>>> CUTTING TAXES FOR WEALTHY OHIOANS WELCOME TO COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD, I'M MIKE THOMPSON.

THE THIRD VERSION OF THE STATE BUDGET IS OUT, AND IT PROPOSES CUTTING TAXES FOR ANY OHIOAN MAKING MORE THAN $100,000 PER YEAR.

THE STATE SENATE WOULD DO THAT BY FLATTENING THE STATE INCOME TAX.

IF APPROVED, OHIO'S INCOME TAX RATE WOULD BE 2.75% FOR EVERYONE.

TAXPAYERS WHO EARN $100,000 OR MORE, NOW PAY 3.5%.

SO THEY WOULD SEE A 21% TAX CUT.

SUPPORTERS SAY A FLAT TAX WILL MAKE OHIO MORE ATTRACTIVE TO BUSINESSES AND BOOST THE ECONOMY.

OPPONENTS SAY IT'S A PAYOFF FOR UPPER INCOME OHIOANS.

>>> ANDREW TOBIAS, THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, FLATTENING THE INCOME TAX IN OHIO.

WHAT IS THE CHANCES OF THIS GETTING THROUGH THIS TIME?

>> THE CHANCES ARE PRETTY GOOD.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF STUFF LIKE TAX COLLECTION, DATA COMING IN, THERE'S THE FEDERAL BUDGET MIGHT MAKE SOME CUTS TO MEDICAID.

THAT MAY BE CHANGING THE FISCAL PICTURE FOR THE STATE.

THAT MAKES THE NUMBERS NOT ADD UP.

THIS HAS BEEN A LONG-TERM PARTY FOR REPUBLICANS, AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN COVERING THE STATE HOUSE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT VIVEK WANTS TO DO.

SO I JUST THINK IT'S VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT REPUBLICANS WANT TO DO AND THEY MADE THE NUMBERS ADD UP.

AS LONG AS THAT REMAINS THE CASE, THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

>> WHY WAS THIS NOT IN THE BUDGET?

WAS IT POLITICS IN THE PROCESS?

LAST MINUTE YOU THROW THIS OUT THERE?

>> I'M NOT A BUDGET WHIZ.

MATT'S CONCERN WAS IN ORDER TO FIND THE MONEY FOR THE TAX CUT, A TAX EXCEPTION FOR BUSINESSES.

THAT IS SOMETHING REPUBLICANS LOOKED AT IN THE PAST.

AND IT SURVIVED.

SO MAYBE JUST THEY HAD A DIFFERENT IDEA ON HOW TO MAKE THE NUMBERS ADD UP.

>> BILLION DOLLAR, HERB, CAN THE STATE AFFORD IT?

>> OF COURSE IT CAN.

I MEAN, THE QUESTION BECOMES, WHAT ARE OTHER SOURCES OF INCOME?

WHAT ARE OTHER PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE GROWTH AND REVENUE?

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

AND PRESUMABLY, IF THE MEDICAID BUDGET SUPPORT GOES BELOW 90%, THEY WILL THEN CUT OFF PEOPLE WHO ARE ON MEDICAID EXPANSION.

YOU WANT TO CUT THEM OFF AT THE SAME TIME YOU ARE DOING A TAX BREAK FOR THE WEALTHY, THEY MIGHT SAY YES.

WE CAN LIVE WITH BOTH.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY MIRRORING WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.

I THINK YOU'LL BE SEEING HERE THAT THE TAX SYSTEM BOTH IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN OHIO WILL BE HAVING MORE BENEFITS, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, THOSE WHO ARE MOST WEALTHY.

>> I WOULD RESPECTFULLY CHALLENGE THAT TALKING POINT AS A TAX CUT FOR THE WEALTHY.

FOR THE LONGEST TIME, ANYONE MAKING $26,000 OR LESS PAYS ZERO INCOME TAX.

EVERYONE AROUND THIS TABLE MAKES MORE THAN $26,000 A YEAR, WHETHER IT BE RETIREMENT INCOME OR INCOME WITH OUR JOBS.

SO THIS IS WORKING CLASS PEOPLE MAKING $30, $40, $60,000 OR MORE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO CEILING.

SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS HELPS A VAST MAJORITY OF OHIOANS.

IT'S A GOOD THING.

>> THE MEDIAN INCOME IN OHIO IS $39,000.

SO RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE PAYING 2.75, THEY WILL NOT SEE A TAX CUT.

IF YOU ARE MAKING $100,000 OR $200,000 OR $300,000, THEY'LL SEE THE TAX CUT.

HOW DOES IT HELP THE WORKING CLASS PEOPLE MAKING ON AVERAGE $40,000 A YEAR.

>> OR $50,000 OR $60,000.

NOT JUST AT THE MILLIONAIRE, BUT A FAMILY MAKING $100,000 IN OHIO, NOT DOING THAT GREAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE INFLATION, WHERE WE'RE AT IN COLUMBUS IS >> SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THE MEDIAN INCOME, WHICH IS $70,000.

>> SO IF A FAMILY MAKING $70,000, THEY WILL SEE BENEFIT.

IT'S RELATIVE ON WHAT THEY CURRENTLY PAY.

IF YOU ARE A WEALTHY PERSON, YOU PAY A LOT MORE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE MEANS, YOU PAY LESS, BUT GOING TO PAY LESS.

WE COMPLAIN ABOUT BRAIN DRAIN, WE COMPLAIN ABOUT PEOPLE LEAVING THE STATE.

THEY ARE GOING TO STATES LIKE FLORIDA.

WE HAVE TO COMPETE.

>> MANY TIMES AT THE STATE AND THE NATIONAL LEVEL, WE CLAIM THAT TAX CUTS BENEFIT EVERYBODY.

AND IN MANY CASES, THEY DO.

BUT YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHO BENEFITS MORE?

WHERE IS THE GREATEST SHARE OF THE BENEFIT GOING TO?

AND THAT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION.

>> HERE'S THE NUMBER.

I HATE TO THROW NUMBERS, BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW.

SOMEONE MAKING $200,000 A YEAR RIGHT NOW, IF THIS PASSES, WOULD SAVE $1500 A YEAR IN TAXES.

NOT TINY AMOUNT, BUT IT'S PRETTY SMALL.

SOMEONE MAKING A MILLION IN TAXES.

ANDREW, OHIO HAS CUT TAXES FOR 20 YEARS, SHRUNK THE NUMBER OF TAX BRACKETS FOR 20 YEARS AND OUR ECONOMY IS STILL KIND OF, MEH.

SO HOW DO THEY THINK IT WILL HELP THE ECONOMY?

>> THAT'S THE ARGUMENT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN MAKING.

WHEN MIKE DEWINE BECAME GOVERNOR, HE FELT TAXES HAVE BEEN CUT ENOUGH.

WE SEE REPUBLICANS CONTINUE TO TAX THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR.

SO I KNOW THEY MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IF TAXES ARE TOO HIGH, OUT OF STEP WITH SURROUNDING STATES, IT CAN BE A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.

REPUBLICANS, WHERE THERE ARE ZERO INCOME TAX AT ALL.

>> IS THERE A SYMBOLIC EFFECT OF THIS, HERB, IF FLORIDA HAS NO INCOME TAX, TEXAS HAS NO INCOME TAX.

IF OHIO JOINS THEM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY.

>> IT BECOMES A SELLING POINT FOR OHIO.

THIS IS ALWAYS ARGUED THAT CUT TAXES, AND IN FACT, YOUR ECONOMY WILL EXPAND AND THAT THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICES THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING IN YOUR STATE?

ISN'T IT IMPORTANT FOR BUSINESS LOCATION AND RELOCATION OR WHATEVER?

AND I THINK IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, THAT REPUBLICANS WOULD LIKE TO USE THE ARGUMENT THAT TAX CUTS BUILD THE ECONOMY.

DEMOCRATS WILL USE THE ARGUMENT, IT'S UNFAIR, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DO THE TAX CUTS.

>> HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF TAX CUTS PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THE EDUCATION SYSTEM, BECAUSE WE ARE, AGAIN, KIND OF MEH WHEN IT COMES TO EDUCATION RANKINGS, MIKE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> GREAT QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

THE FINANCE CHAIR SAID AT THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE THAT THEY ARE INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL $636 MILLION FOR SCHOOLS ACROSS THE STATE.

THAT'S ON TOP OF THE $1 BILLION WE GAVE IN THE LAST BUDGET.

SO WE'RE UP TO $1.6 BILLION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE STATE HOUSE OUTSIDE OF WHAT THEY ARE GETTING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

THEY ARE BEING FUNDED.

>> WHEN DO WE TAKE THAT --SAY THIS PASSES AND IT IS FLAT 2.75, ANDREW, WHEN DOES THE EFFORT COME TO LOWER THAT EVEN MORE AND ELIMINATE THE INCOME TAX?

IS THAT VIVEK IF HE BECOMES GOVERNOR?

>> I THINK IT'S AN INEVITABLELY THAT THEY WILL CUT THE INCOME TAX.

I WOULD LOOK FOR IT TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, TO BE HONEST.

>> WE'RE IN RELATIVELY GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES NATIONALLY, HERB, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A RECESSION HITS?

>> WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH OUR VARIOUS RAINY DAY FUNDS.

ONE OF WHICH I GUESS WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT.

AND ONE THAT I NEVER REALLY KNEW WAS SO SUBSTANTIAL.

IN FACT, LOOK, I AGREE.

THEY WILL TRY TO CUT THE INCOME TAX FURTHER IN THE FUTURE.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES?

AND THAT TO ME IS A MORE SERIOUS DISCUSSION.

I'M GLAD THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THERE'S AN EFFORT TO, IN FACT, HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT WILL BASICALLY ABOLISH THE PROPERTY TAX, WHICH WILL BE DEVASTATING, PARTICULARLY FOR IN FACT, IT'S NOT LIKELY TO MAKE THE BALLOT THIS YEAR.

IT'S SO DIFFICULT TO GET THE SIGNATURES.

WHAT IF IT MAKES THE BALLOT IN 2026 AND WHAT IF, IN FACT, VIVEK, WHO EARLIER ON MADE A CARELESS STATEMENT ABOUT ABOLISHING THE PROPERTY TAX AND THE INCOME TAX.

WHAT IF THE ONLY PEOPLE OPPOSING IT ARE SOME DEMOCRATS SAYING IT WILL DESTROY THE STATE, BUT THE REPUBLICANS SOMEHOW ARE TRAPPED IN THIS?

THAT WILL BE A DISASTER.

>>> IT CAME AS A SURPRISE TO MANY THIS WEEK WHEN WE LEARNED THE STATE HAS NEARLY $4 BILLION IN UNCLAIMED MONEY.

THAT'S MONEY OHIOANS HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT -MONEY IN OLD INACTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS, FORGOTTEN SECURITY DEPOSITS, UNCASHED PAY CHECKS.

IT'S A LOT OF MONEY AND IT'S JUST SITTING THERE WAITING TO BE CLAIMED.

NOW THE STATE SENATE WANTS TO GIVE SOME OF IT TO THE CLEVELAND BROWNS TO HELP PAY FOR A NEW DOMED STADIUM.

THE SENATE PLAN WOULD TAKE ABOUT A THIRD OF THE UNCLAIMED FUNDS AND PUT IT INTO AN PROJECTS.

THIS IS THE LATEST PLAN TO HELP THE BROWNS BUILD A DOMED STADIUM OUTSIDE CLEVELAND.

GOVERNOR DEWINE WANTS TO TAX SPORTS BETTING COMPANIES.

THE HOUSE SUGGESTS BORROWING $600 MILLION.

ANDREW, I SUGGEST IF THIS PLAN WORKS, WE NAME IT THE UNCLAIMED FUNDS DOME IN CLEVELAND.

DID YOU KNOW THIS MONEY WAS THERE?

$4BILLION.

>> I'M AWARE OF THIS FUND.

I'M A FORMER SMALL TOWN NEWSPAPER REPORTER AND I'VE BEEN IN A POSITION, WHAT AM I GOING TO WRITE ABOUT?

THE STATE ISSUED PRESS RELEASES, REMINDING PEOPLE TO GET YOUR MONEY.

I LOOKED AT IT IN THE PAST.

I FOUND A COUPLE HUNDRED DOLLARS FROM MY GRANDPARENTS, THAT KIND OF THING.

I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS $4 OR $5 BILLION IN THIS ACCOUNT.

THAT CAME AS A SURPRISE TO ME.

IT'S CREATIVE, IF NOTHING ELSE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO THINK ABOUT THIS MONEY IS SITTING HERE, WE COULD MAKE MORE USE OUT OF IT.

OF COURSE, IT RAISES THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS WILL BE SOLVENT FOR PEOPLE WHO CLAIM THE MONEY AGAIN.

CURRENTLY, THEY HOLD ON TO IT, AND THIS WOULD SET A TEN-YEAR LIMIT.

CERTAINLY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS FAIR WITH WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

BUT IT IS THE GOVERNMENT.

THEY HAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST SITTING AROUND.

MAKE SENSE THAT THEY CAN GET SOMETHING OUT OF IT.

>> HERB, THE UNCLAIMED FUNDS WEBSITE DID NOT CRASH THIS WEEK.

I LOOKED, I CHECKED.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

MY DAUGHTER HAS $25 WAITING FOR HER.

>> I THINK IT'S A VERY CREATIVE IDEA AND AGAIN, IT'S A SOLUTION THAT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE BROWN STADIUM.

ALSO 2/3 OF THE MONEY THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT WOULD GO TO OTHER PROJECTS OR WHATEVER.

AND I THINK THEY WERE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IT, TRYING TO PHASE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE FIRST DOLLAR IS GOING OUT ARE THE DOLLARS THAT HAVE BEEN UNCLAIMED FOR THE LONGEST PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT IF YOU AND I HAVE SOME UNCLAIMED FUNDS AND THEY ARE RELATIVELY RECENT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THEM.

BUT AT SOME POINT, THAT MONEY RUNS OUT.

BUT WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS A ONE-TIME EXPENDITURE.

IN FACT, IT'S NOT AN ON GOING KIND OF EXPENDITURE.

I THINK IT'S A BETTER IDEA THAN DOING BONDING.

BONDING YOU ARE TAKING ON MORE DEBT AND PAYING OFF A DEBT OUT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND.

SO THIS IS REALLY KIND OF INTERESTING.

MIKE DEWINE'S TAX INCREASES, TAX INCREASE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT WILL FLY.

>> MIKE, $4 BILLION, THAT COMPOUND FUND A LOT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, HIGH SPEED RAIL.

WHY SHOULD IT GO TO THE SPORTS OWNERS?

>> WE HAVE AN IMMEDIATE NEED.

>> NEED FOR A DOME STADIUM?

>> IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

TELL ME THE LAST TIME OHIO HAD ANYTHING GOING FOR IT, MOST OF THEM GOING FOR IT.

SO THIS IS NOT JUST BRINGING A STADIUM, IT'S BRINGING HOTELS, BARS, RESTAURANTS, CONDOS, HOUSING, OFFICE, SO IT'S A HUGE COMPLEX.

I'VE BEEN TO THE DALLAS COWBOYS STADIUM.

LOT GOING ON.

IT WILL RAISE A LOT OF REVENUE, TOO.

BUT YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS PROFESSOR SAID, IT DOESN'T DIP INTO A BOND AND INTEREST PAYMENTS AND OUR GENERAL REVENUE FUND HAVING TO PAY THAT BACK.

IT'S AWESOME.

THE STATE SAID LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO DO $2 MILLION IN A PUBLIC SERVICE CAMPAIGN, GO CHECK THIS WEBSITE.

CLICK HERE.

IF IT'S YOUR MONEY, TAKE IT.

THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO SWIPE IT OUT FROM UNDER PEOPLE'S FEET.

THEY ARE SAYING, GO GET IT AND WE'LL START USING THIS IF YOU DON'T.

>> SO, BUT THE BROWNS OWNER IS A BILLIONAIRE.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT WHY CAN'T PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND ALSO QUESTION WHETHER IT REALLY DOES BENEFIT THE ECONOMY.

MANY STUDIES SAY IT DOESN'T.

>> IT WILL, BECAUSE NOT JUST BUILDING A STADIUM.

THEY ARE BUILDING ALL THE OTHER THINGS.

ALL NFL STADIUMS ARE BILLIONAIRES.

THEY WOULD GIVE THEIR RIGHT ARM TO GET THE BROWNS AND THE BENGALS.

WE WERE LUCKY TO GET THEM BACK ONCE.

IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN A THESE THINGS ARE ECONOMIC DRIVERS AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM.

YOU CAN'T LOSE THEM.

>> WHAT AN ENTHUSIASTIC ENDORSEMENT.

>> GO BROWNS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE POLITICS OF THIS.

THERE WAS A LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURAL THING THAT SOME MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE, REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS TRIED TO TEAM UP.

I DON'T KNOW IT WOULD HAVE TANKED THE HOUSE VERSION OF THIS, BUT THEY TRIED.

AND THERE IS POLLING THAT SAYS THAT 70%, PLUS PEOPLE WHEN YOU ASK THEM, DO YOU WANT TO FUND IT THIS WAY?

THEY SAY NO.

SO, I DON'T THINK IT'S A GUARANTEE THAT THIS WILL MAKE IT THROUGH.

I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

I WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF IT DOES.

>> ALL THESE PROJECTS, ALWAYS GET JUSTIFIED.

IT WILL BUILD THE ECONOMY.

JUST LIKE TAX CUTS WILL ALWAYS BUILD THE ECONOMY.

IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA OUT THERE AND YOU WANT TO GAIN SUPPORT, YOU SAY IT WILL BUILD THE ECONOMY.

BECAUSE IT WILL BUILD THE ECONOMY, AND I MEAN, IT'S WONDERFUL TO HEAR THIS THE NOTION THAT THERE ARE 30 CITIES IN THE COUNTRY THAT WILL GIVE THEIR LEFT ARM TO GIVE THE CLEVELAND BROWNS.

>> KANSAS CITY REJECTED PUBLIC FUNDING FOR THAT STADIUM.

IT WASN'T CLOSE.

THEY WON THE SUPER BOWL.

ANYWAY.

>>> THE US SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK SIDED WITH AN OHIO WOMAN WHO CLAIMS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION.

MARLENE AMES WHO IS STRAIGHT, SAYS SHE LOST POSITIONS TO GAY WORKERS AT THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES.

A UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT RULED SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO MEET A HEIGHTENED BURDEN TO PROVE WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION.

MANY APPEALS COURT HAD REQUIRED MEN AND WHITE PEOPLE TO MEET A MORE DEMANDING STANDARD WHEN CLAIMING DISCRIMINATION.

THE COURT DID NOT RULE ON AMES' CLAIM BUT SENT THE CASE BACK TO LOWER COURTS.

>>> MIKE, THIS WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION AND WRITTEN BY JACKSON, THE ONLY BLACK WOMAN ON THE COURT.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY?

>> IT SPEAKS VOLUMES AND LOUDLY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT ALL THE LAWS APPLY TO ALL THE PEOPLE, ALL THE TIME.

PEOPLE AND SOME PEOPLE WITH THE RIGHT DECISION.

I APPLAUSE THE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERALS FOR COMING TOGETHER.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT IN 1964 WAS A SACRED LAW, AND IT NEEDS TO PROTECT EVERY SINGLE PERSON.

AND IN THIS CASE, A WHITE WOMAN.

SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE A BARRIER TO ENTRY TO THE COURT SYSTEM FOR RELIEF, JUST BECAUSE SHE HAPPENS TO BE WHITE AND STRAIGHT.

AND THE COURT SAID SHE IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY DIDN'T RULE ON THE MERITS.

SHE HAS TO PROVE HER CASE.

SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO DO A HEIGHTENED STANDARD TO DO IT.

ANDREW WEARS GLASSES, HE HAS A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN I DO.

IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THE COURT ABSOLUTELY GOT IT RIGHT.

>> THE APPEALS COURT, HERB, ARE TRYING TO RIGHT THE WRONGS OF THE PAST.

AND WAS THAT WRONG?

>> YEAH, I THINK THE SUPREME COURT WAS RIGHT ON TARGET HERE, AND IT IS ACTUALLY A VERY COMMON SENSE DECISION.

THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, AND FOR THE LOWER COURTS TO SORT OF SET ANOTHER BARRIER IN PLACE, WAS SIMPLY INAPPROPRIATE.

DECISION, AND THANK GOODNESS IT WAS UNANIMOUS, THAT TAKES IT OFF THE TABLE.

AND MAKES THE POINT VERY CLEARLY.

THE LAW APPLIES EQUALLY TO ALL CLAIMANTS.

>> WE'RE IN THIS CULTURE OF DUI IS UNDER ATTACK AND THOSE PROGRAMS ARE TRYING TO RIGHT THE WRONGS OF, YOU KNOW, CENTURIES, DECADES PAST.

THIS ONE IS UNANIMOUS.

THAT SHOULD HELP PUT THIS ONE ASIDE, DO YOU THINK?

>> YEAH, I'M NOT REALLY, A LEGAL SCHOLAR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S INTERESTING TO CONSIDER THIS IN TANDEM WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

THERE IS A POLITICAL SHIFT IN THE COUNTRY, WHETHER OR NOT THAT AFFECTED THIS DECISION, YOU KNOW, AWAY FROM THOSE TYPES OF BET THINKING, I GUESS I DON'T NOW HOW TO DESCRIBE IT.

IT IS INTERESTING, IT'S A CHANGE, I THINK.

>> BUT LIKE IF AN ORGANIZATION IS TRYING TO DIVERSIFY ITS WORK FORCE TO MAKE SURE THE FOLKS HELPING CUSTOMERS REFLECT THE RACIAL MAKEUP OR THE GENDER MAKEUP OR THE SEXUAL CUSTOMER BASE, IS IT WRONG TO SAY, OKAY, IF TWO PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS TO GO WITH THE PERSON OF COLOR, FOR INSTANCE, OVER THE WHITE PERSON?

>> CERTAINLY NOT.

IF THEY HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS, SURE.

>> WHAT IF THE BLACK PERSON IS SLIGHTLY LESS QUALIFIED THAN THE WHITE PERSON, BUT THEY FEEL IT IS MORE VALUABLE TO HAVE A DIVERSE PERSON IN THIS POSITION?

>> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

IF SOMEONE FEELS THEY WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, THEY GIVE THEM RELIEF AT A COURT OF LAW.

BUT YOU KNOW, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS CASE, SHE DIDN'T GET THE JOB BECAUSE SHE WAS STRAIGHT AND WHITE AND SHE WAS DEMOTED.

THAT'S WHY SHE WENT AND SUED.

SHE GOT DEMOTED.

>> COMPANIES ARE LOOKING TO DIVERSIFY THEIR EMPLOYEES.

THEY SHOULD ALSO MAKE A GREATER EFFORT TO EXPAND THE POOL AND THE WAY THEY ARE LOOKING.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK PEOPLE FORGET ABOUT.

IT'S NOT JUST THE QUESTION.

IN FACT, WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT FAVORITISM.

WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT, ARE YOU LOOKING TOWARD VETERANS?

ARE YOU LOOKING TO PEOPLE IN THE RURAL AREA?

ARE YOU LOOKING AT DISABLED?

WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN YOUR WHEEL HOUSE TEN YEARS AGO, BUT TODAY, REALLY SHOULD BE.

>> YOU KNOW, ARE WE AT A POINT IN OUR CULTURE WHERE WE NO LONGER HAVE TO CORRECT THE HARMS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST GOING BACK TO SLAVERY, OF COURSE.

AND THEN JIM CROWE AND DEDISCRIMINATION, SYSTEMIC RACISM, THINGS LIKE THAT.

ARE WE AT THAT POINT YET, HERB?

>> IT DEPENDS ON WHO THE VICTIMIZED GROUPS ARE.

HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, THAT WE'RE NOW RECOGNIZING, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TREATED THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION IN A GOD AWFUL FASHION.

CANADA REALIZED IT DID TERRIBLE THINGS.

WHAT IS THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

YOU HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION, IS THERE STILL ON GOING DISADVANTAGES?

FOR EXAMPLE, THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION AND THE RESERVATIONS AND HEALTH AND LOOK AT EDUCATION, WE'RE NOT FINISHED AND THEN YOU START ASKING OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER GROUPS.

AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE EXPAND.

I WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT HERE IN OHIO, RURAL OHIOANS HAVE CONSISTENTLY GOTTEN THE SHORT END OF THE STICK.

NOT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG, BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN VICTIMS, NOT NECESSARILY OF GOVERNMENT POLICY, BUT ECONOMIC POLICY.

AND YOU SAY, WELL, THAT'S THE PAST.

WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> HOW DO WE KNOW, MICHAEL, WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT?

>> I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVER KNOW.

THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE OR A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WANTS TO BE RIGHTED FOR THEIR WRONGS.

>>> IT HAS BEEN TEN YEARS SINCE THE CASE OF OHIO'S JIM OBERGEFELL LEGALIZED GAY MARRIAGE ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THE 5-4 SUPREME COURT DECISION SAID ALL STATES MUST ALLOW FOR AND RECOGNIZE SAME SEX MARRIAGES.

AT THE TIME IT WAS THE CULMINATION OF THE GAY RIGHTS MOVEMENT..

IN THE YEAR'S SINCE, THE FIGHT HAS MOVED TO TRANSGENDER RIGHTS.

OHIO AND OTHER STATES HAVE BANNED TRANSGENDER TREATMENTS FOR PEOPLE UNDER 18.

LIBRARIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE COME UNDER FIRE FOR BOOKS AND ACTIVITIES AIMED AT CHILDREN.

THE MILITARY HAS MOVED TO BAN TRANSGENDER TROOPS.

>>> IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS VICTORIES OVER THE YEAR, WOMAN SUFFRAGE, NOW GAY MARRIAGE.

AT THIS POINT, TEN YEARS LATER, HOW DOES THIS STACK UP WITH HOW THOSE MOVEMENTS PROGRESS?

>> I THINK ACTUALLY, THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS FOR THE GAY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.

THERE'S A LOT OF RESISTANCE, A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WHERE PEOPLE ARE SORT OF FIGHTING BACK.

YOU ACTUALLY DO HAVE A U.S. SUPREME COURT JUDGE WHO HAS SAID THAT HE MIGHT LIKE TO REVIEW ON THAT CASE, JUST LIKE THEY REVIEWED ROE V. WADE.

I THINK THAT IS SECURE.

I KNOW DEMOCRATS IN THE STATE OF OHIO ARE TALKING ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT TO CHANGE OHIO'S CONSTITUTION, WHICH BANS GAY MARRIAGE.

BUT I DO THINK, AND SEPARATE OUT THE TRANSGENDER, WHICH IS IT HAS BECOME WEAPONNIZED.

WHEN YOU HAVE SORT OF LEGISLATION THAT IS DECLARING THAT A MAN AND A WOMAN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, THAT'S THE ONLY FAMILY.

I'M SORRY, THAT REALLY IS A WAY OF SAYING TO OTHER PEOPLE, YOU'RE NOT WELCOME.

>> 70% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

DO WE SEE THE SUPREME COURT REVERSING THAT DECISION?

>> NO ONE HAS MADE A LIVING ON PREDICTING WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL DO.

I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO DO THAT.

I DON'T SEE WHY THAT WOULD BE A BURNING ISSUE TO GO TO THE COURT.

70%, PROBABLY MORE, YOU KNOW.

AND I THINK OHIO IS A WELCOMING STATE FOR EVERYBODY.

PROFESSOR, YOU WERE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

SEPARATE THE TRANSGENDER ISSUE FROM THE GAY ISSUE.

BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

I THINK OHIO IS A VERY WELCOMING STATE.

>> THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE ISSUES, AS SOON AS THE GAY RIGHTS ISSUE WAS SOLVED BY THE GAY MARRIAGE COURT CASE, THE FIGHT IMMEDIATELY WENT TO TRANSGENDERS.

GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS SAID WE NEED TO DEFEND TRANSGENDER FOLKS AND HAVING LOST THE GAY RIGHTS FIGHT, MOVE TOWARDS TRANSSGERUND GENDER FIGHTS.

>> CANDIDATES SUPPORTIVE IN THE PAST OF LGBTQ+ PROTECTIONS, AND PARTICULARLY, IF YOU WANT, TRANSGENDER ISSUES WITH GAY ISSUES, BUT THEY GOT MUSHED TOGETHER.

THERE WAS A BACKLASH POLITICALLY WHERE YOU HAVE SEEN SUSPICION BROADLY OF SOME CANDIDATES WHO ARE IN THE PAST, MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS.

IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF IT DOES BLEED OVER.

THERE ARE STILL SOME, YOU KNOW, CONSERVATIVES WHO DISAGREE WITH THAT DECISION.

ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

IT'S POSSIBLE WE WILL SEE THE ISSUE CHANGE THERE, BUT THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, A CHANGE WHERE SOMETHING THAT KIND OF SEEMED LIKE A SUBTLE ISSUE HAS REOPENED IN SOME WAYS.

PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION.

1% OF AMERICANS ARE TRANSGENDER.

WHY DOES IT GET SO ATTENTION?

>> IT IS SO UNFAMILIAR TO PEOPLE.

IT SCARES PEOPLE WHEN THEY HEAR ABOUT THIS.

THAT'S BEEN THE SUCCESS OF THE OPPOSITION.

THEY MANAGED TO MAKE TRANSGENDER THE EQUIVALENT OF GAY RIGHTS AND IT'S NOT.

IF YOU CAN WEAPONNIZE AND SAY, BROWN SUPPORTED TRANSGENDER THIS OR THAT OR WHATEVER, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, ANYBODY WHO SEEMS TO SUPPORT GAY RIGHTS, SOMEHOW, IS ON THE TRANSGENDER ATTACK FOR THAT.

AND THAT'S A SKILLFUL, POLITICAL WEAPONNIZATION, BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME THING.

>> NOW, THE SUPPORT FOR GAY MARRIAGE MIGHT TOTALLY FLIP.

WHEN OHIO BANNED GAY MARRIAGE, IT IS NOW IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE.

DO YOU SEE IT'S ROUGHLY 50/50.

55-45, DO YOU SEE THAT COMING AROUND?

>> I DON'T, PAUSE I THINK EVERYONE HAS A DAUGHTER.

WANTS THEIR DAUGHTER TO COMPETE AGAINST DAUGHTERS, OTHER GIRLS.

AND THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THEIR BATHROOMS ARE ATTENDED BY OTHER GIRLS.

THAT THE WILL TRUMP EVERY OTHER ISSUE, PARENTS PROTECTING THEIR KIDS.

>> I THINK THE ISSUE OF ATHLETIC COMPETITION COULD BE ADDRESSED SIMPLY BY THE STATE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION SAYING, IF IT CREATES A TERRIBLE IMBALANCE OR WHATEVER, NOT ALLOW THE TRANSGENDER PEOPLE PLAY IN THE SPORTS.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE TRANSGENDER, GETTING TO THE MEDICAL ISSUES, THAT'S MORE SCARY TO PEOPLE.

THE BATHROOM ISSUE AND A LOT OF RESTAURANTS HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.

YOU HAVE UNISEX BATHROOMS.

>> MIKE, YOU'RE UP FIRST.

>> I WANT TO APPLAUD THE REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE, WE'RE UP TO TEN DIFFERENT BILLS TO TACKLE PROPERTY TAXES.

IT'S THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FACING ALL HOMEOWNERS.

I'M GOING TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON TV LAND AND ALL THE VIEWERS AT HOME.

NO MATTER WHAT A LEGISLATURE WILL DO AT THE STATE HOUSE, IF YOU DON'T STOP RUBBER STANDING ALL THESE LEVEES, PROPERTY TAXES WILL KEEP GOING UP.

>> HERB.

>> TALKING ABOUT THE SOLUTION FOR THE BROWNS STADIUM.

LET ME URGE ALL OF OUR VIEWERS TO, IN FACT, CHECK OUT THE WEBSITE.

I DISCOVERED RIGHT BEFORE I CAME HERE THAT I'M ENTITLED TO TWO REFUNDS.

ONE LESS THAN $25, AND THE OTHER ONE MORE THAN $100.

AND I'M STILL OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THE ONE MORE THAN $100.

>> DRINKS ARE ON HERB TONIGHT.

ANDREW.

>> THE OHIO DEMOCRATIC PARTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO MEET ON TUESDAY TO PICK A NEW PARTY CHAIR.

TOUGH JOB LEADING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

THERE ARE A FEW PEOPLE WHO WANT IT.

BUT THE STATE SENATOR HAD A PRETTY SPIRITED CHALLENGE FOR IT, HAS DROPPED OUT.

IT LOOKS LIKE KATHLEEN, THE FORMER STATE CAN LEGISLATURE >> I JOKE ABOUT THE DOME BEING THE UNCLAIMED FUNDS DOME.

THEY WANT $600 MILLION FROM THE BANK.

THE CURRENT NAME OF THE BROWNS STADIUM IS HUNTINGTON BANK.

GIVEN ESTIMATES, THEY ARE PAYING ABOUT $300 MILLION FOR THE NAMING RIGHTS.

THAT'S HALF WHAT THE STATE KICKS IN.

SO, THE MIKE DEWINE DOME.

PICK A NAME.

ANYWAY.

>>> THAT'S" COLUMBUS ON THE RECORD" FOR THIS WEEK.

CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK.

AND YOU CAN WATCH US ANYTIME ON OUR WEBSITE, WOSU.ORG / COTR, YOUTUBE, AND ALSO ON THE PBS VIDEO APP.

I'M MIKE THOMPSON.

HAVE A GOOD WEEK.