>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

>> WE HAVE A SURPLUS IN THE STATE BUDGET, AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

SHOWDOWNS OVER TAX CUTS.

WE DISCUSS TWO MAJOR PROPOSALS WITH SOME OF THE STATE'S KEY PLAYERS.

I'M MELISSA DAVLIN.

"IDAHO REPORTS" STARTS NOW.

♪.

♪.

>> HELLO AND WELCOME TO "IDAHO REPORTS."

THIS WEEK SENATOR JIM RICE RESPONDS TO CRITICISM OF HIS PROPERTY TAX PROPOSAL FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.

ALEJANDRA CERNA RIOS, DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR FISCAL POLICY, GIVES US ANALYSIS ON AN INCOME AND SALES TAX PROPOSAL FROM THE HOUSE, AND HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MIKE MOYLE AND HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS CHAIR MEGAN BLANKSMA JOIN ME TO DISCUSS TAXES AND MORE.

BUT IT WASN'T ALL TAXES THIS WEEK.

THE LEGISLATURE HAD A FULL SCHEDULE OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS, WITH PLENTY OF DEBATES IN COMMITTEE AND THE FLOOR.

ON TUESDAY, HOUSE MEMBERS DEBATED A PROPOSAL FROM REPRESENTATIVE PRISCILLA GIDDINGS THAT WOULD PREVENT GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM CONTRACTING WITH COMPANIES THAT REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO BE VACCINATED.

>> AS I HAVE WORKED ON NONDISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION IN THE PAST, MY LEGISLATION HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN DUE TO CREATING SPECIAL RIGHTS, OR A SPECIAL CLASS OR A SPECIAL STATUS, BASED ON THE LIFESTYLE CHOICE.

SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW HOUSE BILL 140 IS NOT INDEED CREATING SPECIAL RIGHTS OR SPECIAL STATUS, BASED ON THIS LIFESTYLE CHOICE?

>> THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.

AND GOOD GENTLEMEN.

I WOULD JUST ARGUE THAT YOUR PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND NOT HAVING SOMETHING FORCED INTO YOUR BODY IS A PERSONAL RIGHT, IS A FREEDOM, AND I WOULD VERY MUCH AGREE WITH YOU THAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ALL LEGISLATION IN THIS BODY BE GIVEN A FAIR CHANCE ON THIS FLOOR.

>> THAT BILL PASSED 49-21, AND NOW HEADS TO THE SENATE.

ON THURSDAY, HOUSE MEMBERS ALSO DEBATED A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION FOR MEDICAID, SPARKING A DEBATE ABOUT THE FEDERAL DEFICIT AND MEDICAID EXPANSION COSTS COMING IN HIGHER THAN EXPECTED, VERSUS IDAHO'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY THE STATE'S MEDICAID PROVIDERS.

>> THIS NUMBER IS ASTOUNDING.

THIS NUMBER IS ASTOUNDING.

369 MILLION, $764,000.

WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS SENDING A MESSAGE THAT ALL THE ESTIMATES IN THE WORLD, WHETHER THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG, NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE, NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS KIND OF OVERRUN.

>> WE DID SIGN THE BOTTOM LINE THAT WE WOULD DO MEDICAID EXPANSION AS A MAJORITY OF BOTH BODIES OF THIS LOVELY CAPITOL BUILDING.

AND IF THIS GOES DOWN, THE CHALLENGE IS THAT THE PROGRAM WILL START TO RUN OUT OF MONEY AND THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR BILLS, WHICH GO OUT TO PROVIDERS ACROSS THE STATE AND IN PARTICULAR I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE RURAL HOSPITALS THAT ALREADY HAVE HAD SUCH DEVASTATING IMPACT FROM COVID.

>> RATHER THAN VOTING AGAINST THIS BILL OR THIS PAYMENT, IF YOU WILL, I ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO REPEAL THE SECTION OF CODE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM DISTRICT 12 MENTIONED, SO WE CAN FIX THIS ISSUE, ACTUALLY FIX IT, AND NOT JUST GRAND STAND AGAINST SPENDING THE MONEY.

>> ULTIMATELY, THAT APPROPRIATION PASSED 37-31, WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS VOTING AGAINST IT.

WE HAVE THE FULL DEBATE ON THE "IDAHO REPORTS" YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

FIND THE LINK AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS.

IDAHO HAS AN UNEXPECTED SURPLUS THIS YEAR, WHICH IN THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE MEANS AN INEVITABLE DEBATE ABOUT TAX CUTS.

RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TWO BIG PROPOSALS IN FRONT OF LAWMAKERS, ONE DEALING WITH BOTH INCOME AND SALES TAX AND ONE ADDRESSING PROPERTY TAX FORMULAS.

AS HOME VALUES HAVE INCREASED RAPIDLY THROUGHOUT IDAHO, HOMEOWNERS ARE PAYING A LARGER PROPORTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX THAT'S LEVIED.

LAWMAKERS GENERALLY AGREE THAT THAT'S A PROBLEM, BUT DISAGREE ON HOW TO ADDRESS IT.

SOME IDEAS, LIKE INCREASING THE HOMEOWNER'S EXEMPTION, WOULD CHANGE HOW DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ARE VALUED AND TAXED.

A CURRENT PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF THE SENATE, HOWEVER, WOULD LIMIT HOW MUCH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ALLOWED TO BUDGET.

CURRENT STATUTE ALLOWS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCREASE THEIR PROPERTY TAX BUDGET EACH YEAR BY 3%, PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL GROWTH FROM NEW CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ANNEXATION.

SENATE BILL 1108 FROM SENATOR JIM RICE WOULD CHANGE THAT FORMULA TO INCLUDE ONLY 75% OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ANNEXATION, RATHER THAN THE FULL VALUE, AMONG OTHER TWEAKS.

THAT BILL PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, DESPITE MULTIPLE LOCAL OFFICIALS FROM AROUND THE STATE TESTIFYING AGAINST IT.

ON THURSDAY, MAYORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN THE TREASURE VALLEY PARTNERSHIP HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE TO EXPLAIN THEIR OPPOSITION.

>> SENATE BILL 1108 IS NOT DISILLUSION THAT SOME THINK IT IS.

OUR CITIZENS HAVE ASKED THAT NEW GROWTH FUND THE GROWTH.

THIS BILL DOES NOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

IT ONLY ALLOWS 75% OF THE GROWTH TO BE CAPTURED.

FOR THE CITY OF NAMPA ALONE, IF THIS BILL HAD BEEN EN AGENTED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE WOULD HAVE 20 FEWER POLICE OFFICERS IN OUR RAPIDLY GROWING CITIES.

AS WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE, THIS BILL WILL DRASTICALLY IMPACT PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR ABILITY TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS AND PROVIDE CRITICAL NEEDED SERVICES.

>> I HAVE MET WITH SENATOR RICE NUMEROUS TIMES, EITHER PHONE OR FACE TO FACE IN MY OFFICE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO PLAIN TO HIM HOW A CITY BUDGET WORKS.

AS YOU KNOW, I'VE PUT TOGETHER 32 BUDGETS OVER MY EXPERIENCE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL BETWEEN MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING IN THE WAY BUDGETS ARE PUT TOGETHER, WHAT THE NEW GROWTH AND ANNEXATION ROLES WOULD MEAN IF WE WERE TO LIMIT THOSE, AND I THINK IT'S JUST, I THINK MAYBE THEIR DESIRES ARE IN THE RIGHT PLACE, BUT FOR ME IT'S JUST A CLEAR MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ROLE IN ANNEXATIONS DO AS FAR AS HAVING NEW GROWTH PAY FOR ITSELF.

AS MENTIONED BY OTHER MAYORS, IT'S ESSENTIAL TO HAVE THAT.

IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT, THEN IT ACTUALLY PENALIZES EXISTING RESIDENTS TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO SUBSIDIZE NEW GROWTH RATHER THAN ALLOWING NEW GROWTH TO PAY FOR ITSELF.

>> MIKE MOYLE HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS AS WELL AND WE DO HAVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING THIS.

AS MAYOR NANCOLAS SAID, I THINK IT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THESE CITY BUDGETS ARE PUT TOGETHER.

THEY WANT TO REDUCE PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY.

BUT THE FORM US -- THE FORMULATIONS IN OUR OPINION IS INCORRECT ON HOW THEY'RE COMING UP WITH WAYS ON REDUCING THOSE PROPERTY TAXES.

IF WE DO HAVE TO STOP GROWTH ALTOGETHER AND LIMIT IT, YOU'RE GOING TO START SEEING, IN MY OPINION, AN ECONOMIC EFFECT TO THAT.

YOU'RE GOING TO START LOSING JOBS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LIKE WE SAW BACK IN 2008 AND 2009 AND 2010 WHEN PEOPLE LEFT TO OTHER STATES.

WHICH IN TURN REDUCES OTHER BUSINESSES, BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THOSE FOLKS FOR SHOPPING IN THOSE BUSINESSES.

AND THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO BE THIS BIG STEAM ROLL EFFECT IF WE TAKE AWAY NEW CONSTRUCTION ALTOGETHER, OR LIMIT OUR NEW CONSTRUCTION, I GUESS, AND OUR PROPERTY TAXES AND MAKE THE CITIES MAKE THESE UNNECESSARY DECISIONS.

>> FRIDAY MORNING I SPOKE WITH SENATOR RICE, AND HE SAID THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE OVERSTATING THE IMPACTS OF THE BILL, OR MISUNDERSTANDING ITS EFFECTS ENTIRELY.

I'VE HEARD RESOUNDING OPPOSITION TO THIS LEGISLATION FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM AROUND THE STATE, ACROSS ALL POLITICAL SPECTRUMS.

AND ALL OF THEM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE RISING PROPERTY TAXES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES, BUT THEY SAY THIS ISN'T THE ANSWER.

DOES THAT OPPOSITION CONCERN YOU?

>> WELL, IT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE YOU GET BACK CHANNEL A NUMBER OF THEM ARE SAYING THIS REALLY DOESN'T DO THAT TO THEM.

AND IT'S OKAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

AND THEN YOU GET THE OUTWARD OPPOSITION AND THEY SAY THE SKY IS FALLING, BUT THEY DID THAT LAST YEAR WITH THE 4% TEMPORARY CAP SO WE COULD STUDY THE ISSUE AND FIGURE IT OUT.

AND ALL OF THEM TOOK LESS THAN 4%.

GROWTH IN THEIR BUDGETS.

BUT THEY SAID LAST YEAR THE EXACT THINGS THEY'RE SAYING THIS YEAR, AND YET EVEN WHEN THEY DO IT, IT DOESN'T DO WHAT THEY SAY.

SO WHAT WE GET IS A LOT OF DRAMA, A LOT OF USE OF HYPERBOLE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WIN A P.R.

BATTLE, BUT AREN'T GETTING FOCUS ON WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE CITIZENS, WHAT ARE THE DRIVERS THAT CAUSE THE TAXES TO GO UP FASTER THAN PEOPLE'S INCOMES.

AND WHEN YOUR PROPERTY TAX HAS GONE UP FASTER THAN YOUR INCOME, YOU'RE PAYING A BIGGER AND BIGGER PERCENTAGE OF YOUR INCOME IN PROPERTY TAXES, THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS.

SO WE NEED TO GET THAT DOWN SO THAT INSTEAD OF PROPERTY TAX BEING HERE AND YOUR INCOME GROWTH BEING HERE, THEY BOTH GET INTO THAT SAME RANGE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE BILL DOES.

BUT A LOT OF IT, I THINK THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE BILL.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE PREPARING AN EXCEL SPREAD SHEET THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE TO EVERYONE, CITIES, COUNTIES, THE MEDIA, THE PUBLIC, MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN BE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL BILL INSTEAD OF THE BOOGIE MAN THAT NOBODY UNDERSTANDS SO WE CAN ALL GO OFF IN DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS ON WHAT IT IS.

>> IT'S FUNNY THAT YOU SAY THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE BILL, BECAUSE ON THURSDAY DURING A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH MEMBERS OF THE TREASURE VALLEY PARTNERSHIP THEY SAID THE EXACT THING ABOUT SPONSORS OF THIS LEGISLATION, THAT THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT HOW THESE LOCAL BUDGETS ARE PUT TOGETHER.

THIS SEEMS LIKE A MIGHTY BIG GAMBLE WHEN IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING.

SO WHERE'S THE BREAK DOWN HERE?

>> THE BREAKDOWN IS THAT WE HAVE HAD A STUDY GROUP FOLLOWED BY AN INTERIM COMMITTEE, AND WE'VE HAD LITTLE ENGAGEMENT FROM THE CITIES.

THEY'RE THE PRIMARY DRIVERS ON THE OPPOSITION.

THE COUNTIES ARE OFFICIALLY NEUTRAL.

THEY'VE ACTUALLY BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PROCESS.

THEY WENT THROUGH AND ACTUALLY EVALUATED THE IMPACT ON THEIR BUDGETS.

NAY USED 2018-2019, THAT BUDGET, THOSE TWO BUDGETS.

SO THAT IT WOULD BE PRECOVID.

AND THEY FOUND THAT IT WOULD HAVE MADE A 2% DIFFERENCE IN THEIR BUDGETS.

AND THAT WAS ONLY BECAUSE TWO COUNTIES TOOK A LARGE AMOUNT OF FOREGONE, AND WHEN THEY TOOK THAT OUT IT MADE A 1% DIFFERENCE IN THEIR BUDGETS.

THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF DIFFERENCE THAT WOULD CAUSE THE PROBLEMS, AND THAT'S IN THE GROWTH OF THE BUDGET, SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WOULD CAUSE THE PROBLEMS THEY'RE COMPLAINING OF.

BUT IT'S SOME COMPLICATED MATH, AND SO PEOPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS I FOUND IS THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MAYORS THAT DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW THE CURRENT FORMULA WORKS.

THEY JUST PLUG STUFF IN, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES.

AND SO WE'RE NOT RUSHING TO HEAR THE BILL IN THE SENATE, WE'RE GOING TO GET THE ACTUAL INFORMATION OUT WITH THE SPREAD SHEET SO YOU CAN SWHEE IT ACTUALLY DOES TO YOUR BUDGET, PLUG IN YOUR NUMBERS, SO THAT WE HAVE ACTUAL DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE BILL AND NOT ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE BETTER ENGAGEMENT, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE ENGAGEMENT ON WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY IS, NOT ON SOMETHING ELSE.

>> YOU'LL FIND MY FULL INTERVIEW WITH SENATOR RICE ONLINE ON THE "IDAHO REPORTS" YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

FIND THE LINK AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS.

AND WHILE YOU'RE THERE, HIT SUBSCRIBE.

SENATOR RICE'S PROPOSAL ISN'T THE ONLY WAY LAWMAKERS ARE CONSIDERING TINKERING WITH TAX POLICY THIS YEAR.

LAST WEEK, HOUSE REVENUE AND TAXATION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN STEVE HARRIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD LOWER PERSONAL AND CORPORATE INCOME TAX RATES, AS WELL AS DROP IDAHO'S SALES TAX FROM 6 TO 5.3%.

ON FRIDAY, I SPOKE TO ALEJANDRA CERNA RIOS, DIRECTOR FOR THE IDAHO CENTER FOR FISCAL POLICY, ABOUT THE CENTER'S ANALYSIS ON THE BILL.

>> THE MOST IDAHO HOUSEHOLDS WOULDN'T SEE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THEIR TAX BILL FROM THE LEGISLATION.

SO THE TOP 20% OF INCOME EARNERS IN IDAHO, SO THOSE HOUSEHOLDS THAT HAVE BEEN INCOME ABOUT $103,000 AND ABOVE, WOULD RECEIVE MOST OF THE BENEFITS FROM THIS PROPOSAL.

SO THE REMAINING WOULD BE SPREAD OUT AMONG THE 80% OF THE HOUSEHOLDS WHO EARN LESS THAN THAT.

SO TAKEN ALL OF THESE COMPLEX COMPONENTS OF HOUSE BILL 1 IT 99 INTO ACCOUNT, REDUCTION IN THE SALES, INCOME AND CORPORATE RATES, TAKING A WAY THE GROCER CREDIT FROM OUR TAX STRUCTURE, IDAHO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES OF UP TO $66,000 A YEAR WOULD SEE A DECREASE IN THEIR TAX RESPONSIBILITY THAT IS ABOUT 30 TO $90 ON AVERAGE, DEPENDING ON A FAMILY'S EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES.

HOWEVER, THE TOP PERCENT OF EARNERS IN IDAHO, SO FOLKS WHO EARN CLOSE TO $500,000 A YEAR OR MORE, WOULD SEE A TAX CUTS OF ABOUT $4,500 ON AVERAGE.

OF COURSE IF OUR GOAL IS TO KEEP A FAIR TAX SYSTEM, THOSE PROVISIONS DON'T GET US THERE.

AND IF OUR GOAL WITH A TAX POLICY IS TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO IDAHOANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY FEELING THE DEEP EFFECTS OF THE RECESSION, IT DOESN'T GET US THERE EITHER.

>> YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD SIMILAR CONVERSATIONS WITH LAWMAKERS OVER THE YEARS ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE, AND THEIR ARGUMENT IS OF COURSE LOWER EARNERS ARE GOING TO GET LESS OF AN IMMEDIATE BENEFIT FROM BILLS LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY PAY LESS IN TAXES, YOU KNOW, THE LOWEST EARNERS PAY LESS THAN 2% ON INCOME TAX.

SO HOW MUCH OF THAT IS JUST THE REALITY OF HOW MUCH THEY'RE PAYING TO THE SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE?

>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

THROUGH OUR RESEARCH WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE TAX SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY KIND OF AN UPSIDE DOWN VERSION OF THAT.

SO TAKING ALL THE DIFFERENT TAX COLLECTION INTO ACCOUNT, MODEST EARNING FAMILIES ACTUALLY PAY MORE OF THEIR INCOME AS A SHARE TO OUR TAX BASE THAN WEALTHIER FAMILIES.

>> WHEN YOU SAY MODEST EARNING, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?

>> I MEAN FAMILIES WHO ARE SORT IF THE MIDDLE CLASS INCOME RANGE, SO AROUND $70,000 OR LESS.

>> AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL REDUCTION IN SALES TAX, DROPPING IT FROM 6% TO 3% ACROSS THE BOARDED.

HOW MUCH WOULD THAT BENEFIT IDAHOANS?

>> SO, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT BY TAKING AWAY THE GROCERY CREDIT, POLICY MAKERS INTENDED TO MAKE UP FOR THAT WITH A REDUCTION IN THE SALES TAX WE PAY ON ALL THINGS THAT WE BUY IN THE STATE.

THE ISSUE WITH REDUCING THE SALES TAXIS THAT IT'S A VERY, VERY LEAKY TAX CUT.

SO IT WOULD COST AROUND THE SCALE OF $200 MILLION A YEAR AND ABOUT $1 OF EVERY $6 THAT WE WOULD GIVE UP IN REVENUE WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO FOLKS WHO ARE PASSING THROUGH THE STATE.

SO FOLKS WHO ARE DRIVING TO YELLOWSTONE OR, YOU KNOW, TO SPEND A FEW DAYS IN IDAHO, ALSO CONTRIBUTE TO OUR SALES TAX BASE.

SO WHEN WE DISCUSS A FISCAL IMPACT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PRETTY IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

>> WE HAVE MORE WITH CERNA RIOS ONLINE.

YOU'LL FIND OUR FULL INTERVIEW ON THE "IDAHO REPORTS" YOUTUBE CHANNEL.

FIND THE LINK AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS.

ON FRIDAY, I SPOKE TO HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MIKE MOYLE AND HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS CHAIR MEGAN BLANKSMA TO GET THEIR TAKE ON THE INCOME AND SALES TAX PROPOSAL.

THANK YOU BOTH SO MUCH FOR JOINING US TODAY.

REPRESENTATIVE MOYLE, YOU'RE A COSPONSOR ON HOUSE BILL 199.

WHY IN YOUR VIEW IS THIS THE BEST POSSIBLE ROUTE FOR TAX RELIEF THIS YEAR?

>> BECAUSE IT CUT INCOME TAX RATES AND LOWERED THE OVERALL SALES TAX RATE AND ACCOMPLISHED WHAT WE WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH IS WE GET THE TALK GOING ABOUT TAX RELIEF.

WE'RE SITTING ON A LOT OF MONEY AND THERE'S NO REASON WE'RE NOT GIVING IT A BUNCH OF IT BACK TO TAXPAYER.

I DON'T KNOW THAT BILL 199 IS THE ANSWER, BUT AT LEAST IT GOT THE BALL ROLLING AND NOW EAR HEARING OTHER PROPOSALS BECAUSE OF IT.

IT GETS THE TALK GOING.

>> CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT INTO HOW THOSE TALKS ARE GOING, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR CAUCUS?

>> OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR CAUCUS ON ALL DIFFERENT PLACES ON THE INCOME TAX, PROPERTY TAX, SALES TAX, A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN BETWEEN THE HOUSE SENATE AND GOVERNOR AS WE TRY TO FIND A PROPOSAL GOING FORWARD THAT CAN ADDRESS THE TAX RELIEF ISSUE AT THE SAME TIME ADDRESS THE CONCERNS WITH ROADS.

SO THEY'RE KIND OF TIED TOGETHER NOW IN THEIR MIND.

SO NOW THERE'S THIS BACK AND FORTH TO TRY TO FIND A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY CAN AGREE THAT THEY'RE HAPPY WITH.

>> THIS SPECIFIC VERSION OF THE PROL, CRITICS HAVE POINTED TO THE DISPARITIES IN INCOME TAX RELIEF FROM TOP EARNERS VERSUS THE LOWER 60% OF HOUSEHOLDS WHICH WOULD GET LESS THAN $100 IN INCOME TAX RELIEF.

CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT DISPARITY, ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING MOST IN THIS ECONOMY GOING TO BENEFIT FROM A PROPOSAL LIKE THIS?

>> WHAT WE GET DONE WILL ADDRESS THAT BOTTOM END.

THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE IS THE PERCENTAGE OF TAX RELIEF IN THAT BILL IS HIGHER ON THE BOTTOM THAN THE TOP.

BUT IN IDAHO SINCE THE RICH START AT $7500, TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE IF YOU MAKE 11,900 AND CHANGE YOU'RE IN THE HIGHER BRACHET AND THAT MAKES IT TOUGH BECAUSE SO MEAN PEOPLE ARE IN THE TOP END OF THE BRACKET, BUT WHAT WE DO WILL ADDRESS THAT CONCERN.

HOUSE BILL 199 GOT THE BALL ROLLING, WE'RE NOW, WE KNOW THE PLACES WE NEED TO FIX THAT ISSUE ON THE BOTTOM TO MAKE SURE WE TAKE CARE OF OUR FRIENDS ON THAT END OF THE SCALE TOO AND WHAT WE PASS WILL DO THAT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE BLANKSMA, WHAT ARE YOU HEARING FROM OTHER HOUSE REPUBLICANS, THEIR IDEAS AS FAR AS TAX RELIEF THIS SESSION?

>> YES, I THINK THERE IS A BIG INTEREST IN PROVIDING INCOME TAX RELIEF AND TRANSPORTATION, AND THERE'S ALSO, WE CAN'T FORGET THE ONE-TIME MONEY THAT'S ALSO AVAILABLE.

WHEN YOU TALK TO SOME OF THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE FALLING LOWER ON THE INCOME TAX BRACKETS, WE SHOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THEM SOME DIRECT RELIEF WITH THE ONE-TIME MONIES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.

SO I DO KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW THE TRANSPORTATION CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE AND THE TAX CHAIRMAN ARE WORKING TOGETHER TO FIND A LARGER PACKAGE SO THAT WE CAN HELP WITH TRANSPORTATION AND PROVIDE INCOME TAX RELIEF, AND ALSO LOOK AT THAT ONE-TIME MONEY TO PROVIDE ONE-TIME TAX RELIEF REBATE STYLE.

SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING PROBABLY WITH THE SENATE AS BEST AS WE EVER HAD, AND SO THERE'S A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP THERE BETWEEN ALL THE CHAIRMEN AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE GET SOMETHING SOON TO PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE MOYLE THAT 199 IS A GOOD STARTING PLACE, BUT WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS SINCE THAT WAS PUT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT'S COMING.

>> YOU SAY SOON.

ANY IDEA ABOUT WHEN WE MIGHT SEE THAT NEXT PROPOSAL OR FINAL PROPOSAL?

>> I TALKED TO THE CHAIRMAN THIS MORNING AND I SAID IT WOULD BE REALLY LOVELY IF WE COULD SEE SOMETHING NEXT WEEK.

SO THAT'S MY HOPE, AND OBVIOUSLY AS PART OF MIFF ROLE I WILL BE TRYING TO GET IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY CAN SEE WHAT IT DOES FOR THEM.

>> I ALSO ASKED REPRESENTATIVES MOYLE AND BLANKSMA ABOUT RECENT PROTESTS FROM HOUSE CONSERVATIVES OVER THEIR BILLS NOT BEING HEARD IN COMMITTEE, CULMINATING LAST WEEK IN MARATHON FLOOR SESSIONS IN WHICH MEMBERS FORCED THE HOUSE CHIEF CLERK TO READ THE FULL TEXT OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO SIGNAL THEIR DISPLEASURE WITH HOUSE LEADERSHIP AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS.

>> YOU KNOW, SEEING FEEL WHO ARE UNHAPPY I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT SOME MEMBERS OF YOUR CAUCUS ARE UNHAPPY THAT THEIR BILLS ARE NOT GETTING HEARINGS.

THEY NOARGSED THE READINGS OF BILLS FROM THE HOUSE CHIEF CLERK.

AS MAJORITY LEADER AND HOUSE CAUCUS CHAIR, HOW DO YOU TWO APPROACH THOSE CONVERSATIONS?

HOW ARE THE FEELINGS AMONG CAUCUS MEMBERS RIGHT NOW, REPRESENTATIVE BLANKSMA?

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THIS CHAIRMAN DECIDING WHAT TO HEAR IS NOT AN UNUSUAL PROCESS.

THIS IS DONE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES, THE CHAIRMEN ARE IN CHARGE OF THEIR OWN AGENDA.

THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT EVERY BILL GETS A HEARING IS A LITTLE BIT MANUFACTURED.

THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS, HAS BEEN PART OF THE PROCESS TRADITIONALLY AND IS NOT UNUSUAL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.

NOT EVERYTHING GETS A HEARING.

AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, FOR A BILL TO GET A HEARING IT COSTS TIME, MONEY, EFFORT, AND SO YOU HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT.

AND YOU WANT BILLS THAT ARE HAVING HEARINGS TO BE SERIOUSLY CONSIDERED, AND NOT JUST CONSIDERED THINGS FOR A PERSONAL AGENDA.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER.

I THINK THAT WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO TRY TO WORK WITH CAUCUS MEMBERS AND TRY TO SET A PATH FORWARD SO THAT IF THEY DO HAVE THINGS THAT WANT TO BE CONSIDERED SERIOUSLY BY THE ENTIRE HOUSE, THERE'S SOME STEPS YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND SOME BOXES YOU NEED TO CHECK JUST FOR YOUR OWN PEACE OF MIND KNOWING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT'S GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME PURPOSE.

AND SO I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN, I KNOW THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS BEEN AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SOME OF OUR MEMBERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN BRINGING LEGISLATION FORTH THAT MAY HAVE HAD A BIT OF A ROCKY ROAD, TO GIVE THEM A COUPLE PATHS FORWARD AND HELP THEM CHECK THE TRAP LINES SO THEY HAVE A GREATER DEGREE OF SUCCESS IN DOING THAT.

>> I KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE AT HOME ARE THINKING, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE WHY NOT JUST HEAR THESE BILLS, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT AMONG YOUR CAUCUS MEMBERS AND HONESTLY AMONG DEMOCRATS TOO.

I'M THINKING ESPECIALLY ABOUT THE GROCERY TAX REPEAL.

REPRESENTATIVE MOYLE'S FAVORITE PROPOSAL OVER THE YEARS, I KNOW.

>> BROUGHT THE FIRST ONE MYSELF.

>> SO WHY NOT LET IT HAVE A HEARING?

>> IT'S NOT ME THAT'S STOPPING IT FROM HAVING A HEARING.

THE OTHER THING YOU HAVE TO BIFURCATE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUSINESS IS SOMETIMES LEGISLATORS WILL TRY TO GO AROUND THE COMMITTEE PROCESS WITH PERSONAL BILLS, AND THAT HAS BEEN A NO-NO SINCE I CAN REMEMBER.

THOSE BILLS AND SPEAKERS AND DAYS GONE PAST HAVE ALWAYS THROWN THOSE IN WAYS AND MEANS BECAUSE IT'S A WAY AROUND THE COMMITTEE PROCESS.

BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CHAIRMEN, THEY DO HAVE THE LATITUDE TO DO THAT.

I THINK THERE'S A PERCEPTION AMONG SOME THAT LEADERSHIP GOES IN AND TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO.

NOT SO MUCH ON THE HOUSE, MAYBE IN THE SENATE BUT NOT THE HOUSE.

SO WITH THAT CHAIRMANSHIP COMES SOME POWER AND AUTHORITY AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT IF THEY CHOOSE.

I KNOW THAT USUALLY THE CHAIRMAN WILL WORK WITH THEM AND TRY TO FINE SOLUTIONS.

BUT SOMETIMES WE, LIKE ANYWHERE ELSE, SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET MAD AND ANGRY AND THAT DOESN'T HELP MOVE THEIR BILL ALONG, AND WHEN THEY THREATEN PEOPLE OR DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON THAT WE USED TO NEVER SEE, IT MAKES IT EVEN TOUGHER BECAUSE THEN YOU HAVE CHAIRMAN THAT BOW THEIR BACK AND SAY NO WAY.

SO WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL THAT WHRE DON'T DO THAT, AND WORK TOGETHER.

BUT MOST OF THEM ARE WORKING THROUGH THE PROCESS, MOST OF THEM ARE TRYING TO HELP FIND A SOLUTION, AND WE'LL GET THERE.

>> AND TO PIGGYBACK A LITTLE BIT OFF OF REPRESENTATIVE MOYLE IS SAYING, THIS IS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, RIGHT, THERE ARE 105 LEGISLATORS THAT YOU HAVE TO GET A MAJORITY OF THEM TO COME ALONG WITH YOU.

SO YOU JUST DO YOURSELF MORE OF A FAVOR IF YOU WORK IN A COLLABORATIVE WAY, AND THAT'S WHAT OUR CHAIRMEN ARE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS WHO WANT TO HAVE HEARINGS ON THEIR BILL WILL HAVE SUCCESS.

THAT'S THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING IS WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL.

>> ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE TAUGHT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES PEOPLE GET IN THE PRESS AND SAY THEIR BILL DOES ONE THING, BUT IT REALLY DOES ANOTHER.

AND THE CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE HE GETS TO SEE THOSE R.S.

'S AND KNOWS WHAT IT SAYS, AND THAT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING THE LAST COUPLE YEARS BECAUSE WE CAN THROW THE POP BEGAN DA OUT THERE BUT JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY SAYS IT SAYS SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN IT DOES, AND THE PRIME EXAMPLE IS THAT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF BILL ON THE SENATE.

THEIR CONCERNS ARE NOT NECESSARILY TRUTHFUL.

SO WHEN WE START PLAYING THAT GAME IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR THE CHAIRMAN TO PUSH BACK, WHICH IS THEIR PREROGATIVE.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION BEFORE I LET YOU TWO GO.

WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE GOING HOME ISSUE, REPRESENTATIVE MOYLE, LET'S START WITH YOU.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE TAXES, IT'S GOING TO BE BUDGETS, IT'S GOING TO BE ROADS, AND THEN THE FOURTH THING IS GOING TO BE WHAT'S THIS NEW MONEY, THIS NEW MONOPOLY MONEY, THE FUNNY MONEY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SEND OVER, THOSE WILL BE THE FOUR ISSUES.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE TOO MUCH TO ADD TO THAT.

I THINK THE BIGGEST THING ON OUR PLATE IS THIS HUGE SURPLUS THAT WE'VE GOT AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY, THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO RETURN IT TO TAXPAYERS, BE IT VIA ROADS, VIA REBATES.

I THINK THAT'S OUR BIGGEST ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE THIS ENORMOUS SURPLUS BECAUSE IDAHOANS STUCK IT OUT AND SPENT LOCALLY AND NOW WE HAVE THIS ABUNDANCE THAT WE NEED TO RETURN TO OUR FOLKS.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MAJOR FOCUS TO GET US OUT OF HERE THIS YEAR.

>> HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER MIKE MOYLE, HOUSE MAJORITY CAUCUS CHAIR MEGAN BLANKSMA, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> FOR MY FULL CONVERSATION WITH REPRESENTATIVES MOYLE AND BLANKSMA, INCLUDING THEIR TAKE ON THE PROPERTY TAX PROPOSAL AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT DECENTRALIZING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, GO TO THE "IDAHO REPORTS" YOUTUBE PAGE.

YOU'LL FIND THE LINK AT IDAHOPTV.ORG/IDAHOREPORTS.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

>> PRESENTATION OF "IDAHO REPORTS" ON IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH THE GENEROUS SUPPORT OF THE LAURA MOORE CUNNINGHAM FOUNDATION, COMMITTED TO FULFILLING THE MOORE AND BETTIS FAMILY LEGACY OF BUILDING THE GREAT STATE OF IDAHO, BY THE FRIENDS OF IDAHO PUBLIC TELEVISION, AND BY THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING.

CAPTIONING PERFORMED BY LNS CAPTIONING WWW.LNSCAPTIONING.COM