Together for the first time.

The two new chairs in the Michigan Democratic and Republican Parties will devote the entire program to our conversation with Curtis Hertl Junior and State Senator Jim Runestadm, an off the record exclusive.

on the panel Lauren Gibbons and Craig Mauger.

Sit in with us as we get the inside out.

Off the record production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether Public relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Welcome a very special program.

Gentlemen, I'd like to thank both of you for accepting our invitation without hesitation.

Apparently, there's somethin wrong with both of you.

Right.

Welcome to Off the Record.

Let's start, Senator, with this thing.

From the Republican perspective, do you think in retrospect, even though this is on pause, that the president's tariff policies are bad for Michigan's economy?

No what, the president is first and foremost asking is Canada and Mexico stop participating in flooding the nation with illegal immigrants with fentanyl, we're child traffickers.

Criminal element.

That was the number one issue for the people in the United States and the number one people for the people in Michigan, he said.

I'm going to put an end to this.

And all they have to do is do what any ally of the United States on the border would say, yes, we'll cooperate.

We don't want to flood your country with fentanyl.

And they're resisting doing this.

This is the number one thing he wants done.

He's he's nuancing this in terms of with the auto industry and in pausing where he can to make sure that the auto industry is less impacted.

But this is something that's got to be done in order to make sur that our borders are protected.

So tariffs are good.

Obviously, there's a lot of nuance to tariffs.

Anyone that says we know there's a direct correlation when you do this.

Exactly.

Within day that it's going to impact this part of the economy, We don't know.

They're very complex in terms of what are the long term aspects of impact of tariffs.

Well, listen, I think that actually tariffs can be a tool at some point.

But these wide ranging tariffs with that cause a huge, as the president put it, disturbance in people's lives.

I think he laughed a little bit after he said disturbance.

And when I think about people at their kitchen table, the prices they've been paying, the fact that wages are still stagnant and all the economic pain that we seem to be in the middle of the idea, the president wouldn't care about those disturbances that are actually happening to peopl I think is incredibly offensive.

And when you talk about these level of tariff we're talking about in Michigan of significant effect on the auto industry, a significant effect on our farmers, that their job is to feed the world.

That's what they do.

I think that that is the ide that a president would not worry about those people's lives, that what he ran on was lowering prices.

I didn't hear anything about lowering prices.

And in fact, now we're actually increase prices for people.

Is he right?

Inflation worse.

He's not right?

No, no.

With tariffs, there's a lot of impact that could bring industry here to Michiga that what we're seeing in this nation is an outgoing ou flooding of our industrial base.

This is to help bring some of this back.

This is bringing some equality to these tariffs that other nation are trying to destroy our export industry by a tarrifing way, way higher than we are.

Or maybe we're not tarrifing at all.

So he's bringing some equality back to this.

This is going to be helping the state of Michigan in terms of the long term impact.

First, it was about Fentanyl and now it's about jobs.

But what I would say what I would say is that there are ways that on specific products, you know, steel and other things, making protection on tariffs I think can work.

And I think actually there is there's a good point to be made.

The free trade has not been beneficia for manufacturing in Michigan.

I think that's actually fair.

But at the same time, when you it's wide ranging and has this kind of effect on those that actually grow our food and the prices that are people are paying at their kitchen table in a time when inflation has been awful for families, this is not going to make that better.

And this was a promise that he made to actually solve our inflation crisis.

And there is going to be what he calls a disturbance.

I don't think a lot of people can afford a disturbance at their kitchen table.

Right.

Lauren, do you think the president is complicating the message by the uncertainty that's happened with the initial threats, then the pause, then some tariffs going into effect and then the walk back on the autos?

Could he be doing this in a way that's a little bit less complicated for people following along at home?

No, it is complex.

I know many in the media say, well, you simply do this a little package and everything is going to be fine.

And this is the way economics works.

That's not how economics work.

Economics is very complex.

I have a minor in economics, and I remember going through all the charts and graphs and they would say, Listen, one thing has these other impacts and it's not all packaged neatly.

What he's trying to do is make sure that we are negotiating with these countries that should be our allies, that should be cooperative like any company country would to make sure that we are first and foremost protecting the border.

That's what he's asking for.

And they're resisting.

They say, no, no, we believe it's our right to have an open border and flood your nation with all of these negative things that the people here in th nation has said we do not want.

We want the border closed.

It was the number one issue.

He's going forward with the promise, he said.

It's very unusual.

Most presidents I've seen Republican or Democrat, they said, well, that was all just nonsense.

I said during the campaign, I'm not going to do that.

He's the first president.

He's saying, no, that's what I said I'm going to do.

I'm going to move forward.

I'm going to protect your borders.

I'm going to protect your kids.

So this is the number one thing.

And yes, it's going to be a little messy early on, but there's a lot of messagin that that is so incorrect that a tariff has this absolute impact on this one thing.

It's very, very complex.

It takes time.

He's negotiating his way through it and follow through on what he tol the people he was going to do.

I don't think we have a gian immigration problem with Canada.

So the the idea that we're actually going to affect people's lives, I mean, you said it's a little messy.

Well, a little messy means a lot more to somebody who is actually trying to make ends meet that's making a decision whether they can send one ki to college or afford to send two whether their mak they can buy prescription drugs or actually afford to buy food that month.

We have the promise that was made in this campaig was that the price of the eggs?

We heard about the price of eggs all the time.

Those would go down under this administration.

And that's not happening.

And this makes that absolutely worse.

And there's no question of that.

So I think at some point when you say you're to keep your promises, I think the number one promis they made to the American people was that inflation would slow down.

That is absolutely not happening.

And it's no question the tariffs make that worse.

The ide that within less than 100 days he's going to bring inflation down, the price of eggs are goin to come plummeting down again.

The exact it is it is nothing in economics is instantaneous.

These all take time.

If there is no economist to say, you pull the lever instantly.

Everything in the country changes on that day.

It's not how things work.

It takes time.

But what does take an instant impact?

What does take an instant issue with the people i your child just died of fentanyl because the nation is being flooded, 110,000 citizens dying of fentanyl every year because we have an open border flooding with fentanyl coming across this border.

We need a partner in the north and south.

And yes, I I have talked to many people on border control and over in Canada and said, yes, there is a problem of people coming across and this negative impact across the Canadian border.

Why they say no, we we insist we're going to work against your country, against your people, to flood your natio with criminals, with fentanyl, with child traffickers.

Just stop.

Just help us.

No, no, we insist.

We have to do this.

I've never seen a so-called ally that behaves the way that Canada and Mexico are behaving.

Just help us.

And they said, no, we're not going to do it.

So a couple of things.

One, everyone wants to solv the fentanyl problem.

Not them apparently.

No, I think that everybody in America does.

And I think that the there were more investment in scanning and everything else.

So they actually were blocked for political reasons.

But at the same time, the president has praise what Mexico has actually done.

because he's forced them to do it.

Well but that was before the tariffs.

Right.

So my question to you again is, why do the people have to pay the pain?

Why did they have to pay more in taxes?

Why did they why did why do people that are at home trying to make decisions for their family, why is it worth i to actually increase their cost?

That's my question.

Again, you just you're assuming that you have a tariff and the next day there's a immediate economic impact across the entire economy.

That is not how it works.

One of the things she did when there was one into one of the thing because it's not the same thing.

It's not it's trying to cause equality with our our partners that we are dealing with in terms of trade.

So what he is doing and has done is said or if there's an impact here on this segment of the farm industry, we're going to help them wit some subsidies from the tariffs.

So the idea that these things are so easily put in a box, it's no he may have to make adjustments.

He's going to be making adjustments on a continuous basis depending on what the impacts are.

Mr.. Mauger But he's followed through on his promise.

What is the Michigan Democratic Party's position on tariffs?

You have certain members, leadership, members of the Democratic Party of Michigan, saying this is devastating.

You have Governor Whitmer saying, well, I don't like tariffs, but there are some times that they can be good and we need to find common ground with President Trump.

And then you have the UA putting out a positive statement about the tariffs.

What is your party's position on?

I want to be perfectly clear that you can believe all those things, and they're not actually they're not incongruent.

I do believe that tariffs can be used and that that it is true that fair trade has actually hurt the manufacturing industry and certainly hurt the auto industr and certainly hurt autoworkers.

And that's a fair point.

At the same time, this chaotic tariffs one day no tariffs in next on all goods, not considering what the actual effects are and what will happen with our farmers and the auto industry in the meantime.

And the cost of goods for every family is wrong.

And so you can believe that tariffs are a tool that can work.

It's just that this massive number with very little planning and huge effects on an economy where families are hurting right now, that entire campaign was promising.

We're going to lower the costs for people.

And then to do this first, I think is is a problem.

Gentlemen.

So I think those two things are necessary.

You could say tariffs can be used without actually saying that these tariffs are a good idea.

Gentlemen, post-election, there was a polling data that suggested a bunch of people in this country and in this state are fed up with the rhetori from the two political parties.

Always bickering always fighting, always charging with the other person.

One Do you agree that that attitude is out there, yay or nay?

I would say the discourse has become more negative, I would say.

And they are fed up with it.

In the last five years.

Yeah, some of the...on both sides, certainly to the degree that you're saying that if this person is liked in some of this happen on both sides, is this person elected, your rights are over.

You'll be thrown in a gulag, you'll be tortured to death.

You know, these are fascists, These are communists.

These are you know, when none of that is true is is beyond the pale.

And yeah I think that's very destructive.

Do you agree?

Yeah, I think we've had a Trump- ification of our politics.

I think that it's gotten coarser and meaner.

Trump is the victim of almost all of this.

But go ahead.

You know, I mean, you stand it.

You start your first campaign b coming down the staircase and, you know, trying to talking about, you know, banning Muslims from this country.

I don't know.

I don't know if you can say that, that he's only the victim of it.

But I do think there has become a courser part of our politics.

Right.

So in light of that, since we agree on the premise, here's the question.

The relationship between the two of you, do you look one another in the eye and say, I will never attack you, I will not come after you personally, I will play above boards.

In other words, can we have a semi peace agreemen between the two of you that you won't feed into this attitude that's out there?

Listen, I think tha there are certain things that go beyond the pale having just run for Congress.

I know the negative attacks that can be in the spin, that can be put on things.

I do think that there should be lines.

I think one of them should be we never attack each other's families.

I think that's a big one that I think is unfortunately that line has been crossed many times in politics recently and I think it needs to end.

I think personal attacks are inappropriate, But I thin if we're talking about record, I mean, I got no problem talking about our, you know, the Democratic Party's record, the Republican Party's record or or Jim and my record.

I mean, I think that there is a space for truth and honesty in all of this.

But I do not.

But I do think that the personal distortions have gotten out of control in politics.

I do agree with that.

Do you agree with him?

Yes.

I'm sure that Curtis and I, over the next two years are going to find a lot of fault with each other's policies, positions, maybe the way it's being messaged and we're going to argue about that.

But to to say he's a bad person or, you know, he wants to destroy the state of Michigan, know that that kind of stuff should be left off of the out of the arena.

It should be the ideas.

Now, what I enjoyed i we started this segment here is bantering humorously against you and he or he and I, you know, argue or kind of just give each othe a hard time in a humorous way.

That's that's to me, much more what we should be doing than than than cutting into somebody personally.

Senator question for you.

We were talking about lowering prices earlier and you said, you know, it's not reasonable to expect the prices to come down immediately.

President Trum did say when he was campaigning, I'm going to start making America affordable again on day one.

Start making.

Okay.

So if we start there, what is a reasonable date for people in Michigan to star seeing prices come down again?

What he's doing right no with Elon Musk is and I was just looking at last night at the polling was I think it was 54% positive and around 30% negative.

And a lot of the medi has been saying he is slashing these services.

Oh, my gosh the world is coming to an end.

And a lot of the media is pushing that out.

There.

That is not what's happening.

They're trying to get the budget under control.

We're spending $2 trillion borrowing $2 trillion every single year.

And the people know it.

They see what happens with inflation historically, always the reason you have massive inflation, the government starts printing money, vapor and paper money all over the place.

And now the prices are going up.

They're trying to get that under control, Trying to get this federal spending under control is what's going to drive those prices down.

This the tariffs are not what's going to be having this big impact on the prices overall.

There's a lot of nuance and he's going to be working on that over time.

What he's trying to do right away today, as you said, start today, trying to get the costs under control, getting inflation under control, control the federal spending.

If we don't do that, this economy at some point will crash.

The dollar is going to be worthless.

The entire middle class, all their money is going to be absolutely worthles if we do not stop the inflation of federal spending.

And that's what they're working on.

is it reasonable for people in Michigan to expect egg prices to be cheaper at some point in 2026?

Oh, I think I know they absolutely will.

So some time next year you think they'll be cheaper?

they may start coming down this year, There's there' so many things that we can do.

Like you said what we're going to have to do with these tariff dollars in some cases is propping up or subsidizing some industries that are negatively impacted.

Our industries are going to do extremely well because now they're they're not competing with cheap foreign goods that are subsidized by another nation.

So, again, these are not things that you just pull the lever.

There's instantaneous change.

Everything's in a box.

That's not how economics works.

So when they talk about cutting the cost of government I think that all of us are for cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

But we have people that work in the VA that that treat our veterans that are losing their jobs.

Right now.

We have people tha whose health care is is at risk with the cuts in Medicaid, all to pay for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Uh, this idea that, um, that we have to live in this chaos and that some, you know billionaire in the White House has our personal Social Security information and gets to actually make the decisions on what's cut when he has government contract and none of them are being cut, I think is a real problem.

And so I'm all for cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

But is that the guy the VA is treating are our treating our veterans?

Is that the woman that I spoke to who is studying cancer drugs at U of M, who's now lost her fellowship and might not even go to colleg next year while she's studying the future of whether we can actually cure cancer or not.

I mean, these are indiscriminate cuts that are happening and they affect real people.

And while the minor disturbance may not be much for somebody who's a billionaire working in the White House, i certainly is for these families.

And so, you know, to me, that's the issue.

So you say you want to we want to right size government part of the conversation, but it can't be done on the backs of our veterans.

While you're giving millionaires tax cuts.

The American people aren't buying this, that they're indiscriminate cuts.

They specifically asked them where do they believe these cuts are really cutting the lard in the waste out?

And they said yes, because the left is saying no, These are every single one of these jobs is absolutely critical.

The people aren't buying that time.

I was the congressman for this district who certainly beat m in the election, said last week that the veterans, the cuts that are happening, the cuts in Veterans Affair need they need to be researched because it didn't do it until actually Senator Slotkin brought in somebody who actually lost their job.

Who was treating people in Ann Arbor, our veterans.

And then Tom To offered him a job in his office.

But now he's saying that h wants to look into these cuts.

So it's not just you can put out polls of what people believe.

I'm not sure that that's actually what's important.

What I think is actually important is what the actual effect on families are right now and the idea that you would cut taxes for billionaires in this country and cut veterans services should never happen.

And then when the Biden administration was there, the veteran program was no it was it was a crash and burn.

What you're sayin is every one of those veterans, those veteran administrators, is vitally important.

We have every single one.

No.

There was so much layers of fat, worthless people that should have been drummed out of there.

And if there are people that we need to streamline that every single person there, every one of them and every department all across the entire bureaucracy is all vitally important.

That's what I hear from the Democrats.

In fact, we need to hire more of them.

No.

We're going to go bust with there has to be some decisions made.

And I haven't heard anything of this catastrophic freefall that the Democrats are saying oh, my God, the sky is failing.

The people aren't buying it.

That's not what's happening.

They're looking very judiciously at these.

If they have to move that number back and forth to make sure that the services are met.

But we're reducing costs.

That's what they're going to do.

I guess, in instances where the federal government may be cutting back, whether it's research grants at universitie or I was reporting the other day about historic federal buildings that are being looked at to be disposed of by the federal government.

What's the state's role in this or even local government's role?

Is there anything that should or could be done at the state level to maybe mitigate some of the, you know, from your perspective, damage or or is this are these cuts across the board, Senator, Are they good for Michigan?

Well, I don't think that again, when you say across the board they're being judicious, that is what the people are seeing.

It is not just slash and burn.

We're just going to slash all over the place.

Elon Musk is using a laser beam, not a meat cleaver, as so much in the Democrat Party is saying.

So if there's some federal buildings that may come up for sale right now and commercial buildings all over the United States, they're in freefall ever since we had COVID, people aren't coming to work at the same levels.

So you have buildings all over the place that before were all full.

And now there's huge vacancies on these things.

So looking at what we're paying for these, how many of these employees are coming in and how many can we get to come back is something that again, i not something you just pull over everything happens instantaneously.

We've got to be lookin at the cost cutting in all these commercial buildings that the government may be renting or owning and looking at that and where can we cut cost is a good thing.

The idea that they're being judicious is absolute nonsense.

I mean, for example they cut people at the nuclear regulatory division that actually kept made sure that our nuclear weapons were actually safe.

They had to hire them back two days later.

They couldn't figure out where their emails were any longer because they shut all those down.

They usually even get them back to work.

So this idea that it's been judicious is just is also nonsense in terms of your question of whether the state can step up, I'm not sure.

Yesterday, what we saw was a budget that was passed before anybody looked at it as a shutdown plan that wouldn't allow for transportation of kids to schools, would have cut child protective services, would have cut food assistance for people.

Didn't include Medicaid coverage, by the way.

Completely nontransparent.

I watched my good friend here on this show, I think it was from three years ago.

And so there should be 72 hours before we pass a budget bill and complain that people, you know, didn't have more than 24 hours to read it.

They had 20 minutes to read it and vote on what was passed yesterday.

I mean, are you going to be critical of Matt Hall the same way that you were critical of the Democratic leaders last time?

What what you're you're referencing is all these cuts is not cuts.

What happened?

There was a $47 billion budget that had to be passed last year to finish out the budget.

The Democrats fumbled the ball and they didn't get it done when they had the trifecta.

So now that's sitting ther and there has to be negotiation for the Republicans to weigh in and pass that.

So they said there's $20 billion in things everyone can agree on, making sure we're increasing the funding on schools and on the police and veterans and all these programs we all can agree on.

And that is something that they put forward to be passed yesterday.

And the Democrats all voted against it.

But the the situation is where they're trying to make sure that we do not have a shutdown going forward.

Mallory McMorrow in October said we're going to have a shutdown shutdown This we're we're hearing the message from the Democrats constantly.

So they're trying to say, let's make sure we do not have a shutdown with everything we agree.

We have to have all these other things we can add as time goes on.

I don't understand this whole fumbled the ball thing, literally.

Matt Hall left the field.

He was sitting out in the rotunda.

You can't you can't pass a bil if if a majority of legislators aren't actually willing to come to work.

I served in the minority m entire time in the legislature.

I went and made the argument.

I went and fought.

I never said out in the rotunda in and cried about not getting my way.

We actually tried to make things done, but.

But how could you blame Democrats for not closing the budget when Republicans wouldn't actually go to work?

The Democrats had all their time to pass that.

You cant't close books in those times, so that's not true.

So I was on the Appropriations Committee.

So were you.

So you actually have to pass it.

During lame duck Republicans were in the rotunda, and now you're blaming Democrats.

And that's not going to work That makes a whole lot of sense.

Gentlemen, very quickly, the governor says we can't fix the roads without a tax increase from a crass political standpoint as Democratic Party chair, that's a nonstarter for you, isn't it?

What's a nonstarter?

raising taxes.

But listen, I think the.

Is she right?

I think that we've always had to actually find revenue for roads.

I was for revenue for road when I was in the legislature.

So a tax increase is needed?

I think you need to actually solve that with solvin the structural problems as well.

So you have we have the highest truck weights in Michigan.

We should fix that.

We should fix the insanity of how we fund roads by lane, mile, which is by mile of road in that lane mile, not where we actually have the most damage.

All right.

I need comments like yours and Open County.

You're actually a donor county when it comes to roads.

We just have to give the senator just 5 seconds to say you're wrong.

As night follows day.

The Democrats want to increase taxes.

No, we do not need to increase tax taxes.

Matt Hall has a great plan that all of the gas tax is going to go on the roads and then we're going to use the first portion of the sales tax to fund the schools.

We do not need to increase tax Gentlemen, thank you very much.

It's good to see both of you.

Good luck on your ne assignments and hang in there.

Okay?

Thank you.

Same here.

Thanks, guys.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether Public Relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com For more off the record visit wkar.org Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of off the record.