SCVTV Newsmaker of the Week: George Runner

Uploaded by SenGeorgeRunner on 14.03.2011

[Music] Leon Worden: Hello again, and welcome to another
edition of ìNewsmaker of the Week.î Iím Leon Worden, and Iím pleased to welcome this
weekís newsmaker, returning guest, George Runner.
George Runner: Leon, hi. Good to be with you. Leon Worden: Youíre a returning guest, but
actually this is the first time youíve ever been on this showÖ
George Runner: I think so, in this role Leon Worden: a member of the California
State Board of Equalization. George Runner: Thatís right
Leon Worden: So welcome George Runner: Thank you, Thank you Leon
Leon Worden: Of course, your lovely wife SharonÖ George Runner: Supposed to be hereÖ
Leon Worden: Öwas elected to the Senate last month
George Runner: and supposed to be here, but apparently, they need her up in Sacramento
today. Leon Worden: Yeah, but I guess youíre her,
sheís still up there. Youíve got some experience coordinating your schedules, donít you?
George Runner: we do Leon Worden: You were in the Senate, she was
in the assembly, so this is really nothing new. Youíre used to this..
George Runner: We often times would leave each other behind at different times.
Leon Worden: Now, how does that work? Is there some lawÖI mean I know the Senate might be
called back to vote on some budget billÖis there some law that says Senators have to
be within spitting distance of the Capitol or somethingÖ?
George Runner: No, no, no. Sometimes, when they put them call, theyíll say we need you
here in an hour. So then you decide what you can do. Or we need you here within 5 hours
so then you know you can go home. And it also then depends a little bit upon what that person
may be doing in the particular part of the discussions and the negotiations.
Leon Worden: So just stay there, and do her jobÖ
George Runner: Well thereís a couple of issues that sheís engaged in on that deal so , you
know, they need to make sure that things get done correctly. You know, if youíre not there,
who knows what happens.. Leon Worden: I figured all the Republicans
in the legislature would just make like the Wisconsin Democrats and run to Oregon or something
so they donít have to be there to vote for Jerry Brownís budget.
George Runner: Well the difference is that in California, theyíd say: ìok, see you
laterî and then they would have their vote kind of like they ended up doing in Wisconsin
because we donít have that necessary rule that youíve got to have one person from the
opposite party in, although they did apparently get a loophole in the Wisconsin deals so they
could go ahead and do that. But yeah, they only have to have the Republicans for the
two-thirds vote. And actually remember the voters voted for a simple majority budget
last November, so, in reality, the democrats up there can actually do this, the government
can sign it. The problem is, they donít have enough money..
Leon Worden: As to whether they can pass a budget and raise taxes with less than a two
thirds vote is aÖ George Runner: Thatís a different issue.
Thatís a different issue. Leon Worden: You know, thinking of Wisconsin,
what do you think about all of that? And more broadly, what do you think about public employees
right to collective bargaining? George Runner: Well I think each state will
end up dealing with that issue in its own way. The things that happened in Wisconsin,
the discussions that are happening in Oregon, oh excuse me, in Ohio. Those are not going
to be discussions that we have here in the legislature in California, and simply because
the partisan makeup makes it so that you donít have that discussion in regards to whether
or not ñ how it is you look at the issue of bargaining, what you bargain for. And so,
weíre not going to have it the way they had it there. And I think in those states you
really do see that elections have consequences and so you have Wisconsin in particular which
not only did Wisconsin - Wisconsin I think was the only state as I recall that, somebody
had told me, where they flipped the governor to Republican and they flipped both houses
to Republican. So what youíre having then is a reaction that now because of that certain
policies are going to be addressed and so thatís why theyíre addressing these policies
that will never be addressed ñ I shouldnít say never ñ wonít be addressed with the
makeup that we have in the state of California. Leon Worden: And in regards to Wisconsin,
one of the things theyíre dealing with, you know, if collective bargaining with pensions
andÖ George Runner: well pensions, work conditions,
a lot of other kinds of things, health insurance ñ those are the issues that theyíre trying
to differentiate there Leon Worden: One of the things, you know I
donít know in this situation is particularly in Wisconsin, but certainly here, Iíve heard
it said that one of the worst mistakes that our current governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. said
that the former governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. did was approve collective bargaining for
public employees unions. George Runner: Well if he did believe that,
heís got the chance to undo it. I donít believe heíll do that
Leon Worden: Certainly not thereÖbut pensions. Talk to me about pensions. Thereís this what
24, 25, 26 billion dollar deficit that we hear about but then the whole unfunded pension
problem and you heard anywhere from a hundred and fifty billion dollar problem in the future
to a five hundred billion dollar problem in the future.
George Runner: Right, and I think itís hard to figure out what does that actually mean
for us today and in this procuring budget in the next few years. I just was reading
this morning that.. Leon Worden: Sounds like a train wreckÖ
George Runner: Well it is, and thatís why it has to be resolved and thatís why even
though there is not the votes to be able to take care of this in the legislature or try
to deal with pensions in a real reforming, meaningful way because you donít have the
party makeup that allows you to do that. The fact is that I think it has to be and I think
my democrat colleagues out there have got to understand that because if they donít
it is going to be taken care of and itís going to be through an initiative process
or something else because the people really do believe that there needs to be some adjustment
to what we currently have. I mean, we cannot offer benefits that we cannot afford. You
know, I believe you need to stick by what youíve got your agreements on. People have
made lifetime decisions, life decisions based upon what their futureís going to be and
thatís fine. Keep those in place. But when it comes to the issue of new people coming
in or the amount to which a current employee may have to contribute to their pension, the
amount to which the kind of benefits you have in your health insurance in regards to your
co pays ñ I think all of those are really need to be up for discussion today in order
to start saving some money. Leon Worden: And of course, when we put it
in those terms, it sounds far way, but you know there are school teachers or the firefighter
who live next door and those people who pay into CalPERS and other things who are taking
this hit if we change the rules.. George Runner: Well, Iím alwaysÖtaking a
hit is, I think, one way to phrase it. The fact is that most surveys show that in the
State of California particularly for example, right now if you are a state employee and
you are in some of those very good programs that if you put your salary package together
along with your benefit package together you probably are doing better than the private
sector. So I think it begs the question that the private sector asks the taxpayer out there-
it says ìI donít get this.î How come Iím being asked for a tax increase and those folks
end up with a better package than I have. You know, itís like I feel like Iím paying
both ends and I think itís a real question, I think itís a real issue. Schools, I think,
are a good example. Whatís interesting to me right now and I think this is true with
most school districts down here, and Iím sure somebody will correct me if I get it
wrong, is right now, most schools, are still giving stepping column increases to their
faculties. So you know, here we are rolling back cost, I mean, weíre putting furlough
days in, weíre laying off people, cutting back the school year, and the same time, somebody
all of a sudden, a teacher, just got a raise because theyíre going into their fifth year.
Or happen to get a raise because they just picked up fifteen units that may or may not
happen to have anything to do with their ability to teach. Those are the things that I think
kind of need to take a look at. How can you do that right now? And then still be able
then to do the things we must do like teach kids.
Leon Worden: You know, it always gets particinized, put in the language of we either need to cut
everything or we need to raise taxes. And you know, I keep coming back to that 2004/2005
California performance review and , you know, the idea of eliminating a hundred boards and
commissions, or consolidating a hundred boards and commissions that either could be consolidated
or donít do anything. But more fundamental things like merge the Franchise Tax Board
and the State Board of Equalizations and the VLF fee-collection function into one.
George Runner: Yeah, and I had a bill last year to seek to do that. I think there are
some efficiencies that we ought to be looking at. The problem is that the numbers are so
big that weíve got to deal with, we need to do that plus weíve got to look at the
issue of our government. Let me give you an example right now that just this month is
just illustrative of the challenge that we have and why it is that taxpayers shouldnít
pay more taxes. I needed a new desktop printer for my desk. The printer I needed, I got at
my home for ninety five dollars at Costco. And so I said I need one of these ninety five
dollar printers here in my office in order for my printing, for my computer. And can
I, is there a way for me ñ Iím new here ñ Is the a way for me to run out and get
that and is there a BOE credit card or something that we go and buy this stuff withÖhow does
this work? Oh no, weíve got a purchasing process that we have to go through. So I said
ok, well I need another printer. Ninety five dollars over at Costco. And so, you know,
a week went by, then two weeks went by, and I said ìwhere is this printer? Whereís my
printer? I need a printer.î And finally they said, well, weíve been working with the folks
that have to make that inquiry and make the purchase. So finally, about a week and a half
later, my printer shows up. And I said, ìhow much did we pay for that printer?î 175 dollars
we paid for that printer. See, that to me, thatís where the real money is. I mean, you
think about that, why in the world would ñ I would never pay 175 dollars for that printer
but because government has to do the way government does it, taxpayer paid 175 dollars for a printer
I could have couldíve gotten at Costco for ninety five.
Leon Worden: But itís not only the 175 for the printer. How much time was spent Ö
George Runner: Youíre absolutely right Leon Worden: on the bureaucratic process
George Runner: The total acquisition cost of this printer.
Leon Worden: youíre talking 450 dollar screwdriver, and thatís how it happens.
George Runner: And to me, those are the kind of things ñ Thatís why as these issues come
before voters right now and if voters are going to get this idea of should we keep these
taxes going, should we increase these taxes ñ you know, Iím a strong believer in saying
no because youíll never solve the problem of why it is that we pay eighty dollars more
for that printer, almost twice as much, as long as you just keep the money coming to
Sacramento. Leon Worden: How do you go about doing that
though? I think the bigger the bureaucratic organization, because you know the state is
not the only bureaucracy that has that kind of acquisition process, and the bigger the
bureaucracy, the bigger problem that is. George Runner: Right.
Leon Worden: do you change the purchasing process so that George Runner can go out and
buy his own printer and get reimbursed the seventy five bucks it actually costs.
George Runner: You know, and thatís what weíre looking into. You know, one of the
big changes weíve made is when youíre in the legislature, youíre kind of in this little
cell thatís not connected a lot to what else is happening in the bureaucracy of government.
You know the folks all in the capital all work for the legislature and so thereís a
lot of rules. Unfortunately, for Californians, a lot of the rules they put on Californians
ñ they donít apply to their own staff and what not to kind of operate their operation.
But now that Iím outside of that, Iím in this bigger bureaucracy ñ this whole civil
service process. Weíre beginning to be exposed to things weíve never heard of before. Weíve
just never understood that. And so, to me, weíre looking at that ñ those are the answers
weíve got to find. What is it that helps us become a little more nimble for the protection
of the taxpayers? Leon Worden: I going to take a quick break.
When we come back, I want to point out what this Board of Equalization thing
is. [Advertisements]
Leon Worden: Welcome back. Weíre here with
George Runner who was just elected to the California Board of Equalization. And I think,
go out and ask 10 people what the Board of Equalization does, and youíll probably get
ten blank stares. George Runner: Probably
Leon Worden: So youíve been there three months nowÖ
George Runner: Unless you get some guy out there who owns a business and he writes out
a check every once in a while. Leon Worden: Well sure, but I mean the Franchise
Tax Board ñ everybody knows what that is. And like our state IRS ñ those are the evil
tax collectors. But, youíve been there about three monthsÖhave you figured out yet what
the Board of Equalization doesÖ George Runner: Well weíve been learning.
Itís very interesting. And let me just give you some examples of things that weíve been
involved in. And ultimately, the way I simply put it is the State Board of Equalization
is a tax collection agency for special taxes and sales tax and use tax. The Franchise Tax
Board is a tax collection agency for income tax, corporate and individual income tax.
So, but that aside, what we end up doing the is dealing with the issue of interpreting
tax policy. You know, is something taxed at this rate or isnít it taxed at this rate.
And we end up with different kind of rules and standards and agreements and debates in
regard to what that is. Thatís one of the things we do. The other thing we deal with
isÖ Leon Worden: Let me stop you there. Like a
candy bar in a vending machine. Do you decide whether that should have a tax.
George Runner: Again, sometimes things are just not clear
Leon Worden: You donít make the decision about what should be taxed..?
George Runner: No, but sometimes things are unclear in regards to if it meets a certain
criteria. There was an issue that has come up in regards to the tax on wine products
for instance in the last few weeks. Wine is taxed at a certain rate, and spirits are taxed
at a certain rate. So thereís a debate as to whether or not if you put certain things
in wine ñ not necessarily more alcohol, maybe itís water, maybe itís a filler of some
kind. Does that now not make it wine? If itís not wine, then itís taxed at this other rate
which is about ten times higher than wine and so there was an effort to try to say yeah,
if you use ñ and again, these are oftentimes these wine cooler products ñ theyíre saying
these wine cooler products arenít wine. They need to be taxed at this higher rate because
they put other things in the wine. Leon Worden: So there isnít specific legislation
that says a wine cooler or wine with this added to it? There isnít legislationÖyou
decide? George Runner: Can be. But oftentimes what
happens is thereís ambiguity in the law and so what that does is it calls for an interpretation
so itís one of the issues Leon Worden: Why not just let the lawyers
figure it outÖ George Runner: Well ultimately, it could go
to court if what it is that you decided is outside what the statute said, the law, then
you could go to court. But if the law is ambiguous and allows for that interpretation, then indeed
it is. So thereís many of those things. Iíve had issues with for instance with that product.
Weíre dealing with one right now in regards to ethanol, in regards to where that line
is. E-85 which is a certain tax treatment. So weíre dealing with those all the time
so those are tax interpretations. And then the other thing that we deal with is the issue
of appeals. So if anybody has any of appealÖthe appeals not only deal with special taxes or
the enterprise credits would be a part of that that we worked down here. Sales tax issues,
but even income tax and corporate income tax then ends up being appealed to the Board of
Equalization. Iíll give you an example. Weíve got an appeal coming up that has to deal with
a box company up in the central valley. This box company is wanting to take R&D tax credit,
research and development tax credit. The auditor say ìyouíre a box company. You donít do
R&Dî and the box company says ìyeah we do. We have to do R&D. We box a lot of specialty
products.î Leon Worden: So youíre the oneís that arbitrate
that..? George Runner: Well what happened is the Franchise
Tax Board auditor said ìoh no, you donít get R&Dî These people appeal it, and eventually
then we hear it. So weíre going to hear that and decide whether or not this company really
does do R&D and therefore gets a tax credit. So thatís kind of the issues we deal with.
And the other issue we do is thereís a lot of staff out there doing tax collection, tax
conformity information, and we have to keep them on track making sure they are doing what
theyíre doing out. Iíll give you another example, one of the projects weíre dealing
with there: thereís a project that we have where we have staff they go out and go into
communities to help people understand that they have the proper kind of licenses and
certificates and because if they donít, then theyíre probably not paying their proper
taxes. So the idea was to go out and educate. Well, we got a hold of the training manual,
and the training manual then gives these individuals some suggested questions they ask. So the
suggested questions were things like ìHow much do you pay for rent?î ìWhat was your
largest purchase last month?î ìHow many employees do you have?î Whatís your gross
revenue in an average day?î and I looked at those questions ñ this is not what this
program is supposed to be. These are clearly pre-audit questions that will determine whether
or not we are going to come back and audit them. SO I instructed the staff that this
is inappropriate. Weíre not going to ask these kinds of questions and so those are
the kind of involvements that we have and in many ways we protect taxpayers. I can give
you two taxpayer protection issues that weíve been able to do already. Franchise Tax Board
changed their requirements for e-filling. If you are a certain kind of filer you had
by law to file electronically. Some individual in the central valley didnít e-file correctly,
large payment, did not e-file but they sent it in. And this was the first time that they
were supposed to e-file. They sent it in, the state got the money. They turned around
and gave them a huge fine because they didnít e-file. But the state got the money, they
just didnít understand the rule and they got the fine.
Leon Worden: Did they file on paper or did they not file and just send the check?
George Runner: No, no, they filled on paper and they sent the check. They just didnít
e-file. And so we met with them, and called them up (the State Franchise Tax Board) and
said ìDoes the law make you have to do that?î because sometimes fines and penalties are
in the statute. We canít do anything about it. But oftentimes theyíre not. So the first
question we ask is ìIs this the law or is this something you guys do?î Well itís something
we do. Well then, donít you think you ought to change that. And so we not only saved that
taxpayer that money, but they stopped doing it for every taxpayer and then decided we
need to give them instructions next time, not a penalty, when people pay on time and
they just did it wrong. So that was one. Another guy was an RV dealer. He has RV shops ñ two
in California and one in Oregon. Well, in Oregon, you donít pay sales tax. In California,
you do pay sales tax. Our guys went up and audited him in Oregon and saw all these people
who bought from California. Leon Worden: Everybody from Californiaís
buying up in OregonÖ George Runner: Well they had a lot of people
bought from California. They said we think these people from California have been sent
from your California stores to buy in Oregon. Therefore, you owe us sales tax on all these
sales. Well, the problem is, no. People look on the internet. People get where they want
to go, understand how to buy things. A lot of people with RVs actually buy them out of
state and keep them out of state to avoid the sales tax. You canít automatically assume
Leon Worden: Besides, thereís already a use tax, right?
George Runner: Well thereís a use tax if they brought that in and then were going to
use it in California. Then they would be responsible for the use tax. The individual, but not the
dealer. So the dealers got hit with a fifty million dollar hit. We went to hearing. I
asked the staff, ìWere there signs up in these California businesses that said you
can buy this cheaper in Oregon Leon Worden: Yeah, donít buy from our store,
buy from up there George Runner: would a guy who is a sales
commission guy ñ what was his advantage with sending someone to Oregon or did you find
any paperwork that says you get the commission if you get it to Oregon. There wasnít anything.
So we awarded ñ we said this wasnít righteous. And the guy didnít have to pay us the fifty
million dollars. So those are some of the kinds of things we do.
Leon Worden: So you know, we were talking a little earlier about the budget proposal
ñ kind of we were talking about it. George Runner: Yeah
Leon Worden: Did the Board of Equalization have anything to do with the budget process?
George Runner: Well we do in some sense because a lot of times the legislature will come to
us for estimates. If we do this tax for this happens, whatís the estimate going to be.
The one that people may be aware of a little bit now is whatís called the Amazon tax,
nexus tax. Legislature had a bill and they say we want to go ahead and under this scenario,
we want Amazon to have to pay sales tax. How much money will that get us. And so the boardís
responsibility and the economists that we have at the board are supposed to have kind
of work that out. Well we got involved in that one too because what they were doing
is you have to create whatís called nexus ñ brick and mortar ñ you know Barnes & Noble
have brick and mortar here so you go on internet and if you buy on the internet from Barnes
& Noble, you have to pay a California state sales tax just like if you were to go into
the store. Amazon doesnít. And so thereís always this issue that says ìOk, how do we
create nexus?î So this law thatís going through legislature says ìWell , if you happen
to be whatís called an affiliate ñ an affiliate doesnít sell anything. An affiliate just
gives information about something and sends them to some of these internet places and
then you buy from them. If you happen to be one of these places and you get a little,
you know, do-dad on that screen that sends them over to or Adorama Camera.
ThenÖ Leon Worden: Cabelaís if youíre into sporting
goods George Runner: Cabela if had aÖ.then that
requires then that particular reseller to have to pay California sales tax.
Leon Worden: So just because you have a link on your website that links you to Amazon or
Cabela or some other out of state George Runner: and you made a saleÖ
Leon Worden: Then youíre an affiliate? George Runner: and you also then got some
money. You know, you got like a commission. Thatís the connection. Now, because of that,
Amazon or Cabela has to pay the tax. Well we donít like that law
Leon Worden: Is that already a law? George Runner: No, no, thatís a law they
are trying to do Leon Worden: Itís part of the budgetÖ
George Runner: and what theyíre trying to do is create nexus just like that building
that Barnes & Noble has.. But we donít think so. And so what we had our economists do because
we come up with numbers ñ what happens to California if all of a sudden California starts
taxing all these things over here and Amazon says ìOh, Iím sorry Mr. Affiliate in California.
You cannot send people to us anymore. What happens to these jobs and we found out that
we actually lose more money than we gain by trying to tax what they did. Because we lose
their sales tax, we lose their property tax. So one of the roles that we did in that deal
is I had our guys do whatís called a dynamic analysis. What happens if we do that? And
so thatís how we get involved in the budget at times. We have to ìokî the numbers because
eventually theyíre going to ask the BOE to collect it and so they want to know what the
BOE thinks theyíre going to collect. So thatís an example of that.
Leon Worden: You know that Iím personally all hot about our redevelopment zone and enterprise
zone, both of which we have here in Santa Clarita, and both of which are absolutely
wonderful and are fiscally conservative and doing the things they are supposed to do.
And weíve got John Chaing coming out with this report on a study of other redevelopment
agencies in other places wherein he said that they arenítñ one of the things he said is
that they arenít creating jobs. Now, redevelopment purposes to cure blight, not to create jobs.
The redevelopment association went to the legislature and tried to get the legislature
a couple years ago to expand the definition to include job creation but it didnít get
out of committee. So their purpose is not to create jobs but rather to cure blight.
I donít know that there is a question there. Iím just complaining, but Jerry Brown expects
to get 1.7 billion dollars out of redevelopment. By eliminating redevelopment, he expects to
get 1.7 billion dollars to help solve the budget deficit. Now we see redevelopment agencies
including our own you know protecting their money.
George Runner: Right Leon Worden: Plus weíre in a down economy
and property values went falling. Do you think, is that amount of money something that you
as a member of the Board of Equalization have studied whether that 8.7 billion is a realistic
figure. George Runner: Well of course, itís a changing
figure right now because so many agencies have done just exactly what you talked about
and that is theyíre tying up their dollars so therefore those dollars arenít even going
to be available. You know, so I donít think those will be real at that. I mean the bottom
line for me with redevelopment is redevelopment helps create tax base. You know, what happens
with redevelopment is you have a blighted area and you go ahead and create development
there. As a result of that, you get a new property tax value. If you didnít have the
redevelopment part of that, youíd never get the increased increment of the property. And
so what you do as an incentive to that ñ the redevelopment agencies ñ the local governments
ñ get to keep that incentive that they created through that redevelopment zone for a period
of time. Now if you make it all go away, what you end up with is just, old, blighted property.
It doesnít make any sense to me Leon Worden: Besides which, I hear Jerry Brown
saying how this money is going to going to go to schools. Well, you know as a former
redevelopment commissioner as well as I do that a portion of the redevelopment tax increment
gets passed back through the schools. You eliminate redevelopment and that money doesnít
go to schools. George Runner: well, two things. Number one,
yes as that property value increases because of the redevelopment investment there, thereís
a pass through on that that then goes to the schools that they get and youíre right ñ
they get those dollars. Eventually what theyíre going to get is theyíre going to get the
rest of that regular property tax once that redevelopment project area is closed down
because they have a lifetime attached to them. The only other alternative is the property
never gets developed. Thereís nobody there anyway
Leon Worden: Öand it continues to go down, property values continue to decline, and thereís
less tax being generated over time George Runner: Hopefully, theyíll come up
with some good compromises on that issue Leon Worden: whatís the chance, I mean, theyíve
got negative two days now to Jerry Brownís goal.
George Runner: Well, to a degree, thatís self imposed. You know, thereís no reason
why you have to have a June special election. You can have a July special election, you
can have an August special election, so thatís more of a self imposed at that point. My greatest
fear is that Sacramento may do what they do which is not good and that is they know theyíre
not going to get the money, either in redevelopment or enterprise zones, but they need to balance
the budget. So what they do is book a number even though they know the number may not get
there and they balance a budget based upon phonyÖ
Leon Worden: and itís the same exact smoke in mirrors thatís been used used to quote
on quote balance the budget for yearsÖSchwarzeneggerÖ George Runner: thatís why Iím about as hard
core right now as I could get on this issue with tax issues and money in Sacramento. Thereís
about 86 billion dollars that is going to come to Sacramento for the general fund this
year. Sacramento just ought to figure out how they want to spend the 86 billion dollars.
Leon Worden: in good times, itís like what? Hundred, hundred and fiveÖ
George Runner: yeah, again, itíll get back up there. Just figure out how you want to
spend your 86 billion. Leon Worden: Weíve got to close it out. Whatís
your gut? Are we going to see the elimination of redevelopment and enterprise zones?
George Runner: again, I donít know. I hope not. I think two things. Number one is I donít
think the money is going to be there for the redevelopment issue and I think thereís huge
lawsuits out there I think attached to the enterprise zone. People made business decisions
based upon a tax credit and now you take that tax credit away from them thenÖ
Leon Worden: We have businesses in Newhall who made that decision based on redevelopment
George Runner: Thatís a breach of contract and so I donít think that you can do that
and it certainly doesnít help what is the core of our problem and that is getting people
back to work. Leon Worden: George Runner State Board of
Equalization ñ thank you for joining us. George Runner: thank you, Leon
Leon Worden: and thank you for joining us. Missed any portion of this program, you can
see it again and again on Check back here, Time Warner Cable channel 28, at&t
u-verse 99. Sunday 8:30 Am, Thursday 9pm for another Newsmaker of the Week