-Welcome to "City Inside/Out."
I'm your host, Brian Callanan.
State Democrats in a serious budget hole
are considering a new tax on people
who earn more than $1 million a year.
Washington is one of only nine states without an income tax.
So is now the time for this major change?
-This is a monumental opportunity to begin
to truly shift our upside-down tax code.
-Supporters of Senate Bill 6346
say a 9.9% tax on gross annual income
over $1 million would level the playing field
in Washington State,
where the top 1% of earners pay about 4% of their income in tax
and the poorest, 14%.
-Hold millionaires responsible
for a more equal contribution to our budget.
-This is a slippery slope.
-But opponents worry the tax would eventually hit
middle-class earners.
And they say lawmakers aren't listening.
-11 times the voters have said they do not want an income tax.
-But voters have recently supported
a capital gains tax on the wealthy.
So is there some political momentum
for Democrats to cash in on?
-The government has a responsibility to do what it can
to help people around the state.
-Our panel weighs in.
-Put it on the ballot and let everybody vote on it again.
-A millionaires' tax
that's raising what seems like a million questions.
Next on "City Inside/Out."
♪♪
And joining us to discuss this issue, we have with us
Rian Watt, executive director
of the Economic Opportunity Institute.
Rian, thanks a lot for being here.
-Great to be here.
-And we also have with us Paul Guppy,
senior researcher with the Washington Policy Center.
Paul, good to have you back.
-Yeah, thanks for having me.
-All right, let's get into it.
Rian, start us off with your take on Senate Bill 6346.
Why does the State of Washington need a millionaires' tax?
-Yeah, well,
you know, we talk of ourselves here in Washington
as being a progressive state.
And we are in many ways.
One of the ways in which we are not progressive
is that we ask the poorest 20% of Washingtonians
to pay far more of their income in taxes than the richest 20%.
So if you're in that bottom 20% of earners in Washington,
you're paying about 14% of your income in taxes --
sales tax, business and occupation tax, and the like.
If you're in the top 1%,
you're paying just a little over 4% of your income in taxes.
And that means we're asking the poor to pay the most
and the rich to pay the least.
And that allows us --
or that puts us in a position
where we are not able to make the investments
we need in healthcare, in childcare,
in K-12 education --
all the things that make life more affordable.
-Okay. Got it.
Paul, I know you have some different ideas.
Thank you for going right there, Rian.
What do you got?
-Well, interestingly, not so much on this.
We might actually agree on one point here.
And that is that our tax system is very regressive.
Taxes have been going up consistently over years,
and that falls on everybody.
And the problem with imposing an income tax
is that it does nothing
to provide tax relief for the working people,
lower income people that we're both concerned about,
actually, because it doesn't do anything
to lower -- or else very minimal --
to lower the tax burden on other people.
So the address -- The legislature
is not looking at taxes like the sales tax, the property tax,
basic business taxes that we all pay, energy taxes,
for example.
The Inslee energy tax adds 40 cents a gallon to the --
40 cents a gallon to the price of gas.
So we have all this huge raft of taxes that we are all paying.
And the only solution
that Olympia is coming up with is to add a new income tax
on top of that.
They say it's targeted at millionaires,
but I'm pretty sure it's coming for the rest of us, too.
-Let me jump in on a few points here,
because that concept of
how this might relieve the tax burden on other people --
That's definitely a point I want to make.
But can you let me drive the train here
for just a little bit, Rian?
I wanted to make sure I asked Paul this point
that you brought up here, because, you know,
Washington's the second most inequitable system
in the country when it comes to taxes.
The top 1% of earners are paying about 4% in terms
of their income in tax.
The poorest paid that 14%.
So this idea of evening out that burden there
and focusing on that top 1% --
Can you speak to that
and that argument about tax equity in particular?
-Sure. Sure. So is the tax code for redistribution
or is it to fund essential services of government?
And I think we all should agree that the reason
we pay taxes is to fund what's needed by government
to serve the public,
not to balance some cosmic scale among rich and poor.
Regarding the burden itself,
as I just mentioned,
most of it falls on lower income and working people.
And if lawmakers really wanted to show
their goodwill and concern about that,
maybe they should lower the state property tax
as at least a sign that they care
and then talk about reforming the tax code in general.
But to simply slap an income tax on top of everything else,
I don't think helps us at all.
-Okay, I know you have some things
you wanted to say about that.
Go ahead, Rian. -Yeah.
I mean, uh, Paul, it's very nice to be here with you,
but some of what you said, I think, in your first answer,
isn't entirely true in the sense
that this proposal does create tax credits
for working people through an expansion
of the Working Families Tax Credit.
It does reduce the sales tax through the exemption
of certain household items from the sales tax.
It does reduce taxes for small businesses
by raising the small-business tax exemption
to $300,000 a year.
The framework you laid out is exactly the framework
that we have been advocating for,
which is funding critical services
that make life more affordable for folks
by asking the rich to pay a little bit more
and by providing tax relief to poor and working people.
That's what's in the bill.
-Okay, some thoughts about that, please.
-Sure thing.
So this is a matter of scale and proportion.
The tax relief that you mentioned is there,
but only at symbolic levels. And so, again, I would say,
why not pass the tax relief in a meaningful way
that people can see, not some targeted tax credits?
But how about lowering the sales tax by a percentage point?
Right there.
That has been proposed in the past,
even a bill introduced by a Democrat.
And it got nowhere. -Mm-hmm.
-So my point is that if lawmakers want to build trust
and address exactly the points that you're making,
do something that actually has an impact.
The provisions of tax relief that are in the bill --
Governor Ferguson,
you know, knowing that people do not like an income tax,
included those provisions,
but they're so minuscule compared to the broader impact,
they really won't make much difference.
-Rian, can I have you speak to that?
Because we're talking about a moving target here clearly.
6346, lawmakers are working on this
and trying to make some changes here.
But I know the governor has said very recently
that this bill doesn't do enough...
essentially echoing what Paul has said here.
Needs to be more tax-relief money back in the pockets
of the people who need it, the working-class Washingtonians.
How do you respond to that --
I guess Paul's criticism and the governor's criticism, too?
And do you know of any backroom working
that's going on there to try to rectify that situation?
-Well, I'm sure there's lots of conversations
right now between the governor and the legislature,
as there should be in any discussion of this magnitude.
I think the governor has been really clear
since the beginning of legislative session
that he supports this basic framework of a tax of 9.9%
on people making over $1 million a year.
I think he's also been really clear that,
as all of us have said on this panel --
that some of the revenue that comes in
needs to go right back to working Washingtonians
in the form of tax relief. -Mm-hmm.
-I think that's a framework that he and the legislature agree on.
It's a question of figuring out the details.
-Okay. I want to make sure I get into an issue
that you've brought up, Paul, in terms of what the Washington --
-Let me add something real quickly right here.
-I'm pretty confident
that if the legislature sent the governor a bill
that had only income tax and no tax relief,
he would sign it anyway.
So the goal here of this vehicle,
this bill, is to get an income tax in place
under any circumstances at all and then expand it later.
So we can talk about that a bit more.
-I suppose. Yeah. Or let's jump into it now
because I think that is a critique.
A lot of people have said,
"If we start with this income tax on people who make a lot,
it's eventually going to be levied
on everybody in our state." Rian, let's talk about that,
'cause you've heard that criticism, too, I know.
-Yeah, I certainly have.
And what we at the Economic Opportunity Institute
are fighting for is what we've been talking about already.
We're trying to make sure
that life is affordable for people in Washington.
We know to do that,
we need to invest in programs in K-12 education,
in healthcare, in childcare. And we know in order to do that,
we need to write our upside-down tax code.
And so we are fighting, yes,
for higher taxes on those making over $1 million a year.
And we are gonna be fighting to lower taxes
for those who are working class in this state.
That's our fight now.
That's gonna be our fight in the future.
We want taxes for those people to go down, not up.
-Okay, maybe some thoughts about what Rian's saying there, Paul,
and if you believe
that a millionaires' tax will stay a millionaires' tax.
-Yeah. It's not a millionaires' tax.
It's an everybody tax. There's a two-step process.
One is enact an income tax of any kind on millionaires,
high earners,
and then those terms will be eroded away later on.
That's step two.
-Why do you say that?
-Because it's happened every single time
that a new tax has been put in place.
Even if you look at -- The federal income tax
started as a tax on the rich, 2%, and today we all pay it.
The same thing has happened in other states, as well.
But even in this state, existing taxes are always going up.
They never go down.
Last year, the governor signed the largest tax increase
in history -- $9 billion. -Mm-hmm.
-And it was across the board, common taxes that we all pay.
Nothing about targeting high earners.
So, uh,
if you wanted to be direct from an analytical point of view,
this bill is basically a Trojan horse
to get an income tax started and then expand it later on.
And I could cite dozens of examples
of where that's happened already.
-Okay. Let's talk about this Trojan horse concept, too.
And I think maybe also a point
that Paul is making here is that the spending by our state
has been growing and growing over the past several years.
There's a spending problem, not necessarily a revenue problem,
I think the Policy Center is saying.
-And we can get into that, too. -Yeah.
Please, would you mind starting down that path?
And I'll bring you in, too. Some thoughts about that
with regard to this tax,
where it is, where it could go,
and this idea that government spending is out of control, too.
-Well, um, it is true that in nominal terms,
our state budget is higher than it's ever been.
But it's also true
that you used to be able to get a movie ticket for a dollar.
You used to be able to buy a gumball for a dime.
Costs have gone up.
If you take, let's say -- We have --
The last good year of data we have is 2024.
So if you take 30 years before that, 1994 to 2024,
personal income in this state grew by 170%.
That's largely a consequence of the tech boom
that we've seen in this region over the last 30 years.
Compared to that personal income, in 1994,
we were paying --Our state budget was just a little over 1%
of the level of personal income in Washington State.
In 2024, it's half that --
.6% of personal income in Washington State.
So as our state has grown wealthy,
as individuals in this state
have grown tremendously wealthy,
our investments in K-12 education and healthcare
and in childcare have simply not kept up.
-Okay. Some thoughts about that? Please.
-Yes. -Yeah. Here we go. Yeah.
-Okay. The government does not have a right
to a proportion of our income.
It's not a matter of percentages.
A kind of parasite government
that sees that other people are being prosperous,
and, therefore, lawmakers got to jump in and get their cut --
I actually find that offensive
as far as what the role of government is.
I think the government's role is to tax the community in a fair
and even way in order to fund public services
that we all need -- schools, roads, transportation,
public safety, things like that.
It's very straightforward. I've seen the statistic.
It's like, well, wealth is going up
and so government has to get part of it.
That's the part that I object to.
Also, state government has doubled in 10 years
in nominal terms.
-Yeah, so the size of the budget, you're saying?
-Correct. The budget has increased
from about $35 billion to $78 billion today.
And if you add in population and inflation,
which is reasonable,
you still end up with 50% larger government today
than we had just 10 years ago.
So government is a pushing industry of its own,
which is constantly growing.
And there's this insatiable appetite for money.
And bills like this income tax bill
are put forward with a cover story.
Of course, they always have to explain
why they're gonna raise taxes,
but the result is always more money going to Olympia.
-Rian, please.
-Well, I think if the cover story is investing in programs
that are trying to lower costs for people,
then I'll buy that cover story.
You know, I'm a parent of a 16-month-old son.
I don't even want to tell you what I'm paying for childcare,
because it is literally more than rent
and I'm paying too much for rent already.
We have programs that we know can lower costs
for folks across this state.
Right now in the governor's proposed budget,
we're seeing huge cuts to childcare programs,
commitments that were made by the legislature
to people of this state in prior years that have been unfunded,
due to a reluctance to actually ask the wealthy
to pay a little bit more of what they owe.
We have an opportunity through this legislation
to actually invest in the things
that lower costs for working families.
Of course, the government doesn't have a right to come in
and take a proportion of income,
but the government has a responsibility to do what it can
to help people around the state.
And right now, the revenue structure
we have in Olympia doesn't allow them to do that.
-Let me switch gears a little bit with you,
and I'll go to you, Paul, on this one.
I want to talk about this independent survey from DHM
that was released last month.
It showed a majority of people --
and I'm talking Democrats, Republicans,
independents -- all support a tax on millionaires.
And they got voters across the state, too, in blue counties
and in red counties, supported keeping Washington's
capital gains tax in place in 2024.
The point I'm getting to is this -- Clearly,
this idea of taxing the wealthy is very popular right now.
What is your message to the many people in Washington
who support this concept?
-Yeah, the narrative is popular.
Okay, so I read that survey,
and every survey is based on, what does the question --
What is the wording of the question?
The question says, "Would you support
a tax on 'high earners'?"
Of course people are gonna be inclined
to say yes to a tax of, like, "Oh,
tax that rich guy over there. Don't tax me."
But what they don't see
and what's not included in the survey,
and -- What the question should be is,
"Would you support an income tax on millionaires today
if you yourself are gonna start paying it tomorrow?"
And that's actually what's going to happen.
So when I hear the term "high earner," "millionaires,"
what I really think is, that applies to the rest
of us at some point.
-Interesting.
Rian, I want you to speak to that.
And, also, I guess looking at the flip side of this,
voters in our state have said no to a personal income tax
repeatedly over the years -- 10 times,
as Tim Eyman would tell you.
And with this measure in particular,
more than 60,000 people signed on
on the "no" side when it had a hearing
in Olympia in early February.
What do those numbers tell you?
And maybe you can weave in some of what Paul was saying, too,
please. -Yeah.
Look, I mean, I've heard people trot out
that 10 times statistic a lot.
I've never heard someone list out all 10 times.
-This was many years ago. Yes.
-I also think that if you look at some of those sign-ins,
you see them coming in about every five seconds,
including between 2:00 and 3:00 a.m.
Read into that what you will.
Um, I think, uh,
what is proposed today is completely different
than what has ever been proposed before.
This is a tax on people making an income
over $1 million a year.
That is not a question that the people of Washington
have had to engage with before.
As you yourself noted just now,
32 of 39 counties across the state,
not just King County, not just the Puget Sound area --
32 of 39 counties voted
to uphold the statewide capital gains tax,
which was really, I think, the foundation
for a lot of the work that we're seeing today.
The poll that you referenced showed
that majorities of Republican voters --
Republican voters -- support this policy proposal.
This is something that people understand.
This is something that people support.
And I think that's why we're seeing
so much support for it in Olympia.
-Fair enough.
And I was talking recently with Senator Jamie Pedersen,
who's the sponsor of this bill, Paul.
-Yeah, he sure is. -And he said
there's no appetite to tax people of lower incomes there.
They really want to focus on this top part.
But you don't trust him to do that,
or what's your thought there?
-No, I don't trust him. Good point.
-Because -- And the reason I say that is that two years ago,
Senator Pedersen voted for a bill
and shepherded through a ban on a state income tax.
That was in 2024.
He himself called that a pie crust promise
that is meant to be broken.
And here he is today breaking it.
So there is definitely a trust issue there.
You make a good point about the number of times
that people have voted this down.
The last time was in 2010 when it went down by 64%.
People voted against a state income tax.
-But it was not a millionaires' tax.
-Correct. That's right. Not this exact proposal.
So that's a good point. -Yeah.
-But the other thing is that Republicans offered
an amendment to this existing bill in committee,
providing that the voters would vote on the tax
before it went into place --
the millionaires' tax -- and Democrats blocked
that from the bill. So that makes me wonder why --
Between voting for an income tax ban two years ago
to proposing an income tax today,
that does raise trust issues
with what leaders are doing in Olympia.
-Just one more point on that polling, though.
I mean, this is something that is popular
among a lot of different Republican voters out there,
right, and independent voters, and Democrats, too.
Do you have some some thoughts about that,
about what they're saying?
-Sure, sure. So in that case,
I guess I would challenge the sponsors of this bill to,
rather than sending it to the governor to be signed,
put it on the ballot and let everybody vote on it again.
-Okay. -We voted it down in the past,
but why not just let the general public vote on it
and have a debate on that?
-Okay.
The idea of putting this thing on the ballot, Rian --
What do you think?
-Well, I have no doubt that this will end up
on the ballot... -In some form. Yeah. Yeah.
-...yeah, through the referendum process
more than likely this November.
But it could be in future years.
-As I understood it,
there's a clause in here, that necessity clause,
that would block a referendum
from happening. -An initiative.
-An initiative. Excuse me. Okay. Please, go ahead.
-But it can be put to the voters.
And I have no doubt that it will be
because there's plenty of folks across the state --
Despite strong support for this legislation,
there's plenty of folks who are opposed.
-And there will be lawsuits, too, I'm sure.
-And there will be lawsuits.
I have no doubt it will end up in the ballot.
And we have seen time and time again,
thanks to what's called our public investment --
um, yeah -- disclosure statements,
that when voters see what funding will be lost,
what investments won't be made
if certain progressive taxes are repealed,
they sustain those taxes time and time again.
And that's what we've seen with capital gains.
And that's no doubt what we'll see here.
-Okay. -So let's start with that.
Instead of passing it as a bill,
why not put it on the ballot first
and let everybody vote on it that way?
That seems to me the more honest way to approach it.
-Any thoughts about that piece of it?
Our legislators are hard at work on this,
I know, but you're talking about a ballot measure.
-They could stop working on it
and just send it straight to voters now.
-Okay. Any thought on that piece?
I don't know.
-I'm sure that that's something that was contemplated,
but I think one of the principles
of representative government is, we elect folks
to the legislature,
they do their work, and then if voters have an issue with it,
then they have the option to take it to referendum.
-There we go. All right. -Or vote against them.
-Okay. Yeah.
Which could happen, too. I'm sure of that.
I do want to make sure I talk about how this bill,
if it is passed, 6346,
could potentially impact business
around Washington State.
So let's say that it did pass.
We took away Washington's status as one of nine states
without an income tax.
A lot of critics
would say it would become less financially attractive
for investors, start-up companies.
They point out an income tax would be stacked
on top of the recently enacted capital gains tax
and a higher estate tax for the wealthy, too.
I'm trying to get to this point.
If this measure passes,
how do you see it affecting this culture
of start-up businesses in Washington State,
which is very strong?
Do you think it would have a chilling economic effect?
What's your thought?
-Well, all of the taxes that you mentioned
are taxes on personal income, not taxes on business.
And as we've discussed already here,
the proposal as it's currently written -- and, of course,
it could change... -Yes.
-...increases the small-business exemption to $300,000.
So you're not taxed at all on business income up to $300,000.
And there's a phaseout at $600,000, as well.
It would also repeal a big business surcharge
that was put in place last year.
Repeal that a year early, saving $550 million
or so for the largest businesses in our state.
I think also, as you noted,
we're one of only a small number of states
in the country that doesn't have an income tax at the moment.
This is very common across our country.
There aren't all that many places for folks to go.
I think the intent of the drafters of this legislation
so far is to make life easier for businesses in Washington
by reducing our reliance on the B&O tax,
which I think nobody in this state loves.
I don't think there's anyone in this state
who you can get to defend the B&O tax
as it's structured. -Right.
One of the things that I'm excited about
with this legislation is the opportunity
to have a broader conversation about some
of our other regressive taxes.
-Okay. Got it.
Paul, some thoughts about this
and this idea of a bill like this,
if it is, indeed, passed,
might turn into a something of a chilling effect on our economy.
What do you think? -Yeah.
There's no question it would hurt our economy.
I think even this discussion is already having
a chilling effect.
The fact that there's an income tax bill
already being considered.
-You should have worn a jacket.
Yeah. Next time. Yeah. -Exactly. That's right.
So that -- Oh, because of the chilling effect.
-Yes, indeed. Yeah. -Yeah.
-But there are other places that people can go,
and I'll just name three.
Tennessee, Florida, and Texas are all gaining businesses.
They're all gaining populations.
Every blue state, except ours,
but many larger blue states are already losing population --
California, New York, Illinois.
Those states are going to lose a congressional seat
in the next census, likely.
I think Washington is in risk of joining that group.
Boeing just moved 300 engineering jobs
to South Carolina.
Jeff Bezos moved out of the state.
So -- And those are only the ones
that hit the headlines. Underneath that,
I think there are dozens, hundreds,
thousands of investors, business owners,
entrepreneurs, retirees who say,
"I cannot afford to have my residence address
be in Washington State.
I have to move someplace else."
So I think there is a trend of people moving out
of the state and that --
But the main thing is the message
that it sends to the other 49 states
that Washington is going from being pro-business,
excited about entrepreneurship, innovation,
technology investment to just being a stodgy old state
that taxes the maximum that they can.
And I think that's leading to people moving away.
-Let me try to pull that apart there.
And just this idea of people moving out,
because we heard from Brian Heywood,
who is the multimillionaire
who sponsored a number of initiatives challenging
our state's Democratic leadership.
He was saying in his testimony, "I can work around this.
I can change the official location of where I live."
He says, "Other high earners are doing that, too, right now."
Can you speak to this issue?
If this measure passes,
will it achieve this goal of creating
a more equitable tax system?
I guess can you prevent rich people from moving,
is the whole question I have. -I mean, wealthy people choose
where to live for the same reasons the rest of us do.
They're close to family, they're close to community,
they're close to beautiful mountains and oceans
and all the things that make this such a great place to live.
Certainly some people may move as a result of this,
but for the most part,
people want to invest in the place that they live.
They want to invest in the community
that they're a part of.
We're always gonna have the Brian Heywoods,
who, incidentally, hasn't been here all that long
and he's already talking about moving.
We're already gonna have the Brian Heywoods
talking about moving,
but for the most part,
people live here for the same reasons everyone does --
'cause it's a wonderful place to live and do business.
-Okay, I guess -- And I'm looking at this, too, Paul.
There were a few millionaires
who testified for this bill, too, in support of it.
They want to pay their fair share
and they have an idea about that.
I just wanted your take on this as we wrap up this thought.
-Okay, two quick points. -Okay. Yeah.
-Number one, for every millionaire
who says he wants to pay more taxes,
my answer is, "What's stopping you?"
-Mm. -"Go ahead and pay more."
You know, the tax code only sets the minimum
that we're supposed to pay.
If some rich person wants to pay more to the government,
have at it. -Mm.
-Secondly, California is discovering
that being a beautiful location in the world
is not enough to stop people from leaving.
They have lost population.
And, again, I love Washington State.
It is beautiful.
But there's a point when people decide
either for locating their business
or where they want to retire,
when they're at the highest income of their lives,
is a big incentive to move your residence to another state.
-Final thought on this, Rian, please.
-When we talk about people leaving California or people
leaving a lot of the states that Paul mentioned, um, you know,
there's certainly some millionaires in that group
who are leaving, but there's a lot
of working-class people leaving, too.
And the reason they're leaving,
for the most part, is, costs are incredibly high,
particularly housing costs.
People simply cannot afford to live in our nation's
great cities because housing is too expensive,
which is all the more reason
to invest in lowering housing costs at the state level,
investing in the Housing Trust Fund,
investing in the programs that can help people with rent.
And right now, we're doing that on the backs of poor
and working people through the sales tax.
This proposal would allow us to do it
by asking the millionaires to pay a little more
of what they owe. -Got it.
I need to wrap up with you here. Rian,
some final words for legislators who I know
right now are considering the future of Senate Bill 6346.
-I think those legislators have in front of them
really a generational opportunity to shift a tax code
that hasn't really changed in its fundamental aspects
for over 90 years.
We've put ourselves in a position
where we're asking our small businesses,
where we're asking working people to pay huge proportions
of their income in taxes,
while the richest continue to see their wealth grow
without really paying a fair share.
This is an opportunity to fix that,
to provide some relief to working families in Washington,
and I hope the legislature takes it.
-All right. Some final thoughts. I'll let you wrap up, Paul.
-Sure. If lawmakers were really committed
and cared about affordability --
and you're exactly right about that --
they would cut the tax burden now.
They would free up regulations
so the housing is more affordable,
particularly the Growth Management Act,
which makes buildable land very expensive.
But how about cutting taxes on the rest of us first
in order to rebuild trust and reform the tax code that way?
If an income tax is put in place,
whether it's millionaires' or whatever,
we're going to be a state with an income tax,
and that will expand to more people over time.
It won't do anything to bring fairness or equity
to the tax code.
It's simply layers another huge tax on top of the ones
that we're already paying.
-All right. Thank you both for this.
And we will be right back.
What are people saying on social media
about the millionaires' tax?
One person writes, "Millionaires didn't work their whole lives,
make good investments, or create businesses
so that you could tax them and give it to others."
Another says, "If you advocate for millionaires,
you are advocating for this unfair system
that benefits a few privileged people
over many, many, many more who need relief."
We'd like to know what you think.
Send us an e-mail at contact@seattlechannel.org
or find us on social media.
Great to have that feedback, and a big thanks to Paul Guppy,
senior researcher with the Washington Policy Center.
Great to have you here. -Thank you.
-And also with us, we have Rian Watt,
executive director of the Economic Opportunity Institute.
Rian, good to have you, too.
I appreciate you being here.
-Thank you for having me. -All right. I'm Brian Callanan.
We will see you next time on "City Inside/Out."
♪♪