Freyberg:

Now back to Washington and this week’s State of the Union Address. President Obama ticked down a list of proposals from child-care subsidies, to pay equity and trade.

President Obama:

I will send this Congress a budget filled with ideas that are practical, not partisan.

Freyberg:

We talked with Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District Republican U.S. Representative Reid Ribble, about the speech and started by asking his response to whether, in his view, the president’s plans are practical, not partisan.

Congressman Reid Ribble:

I actually thought that the first maybe, 45 minutes of that speech, was among the most partisan that I’ve heard him in the five State of the Union addresses that I’ve heard. And, in fact, when he made that statement, that very statement you’re referring to, I tweeted and I said “This is a new idea, because I sat on the budget committee and I saw the first four of his budgets. And they were always very, very partisan. So if he comes in with a bipartisan budget, it will be the first one I’ve seen since I’ve been in Congress.

Freyberg:

Where might republicans though find accord with the president, perhaps on giving him the trade promotion authority to kind of fast track the stalled pacts with Asia and Europe?

Ribble:

Well, certainly on trade promotion, if you had watched the video in the room when he talked about trade, most of the democrats kind of just sat on their seats and even on their hands. They weren’t happy to have the President talk about trade promotion authority or even any type of trade agreement, while the republicans were pretty enthusiastic about it. We know that 95% of the potential customers for American businesses reside outside the United States and there is a great potential for upward mobility for the middle class in wages if we can grow our economy through trade.

Freyberg:

What about on the president’s call to simplify the tax code and close loop-holes. I know that just as recently as October, you called to simplify the tax code and close loop-holes that you said, at that time, “only benefit the well-connected.” Is that another area of accord?

Ribble:

I think that there’s some opportunity on taxation, because simplification is the single biggest thing cited by the American people on what they would like to see when you starting reforming the tax code. They don’t understand it. The IRS doesn’t understand it. The congress doesn’t understand it. And so simplifying it is something that really needs to happen. If we could remove a lot of the tax deductions and expenditures that are written in the tax code, what the president and many members of Congress often call loop holes, if we could eliminate those, take the savings from those and apply them to the rates, you would have a fairer tax system for just about everybody, for both corporations and individuals. And so, the real devil is in the details, which one of those and how many of those deductions the president wants to remove will be seen whenever he releases his ideas, and I would think in his budget proposal some will be released there.

Freyberg:

Now I know his tax plan would also include raising the tax rate on capital gains for couples making more than $500,000 a year. I trust the GOP would not be on board with that?

Ribble:

They would not be on board with that at that level. However, I do think you might have some place of compromise on cap gains, if we could get the top tax rate lower, I think you can make a case for cap gains to go up a bit. And so, there may be some room for compromise on that, but I don’t see any scenario where it could pass this congress to take the cap gains rate to 28%., I just don’t see that happening because it would harm investment. The Tax Foundation came out with a study right after the State of the Union, and showed how it would have a downward trend on wages and downward trend on economic growth and downward trend on economic prosperity for the middle class. So I just don’t see that lack of investment income being taxed or that much investment income being taxed. It would hurt the economy.

Freyberg:

What about the president’s call for things like free community college tuition, or child care subsidies or seven days of paid sick leave? Are these ideas non-starters for you?

Ribble:

They would be non-starters for me for a couple reasons. One is that pretty much anytime that a politician or government official says you’re going to get something for free, most tax payers understand that there’s nothing for free, because we don’t get things for free, and someone is going to have to pay for it. So they don’t really buy into this idea that you can have things for free. However, I do think the idea is notable, and I think it’s laudable in some respects, but why not expand it to technical schools and other things like that? And then if it’s good for two years, why isn’t it good for four years? And you have some problem there that where if you get to a place where in many cases we should just simply re-evaluate how we do secondary education or post-high school education in its entirety. In the district that I serve in northeast Wisconsin, there is a great shortage of semi-truck drivers, of welders, of electricians and pipe-fitters. And a junior college or community college isn’t going to help that. And that’s where the highest paying jobs are in my congressional district, so I don’t think it is going to necessarily get a warm reception with the republican House.

Freyberg:

Meanwhile, the president wields the veto pen poised for things, he says, like GOP measures on immigration or his healthcare law. So what’s the point of bringing forward veto-certain bills?

Ribble:

Well, should we just stop governing and go home for two years then? I mean, the reality of it is that Congress is a separate branch of government from the Executive Branch. The American people spoke pretty loudly in November in that they gave republicans the largest majority in the House of Representatives in over 80 years. They flipped control of the Senate from democrats to republicans with a relatively large majority there of 54. And so, the American people are saying to the president “We disagree with the policy proposals that you’re putting out there. We would like a different path forward,” but they couldn’t vote on the president in this election so they voted for whom they could, and tried to send a message to the president. This goes back, Frederica, to what I started this discussion about, the president was very partisan in this State of the Union speech. And by coming out and saying, “I will work in bipartisan fashion, but I’m going to veto everything you send over,” was not necessarily the best approach to take with us.

Freyberg:

We leave it there. Congressman Reid Ribble, thanks very much.

Ribble:

Thank you.