RICK: ON OUR SHOW TONIGHT... SHOULD THE U.S.

CONSIDER TAXING WEALTH?

ARE WE HEADED FOR A SCIENTIFIC BRAIN DRAIN?

AND SHOULD THE DEMOCRATS CIRCUMVENT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?

THE "IVORY TOWER" PROFESSORS WEIGH IN ON THOSE ISSUES WHEN WE RETURN.

>> THIS PROGRAM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MEMBERS OF WCNY.

THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ >> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO "IVORY TOWER."

THANKS FOR JOINING US.

I'M RICK FENNER OF UTICA UNIVERSITY.

THE PROFESSORS AROUND THE TABLE ARE TARA ROSS OF ONONDAGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, JENNIFER STROMER-GALLEY OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, NORRELL EDWARDS OF LE MOYNE COLLEGE, AND GRANT REEHER OF SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY.

IN THE MIDTERM ELECTIONS CALIFORNIA VOTERS DEFEATED A PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE A ONE-TIME 5% TAX ON THE WEALTH OF BILLIONAIRES.

BUT WITH MOST AMERICANS CONCERNED ABOUT GROWING INCOME INEQUALITY AND THE NUMBER OF PROGRESSIVES WINNING ELECTIONS THIS MIDTERM IS THIS SOMETHING THE U.S.

SHOULD BE CONSIDERING?

>> WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IT.

I'M NOT SURE THE STATE LEVEL IS THE WAY TO GO ON THIS.

BUT, IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE RISE OF INEQUALITY IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, IT HAS BEEN LARGELY DRIVEN BY WHAT HAS HAPPENED AT THE TOP OF THE INCOME DISTRIBUTION.

AND THE STEEPEST RIDE UP HAS BEEN FOR THOSE AT THE VERY, VERY, VERY TOP.

SO, IT IS, I THINK, WORTH THINKING ABOUT.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED IN THIS IS THAT THE COALITION THAT EMERGED AGAINST THE PROPOSITION, I THINK, REVEALS SOMETHING THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SORT OUT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND GOING FORWARD.

THE GROUPS AGAINST THIS WERE DOCTORS, FIREFIGHTERS UNION, TEACHERS UNIONS, PLANNED PARENTHOOD AND SCHOOL BOARDS AND I THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE SOCIAL VERSUS THE ECONOMIC CLASS ISSUE THE DEMOCRATS WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.

THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY VERY QUICKLY.

HAVE YOU TO BEAR IN MIND.

THERE ARE NOT VERY MANY OF THESE PEOPLE.

ONLY 989 ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

255 OF THEM IN CALIFORNIA.

A FEW OF THEM HAVE LEFT IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS REFERENDUM BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

NONETHELESS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INTERESTING IF IT HAD PASSED BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A STATE EXPERIMENT IN THIS POLICY, AND WE COULD HAVE SEEN HOW IT WORKED OUT.

HOW MUCH CALIFORNIA WOULD HAVE BEEN HURT OR HELPED.

BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH THINKING ABOUT GOING DOWN THE ROAD, YES.

>> AS YOU SAID, THIS WAS JUST A FEW HUNDRED PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THIS.

WHY ARE FIREFIGHTERS AND SCHOOLTEACHERS AGAINST THIS, TARA?

>> WELL, THEIR CONCERN WAS THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MONEY THAT WOULD COME FROM THIS 5% TAX.

IT WAS VERY NARROWLY EARMARKED FOR CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, AND THEY FELT, IN A SENSE, THAT THEY-- THEIR CONCERNS, THEIR AREAS OF CONCERN, EDUCATION, MEDICAL NEEDS, WOULDN'T GET A FAIR SHARE, I GUESS, WOULD BE THE BEST THING TO SAY, OR MAYBE MORE OF A SHARE.

I WOULD JUST WANT TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON ONE THING, GRANT.

THE COUPLE OF BILLIONAIRES WHO LEFT CALIFORNIA, I DON'T REALLY THINK THEY WERE SO MUCH CONCERNED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEM.

I THINK THIS WAS STRATEGIC.

I THINK IT WAS TO MAKE THE POINT THAT, YES, THE WEALTHY WILL MOVE IF YOU PASS THIS.

BECAUSE I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT IT WAS ONLY THREE OF THEM, YOU KNOW.

IF THIS WAS SUCH A BIG CONCERN, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE.

>> NORRELL, NOW, GRANT SAID THAT WHILE THIS MAYBE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE AT THE STATE LEVEL, HE SAID MAYBE CONSIDER IT AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

GOVERNOR NEWSOME OF CALIFORNIA WAS AGAINST THIS AND SAID THE SAME THING.

ANY SENSE THIS MIGHT PLAY OUT BETTER AT A NATIONAL LEVEL?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK ULTIMATELY THE CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BILLIONAIRES HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE AROUND AND THEY WILL BE BOUNCING FROM STATE TO STATE WHERE IT WILL BE MOST CONVENIENT FOR THEM.

AS WELL AS I THINK SOME OF THE MATH MIGHT NOT BEAR OUT IN TERMS IF YOU LOSE SO MANY OF THESE BILLIONAIRES FROM YOUR STATE, IF THAT WILL BALANCE OUT WHAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GAIN IN TERMS OF THE TAX IF THEY JUST MOVE.

I THINK AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, IT SEEMS LIKE IT MIGHT MAKE MUCH MORE SENSE TO HAVE A HIGHER CORPORATE TAX, RIGHT?

ULTIMATELY THESE BILLIONAIRES ARE BILLIONAIRES BECAUSE OF THE WEALTH THEY ACCUMULATE FROM THE OWNERSHIP OF THESE PROFITABLE BUSINESSES SO WE NEED TO PERHAPS CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES THAT ALLOW FOR CORPORATIONS TO CONTINUE TO PROFIT AT RECORD NUMBERS, WHILE SLASHING JOBS AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS.

>> JENNY.

>> SURE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, GOING BACK TO WHAT GRANT SAID, I COMPLETELY AGREE WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING.

THE WEALTH GAP IN THE COUNTRY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES PUTS US ON PAR WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WHERE THERE IS GREAT ECONOMIC INSTABILITY.

AND SO THE CHALLENGE I SEE THOUGH WITH A WEALTH GAP IS HOW YOU ACTUALLY ESTIMATE THE WEALTH, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON STOCK VALUATION.

AND BECAUSE THE STOCK MARKET, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST IN THE LAST 48 HOURS, HAS CHANGED A LOT, GIVEN IT NVIDIA CHIP CONTROVERSY.

ART, WHEN YOU SIT DOWN TO ACTUALLY ESTIMATE WHAT THE TAX WOULD BE ON A WEALTH ESTIMATION, THAT SEEMS VERY CHALLENGING AND UNCLEAR.

>> NOW, WE HAVE A PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX.

ANY IDEAS AS TO WHY... >> NO, I MEAN YES, BUT IT'S NOTHING LIKE IT WAS 70 YEARS AGO.

>> JUST THE POINT I WAS GOING TO MAKE.

IT'S WORTH RECALLING THAT THE TOP MARGINAL RATE WHEN THE INCOME TAX WAS FIRST INTRODUCED-- AND IT CAME IN VERY HANDY AFTER IT WAS INTRODUCED-- TO FINANCE WORLD WAR I FOR US.

IT WAS 90%.

AND SO IF WE WORRY ABOUT SOAKING THE RICH, I MEAN YOU CAN'T GET MUCH MORE DRAMATIC THAN THAT.

IT WILL PUSH THE PROGRESSIVE ARGUMENT FOR THIS A LITTLE HARDER.

THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT YOU ARE NOT ONLY GOING TO POTENTIALLY LOSE BILLIONAIRES, BUT YOU ARE ALSO GOING TO LOSE ALL OF THE INCOME TAX THAT THEY WOULD HAVE GENERATED HAD THEY STAYED IN THE STATE.

I DON'T BUY THAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU COULD USE THAT ARGUMENT AGAINST ANY KIND OF PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX IF ANYBODY LEAVES THAT PARTICULAR JURISDICTION.

WHEN SOMEONE IS GONE, THEY'RE GONE AND YOU LOSE THEM THROUGHOUT.

SO I DID NOT BUY THAT PARTICULAR ARGUMENT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE.

THIS PROBABLY MAKES MORE SENSE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

I JUST WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE EXPERIMENT.

SO I WAS KIND OF ROOTING FOR IT TO PASS.

>> SO YOU ALL MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE INCOME TAX.

GIVEN THAT AT LEAST IN CALIFORNIA, NOT ONLY DID PROPOSITION 40 FAIL BUT THE BILLIONAIRES PUT PROPOSITION 42 ON THE BALLOT, WHICH PRECLUDES FUTURE WEALTH TAXES.

SO WHAT KIND OF CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE IF WE ARE GOING TO BE STUCK WITH AN INCOME TAX THAT MIGHT DEAL WITH THIS INCOMING INEQUALITY PROBLEM?

>> WE MIGHT LOOK AGAIN AT WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY TAXING CAPITAL GAINS AT.

SO WE ARE CURRENTLY TAXING CAPITAL GAINS ON LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS AT 15%, AND I THINK IT'S 18 OR 22%-- I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD-- FOR SHORT-TERM GAINS.

WE COULD LOOK AT THAT AGAIN BECAUSE THAT'S HOW ACTUALLY SOME OF THE ULTRA WEALTHY THEN ARE ACTUALLY GAINING THEIR TRUE REALIZED WEALTH IS THROUGH THE SALE OF THEIR STOCK.

IF THEY'RE SELLING IT AND ONLY PAYING 15% TAX, THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REST OF US ARE PAYING ON OUR INCOMES.

>> I WOULD JUST-- I LIKE THAT IDEA.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOUGH IS THAT IT SOMEHOW GRADUATED, OR THERE IS LIKE A TRIGGER POINT FOR THE LEVEL OF CAPITAL GAINS.

>> BASED ON YOUR OVERALL INCOME OR WEALTH OR SOMETHING.

>> SO THAT WE ARE NOT DINGING PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE CLASSES FOR SELLING SOME STOCK OR TRADING IN SOME MUTUAL FUNDS, YEAH.

>> BUT MOST OF THE WEALTHY DON'T HAVE TO SELL THEIR STOCKS IN ORDER TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLES.

AND THEN AT DEATH, CAPITAL GAINS TAX ARE ELIMINATED.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE PROBLEM THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE AROUND THAT THEY FOUND.

I WANTED TO RAISE, WHAT DO YOU THINK PROGRESSIVES ARE GOING TO DO GOING FORWARD BECAUSE BERNIE SANDERS ACTUALLY IN THE MAKE BILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE ACT-- I LOVE THE NAMES OF THESE THINGS-- SUGGESTED NOT ONLY A 5% TAX BUT ANNUALLY, AND THAT ANYONE WHO LEAVES THE COUNTRY PAY A 60% FEE.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO REACT TO THIS?

>> WELL, AGAIN, I THINK THESE ARE IDEAS WORTH DISCUSSING.

I THINK BERNIE PROBABLY TAKES IT A BIT TOO FAR, BUT THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR HIM.

WHAT I DO THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THE DEMOCRATS, NOT TO OPEN UP ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS-- I THINK THEY WILL DO WELL GOING FORWARD TO FOCUS ON THESE ECONOMIC ISSUES, AND TO REALLY SORT OF TAKE CLASS AS THEIR ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE REGARDS THAN A COALITION OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CULTURAL AND SOCIAL GROUPS.

IF YOU FOCUS ON THESE THINGS, IT DOES MOST OF THE WORK YOU ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THE OTHER REALMS AND DOESN'T GET THE BLOW-BACK THAT WOULD YOU SEE FOR EXAMPLE, BACK IN 2024.

>> GREAT.

RESTRICTIONS ON IMMIGRATION DEEP CUTS TO ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH AND THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND DELAYS AND CANCELLATIONS OF EXISTING GRANTS OF UNIVERSITIES.

THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES THAT HAVE LED SOME TO FEAR A SCIENTIFIC BRAIN DRAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.

JENNY, IS THIS FEAR REASONABLE?

HOW CONCERNED SHOULD WE BE?

>> YEAH, FOR SURE.

I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

I'M CURRENTLY IN A STEM FIELD AND I HAVE BEEN WATCHING ACTUALLY REALLY FOR ABOUT SIX YEARS NOW, THE IMPACTS OF FEDERAL POLICY ON IMMIGRATION AND VISAS REALLY START TO IMPACT OUR EDUCATIONAL MISSION, OUR STUDENTS AND THEIR EXPERIENCES.

SO, FROM MY OBSERVATION, THERE ARE THREE ISSUES HERE.

ONE OF THEM IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INTENTIONAL CURTAILING OF ACCESS FOR WORK VISAS FOR IMMIGRANTS COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES, COMBINED WITH INCREASING CHALLENGE FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE ABROAD TO COME TO THE UNITED STATES AND GET STUDENT VISAS.

AND THEN THERE IS ALSO THE ATTACKS ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE INABILITY OF FACULTY LIKE MYSELF TO BE ABLE TO GET RESEARCH GRANTS BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GRANT RESEARCH ENGINE HAS REALLY, REALLY CURTAILED.

AND ALL OF THOSE IN COMBINATION MEAN THAT WE'RE EDUCATING FEWER INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS.

THEY ARE NOT ABLE THEN TO GET JOBS AND HELP GROW OUR ECONOMY.

AND IF I MIGHT, OUR OWN CHAD SPARBER HAS DONE RESEARCH ON THIS AND HAS IDENTIFIED THAT IMMIGRANTS ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY.

SO, YES, I THINK WE HAVE A REAL CONCERN.

>> NORRELL, ANY IDEA WHY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS PURSUING ALL OF THESE POLICIES THAT SEEM TO BE, YOU KNOW, HARMING OUR ABILITY TO INNOVATE?

>> WELL, I MEAN I THINK IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THIS PUSH ON LIKE AN IDEOLOGICAL SHIFT, RIGHT?

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS CLEARLY ARTICULATED THAT THEY WANT UNIVERSITIES AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO KIND OF FALL IN LINE WITH THEIR IDEOLOGIES AND THAT'S YOUR PATHWAY TO RESOURCES; HOWEVER, OF COURSE, THAT IS DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH THE IDEA OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM.

AND SO I MEAN, I THINK THERE IS A REAL CONCERN AROUND BRAIN DRAIN AND I WILL JUST SAY ANECDOTALLY, I HAVE SEEN MY OWN ADS THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI.

I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE SCAMS BUT CERTAINLY IT FEELS LIKE THERE IS A REAL KIND OF INTEREST FOR OTHER COUNTRIES TO SAY THIS IS AN OPENING FOR US, RIGHT?

I MEAN ACCORDING TO THE "NEW YORK TIMES," PH.D.

APPLICATIONS FROM FOREIGN STUDENTS HAS SHRANK BY 21% AT LEADING RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS.

CANADA HAS DEDICATED A BILLION TO BRING 1,000 INTERNATIONAL RESEARCHERS.

SO REALLY THERE IS GOING TO BE A HOLE WHERE OTHER NATIONS CAN START HEAVILY RECRUITING.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

WHO IS GOING TO GAIN FROM THIS BRAIN DRAIN IF IT CONTINUES IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> CERTAINLY LET'S JUST SAY THE EUROPEAN UNION BECAUSE I'VE HEARD ANECDOTALLY THAT GERMANY IS HEAVILY RECRUITING PH.D.S IN STEM FIELDS.

CERTAINLY CHINA HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST.

CANADA HAS EXPRESSED INTEREST.

SO I THINK A NUMBER OF COUNTRIES ARE JUST, YOU KNOW, SORT OF OPENING THE DOOR FOR THESE STUDENTS, THESE GRADUATES.

I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO, IF YOU DON'T MIND, FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING THAT NORRELL WAS SPEAKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS TIGHTENING THIS.

AND I FOUND SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND IT'S A QUOTE "IF U.S.

UNIVERSITIES PROVE UNABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN HEALTHY AND POISONED DOSES OF FOREIGN INFLUENCE, POLICYMAKERS MAY HAVE TO."

AND THAT'S WHAT I REALLY THINK IS PART OF WHAT IS GOING ON HERE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

AND THIS TIGHTENING, YOU KNOW, OF THE GRANTS, TIGHTENING OF THE PROCESSES FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS WHO CONTRIBUTE.

AND THAT IS THAT FACT THAT THEY REALLY SEE THEMSELVES AS ADDRESSING A REAL AMERICAN NEED.

AND IN THIS ARTICLE BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION, IT WAS HEAVILY FOCUSED ON THESE FOREIGN-- IT WAS CONFUSING AND ALMOST A LITTLE WEIRD; THAT THESE FOREIGN STUDENTS ARE THE CAUSE FOR THE RISE OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN AMERICA.

>> GRANT, I HAD A QUESTION.

NOW THAT WE HAVE A DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY COMING IN BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE, IS THERE ANYTHING THE DEMOCRATS CAN DO TO TRY TO REVERSE THIS TIDE?

>> WELL, THEY CAN TRY TO DO SOMETHING WITH BUDGETS AND THEY CAN TRY TO, YOU KNOW, TRY TO INCREASE THE FUNDING AND BUILD BACK THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE.

I WANT TO TAKE A PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THIS AND MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS REALLY QUICKLY.

THAT I WANT TO SEPARATE THE ISSUE OF THE CUTTING OF FEDERAL SPENDING AND THE CUTTING OF FEDERAL JOBS AND THE CUTTING OF THE GRANTS FROM THE IDEOLOGICAL QUESTION.

AND I'M IN HEATED AGREEMENT WITH MY COLLEAGUES ON THE FIRST THING.

IT'S A PROBLEM.

AND WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REVERSE THIS.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE IS A ROLE FOR THE POLITICAL SYSTEM AND THE GOVERNMENT, THEREFORE, IN DECIDING AND INFLUENCING WHAT KIND OF WORK GETS DONE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FUND?

IT'S NOT NEW.

WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOREVER.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION DID THIS, IT EMPHASIZED DEI AND WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE PEOPLE DO WITH THEIR RESEARCH.

BEING A LITTLE PROVOCATIVE HERE, IN SOME SIGNIFICANT DEGREE, THIS IS A PROBLEM OF THE ACADEMIES OWN MAKING.

WE HAVE BEEN HEARING THIS COMPLAINT FOR 40 YEARS AND IGNORING IT.

WE HAVE BEEN IGNORING OUR CONSTITUENCY.

AND ANYBODY THAT SPENDS 10 MINUTES IN THE HALLWAY OF AN ACADEMIC INSTITUTION KNOWS THAT THERE IS A THERE THERE.

IS THIS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS IT?

NO, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR OWN HOUSE, TOO, IN GOING FORWARD AS WELL AS TRYING TO CONVINCE OUR POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES TO BUILD BACK THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR RESEARCH.

>> NOW WHAT WOULD THAT ENTAIL?

>> WELL, IT WOULD ENTAIL US, I THINK, TAKING AN HONEST LOOK AT OURS OURSELVES AND TAKING THE IDEA OF IDEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY-- AND I KNOW THIS WORD IS A TRIGGER WORD FOR SOME PEOPLE, BUT VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY SERIOUSLY.

IT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET.

ALL THAT I'M SEEING IS RETRENCHMENT AND DIGGING IN WHERE I AM.

AND WHERE I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR OWN HOUSE AND THEN I THINK WE NEED TO PRESS FOR BUILDING BACK OF THE KIND OF THINGS THAT JENNY IS CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING.

JENNY'S RESEARCH IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

BUT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT OUR JOBS AND OUR MISSION, I THINK, NEEDS A RETHINK.

>> I WILL JUST SAY THAT VIEWPOINT DIVERSITY CAN BE A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO HATE SPEECH AT TIMES AND FIGURING OUT THAT LANDSCAPE IS ALSO IMPORTANT, TIED UP IN SOME OF THE HEATED DEBATES THAT HAVE GONE ON AROUND THAT.

>> I HAVE HEARD HATE SPEECH FROM THE LEFT, SO I DON'T KNOW.

>> IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.

IN 2000 AND 2016, DEMOCRATS LOST THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DESPITE THEIR CANDIDATE HAVING RECEIVED THE MOST VOTES NATIONALLY.

FEARFUL OF THIS HAPPENING AGAIN, DEMOCRATS ARE CLOSE TO ENSURING THAT THE CANDIDATE THAT WINS THE POPULAR VOTE WILL ALSO WIN THE ELECTORAL VOTE.

NORRELL, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THIS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS THIS A GOOD IDEA?

>> I THINK THAT'S OF COURSE LIKE SO MANY THINGS, COMPLICATED.

IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

CERTAINLY THE HISTORY OF, I THINK, RECONSIDERING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS, YOU KNOW,PARALLEL WITH THE HISTORY OF SUPPRESSING THE BLACK VOTE.

HOWEVER, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT PATHWAY TO DO SO.

CERTAINLY I THINK CENTRIST DEMOCRATS MAY BE RESISTANT TO CHANGE AND CERTAINLY REPUBLICANS WILL NOT BE INTERESTED IN MEASURE TO CHANGE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE BECAUSE IT TENDS TO BE TYPICALLY IN THEIR FAVOR MUCH AND THERE IS ALSO THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INTERSTATE COMPACT AND IT HAS ITS OWN CHALLENGES AS WELL.

SINCE 2007, 18 DEMOCRATIC RUN STATES AND D.C.

HAVE HAD A PLEDGE TO HAVE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES GO TO A NATIONWIDE POPULAR VOTE WINNER, HOWEVER IT DOESN'T ACTIVATE UNTIL THEY GET TO 70 ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES.

SO THAT NOW WITH THE SHIFT IN THE MID TERMS, IT COULD BE A PATHWAY TO THAT.

HOWEVER IT SEEMS LIKE THEY KNEE NEW STATES TO BE ABLE TO PASS THE LAWS TO JOIN THE COMPACT AND WHO KNOWS IF THERE BE COURT CASES CHALLENGING THIS SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE A FRAUGHT PATH TOWARDS THAT.

>> I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS.

>> GREAT.

>> I THINK THE NATIONAL VOTER-- NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE COMPACT IS DUMB.

I DON'T GET IT.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND 100% I THINK THE CORAL COLLEGE IS REALLY PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE POPULAR WILL SHOULD TAKE THE DAY.

AND WE HAVE SEEN, OF COURSE, IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, TWO ELECTIONS THAT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS CHOSEN AGAINST THE WILL OF THE POPULAR VOTE.

I DON'T GET WHY NOT JUST DO WHAT STATES LIKE MAINE AND NEBRASKA ARE DOING AND SHIFT THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE OR BASICALLY TIE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE VOTES TO THE POPULAR VOTE WITHIN THE STATE BY DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD THEN BETTER ALLOW THE COMPLEXITIES OF EACH STATE AND ITS GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS TO HELP DRIVE THE VOTER WILL.

I JUST DON'T GET IT.

>> GRANT.

>> WELL, I MIGHT BE LETTING THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD.

BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT SUGGESTION IS THAT STILL LEAVES MISREPRESENTATION FROM THE SENATE IN THE EQUATION BECAUSE MAINE AND NEBRASKA GIVE THEIR OTHER VOTES, THEIR TWO VOTES TO WINNER TAKE ALL BASICALLY.

>> THAT IS TRUE.

>> SO THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT COULD BE SOLVED TOMORROW IF THE STATES JUST DECIDED NOT TO ALLOCATE THEIR VOTES THIS WAY.

AND SO THE COMPACT IS BECAUSE NO STATE WANTS TO DO THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN AS SERIOUSLY AS THEY WOULD HAVE BEFORE.

I WOULD MAKE A VERY PROVOCATIVE ARGUMENT.

I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH MYSELF HERE.

BUT THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE FOR KEEPING THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN TODAY'S ELECTORAL ENVIRONMENT.

AND IT'S THIS: THE WAY WE WORK IT NOW, WE HAVE ABOUT 7 TO 10 BATTLEGROUND STATES THAT REALLY DECIDE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

COLLECTIVELY, THEY DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF REPRESENTING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.

IF WE WERE TO SOMEHOW GET RID OF THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND WE WERE TO JUST HAVE A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE, WHAT WOULD THE DYNAMIC OF THE ELECTION LOOK LIKE?

THE ELECTION WOULD BE ABOUT TURNOUT IN THE URBAN AREAS AND PERSUASION IN THE SUBURBAN AREAS.

THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE DUCKS ARE TO HUNT FOR.

AND A LOT OF THE COUNTRY WOULD GET LEFT OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION.

>> A LOT OF THE COUNTRY IS BEING LEFT OUT NOW.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO GET TARA'S TAKE ON THIS.

>> I'M SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THE OTHER ISSUE WITH EXACTLY WHAT GRANT WAS SAYING IS THE COST.

AS WE'VE JUST SEEN IN THE MID TERMS, WHEN YOU ARE REALLY OUT THERE TRYING TO GET EVERY LITTLE VOTE, IT IS VERY EXPENSIVE AND IF YOU SUDDENLY PUT THAT ON A NATIONAL LEVEL AND YOU ARE TRYING TO GET EVERY VOTE FOR PRESIDENT, THAT WOULD MAKE-- >> COULD THIS HURT THE DEMOCRATS IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SEEN THEM MAKE SOME INROADS IN THE NUMBER OF SMALLER STATES?

THIS IS LIKE MOVING PRIMARY DATES.

COULD THIS BACKFIRE IN ANY WAY ON THEM?

>> TYPICALLY WHAT WE FOUND IS WHEN THE DEMOCRATS FIND SOMETHING THAT THEY THINK WORKS FOR THEM, THEY DON'T THINK DOWN THE ROAD AND IT ULTIMATELY BENEFITS THE REPUBLICANS.

>> GREAT.

WONDERFUL, NOW IT'S TIME FOR THE ARE PROFESSORS TO TAKE OUT THEIR GRADE BOOKS STARTING WITH THEIR FS.

TARA.

>> MY F GOES TO THE OHIO STATE WEXNER MEDICAL CENTER TO THE ADMINISTRATORS, AFTER BUILDING A $2 BILLION MEDICAL TOWER, THE ADMINISTRATION FAILED TO HIRE ENOUGH NURSING STAFF TO WORK THE TOWER.

THEY RELIED FOR ABOUT A YEAR ON BASICALLY AN INCENTIVE PAY PROGRAM BUT DECIDED THEY WOULDN'T CONTINUE IT THIS LAST OCTOBER.

AND SO NOW THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH NURSING STAFF TO ACTUALLY CARRY OUT THE LIFE SAVING SURGERIES THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO.

>> JENNIFER.

>> SO MY F GOES TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO CAN'T SHOW UP TO VOTE.

ON TUESDAY THE HOUSE VOTED 211 TO 204 TO SEND AN IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY TO PETE HEGSETH.

11 DEMOCRATS MISSED THAT VOTE.

SEVERAL BLAMING TRAFFIC AFTER A FUNDRAISING EVENT.

SEVEN REPUBLICANS WERE ABSENT, TOO.

A TRAFFIC JAM IS A TERRIBLE EXCUSE, EVEN FOR THIS DO NOTHING CONGRESS.

REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE ACTUALLY MEANS THAT YOU SHOW UP AND DO YOUR JOB.

>> NORRELL.

>> MY F GOES TO BUG HALL WHO PLAYED ALFALFA IN THE 1994 LITTLE RASCALS.

HE HAS SINCE TAKEN A POVERTY VOW.

HE HAS A GOFUNDME SEARCHING FOR FUNDS BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF HIS SIXTH CHILD AND I THINK IT IS REQUIRE RESPONSIBLE TO BRING CHILDREN INTO THE WORLD AND REFUSE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM.

>> GRANT.

>> I'M GIVING MY F TO NORTH COUNTRY CONGRESSMAN-ELECT ANTHONY CONSTANTINO FOR HIS MEAN, VINDICTIVE OBSCENITY LADEN VICTORY SPEECH ON ELECTION NIGHT IT WAS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO CONGRESS, THE NATION AND STATE AND THE REGION.

HOPEFULLY HE CAN GROW UP IN OFFICE.

>> FOR SOME GOOD NEWS HOW.

WHO GETS YOUR A, TARA.

>> TO THE LATE MISS DOROTHY PETER SHABAZZ WHO DIED AT THE END OF OCTOBER HERE IN SYRACUSE.

SHE DESERVES AN A FOR HER RESPONSE TO THE NEEDS OF BLACK WOMEN IN THE SYRACUSE COMMUNITY.

IN THE 1990S, BASICALLY SYRACUSE WAS A BLACK BEAUTY DESERT FOR BLACK WOMEN.

SHE RESPONDED TO THAT NEED BY OPENING HER OWN BEAUTY SUPPLY STORE AND PROVIDING FOR AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMEN IN THIS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.

>> GREAT.

JENNY.

>> SO MY A GOES TO THE END OF THE TESLA CYBER TRUCK.

TESLA SAID PRODUCTION STARTS STOPS NEXT YEAR BECAUSE SALES WERE A FRACTION OF WHAT WAS HOPED.

TO ME, THE TRUCK WAS HUBRIS ON WHEELS, ENVISIONED BY A MAN WARPED WITH MORE WEALTH THAN NATIONS.

THE TRUCK PHYSICALLY EMBODIED ELON MUSK'S VISION WHERE A FEW DOMINATE THE MANY THROUGH COLD, ANGULAR DISDAIN ON THE ROAD, IN GOVERNMENT AND NOW A.I.

DRIVERS AT LEAST HAVE THE SENSE TO LOOK AT THE CYBER TRUCK AND SAY NO.

>> NORRELL.

>>MY A GOES TO JASON JONES AND HIS DECADE LONG COURT CASE THAT HAS LED TO THE OFFICIAL DECRIMINALIZATION OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN TRINIDAD TOBAGO.

HE WON HIS CASE IN 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT BUT IT WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL AND WENT TO THE PRIVY COUNSEL.

THIS COULD CREATE A PATHWAY FOR OVERTURNING COLONIAL ERA LAWS AND OTHER CARIBBEAN NATIONS.

>> I'M GIVING AN A TO MY STUDENTS WHO VOTED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN LAST WEEK'S MID-TERM ELECTIONS.

WELCOME TO THE BEST CLUB IN THE WORLD.

KEEP IT UP AND BE SURE TO HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE.

>> ONE THING THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN IN MY CLASSES IS THAT YOUNG PEOPLE AREN'T OUT THERE VOTING AS OFTEN AS I WOULD LIKE.

ARE YOU SEEING IN YOUR CLASSES AN INCREASE IN YOUNG VOTER PARTICIPATION?

>> WELL, I GAVE MY STUDENTS ONE POINT EXTRA CREDIT IF THEY VOTED.

THEY HAD TO TAKE A PICTURE OF THEMSELVES VOTING OR FILLING OUT THEIR BALLOTS AND FOR STUDENTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES, WE HAD AN AIRPORT FOR THEM.

>> THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR TONIGHT WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE TOPICS WE DISCUSSED.

PLEASE WRITE TO AT DRESS ON YOUR SCREEN.

AND IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW AGAIN OR IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE THAT MAYBE MISSED IT, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO TO WCNY.ORG WHERE ALL OF OUR SHOWS ARE ARCHIVED.

I'M RICK FENNER AND FOR ALL OF US AT "IVORY TOWER," HAVE A GOOD