Phil Harriman

Well, it's pleasure seeing you as always. Yes, good morning. As I alluded to in your, the tease from the prior segment, we have a lot of stuff to talk about. Would you like to start national and then maybe drift into Maine or vice versa? Okay, let's do that. So over the weekend, obviously the Iran situation, they send JD Vance to go do his negotiations. No deal. At the end of it, now we're blockading Hormuz, which is sort of... For those who don't understand why or what's going on, that end of itself is sort of funny, right? It's like, you reopen the straight. Let's blockade it. You know, so there's that element of it. But where do you think it goes from here? How do you, does this, they haven't really resumed the shooting war. So that's good, I guess. Do you think that, you know, we're still in this two-week period, you know, is there still time to come to some kind of something before? The two weeks runs out and we're back to where we were before. I want to go back to why the president and the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to initiate this. And that was that for 47 years, the world, particularly Israel and America, have been under the death to America, death to the Jews. I thought the initial decision to do this was a, boy, you better know what the bleep you're doing. And as I've said to you, Matt, I think President Trump has put all of his political capital chips, money, whatever you want to call it, into the middle of the table. I think his legacy and the future of America over the next two and a half years of his term. is resting on the outcome here. So for them to strategically take out all of these military apparatuses, great. But where we are now is that Iran has apparently the power of the economic chokehold on the rest of the world. And for the... Straits of Hormuz to be used as a pinch point on the economy is where we are today. And I think two things. One, I think Vice President JD Vance going to Pakistan to hold peace talks, they made it very clear where each side was coming from. I suspect they called the president. The president said, hey, Get on the plane and come home. We're not doing this. We're not going to do this anymore. And then, which I think is brilliant, they've decided, okay, well, we're going to blockade the strait. But what they're blockading is any ships leaving or entering Iran. So Iran is not going to be able to, they can only, I think, stockpile like two weeks of oil, and then they're going to start floating in oil. So I think what you're finding is that they have...

They have made it clear to them that militarily you are out of business. And economically, okay, that's the next war we're going to fight. Here's how we're going to do it. Nothing that you produce is leaving and nothing that you need is entering. Meanwhile, we're going to let safe passage through the straits. And I hope that turns the Iranians back to the negotiating table. And meanwhile, I'm... That's a hell of a hope. Well, what are you going to have? You know, meanwhile, there's like over 200 empty vessels heading to the United States to purchase oil from us. Can't hurt. Can't hurt. So you're still bullish. You're still optimistic. I am. There you go. I think it was a good move. I mean, clearly sending JD Vance out there was. You know, whatever else you might say about Trump, I think that was a rather brilliant decision in the larger scope of managing the PR of all this. I mean, you send the guy who is probably the most opposed to it in your administration and said so. The guy who everybody kind of agrees sort of definitely wants to end the war and like wants it over, person who is maybe the most favorable to the Iranian position, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You send him out there. and you can't get a deal with that guy. Like, what are you going to get with Marco if you send him out, right? What are you going to get with anybody else? So I think you can clearly say, well, we tried. We sent the reasonable dude out there, and they wouldn't even talk to that guy. Well, we've been doing this for how long? For quite a while. Multiple presidencies of both parties, they engage the Iranians, and they look you in the aisle and basically do the opposite of what they say. And I think Trump is at a point where, look, for the world, the future of the world, this behavior needs to come to an end now. Phil Harriman joining us, as he does every Tuesday for some capital insights. In the federal capital in Washington, D.C., in the halls of Congress, there are two fewer people in Congress today than the last time we spoke. And that is, of course, Eric Swalwell and Mr. Gonzalez as well. Eric Swalwell is a chief antagonist of Trump. He has been for a long time. And what a fall from grace in the period of what appears to be like, what, four or five days? Yeah, yeah. He went from, you know, hero to zero on the left. Isn't that interesting? You know, I look at this and I realize that there's a reason why they call Washington the swamp. Really. And figuratively, it was built, the capital was built on a swamp because it was the least desirable agricultural land for the new nation. But the metaphor still holds today. And what troubles me is that you have people who are... in office who have been accused of, you know, the accusations are, these aren't, you know, consensual activities. These are, you know. Oh, no, very much the opposite. Just the opposite. It is clearly abuse. It is clearly criminal. Right. Assuming the accusations are accurate. Right. So the point I'm trying to get to is that.

We have gotten to a place in our country where political parties, empower in the political party, is more important than what we, the American people, want. That's your first, we the people of this conversation. We the people, right? So we the people want to be heard and understood. And as you said in your analysis earlier in the program, when you combine the fact that they allow people of this. you know, behavior to remain in Congress. Who, by the way, are probably going to end up with the pension that you and I will pay for for the rest of their lives, plus health insurance, but that's a whole other matter. That's a whole other matter. Right? So why do they, why do they let this persist for the power? And why is Gonzales leaving? Because Eric Swalwell's leaving. And this is why I think most people who tune into this stuff just kind of what's going on. And they look at it and hear it and try to understand it. And it's just vicious and nasty and power grabbing. And it has nothing to do about what we the people want. And as you said earlier, it goes to how they draw congressional lines. Why do they draw the line so squirrelly? For power, not to represent the people, right? As you said earlier, what is it, 40% of the people in New England are more than that. I mean, are in the Republican philosophy? Absolutely. And not a single member of Congress. Not one. Not one. The only one that's left is Susan Collins in the Senate. That's it. And the firepower after her is. They believe the... Here's a fun question for you before I move on to Maine, because I want to make sure we get to Maine. What do you do about that? Because I think what Texas did, you know, when Trump basically said, Texas, go change your districts and get me a few more seats, right? You can easily point the finger at them and say, well, you're part of the problem because you started doing this. And then California responded to you and everybody else, right? But Texas was also responding to New England and the other lines that had already been drawn that were unfair to Republicans across the map. So you can get into this endless, you know, who started at fistfight, you know, and well, they did it first and they did it worse and all this other stuff. And then just try to make up for it by doing the same thing that you're decrying. You're saying it's bad they do that to say New England. So let's do it here to make up for it. And then now you're leaving two terrible places where one existed before. But it equalizes the partisan balance in some fashion. And then of course some Democrat somewhere says, Texas just did this. And then they do it. And it never ends. Right. How do you fix that? I mean, you would have to convince simultaneously every state to... unilaterally disarm and say, all right, we're going to create better districts and it's probably going to harm the party who's in control of this state right now by doing so, but it's the right thing to do. What's more important? The party or the people? What's more important to the people who are making the decisions? That's the problem. Right. To the people who are making the decisions, it's the party. Why do they call it gerrymandering?

Because it looked like a salamander. Well, there was a person who was actually, wasn't his name, Jerry Manders? That is correct. I think it was, that was his last name, I believe. It was a representative in a district which had a salamander shaped district. And that goes back, how many decades? Civil War, I believe. Civil War. That's how long it's been going on. And are things getting better? Are people getting representation that represents the personality of their district? Oh, I don't like the way the district is registered. I'll redraw the line. It's like where you and I live met. Elbridge, Jerry. Let's go to the state level. The state Senate seat in Yarmouth, Maine, used to be homogenous. Now, it's split down the 295. So if you live east of 295 in the Army, you have one state senator, and if you live west of 295, you have a different senator. Why did they do that? Maintain power. Absolutely. The term gerrymandering is a portmandoos of salamander and Elbridge Jerry, who was vice president of the United States until his death, who as governor of Massachusetts in 1812, actually. So it predates the Civil War, signed a bill that created a partisan district in the Boston area that was compacted in the shape of a mythological salamander. There you go. That's your answer for why it's like that. So Elbridge Jerry, Elbridge Jerry. Maine. Let's talk about Maine. Where none of those types of political fights would ever happen. There would never be any sort of partisan gamesmanship and whatnot. Last week we talked about the unfortunate state budget and the insertion of the millionaire's tax, whatever. It's now law. She signed it. There's also other things in that budget, which are pretty awful. The $300 checks are going out, obviously. But there's a bunch of funding mechanisms which now increase, I think, the potential for fraud. Medicaid. Now that we've had a maybe four or five days post her signing that to breathe and consider it, what do you make of that whole episode? I think most people are unaware of the, how should we say, the bailout or the ransom that will be paid by the state of Maine. Should the federal government prove there's been fraud or abuse? And the state budget now says, if we are determined ineligible for federal funds, the taxpayers in Maine will make up the difference, which is, you know, what, 80% federal government, 20% state? and that's now looming over our heads. I think the millionaires tax, so-called, if you were really looking for the most amount of revenue you could get out of high-income wage earners, in the state of Maine, the average income is, what, 50, 55? Yeah.

Somewhere in there. It depends on which metric you're looking at, but yeah. But if you're saying, you know, the well-to-do should pay their fair share, why wouldn't you target people making $250,000 or more? Wouldn't that generate the most amount of revenue from? It sure would, and that's what they will do. Because that was what their 3% sure charge was. Took away my plot line. Sorry, Barry the lead there. So what do they do? They label the millionaires. Well. I think there's less than 3,000 people in the state of Maine. 2200, 2,400. Oh, look at you being all statistically up to date. Yep. So as of today, I'm sure it'll be different soon. 2,200 people are expected to generate. How many millions of additional tax revenue? Oh, I don't remember the exact about, but it was supposedly, you know. And it's for education. Right? Well, it's always a good reason. It's always a good reason. Right. Well, let me, as a former state senator, let me try to share with our audience. There's two things. One, the people who are targeted for this tax aren't going to just say, oh, yes, here's an additional $20,000 a year or whatever out of my family. Why wouldn't they be so generous? I mean, don't they want to help? Well, I've heard from some of them since this has passed. And let me tell you. They're not happy. I'm thinking of two people in particular. They are so offended by this for two reasons. One, they do have mobility. They can move. They're talking about it. We'll see if they do. But more importantly, you know what? I donate a lot of money to charities. And I'm going to cut back on that to make up for what I have to. pay in a never do they think about that they don't and and it's real but these people aren't and i'll say can i go one further sure not to interrupt you but i assume some of these people you're going to be talking to in the next several months are going to probably increase their uh time spent in florida which they likely already are there for two or three or four months right And they become six month and a dayers. And when they do that, you know, it just sort of pushes them further and further and further down there. And I know I could name you a dozen people off the top of my head who when I started my job here, you know, 11, 12 years ago, were full-time residents of Maine, but they spent a little time down there. But every single thing that we made for a decision along the way that pushed them further and further away at some point they just said, screw it. I'm just going down there. And then they kind of only came up here for a few weeks. And then sometimes some of them have just. stopped coming here at all. And then where do their charity dollars go then? Right. They are not just cutting back to try to make up the difference in the tax rolls. They're also no longer here. And their tax dollars and their charity dollars are going to the Boys and Girls Club of Palm Beach or, or, you know, Miami, you know, something like that. They're not up in Maine anymore. Well, then you add to this the public policy that has driven our energy costs. I'm talking about here in the state, particularly electric. Did you, I just got my electric building. Did you?

Yeah. What the bleep. It was over $400, and half of it was the electrons that passed through the wires, and the other half was through the, you know, the transmission costs. And you listen to the candidates, particularly on the Democrat side of the governor's race, they're going to rain in the utility companies. Okay, well. You do understand that it is the governor's appointed public utilities commission who sets the rates and their capital expenditures and how they manage their business by a utility commission. How are you going to lower their rates? You're going to revert back to, are you going to stop subsidizing solar and wind? Are you going to stop forcing the utility company to build these extensions way out into the hinterlands to bring these solar and wind powers onto the grid, et cetera, et cetera? This public policy, Matt, has been baking in the last, about six or eight years, and this is where it's lettuce. Yes, it is. And then you add to that. Have you, anybody tuned into your local town and city council meetings? I try to avoid it, but sadly I had to pay attention recently in Yarmouth, that's for sure. And what are we hearing? Inflation is, what, 4% and property taxes are climbing 5, 6, who knows where they're going to end up? How much more can the main taxpayer put up with this? Great question. I don't know. No clue. Not very much. I am shocked. Not very much. A man of your wisdom. I know, I know. What do you make if Janet Mills not being on the air anymore, by the way? Is that telling? Yeah. I mean, she's, I mean, you actually have to ask the question of whether or not she's really staying in the race at this point. If she did all those ads and they didn't budge any numbers, what will budge the numbers? That's the real question, right? It's like, if that didn't work, what will work? Meanwhile, your gal Senator Elizabeth Warren is coming up to Portland to do a rally for Graham Platner. How exciting. Yeah, well, it's, I... I mean this with all sincerity. In many ways, I have empathy for Governor Mills. Here's someone, whether you agree with their politics or not, who is served as a district attorney in several counties, as a legislator, as the attorney general, two terms as governor. Coming to the end of her term limit here as governor, you would think you'd kind of walk down the red carpet and...

drift off into a smiling retirement. Instead, she decided to take this on, and it appears as though it's not going to end up well. No, it will not. And what it? And I think that will ding her legacy rather significant. Well, that's my point, you know. But that's hubris for you, isn't it? It's like it's believing the yes men around you. As you would say, the closer you get to the state host or the capital in Washington, the more people there are telling you, Matt, you are just the best. You know, you rarely seriously should consider running for governor. You know, if I had one piece of advice for anybody that ever decided to get into politics, it would be. understand that that happens and do everything you can to get out of that bubble. You know, so you can make actual decisions. Go spend time with the people who elected you. Not a bad, not a bad recommendation. Phil Harriman, appreciate it as always. Good morning, everyone. See you next Tuesday.