THEIR OWN EFFORTS.

THIS IS DONE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD.

IF YOU WANT TO GO TO A PARTICULAR UNIVERSITY, THE UNIVERSITY HAS ITS OWN TEST THAT YOU HAVE TO SIT FOR FOR DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES.

>> ONEROUS.

>> ABOUT IT WHY IS S.A.T.

SUCH AN AMAZING THING?

IT'S RUN BY A CORPORATION.

>> STANDARDIZED.

EVERYONE HAS TO TAKE IT.

>> TO ONE OF LUKE'S POINTS-- DO WE HAVE TO MOVE ON?

>> THAT'S ENOUGH.

>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING TOPIC.

>> NEW YORK REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE PUSHING HARD FOR AN INCREASE TO THE CAP ON STATE AND LOCAL TAX DEDUCTIONS.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE LAWLER IS SPONSORING A BILL TO RAISE THE CAP TO, 20,000 DOLLARS FOR ONE TAX YEAR-- LAST YEAR, SO IT COULD AFFECT REFUNDS COMING IN THIS YEAR.

IF THIS NEW CAP IS SET, IT'S EXPECTED TO COST THE TREASURY ABOUT $12 BILLION DOLLARS.

SOME CONSERVATIVES CALL IT A BLUE STATE TAX CUT.

THE BILL WOULD UNDOUBTEDLY HELP MANY PEOPLE IN NEW YORK, BUT SHOULD IT PASS?

SARAH?

>> I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THE CAP AT $10,000.

NOW THIS WAS TRUMP'S POLICY.

NO ONE WOULD BE SURPRISED WHEN I SAY I DIDN'T AGREE WITH MANY OF HIS POLICIES.

THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW.

AND I THINK HIS POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS WERE BAD BEHIND THIS.

HE KIND OF WANTED TO PUNISH BLUE STATES.

BUT, IN FACT, IT'S A GOOD SOLID POLICY BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXTREMELY REGRESSIVE TAX.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, WEALTHY PEOPLE BENEFIT FROM NOT HAVING A CAP.

AND, IN FACT, IF THEY GOT RID OF THE $10,000 CAP, IT WOULD HELP THE TOP QUINTILE AND ESPECIALLY THE TOP 1%.

THEY WOULD GET TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN TAX BREAKS.

THAT IS NOT THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO.

WE DON'T NEED TO GIVE WEALTHY PEOPLE MORE TAX BREAKS.

THE IDEA, THE STRANGE IDEA THAT IT'S LIKE BLUE STATES ARE DONOR STATES, YOU KNOW, TO RED STATES BECAUSE WE PAY MORE TAXES.

BUT THAT'S NOT HOW TAXES WORK.

THE FEDERAL TAXES TAXES INDIVIDUALS.

THEY DON'T TAX STATES.

IT'S NOT LIKE NEW YORK SENDS A BIG CHECK TO THE I.R.S., RIGHT?

AND THE REASON WHY BLUE STATE PEOPLE PAY MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES IS BECAUSE THERE IS MORE WEALTHY PEOPLE IN NEW YORK AND THERE IS MORE WEALTHY PEOPLE IN MARYLAND AND CALIFORNIA, RIGHT?

AND THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THEM A BREAK ON THEIR FEDERAL TAXES.

>> SARAH, YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS DESIGNED TO PUNISH BLUE STATES.

BUT IT'S ALSO GOOD POLICY.

SO, I MEAN... >> IT DOESN'T PUNISH BLUE STATES THOUGH.

IT'S-- THAT'S THE NARRATIVE.

>> IT DOES!

I THOUGHT-- I THOUGHT IT WAS CLEVER IN THE WAY THAT IT IS PUNITIVE.

BUT IT'S ALSO MADDENING AND I THINK IT'S UNJUST IN THE WAY THERE IS A DOUBLE ACTIONATION ELEMENT TO IT.

>> IT'S NOT DOUBLE TAXATION.

>> IT ABSOLUTELY IS.

BUT HERE'S THE THING.

>> EXPLAIN.

>> WELL BECAUSE YOU ARE TAXING MY INCOME AND YOU ARE TAXING THE INCOME I HAVE TO SPEND ON MY PROPERTY TAXES ANYWAY.

THAT TO ME IS UNJUST.

>> THOSE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> I WANT TO GET TO MY POINT WHICH IS TO YOUR POINT THAT IT'S REGRESSIVE OR WHATEVER.

LIKE THERE ARE ALTERNATIVE FORMS OF PROGRESSIVE TAXATION THAT I THINK WOULD BE A BETTER SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS THAT WE WOULD AGREE ON.

SO LIKE LOOK, NATIONAL DEBT IS 120% OF G.D.P.

RIGHT NOW.

MY HIGHEST PRIORITY IS GETTING THAT DOWN AND NOT TRYING TO SAVE MY OWN TAX BILL.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO COUPLE THE ELIMINATION LIKE RAISING THE CAP ON SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES, TAX GAP.

BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN EITHER.

>> LUKE.

>> I AGREE, SARAH, THAT THE TAX IS REGRESSIVE AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION THERE.

I WANT TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THE BLUE DONOR STATE THESIS YOU PUT FORWARD BECAUSE THE WAY I LOOK AT IT IS THE STATES THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST RATES OF POVERTY ARE ALSO THE STATES WITH THE WEAKEST SOCIAL SAFETY NETS, MISSISSIPPI, LOUISIANA, 20% OF THEIR POPULATION LIVE IN POVERTY.

AND THEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ARE MOST RELIANT ON FEDERAL AID BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY GET THEIR SOCIAL SAFETY NET AND IF STATES LIKE NEW YORK HAVE MORE AFFLUENT PEOPLE WHO PAY LARGER AMOUNTS OF TAX, THEN THEY ARE PAYING A DISPROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF THE FEDERAL MONEY THAT THESE MORE CONSERVATIVE, LESS DEVELOPED SOCIAL SAFETY NET STATES PAY.

SO I GET A LITTLE-- I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT WHERE IT'S LIKE YES, RICH PEOPLE NEED MORE TUS BUT I GET MIFFED BY MATT GAETZ AND THOSE PEOPLE SAYING WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO INCENTIVIZE YOUR BAD BEHAVIOR.

WELL, YOUR STATES ARE THE ONES WHERE THE FEDERAL MONEY IS GOING BECAUSE OF HOW YOU RUN FOR STATE GOVERNMENTS.

>> IT IS QUITE REGRESSIVE.

BEFORE THE CAP WAS IMPLEMENTED IN 2017, 71% OF THE WENT TO TAXPAYERS FOR PEOPLE WITH INCOMES OVER 100,000.

IT IS STILL GOING TO PEOPLE EARNING ABOVE 200,000.

MY QUESTION IS THIS SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE IN 2025 AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GO BACK TO LIKE COMPLETE ELIMINATION... >> THEY DO EXPIRE, YES.

>> THE TRUMP TAX CUTS EXPIRE IN 25 OR 27 WHEN-- WHEN THEY WERE PASSED, IT WAS A 10-YEAR CUT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE NUMBERS WORK BASICALLY.

>> SO WHAT IF WE INCREASE, MAKE IT 15,000 AND THEN STABILIZE IT FOR PERMANENTLY, RIGHT?

IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EASIER BECAUSE AT LEAST THERE IS A STABLE TAX POLICY THAT PEOPLE CAN GO BY INSTEAD OF THIS MOVING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> I WANT TO GET BACK TO THIS IDEA OF DOUBLE TAXATION THOUGH BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REAL MISNOMER AND I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES GO FOR STATE AND LOCAL SERVICES.

OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME OVERLAPPING BETWEEN FEDERAL SERVICES AND STATE WHEN THEY WORK TOGETHER.

BUT THOSE GO TO THOSE POTS OF MONEY.

YOUR FEDERAL TAXES GO TO THE GENERAL TREASURY TO HELP THE NATION AS A WHOLE.

AND SO I DON'T THINK IT'S A DOUBLE-- WHY SHOULD MILLIONAIRES IN NEW YORK PAY LESS THAN MILLIONAIRES IN NEVADA TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> WE'LL HAVE TO ANSWER THAT ON ANOTHER PROGRAM.

WE NEED TO GO TO As AND F. >> GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S DISTAIN TO RURAL NEW YORK DECREASING EDUCATION FUNDING FOR 26 SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN CENTRAL NEW YORK AS HER PROPOSAL TO END SAVE HARMLESS PROVISION WOULD ALLOCATE FUNDS AWAY FROM URBAN SCHOOLS TO HIVE FROM RURAL SCHOOLS TO URBAN ONES.

>> MY F GOES TO EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE FAILED TO PAY WORKERS WHAT THEY ARE OWED.

ONE STUDY SHOWED THAT OVER 127,000 NEW YORKERS WERE VICTIMS OF WAGE THEFT OVER THE FIVE-YEAR TIME PERIOD TO THE TUNE OF $$203 MILLION.

FORTUNATELY THERE IS SOME LAWMAKERS HAVE PROPOSED SOME NEW BILLS THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR WAGE THEFT VIOLATORS TO CONDUCT BUSINESS IN NEW YORK.

>> AND ANIRBAN, YOUR F. >> TO THE RECENT CHEMICAL ATTACK ON PEACEFUL STUDENT PROTESTORS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

AND ALSO THE WAY THE UNIVERSITY ACTUALLY HAMMED THE SITUATION.

AS A RENOWNED PROFESSOR OF COLUMBIA SAID THE FACULTY HAVE BEEN SPENDING AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME PROTECTING OUR STUDENTS FROM THE UNIVERSITYth.

>> AND LUKE.

>> MY F GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FOR THEIR BUNGLED ROLLOUT OF THE NEW FEDERAL STUDENT LOAN APPLICATION PROCESS.

DISRUPTING MILLIONS OF APPLICANTS THIS SPRING.

>> AND OUR As.

CHAD.

>> THE NATION IS OVERWHELMED BY THESE UGLY DEBATES ABOUT IMMIGRATION POLICY I DON'T WANT US TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE REALITY THAT IMMIGRANTS ARE A NET BENEFIT TO THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.

I PREFER STATISTICS, OTHERS LIKE EXAMPLES AND SO I'LL DO A LOCAL ONE BY THANKING RAPHAEL, A LOCAL IMMIGRANT AND LeMOYNE GRAD WHOSE MEN SHOP IN DEWITT SOLD ME THE CLOTHES I'M WEARING TODAY.

GO VISIT HIM AND SEE THE NICE THINGS HE HAS.

>> MY A GOES TO TRACY CHAPMAN AND LUKE COMBS FOR THE DUET THEY SANG AT THE GRAMMIES THIS WEEK OF TRACY CHAPMAN'S WORKING CLASS BALLAD FAST CAR.

I WAS A BIG FAN STILL A BIG FAN OF TRACY CHAPMAN.

LISTENED TO HER IN MY COLLEGE YEARS AND IT'S WONDERFUL TO SEE A NEW GENERATION EXPOSED TO HER WONDERFUL SONGWRITING.

>> AND ANIRBAN, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE NEW YORK LAW COMING IN EFFECT IN APRIL THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THE UNITED STATES, TO BAN THE SALE OF OVER THE COUNTER DIET PILLS AND MUSCLE BUILDING SUPPLEMENTS TO MINORS.

ONE HARVARD SUGGESTS MANY SNAKE OIL SUPPLEMENTS INCLUDE DANGEROUS INGREDIENTS THAT CAUSE CANCER, HEALTH RISK, LIVER DAMAGE AND SO ON.

SO SOMETHING GOOD FROM NEW YORK STATE POLITICS.

>> OKAY.

AND LUKE, YOUR A.

>> MY A GOES TO THE E.P.A.

FOR NEW TIGHTER REGULATIONS ON PARTICULATE MATTER AIR POLLUTION HELPING TO PREVENT THOUSANDS OF PREMATURE DEATHS EVERY YEAR.

>> ONE OF THE CASES IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT RIGHT NOW IS WOULD INVOLVE THE E.P.A.

AGENCIES THAT THE CHEVRON DEMPSES WOULD REDUCE THE AGENCY'S ABILITY TO PASS REGULATIONS LIKE THE ONE THAT JUST GOT YOUR A.

>> SURE.

SEE WHAT THEY DO.

>> YES, WE WILL.

AND I WANTED TO BRIEFLY MENTION CHAD, YOU MENTIONED YOUR TAILOR, I GUESS, WHO IS AN IMMIGRANT.

AND I BELIEVE LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE YOU WERE ALSO MENTIONING CHOBANI, ANOTHER IMMIGRANT, AND WE HAVE SEEN A LONG HISTORY OF IMMIGRANTS SORT OF REFRESHING THE U.S. ECONOMY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING.

FOR COMMENTS YOU CAN WRITE TO THE ADDRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO VIEW THE SHOW AGAIN YOU CAN VIEW IT ONLINE AT WCNY.ORG.

I'M DAVID CHANATRY, FOR ALL OF US AT IVORY TOWER, HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.