← Bulwark Takes
Bulwark Takes
Three Democrats, Three Paths (w/ Mallory McMorrow, Abdul El-Sayed & Haley Stevens)
00:28:41
Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, everybody. Welcome back to Bulwark Takes. I am Jonathan Cohn, coming to you from the great state of Michigan, which is where I live. And we're having one of the most important, most watched Senate races in all of America. Incumbent Democrat Gary Peters is stepping down. Three Democrats are vying to run for his seat. I've told you before, I think all three of them are formidable, impressive in their own very different ways. I've also told you I think there are real serious questions and about each of their candidacies and about the candidates. We are here to help answer some of those questions by talking to the candidates. We're going to talk to each one of them because it's me. We're going to talk about domestic policy. It's what I know best. It makes a real difference to the voters here in Michigan. My guest today is Mallory McMorrow. She has been a member of the state Senate since 2018. Before that, she was a designer in the auto industry. She is the author of a book called Hate Won't Win, which tells you a little bit about how she sees the world. I can also tell you from having interviewed her in the past, she likes to walk out about topics like economic development, which is something we're going to do in a few minutes. Before I get to that, Senator McMorrow, hey, welcome. For. Welcome. Thanks for joining us here on the Bulwark.
- [01:09]
B
I'm so excited. And you had to know as a Michigander that the entire nation's eyes would be on us once again.
- [01:16]
A
I did. I did. You know, we've gotten used to it, right? I mean, we're sort of center stage, for better or worse, I guess, really kind of depends on how you look at it, truly. So let's start. I want to start by talking about a topic you talk about a lot, which is the struggles of families raising young children. I know it's a personal story for you. You had your daughter when you were in the legislature. What is she, three now or she's five?
- [01:39]
B
Five. Can you believe it?
- [01:41]
A
That aged me. Thanks. And you've talked a lot about the fact that there's a squeeze on time, there's a squeeze on money. A voter in Michigan looking at you thinking, okay, if Mallory McMurraw is my senator, what is she going to work on in the next two to three years? Give me, give me one, two, if you want, three concrete sort of reforms you would pursue that would specifically help young families. And let's just put aside things like health care or jobs that are going to help everybody. I'm talking about targeted policies for young families.
- [02:09]
B
Yeah, I mean let's just lay out the groundwork. I would be one of the only moms of a young child serving in the U.S. senate. And it is not an accident that policies that directly impact caregivers have always been on the chopping block. I mean I watched as Joe Manchin cut paid leave out of the build back better legislation under the Biden administration just seething on the inside because that would have been life changing for for so many moms. There are a number of things that I want to do. Everything that I am proposing is under the umbrella of protecting your kids and families. One policy idea that I've proposed is expanding RX kids nationwide. This is an innovative cash grant program for new moms and babies that was piloted right here in Michigan. Created in Flint by Dr. Mona Hannah, pediatrician whistleblower of the Flint water Crisis. It is $1,500 a month for a new mom while she's pregnant. Then $500 a month for the first six months to a year of a baby's life. It has been transformational. We've seen a reduction in evictions, healthier birth weights. Moms are spending the money on formula and food and diapers and rent and it end saving the state of Michigan millions of dollars over the lifetime of these kids. Because if you start them off on the right foot when brain development happens the most then you succeed. And in a moment when even Donald Trump is proposing a baby bonus, there seems to be acknowledgement across the aisle that this is a really challenging time in family's life. And wouldn't it be great if we have an evidence backed way that we've done this successfully with bipartisan support in Michigan? That is one thing. We actually just had a town hall in my district this afternoon and talked a lot about our universal pre K program. Michigan has created a universal pre K program where every four year old has access to the Great Start Readiness program. So that is pre K that saves a family 10 to $15,000 a year. And all of the metrics show that starting early sets a child up for success throughout their entire lifet finally paid leave. I mean it is something that we are the only industrialized nation in the entire world that does not have access to paid leave. And I would want to work on it not only when you are caring for children but when you're caring for your parents. I've talked to so many Michiganders who are simply unprepared for that moment when mom or dad is moving back in with you. My mom was at one point in her life a single mom with four kids and caring for her mom who had Ms. Who moved in with us. And I have no idea how she did it.
- [05:04]
A
That's like a kind of a fairly broad set of policies there and that is envisioning a kind of much more active role for the government, right. In sort of taking care of people or helping families to take care of themselves. And I was thinking about, you put out this video a couple of days ago. I think it was for Mother's Day. It was a nice form of. You interviewed a bunch of mothers from around Michigan. But there was one line in there that stuck out at me where you talked about how did this sort of fall to moms and how later on you said, we really, it takes a village. And of course that's an expression. It takes a village to raise a family.
- [05:34]
B
We say that it takes a village, but in America we don't build one.
- [05:38]
A
But I think there is a tension here. And I've seen this every single time we've gone down the road on debates about childcare or universal pre K or giving money to kids. You know, at some point, you know, this becomes about expanding a program. It requires taxpayer dollars. And there's a lot of people who are going to ask, wait a minute, you know, I don't have little kids. Why do I need to be sort of my taxpayer dollars going to this program? You know, parents, you have kids, that's, that's kind of on you. That's, that's a parental responsibility. It's an individual responsibility. You know, if you, if you're, if you're really poor and you need some help, okay, maybe a child with disabilities, okay. But for the most part, this should be an individual responsibility, not a society responsibility to help people raise their kids. What, what do you say to that?
- [06:19]
B
Yeah, I hear that argument. And we've gotten to a place where I fundamentally believe that policy changes when public shifts. And we are facing a reality throughout the United States, but especially in Michigan, where we are facing what is commonly referred to as the Silver Tsunami. We are one of the oldest states in the entire country. We have significantly more residents getting set to retire than we have being born or coming into the workforce. We. And that is catastrophic for residents of all ages. So even if you don't have young kids, if you want to retire, and let's say you've got a single family home that you want to sell, if there isn't a young Family that wants to buy your home, you're going to be trapped in a position where you may not be able to downsize. And I have heard that from a lot of seniors in my district who would love to sell their home, move to an apartment closer to the downtown of whatever city it is that they live in so they don't have to have a car anymore and they can walk. And that is made impossible but by a very imbalanced housing market. Our economy as a state will collapse if we don't have the workforce coming in to take these jobs. So when we take a step back and think about this from an economic standpoint, then you understand that this is no longer an option. It is critical for us to lean in and to make it a little bit easier for families to a decide to start a family and to have a little bit of support to raise a family. We as government make decisions every single day to subsidize industries. The auto industry, the defense industry, the agricultural industry. We don't help families nearly enough. The expanded child tax credit during COVID was the number one tool of effectively eradicating child poverty. And with something like RX kids in Flint, we've now seen the birth rate in Flint has started to tick up. So it's not rocket science science. You make it a little bit easier to start a family and raise a family, then it makes that decision for families a little bit easier. Which means more funding for schools because there will be more kids coming into the schools, there's more per pupil funding, there are more workers coming into your workforce if you want to make sure that your company will survive after this generation of workers gets set to retire. So we are at this moment where I am seeing even deeply conservative economists sounding the five alarm fire about where we're at in this country because our birth rate has declined, our population has declined and our average age has increased. That regardless of your generation, we have to solve this because we are all interconnected in the economy.
- [09:17]
A
And just to check one thing, I mean, you mentioned Joe Manchin, you know, killing the build back better plan, which ended up getting scaled way back before they finally passed something. I mean, a big part of that was the money. The sort of this was what the CBO said it would cost. He and a couple others frankly didn't want to see government spending expand by that much. In part, they didn't want to have to offset it. Right, because either then you're going to have to raise taxes, cut somewhere else, or run up higher deficits. What is your General principle on this, do new expenditures have to be paid for or can you add them to the deficit? Do they have to be offset?
- [09:47]
B
Oh my God. They have to be paid for. We cannot afford to add to the deficit. I am a millennial. I'm an elder millennial, but a millennial still fit within the framework. And for my generation and Gen Z, we are going to be saddled with the debt of previous generations. And let's be honest, how we got here. The last time we eliminated the deficit was under Bill Clinton. And since then we have just continued to add it. The Trump administration gave massive tax cuts to billionaires after campaigning on cutting down the deficit, eliminating our debt, and they are doing nothing but the opposite. A good example from the state that we can use because I truly think states are laboratories of democracy. We try a lot of things in this states. As the chair of the state Senate Economic and Community Development Committee, I have been one of the loudest voices for the last eight years trying to sound the alarm that we need to rethink economic development. The idea that corporate tax breaks and incentives for large scale projects to these
- [10:49]
A
are like the tax breaks that you offer, like the auto companies or they would say come in these big factories. Right?
- [10:54]
B
Exactly. Yeah. So that those increasingly have become ineffective. I actually had a CEO of one of our major automotive, automotive supplier sitting in my office once saying, senator, we need these incentives because we don't have the talent. And if you just think about that sentence like we are going to get to a place where we cannot incentivize our way out of that problem, which is we simply need more people who have the skills to do these jobs. Then you get back to the conversation on maybe we should be supporting families because maybe that is the real challenge, not whether or not we have enough tax dollars and incentives to lure companies to locate in Michigan. So one of the things we did in the last budget cycle is we cut $250 million from the SOAR fund. This is our state's largest incentive fund.
- [11:47]
A
That goes to the companies, right?
- [11:49]
B
Right, yeah, yeah, that goes to companies. Now over the last many years since SOAR was created, it has invested in a number of battery plants across the state that I think well intentioned. But there has been research to show that for a whole host of reasons, the supply chain crisis, the Trump administration removing EV tax credits, that when all is said and done, this program has effectively created zero jobs. And that needs to make us think about doing things differently. I fully believe that it was a well intentioned tool that was designed to spur economic development. But I'm also somebody who, coming out of a career as an industrial designer, like if something doesn't work, you have to be willing to do something else and not just expect that you're going to do the same thing and get different results. So we reallocated 250 million of the 500 million that was in that funding pot to expand ARCS Kids statewide. So that to us, we are not raising taxes, we are not cutting other programs. We're making the bet, this exact conversation that maybe economic development at this point in our country, at this point in our state is about having more talent. And having more talent means having more kids and making that a little bit easier. So that is something we've experimented.
- [13:11]
A
So invest in human capital rather than correct.
- [13:15]
B
Yeah, invest in people. And eventually those people will grow up and they will go through high school and they will go through workforce development programs or through college and they will fill those jobs. So I don't have that same CEO coming back to me to say we need incentives because we don't have the talent. We will have solved the talent problem. And I think once you realize that people become workers, it makes it a lot easier to, to talk about policies and funding that supports families, recognizing that family policies actually support business. They're not at odds with each other.
- [13:48]
A
So you mentioned the auto industry, which is exactly where I wanted to go next. You know, the Biden administration, Democrats put a really big bet on electrification, on EVs. And it was kind of this package, as you know. Right. There were subsidies to the companies to manufacture, made it more attractive. There was tax credits that made the cars EVs cheaper. So that was incentive for people to buy them. Also gave the companies incentives to manufacture EVs. And then there were tighter mileage standards. Effectively didn't penalize the auto company necessarily for making gas powered cars, but certainly made it less financially attractive. They gave them incentive to focus on the more efficient vehicles and more efficient EVs. Donald Trump has pulled almost all of that away. He's in the process of pulling all of that away. I heard him campaign about this all over Michigan. And I got to say, I think a lot of people there was kind of mixed feelings about all this. Do you think the Biden approach was a mistake?
- [14:36]
B
I don't think it was a mistake, but I think it could have been improved. You know, the idea that the industry is binary, that it was going to do a complete 180 from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs was probably in hindsight, not the right approach. EVs are great. In my household we have a internal combustion engine pickup truck.
- [14:59]
A
As a Michigander should.
- [15:01]
B
Of course, as a Michigander should. And we also got one of those tow hitches with the two flag posts. So we're taking the flag back. So there's now two big ass American flags on the back of our pickup truck at parades. And I also drive a Bolt euv. I commute back and forth to Lansing three days a week. It is a perfect car for that. I love that car. I love the technology. I love that I do not have to go to the gas station right now looking at gas prices being five bucks a gallon. But it's also, you know, because of infrastructure build out and all and how long the vehicle takes to charge, it's not the best car to go up north. So between the two of us, we have two vehicles that fit the needs of our family. And I think that's what most consumers are looking for. They want the freedom to buy the type of car or truck or SUV or crossover that fits their needs. And you see the industry starting to evolve their product planning to fit those needs. So when I was at the auto show in Detroit a few months ago, you see, you still see a ton of EVs. You also see more hybrids. You also see kind of new versions of hybrids where now the gas engine is charging the battery or vice versa. Ram is doing some interesting things with their trucks and taking a more hands off approach. As the government, like as somebody who worked in the industry, worked in product planning and now works in the government, I can tell you the people that I work with mostly don't know anything about the industry and shouldn't be the ones dictating to the industry what products they should be making. It is also for, you know, for GM and Stellantis, they are part of a global market. And what sells in Europe and what sells in Brazil and what sells in Mexico and China is very different sometimes than what sells here. And they need the flexibility to be able to build a product portfolio that allows them to compete on a global stage. So I think that bringing the supply chain back, the EV tax incentives were great because we know that over time the cost was going to come down and you could remove those naturally anyway. But allow for the companies to build the portfolios that would allow them to compete in the US to offer the types of products, the range of products that people are demanding. Some people love EVs, some people don't. Some people want a big ass pickup Truck, that's great. They should be able to get one and allows them to compete in a global market. I think just that again the binary. It's either this or that was the wrong approach.
- [17:35]
A
Would you. But just precedence. Would you try, Would you want, would you support restoring some of those incentives? Maybe not.
- [17:42]
B
Absolutely. Yeah, I would support restoring the incentives because at a moment when we are seeing the threat of Chinese made EVs coming towards us, barreling towards us, you know, you've got China not just incentivizing the industry, but bankrolling an industry and artificially deflating of new EVS. You know, BYD you can buy for 12, $15,000. They are all over Europe. I was in Ireland a couple years ago and was stunned to see how many BYDs I saw parked on the streets.
- [18:14]
A
Yeah, they're good cars too.
- [18:15]
B
And they're well made, they're well designed. You know the, the Chinese aut auto industry. When I was a designer, I remember it being a joke. We would look at the Beijing auto show and I remember seeing one concept car and I put it in quotes for people who can't see the video. But that was like the back end of a Lexus shoved onto the front end of a Chevy and they put a BYD badge on and they called it something new. And we never thought it was going to catch up. But they have caught up. They're well designed, they have good features, it's cheap and they fit a need for people. So for us to be able to compete as a country country and for Michigan to be able to compete with our auto industry, I think the incentives were a great tool to allow for more people to buy an EV should they want them. Which also meant that more EVs were then available in the used car market, which is a great secondary market. And that over time as the technology and the cost to produce the vehicles came down, you didn't need the incentives anymore. But we need to be able to compete with what China is doing. I know that there's bipartisan legislation now to block Chinese made vehicles from entering the United States. But I think a better approach is let's compete on the global market and support our industries in being able to do that. And the best way to do that is empowering people to buy the vehicles. And that's why I think the incentives were such a powerful tool and the removal of them, I mean we saw almost overnight the rate of EV adoption was going up and it plummeted because for the average family, an additional $7,500 slapped on the cost of a new vehicle makes it just not even a conversation.
- [19:51]
A
The mileage standards, which after all are not just about the industry but also about slowing global, global warming. Would you, would you support efforts to reinstate some, all of the mileage standards that have been pulled, the emissions standards that have been pulled back by the Trump.
- [20:04]
B
Yeah, I think we have to reinstate some of them. I know having talked with engineers and friends in the industry, some of, like the California standard got to a point where at least with today's technology, it felt out of reach to even accomplish. But we can't completely go backwards and remove mileage standards because climate change is real. And you know, engineers thrive when you have guardrails and you have goals and there's something for you to work to. The CEOs of our auto companies here in Michigan made the point after the fuel mileage standards were repealed that they were still going to try to hit them because at the end of the day, what a fuel mileage standard does, even for people who climate change may not be their top priority, it's about cost savings. You know, if my car gets 35 miles per gallon instead of 12 miles per gallon, I'm spending less at the pump. And that's just a good business practice to do that.
- [21:06]
A
All right, last big topic. My favorite topic, healthcare. We've already seen some debates about Medicare for all versus public option. I want to make sure, I want to kind of suss out where you are in this debate. And I'm going to do this for all three candidates. And I, I do this for everybody who's interested in seeking office or holding office. So you have said, well, let's start at the broadest category. Just. Yes. No, I think I'm right in saying that you support universal healthcare as a concept. You think everybody should have health care, every American should have healthcare and the government should be in the business of figuring out a way for everyone to get healthcare. Is that a fair statement? Yes. Okay. That's sort of Democratic DNA. So I figured, I just wanted to get that straight. Now, you have said you prefer a public option. That could mean 100 different things. So tell me what you mean by that when you say that we should have a public option. What are you talking about?
- [21:54]
B
Yeah, so at its simplest, I think that anybody who wants to opt into Medicare should be able to, regardless of age. That would give a universal standard that ensures that we are not leaving anybody outside of having health care. And it would also create a government backed option that creates some real Competition in the marketplace. I know that proponents of single payer say having any private insurance at all is, is what got us into this mess in the first place. But I again, not to be a broken record, but I think states are the laboratories of democracy. We see things tested and whether they work or not. And there are now three states who have implemented their own versions of a public option. And in those states they've not only vastly reduced the rate of uninsured to, to zero, but they've also driven down the cost of private health insurance. So if for whatever reason you like your plan because you've got a specialist, you know that's going to take that insurance, you are nervous about switching over. You can keep the plan that you have through your union or through your employer and you would expect that more competition in the marketplace from a government backed option would bring that cost down. There has only been one state in the country that has attempted true single payer and it was Vermont and they abandoned it 15 years ago when they couldn't figure out how to pay for it and they couldn't figure out how to implement it. It was just too complicated. So, you know, eight years in the legislature has taught me a lot. You need to build coalitions, you need to move the ball forward constantly. We were really close to getting a public option in the original passage of the Affordable Care Act. And as I have constituents right now who are emailing my office saying they have flat out canceled their health insurance because I have one constituent whose premiums went from around 200amonth to $2,000 a month with the cancellation of the ACA subsidies. She's just praying she doesn't get sick. So I am looking for what is the most likely pathway for us to achieve universal health care the quickest because people cannot afford to wait for a single payer option. That, that may be too large of a hurdle. And it works in the states that have tried it. It's also very similar to how we run education in this country. Every child is guaranteed the right to a public education and should you want to send your kid to private school, you can and you can pay for it.
- [24:33]
A
So one last question. This kind of gets to your point about what's feasible. If you talk to some of the, I would say some of the people who really are passionate progressives who, and the ones who've really thought this through on Medicare for All, what you'll hear a lot of them say is that look, and I'll say to them, come on, I mean, I've Seen the votes. You couldn't even get a public option in the ACA when you had 60 seats in the Senate. I mean, what makes you think you can get to Medicare for all with anything remotely resembling this Congress? And what you will sometimes hear them say, not all of them, but some of them will say, is that, yeah, that's true. But you know what? You don't start negotiating with your compromise position. If you start, your starting position is we're gonna ask for a public option. By the time this gets through Congress, you're gonna be left with some tiny little thing that doesn't look like the public option you're describing. It'll be tiny. It won't have the power to bargain down rates. It'll only be open to a narrow group of people. And that, tactically, you're sort of surrendering already so much ground that you make it much less likely you'll get what you're talking about. What do you say to that?
- [25:33]
B
I hear that argument, and I reject the premise that in order to actually move the ball forward, you have to compromise on having big ideas, starting with the goal of we are going to have universal health care, where every American has access to health care no matter what, as a starting point is a big damn idea, especially in this country where it is not the reality right now. A similarly large kind of idea bill package in the Michigan Senate that I lived through as the majority weapon helped negotiate was Michigan's clean energy package, which I can tell you, as we were going through our clean energy legislation in 2022, 2023, I heard from environmentalist activists, friends of mine, who said, you need to vote against this because it doesn't go far enough that, you know, getting to 100% clean energy by 2040 is too late. And I told them at the time, and I fundamentally believe this as a legislator, my litmus test is, does this plan improve on where we are today? Does it do so significantly, and have we maxed out what is possible to extract in terms of concessions with the people that we will need to work with to get it done? It was landmark legislation when we passed it. It passed, at the time, the strongest clean energy legislation the entire Midwest. And we also created the first ever Office of Worker Transition. We got labor to support a clean energy package, which in other states is unheard of. And it was landmark legislation. And I look at what happened next, where Democrats in Michigan lost the state House. We would be exactly where we were before 2022 if we weren't willing to come together and push hard. I mean, really, really hard. It is landmark legislation. I don't think anybody would say that it' so I reject the idea that that was starting from the compromise position. But we started from a place of knowing we had to build a coalition to get it done with very, very narrow Democratic majorities, and it had to hold up in divided government. So that's how I come into it. The idea that in this country we would have guaranteed health care for everybody is a big idea, and we haven't been able to get there yet. The Republicans won't even extend ACA subsidies, for God's sake. They just want to rip healthcare away from, from people. And I don't think that that's starting from a compromise position. I think that's starting from a strength position and leveraging the moment to build the coalition that's going to finally get it done.
- [28:22]
A
Well, Senator Morrow, I could go on for hours on these topics. Thank you for joining us. Good luck out on the campaign trail. Viewers found this interview helpful if it's helping you to learn about politics. If you like to hear from candidates, please think about subscribing to our feeds, to our newsletters and hitting like on that YouTube. Thanks a lot. And we'll see you next time on Bulwark takes.