Senator Elissa Slotkin (00:01):
… and for having me here. And thank you to the Center for American Progress. I wanted to come here, frankly, because we haven't agreed on every single issue in the past, so I'm really grateful for the opportunity. It is a coincidence of scheduling that I find myself giving this talk a few days after the United States took military action in Iran, two days after the elections in New York, and the day before the Senate likely votes on President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. But all of that helps clarify why I feel the need to do this speech in the first place. Put plainly, as a CIA officer and Pentagon official by training, I believe that the single greatest security threat to the United States is not coming from abroad. It's the shrinking middle class here at home. I believe deep in my bones that if we lose our middle class and by association the American Dream, we will lose our democracy and eventually our country. This is the existential threat. As a national security professional, what do you do when there's an existential threat to your country? You get to work on a war plan. You face up to what's not working, you change course, and you ruthlessly pursue the economic security that's critical to our survival. So in short, leaders have a responsibility to respond, to chart a path forward, and to not just complain from the sidelines.
(01:26)
Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to give the rebuttal to the State of the Union. I said that most Americans share three core priorities: a strong economy, a strong national security, and a resilient democracy. Those are three of our most basic tenets as Americans. Later this year, I'll give two other speeches, one on security and one on democracy. But today, I want to lay out what is an economic war plan. Because any successful vision of America must start with an economy that works for everyone.
(01:59)
Back during my war-planning days of the Pentagon, the first thing we did was lay out the specific problem we are trying to solve. The middle class is shrinking. That's not a political statement, that's a fact. In the years after World War II, the middle class exploded. But over the last 50 years, the share of Americans in the middle class has fallen by nearly 20%, and the total wealth and power held by the middle class has been cut in half. Add to this inflation, and it is clear why people are frustrated.
(02:32)
In 2025, money and opportunity is skewed towards those who already have it, not those who are striving for it. Middle class families, blue collar folks, young people, we all can feel that something is off. We're all questioning whether the American Dream will be an American reality for us and for our kids. This core issue unites all of us, moderates, progressives, and everything in between, and that unity is critical if we ever hope to succeed in a plan.
(03:07)
Things aren't off because Americans have stopped working hard. It's because government hasn't lived up to its side of the great American deal. That deal, which we all automatically signed up to, is this: Government has the responsibility to set the conditions for success, and the American people have the responsibility to work hard to achieve it. That deal is failing because politicians from both parties strayed from ruthlessly expanding the middle class.
(03:36)
They've been lured by special interests, their own re-elections and niche issues that have more to do with themselves. And it's been compounded by the bitter fighting that goes on every day between Democrats and Republicans. The result being even as the economy has changed a lot since World War II, our government has not kept up. The things you need to succeed, your job, your school, your healthcare, are outdated and broken. And if the election in November told us anything, it's that it's not just Trump voters who are frustrated with the government, it's Americans across the board.
(04:12)
As the senator from Michigan who just won on the same ballot as President Trump, I've seen this frustration first-hand, Michigan literally invented the middle class, the very basic idea that you could work in an auto plant and afford the car you were building. But today, Michigan is also a place where people feel like it's harder and harder to get in and stay in the middle class.
(04:33)
Let's take my town of Holly, Michigan. It's full of people who aren't doing as well as their parents and their grandparents. They can't provide for their kids what was provided to them. Dad worked at the Ford engine plant and could afford a fishing cabin up north, but his son can't afford one. Dad could take his kids to Disneyland, but the son can't take his kids on vacation.
(04:53)
Down the street from Holly is Flint, Michigan, where it's gotten harder to get in the middle class in the first place. And this is the thing that many Democrats have quite frankly lost touch with. When you can't provide for your kids, you feel anger, you feel shame, you lose your dignity, and you look for something or someone to blame. That anger, that suspicion among Americans, that right there is what I mean by an existential threat.
(05:22)
Because in a multiracial, multiethnic democracy like ours, when people don't feel like they can get ahead, when the system is rigged against them, they start blaming people who don't look like them or who sound different or who pray different. It's how we begin to tear each other apart from the inside. So in order to attack that threat, we need to get government back to the basics of what it was designed to do.
(05:47)
And to me, those fundamentals are the following: Jobs that pay enough to save every month, schools that prepare kids for those jobs. A home you can call your own, safety and security from fear, energy to power our lives and an environment to pass on to our kids, and healthcare you can actually afford. This economic war plan aims not just to fix these systems or nibble around at the margins, but to rebuild them. And as a Democrat, if we have to slaughter some sacred cows to do it, then so be it.
(06:24)
Okay, so let's get to it. At the Pentagon, once you identify the problem you're trying to solve, you lay out how you're going to attack it. For this economic war plan, there are five lines of effort we should pursue. First: jobs. We need to help every American, who is willing to work for it, achieve economic security.
(06:43)
Imagine the middle class is like a ship at sea. For the better part of 30 years, it's been taking on water as the middle class has shrunk, and now it's about to hit a category five hurricane in the form of artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has the potential to change our economy more than the internet did. Think about that. Productivity will go up and jobs will be gained, but jobs will also be lost.
(07:09)
And that's going to start with entry-level jobs where college graduates cut their teeth. The skilled trades, plumbers, electricians may be more resilient. Jobs like nursing or teaching where people skills are really, really important might be safer as well. But jobs where you're summarizing information like a brand new paralegal or an accountant will be more at risk. Certainly in the Midwest, we're used to being the first to go when it comes to economic change: bad trade deals, automation. This time we may not be first on the list, but change is coming and we need to get our ass in gear. So, any discussion of jobs needs to focus on job creation for the middle class.
(07:51)
That starts with supporting small businesses. Small businesses employ nearly half the private workforce in America. So, if we want to grow the middle class, we need to radically realign policy to support small businesses. We need to invest more in helping businesses get off the ground and grow their operations in America. And we need to give entrepreneurs back their time, simplifying taxes, licensing, patents, and regulations that distract from creating more jobs.
(08:19)
The flip side of this is the first sacred cow I want to slaughter. Too often Democrats fail to make the distinction between small businesses and the largest multinational corporations. And because of that, many Americans hear us as plainly anti-business. And while we're on the subject, too often as Democrats, we have the habit of vilifying success.
(08:41)
Yes, we want everyone in America, including the President of the United States, to play by the same set of rules. Yes, we need a fair tax code to ensure all Americans are paying their fair share. But this is America. No matter who you are or where you come from, Black, white, Latino, first generation, if you play by the rules, we want you to be wildly successful.
(09:05)
Next: on job creation, we need to get serious about bringing our critical supply chains home. We need an aggressive ten-year plan that prevents any foreign nation from having a veto over America's national security. That's what we call good old-fashioned industrial policy. Because we need to answer one single question: What critical items should we always make, at least in part, in the United States? Things like military hardware, of course, but food, pharmaceuticals, items like microchips that millions of Americans depend on.
(09:37)
We're never again going to make Rubik's cubes and ladies razors here in America. That's fine, we're good. But it's not fine for China to have control over rare earth minerals or batteries that our auto industry depends on. It's not fine if a single pharmaceutical plant going down in India means a shortage in cancer drugs in Michigan.
(09:59)
To make sure these critical products are made at home, we need to use a combination of tools: targeted tariffs, yes, and a shared plan where we tag team with our allies and partners, also incentives. But to be clear, sloppy and chaotic tariffs are not a substitute for an actual plan.
(10:16)
Finally, if you really want to deal with the economy, we must acknowledge that our immigration system is broken. It's not working for anybody, not our employers, not our border officials, and not the immigrants themselves who are simply looking to live the American Dream the same way my family did. We need an immigration plan that is keyed to our economy.
(10:38)
Immigrants fill critical labor shortages on our farms, in our factories, in our hospitals, and in our firms. And in Michigan alone, one out of four small businesses are owned by immigrants. So, we need a system that brings legal, vetted immigrants into our country. That means talking directly to employers, setting up a completely new system that automatically sets visa caps at the needs of the workforce. Some years we're going to need more workers, some years less.
(11:09)
And no immigration plan exists without a clear plan on border security. As a former CIA officer, every country in the world deserves to know who and what is coming across its borders, and no one should be here illegally. As a border state, Michigan lives this every day. But both parties have been a mess on this issue. Republicans think border security should substitute for an immigration policy and are rounding up people in a way that goes against American values. And Democrats are scared to impose real rules.
(11:41)
So, let me slaughter another sacred cow. We need to move past this talking point on comprehensive immigration reform. For the past 20 years, politicians in both parties have abandoned immigration deals, either because they were not perfect or because they preferred to use immigration as political ammo. We need big, bold change to fix a broken system, but at this point, that can be in one bill or spread across five bills. I will work with any adults I can find who are actually interested in making some kind of progress on immigration.
(12:16)
But it doesn't matter how many jobs we create if those jobs don't pay enough to allow you to save every month and make it to the middle class. All across the country, people are working two or more jobs just to make ends meet. We need an economy where every American can do one job, full time, good benefits, and live a stable life. As workers increase their productivity, employers should make sure that they share in the wealth of the good years.
(12:43)
And there should be consequences for corporations if they don't. If a global company is paying its full-time workers so little that they need federal benefits like Medicaid or food stamps, that's not a living wage, and that company should lose eligibility for tax incentives. The government shouldn't give big tax breaks to big companies and then have to pay again to keep their employees from going hungry. That's double-dipping, it makes the taxpayer pay twice for corporate greed, and has got to stop.
(13:15)
And while we're talking about employers and employees, I've heard some people cast union labor as a problem or a roadblock to progress. Those folks are dead wrong. Unions were invented because of corporate exploitation, and every worker in America should have the right to join a union if they want. It is not by accident that we're back in an era of increased interest in unions. Now our unions need to become more nimble. They can't live in the past. But if you're a large corporation worried about unionization, I suggest you focus a bit more on taking care of your workers with good wages and good benefits.
(13:53)
I've talked about jobs in this brave, new world. Next, our second line of effort is we need schools that prepare our kids
Senator Elissa Slotkin (14:00):
… for the jobs of the future. The middle class won't mean much if Americans with a public school education can't get in. We've mentioned how AI is going to radically change our world. It's therefore a good time to radically change our schools, from community college and trade schools, to four-year colleges, to K through 12 schools. Let's talk about those one by one, starting with killing another sacred cow. In America, you don't have to go to college to be successful. I see this every day. We live this every day in Michigan where our skilled trades, operating engineers, pipe fitters in many cases are making a lot more than our college graduates. Making a living using your hands is a worthy path. Some Democrats give that lip service, but it's time to put our money where our mouth is. We need to invest heavily in certification programs, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeships.
(14:52)
The key to that is taking a stick of dynamite to our federal workforce training programs. Just blow it up. Right now, workforce training is spread across 40 different programs in 14 different agencies. We have to align all those programs around one goal, training and retraining people for a future economy. In that future economy, four-year colleges and universities will still play an important role. We want America to be the world's leader in research and development. America should be the country inventing the next GPS or the cure for cancer, and spin off a million different businesses in the process. And by the way, if we don't, China will. So we need to do the opposite of what President Trump is doing and strategically invest in university research. But if we're going to do that, we have to hold our universities to their end of the bargain and keep their education accessible because for many middle-class Americans, these universities have crossed the line from expensive to not worth it.
(15:56)
That means guardrails on costs and student loans to make college more affordable. Now all of this starts with K through 12 education. Let's state the obvious. We need to recruit and pay teachers better. We need to reduce class sizes. We need to drastically update our curriculum, especially in science and math, and we need to thoughtfully introduce AI into schools, balancing the need to prepare young people with the need to develop good old-fashioned critical thinking skills. But as we increase technology in schools, we also have to acknowledge where technology is already harming our kids. Too many students are lagging in the people and problem-solving skills that will be even more valuable in the future economy, and that's largely because of social media and cell phones. To that end, we should ban cell phones in every K through 12 classroom in America. Congress and the courts should hold social media companies accountable for using algorithms that get our kids addicted to extreme content. Rules of the road for AI are absolutely vital because if we've learned anything from the internet revolution, the tech industry will not police itself.
(17:08)
Next line of effort, housing. There is nothing more foundational to being an American than owning your own home. When my great-grandfather immigrated to this country, owning property was how he judged whether or not he had achieved the American dream. But today, that dream is even less affordable than ever. In 2005, price of a new home was $140,000 on average. Today it's over $500,000. Problem started in the 2008 recession. Builders stopped building so many homes. Decade later, COVID hits. Everyone wants to move spurring demand, add inflation to that and voila, Americans of all stripes can't buy their first home or a bigger home for their growing families. Today, the average American doesn't buy their first home until they're 40, and if they're lucky. That is not a good story, but there's something we can do.
(18:03)
We need to declare a housing emergency and spur the building of about 4 million homes to catch up with need. If our political system was healthier, we would be obsessively talking about this issue every day. But we're not. In the President's State of the Union, there wasn't a single word about any housing policy and there's not a significant proposal on home-ownership in his Big Beautiful Bill. The single biggest thing holding us back is overlapping and outdated housing regulations. Seems wonky, but individual rules may have been enacted for good reason with good intentions, but when they pile on top of each other, those rules make it nearly impossible to build homes, especially the single family homes for the middle class. So we need to slaughter another sacred cow and take responsibility for how overregulation can halt work on really important issues. We need to streamline regulations that hold back builders from constructing homes, federal and state programs, but also incentives for communities to change zoning laws that prevent construction.
(19:06)
I know this concept of overregulation is being discussed a lot now in democratic circles. That is good, but the economic war plan needs to measure concrete success by the number of homes built, not by the process we use or as we say at the Pentagon, to admire the problem. Now, let's take energy. We need an all of the above energy plan and we need to pursue it now. We all know we're using a lot more energy. Modern day life is demanding it, but in the last three years, electricity prices have risen by 13%, faster than inflation. It's a crisis that is sparing no one, and I hear about it constantly back home. And AI is only going to make a spike in demand. If we don't plan now in a matter of years, we're going to see things like rolling brownouts and blackouts because we don't have energy, and more and more Americans simply won't be able to afford their utility bills.
(20:03)
What's the point of having a house if you can't keep the lights on? What we need is not a renewable plan or a fossil fuel plan. It's an all-of-the-above energy plan. Natural gas, since it's not feasible to meet growing demand without it, but also other forms, nuclear, batteries, renewables like wind, solar, and hydropower and all the new stuff that's still in development from fusion to biofuels, we need it all. And anyone who tells you that we should scrap certain types of energy because it's woke, doesn't actually give a crap about your costs. They care more about scoring political points and funding, frankly, their own reelection. Last, climate change is upon us. Even my Republican colleagues will admit that behind closed doors. And we need to expand the coalition of citizens working to mitigate climate change. But here I need to slaughter another sacred cow. The way some Democrats approach climate change is elitist. You're either with us or against us.
(21:04)
In the 2000s, climate change was a theoretical thing, but today it's here in the form of extreme weather that is disproportionately hitting middle-class pocketbooks. By continuing to use climate change as a purity test, we're excluding people who are now inclined to join the cause. We need to meet people where they are. People get that extreme weather is a pocketbook issue. Let's start from there and try and bring as many Americans into the cause as we can. Finally, the last line of effort providing for the life and health of your family. But there are few systems as broken as healthcare in 2025 America. The whole country knows that our healthcare system is not working for anyone, not for the doctors and nurses, not for the admin staff who work in the system, and definitely not the patients. Is there a single American who thinks that healthcare is working well?
(21:58)
I know this issue better than most. When my mother was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, she did not have insurance. She had let it lapse after she couldn't afford it. And while she was fighting for her life, we were fighting the insurance companies just to get her care. In the most powerful country in the world, all people deserve access to care. It's a core reason I ran for office. Tomorrow, President Trump and the Republicans are going to try and finish the job they started during Trump's first term, cutting your healthcare. This time around, they're trying to hide it. They know it's not popular, but the result is this: every single American is at risk of either losing their health insurance or having the price of their healthcare go up by January 1. Keep book on that. And it begs the question, what should we be for on healthcare?
(22:48)
Put me down as a supporter of a true public option. That means any American at any age has the ability to buy into a nationwide public insurance plan. You want to stay on your private insurance, no problem. But if you want to leave your job, move between states, start your own business, or retire early, there's a reasonable option that's there for you at a reasonable price. Now, don't let anyone tell you that this plan would be incremental. It would change the face of healthcare in America. And that's good because at this point, we are at a breaking point because the life and health of your mom or your kid, there is nothing you won't do. And elected leaders ignore that anger at their peril. Then we need to take a literal battle axe to the whole way we do prescription drug pricing. Just destroy it. It's also broken.
(23:40)
Americans should always be the place where we invent the new miracle drug, but in the system that we have, drug companies and a million middlemen in between, jack up the prices however they want. And the treatments and cures only work if you can afford them. Democrats made some progress on this issue in the last few years, but it's not enough. Medicare and a new public insurance plan should have the ability to negotiate prices for all drugs. This is the Costco model, and every American understands the Costco model. You buy in bulk and you get a cheaper per unit price. We also need a little sunlight and a little transparency on prescription drug pricing. There is no other product in your life where you don't get to know the price until you hit the register. That's crazy, and it is purposely done. Which leads me to my final point.
(24:32)
We have to go after special interests that keep our healthcare prices high. In my six years in Congress, I have seen no issue more influenced by lobbyists and political donations than healthcare. If you want to know why all Americans are furious about the price of healthcare and nothing ever changes, it's because of this very ugly reality. Lobbyists and corporate PACs donate a lot of money, and then members of Congress feel beholden to protect those industries, and that has real life consequences for middle class Americans on healthcare and on everything else. That's why a key part of my economic war plan, which undergirds everything actually, is taking action to regain the trust of the American people. We need a full on ban of corporate PAC money. I am one of six senators who has never taken corporate PAC checks. Six out of 100. Beyond that, we also need to ban members of Congress from trading stocks and cryptocurrencies so Americans know politicians aren't personally profiting from their access.
(25:34)
The middle class doesn't have a lobbyist, they don't have a super PAC, they don't have a corporate PAC, but they should have the Democratic Party. You want to refocus elected leaders, both Democrats and Republicans on middle class issues, own up to the role that money plays in politics and gut it. None of this is radical. This is getting back to basics. And as we know from sports, if you can't get the basics right, no one cares about your trick plays. So that's my vision for getting back to basics, the economic war plan for America. Frankly, it's what most Americans want their government to be focused on, and it's how government can hold up their end of the great economic bargain. Government sets the conditions for success, and the American people work hard to achieve it. Look, I know this is a fractious time in our economy and in Washington, it seems like we can't move forward.
(26:29)
Democrats are stuck playing constant defense against what's coming out of the White House, but defense is simply not enough. No team in history on the field or in Washington D.C. Ever won a damn game without going on the offense. We need to offer a different vision and demonstrate an affirmative positive plan for the country. That's our responsibility and what this moment demands of us. And given the stakes, the existential threat of a shrinking middle class, an economic war plan is what I know how to do. We need to treat the moment with the seriousness it deserves and be relentless in protecting the country we all love. Thanks for having me. All right. And go sit down.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
Thank you so much for that, just robust set of policy ideas. I'd love that at a thinking. I guess I'll start off with the last point that you made about political reform and the moment we're in. So I think we've never seen an administration like this where one day we're discussing a Qatari jet that could be sent, could be essentially gifted to the administration.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
But I also think that when we are concerned about public outrage, there is a perception that the system is corrupt, which in some ways insulates criticism of the White House. Your economic war plan focuses on addressing the core economic challenges. But I'd love to just have you talk a little bit more about public distrust, concerns about corruption, and then how that makes it harder or easier to address economic challenges.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (28:36):
Yeah, I mean, I think you're right, and it's hard to hear with everything that's going on in the White House, but people back home in Michigan perceive the system is corrupt. Everybody's a mess. And to the point where sometimes you'll say, look, the President of the United States is turning the White House into a milking cow that he's using for his own purposes. And they're like, yeah, but the whole thing's corrupt, right? It's like it deflates criticism because there's this expectation at this point that politicians rig the system for themselves. And I think that you have to have a radical package of ethics and money reform in order to even start to right that ship. And I think sometimes it surprises people because I tend to be more on the pragmatic side that I had decided originally my first campaign, I wasn't going to take corporate money and did the bill to ban stock trading and all that stuff, but I never want someone to question why I'm voting for something.
(29:46)
So I think it undergirds every vote. Why is this happening? Why is this elected official, is it really because they're trying to protect me? Or is it because they're trying to insulate some industry that's given them a big check? So I think until we do that, we can have strong proposals and we should, but there's always going to be this lingering question. Sometimes in this town, more often than not lately, sometimes you get the left and the right agreeing on things. It's kind of like the political spectrum meets around the back. And I think on campaign finance reform, on ethics reform, it would be really powerful if we could ever get to that point. And if there's ever a president who's going to force us there, it might be this one.
Speaker 1 (30:29):
Great. And then to follow up on some of the points you made, I guess I would just ask how you see the current debate. You talked a little bit about reconciliation and some of the impact of the cuts on healthcare for working class people. So in a world in which it feels like we're moving backwards on costs, how do you see the opportunity to advance on something like healthcare costs?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (31:01):
Well, this is why it's extremely important to understand and focus ourselves as Democrats, as Americans on this issue of the economy and of costs, because this is what the president ran on. This is the lead foot in any pushback on him. A Qatari jet, we can talk about that all day long, but what he's doing is distracting us from talking about the very thing he ran on, which he said he was going to put more money in people's pockets and in every single category, your groceries, your insurance, your utility bill. Go down the list of how a family does their budget, and he's making them pay more, not less. And we should be relentlessly talking about that.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Absolutely.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (31:50):
And I think that's what happens when we don't have a plan that we cohere around, is that everyone talks about the thing they think is really important, which is fine, except you do need to convey who we are to the rest of the country. And to me, that's why the economy and costs are kind of, they're essential, but they're also a unifying factor for whether you're a moderate or progressive or anything in between.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
And I guess I'd like to just drill down even more on that because what's interesting about the first six months, although of course you could be confused to think it's six years, but in the first six months of this administration, which is very different from the first administration, if you look across issues, you talked about the broad tariff policy and rising costs, the reconciliation package will make, as you noted, healthcare more inaccessible and expensive, not just for people in Medicaid, but for everyone else. In a weird way, the administration, it's not that they're not talking about these policies, it's that the burden of their policies are disproportionately on working class people in a way that we just, I mean, they tried with the ACA, but that didn't actually succeed, and their first tax plan in the first administration was just a tax cut plan. It didn't raise costs for anyone. So I guess, what is your analysis of what we should be doing on that contrast point?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (33:23):
I mean, again, I think the president has long been very good at saying one thing and doing another and then not having accountability for what he's actually done. And so it's our job to expose that accountability. And because I am an analyst by training, I went back and thought about the first administration and what was the single best success Democrats had in his first term, where we absolutely obliterated a signature goal for him. It was on pushing back on him, repealing the ACA or Obamacare. He put it out there, he ran on it, he celebrated it, he did rallies on it. Then he got into Office and he talked about it obsessively for the first six months. He made the House of Representatives actually vote to repeal it, and it was because John McCain came in and did the big thumbs down. But why had the mood shifted in the country so much that John McCain could vote against his party and vote it down?
(34:19)
We had done just a massive education campaign in rallies and op-eds and grassroots work to explain to that voter, that citizen who actually doesn't really watch the news a lot, who doesn't think politics has anything to do with them. They suddenly were like, "Wait a minute. You're going to take away my healthcare? Wait a minute. I have a pre-existing condition and you're going to make it so that I can get charged more? My kids can't stay on my health insurance until they're 26?" Suddenly we went to that kind of middle group of voters that decide elections and decide a lot of public opinion, and they shifted and he could not achieve the goals to the point where he knows now that he can't talk openly about cutting your healthcare. He has to hide it.
(35:05)
So that to me is the model for, like if you want to be effective, and we all want to be effective, if we want to be effective at pushing back on him, that is the model. He's a populist. So when you turn the public against his ideas and that's what's going on, I think we're trying to educate on Medicaid and on SNAP and all these things. That doesn't mean we always have the angle right, but that to me is the playbook for how you push back in this term.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
And I think he probably learned some lessons because he talks about reconciliation a lot less than he talked about ACA. In fact, he spends a lot of time talking about other things. But I mean, you note that the popularity reconciliation is approaching the popularity of ACA repeal.
(35:51)
I'm going to ask a question. You talked about analysis. And people should get their questions ready. I'll go to audience questions soon. But I guess a question that I struggle with a lot and just really welcome your analysis is to figure out where to go, we need to understand where we came from. And there was an agenda over the last couple of years to invest in America to pass legislation that would create jobs. 70% of the jobs created from the CHIPS, IRA, infrastructure legislation would go to people who don't have a college degree. Many of those jobs were consciously focused on places that have been left behind, and it didn't seem to resonate over the last couple of years. So I guess I'd ask you, what's your analysis of that? Was it that it wasn't well communicated? Are the ideas wrong? You talked about industrial policy, that this was an industrial policy. Is that insufficient? Was cost of living an overwhelming issue? Just how do you see, what's your analysis?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (37:04):
Yeah, I think there was a lot of important things that got done. I mean, I voted for them, but I think we just now have to understand that we live in an era where if a tree falls in the woods. If you do an important policy, but people can't see it and feel it and smell it and understand where it came from, then don't expect credit. And I think this is what we have to grapple with also as Democrats. We passed really important legislation, but how much of that money got out and why didn't it get out? I come from a state obviously, where a very topical issue is electric vehicles, and if you vote on a lot of money to get charging stations all over the state, but you still can't drive up north in Michigan on an electric vehicle easily, well, then people don't see it. They don't feel it.
(37:59)
So I think people feel like the federal government has become so slow and lumbering at best that it can't meet their needs. Like I said, if they're not doing the basics and making it easy to get into and stay in the middle class, then they're not real excited about your newfangled thing because they feel like, what's the point? Okay, great. You did this, but I can't save enough money to send my kid to summer camp. So you got to get the basics right first and then you get a message.
Speaker 1 (38:35):
And then just also on cost of living, we did an election in New York City. Assembly member Mamdani won the election, had a lot of people come out and vote for him. I guess I just wanted to ask your perspective. He focused a lot on cost of living issues. How do you see the election results?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (38:56):
Yeah, I mean, I will admit to not being a huge student of New York City politics, but I think that what I can take from it, the message that came across loud and clear, I guess to me was, number one, people just in November are still really focused on costs in the economy and their own kitchen table math, and they're looking for a new generation of leadership. Those were, to me, the two big takeaways. And I think this is why, again, it reinforces for me, we may disagree on some key issues, but understanding that people are concerned about their family budget, that is a unifying thing for a coalition. But I think the message, at least for me, was clear.
Speaker 1 (39:45):
And then just to follow on that, there's a rich debate in the Democratic Party around fighting versus conciliation. I mean, I'm not sure what the right term for the opposition of that is. And then there's ideological debates. And I guess, to me, I think that sometimes people confuse the two, fighting versus an ideological debate because you see lots of people who are kind of out there trying to fight. Some are moderate, some are really progressive. I guess I ask you just at a broad level, what do you think of those debates and how do you describe yourself in the fighter, non-fighter ideology, et cetera?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (40:32):
Yeah. So I would say I'm coming up on six months that I've been in the Senate, and my hot take is that we no longer divide along progressive versus moderate lines. I think that's very 2017 that debate. I think the debate is how do you answer one single existential question? Is the second Trump administration an existential threat to democracy, or is the second Trump administration bad, but kind of like the first Trump administration, survivable if we just wait it out? And how you answer that question puts you in one camp or the other. And I serve with people who are like, "This is existential. He's threatening the very bones of our democracy." That's the camp I fall into.
Speaker 1 (41:22):
I was going to ask.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (41:23):
Yeah, yeah. That's my camp. That's the camp. I think that is the camp. But then there's a lot, a lot of people, Democrats who are like, "We just got to wait for him to overplay his hand and the people will turn on him." And so it's mixing up like a mixing bowl with these labels of progressive, moderate, whatever, that's less relevant. It's fight or I guess flight. And so I think that is more what I see and that I think we are churning behind
Senator Elissa Slotkin (42:00):
… and closed doors to figure out which camp is going to win. But I also just want to say, I can't put out a war plan without noting that in order to actually execute, coming from the Pentagon, the Marines need to talk to the army, the navy needs to be in touch with the air force. Democrats are very disparate, we're like a solar system with no sun. We got a lot of planets, some with their own gravitational pull. We got a lot of stars, but there's not enough cohering us. And you can't retake the town of Mosul without, A, a plan, but then also a coordination effort by all parties to specialize and do things, like everyone has a different role to play, right? The infantry is different from the air cover, but you work as a team. And I think this is what is the second part of my concern, is that we don't act as a team. And when we do that, and when we don't work as a team, we turn our guns on each other and it's so, so, so fruitless.
Speaker 1 (43:16):
Yeah, a hundred percent agree. Definitely would like to have the guns outward instead of inward. I think we're going to go to questions from the audience, and I have a few here, and some reporters. Ken Thomas from the Wall Street Journal, you spoke of the need to ban members of Congress from trading stocks and cryptocurrencies. To what extent do you believe these restrictions should cover spouses and family members, and how robust should the fines be? The current fines are fairly insignificant.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (43:49):
Yeah. So right now, the rules are that if you trade a stock, you have to notify within 30 days, you or your spouse. So of course, banning should be spouse, and I think I even had dependent children in the legislation. I have to go back and check. But it should be expansive. If the point is to try and reclaim a little bit of grace and trust from the American people, go big on a reform package. And we should make it really painful to violate the rules.
(44:22)
And yes, right now there are good Twitter folks who will put out people's trades and we'll write articles about this. People need to feel it in their pocketbooks. People need to feel it in the news stories. Media, would love for you to write a little bit more about this. We've had some weird moments around the tariffs of just absolute…
Speaker 1 (44:42):
Yeah.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (44:43):
I mean, either someone's got incredible luck of the Irish, or a bunch of people made a shit ton of money on some of the decisions that were made by this White House in the last six months. And it's all out there.
Speaker 1 (44:55):
Probably with some inside tips.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (44:57):
That's what I'm saying. You're either incredibly lucky or you had some heads-up. And so exposure is good, fines are better. And then you need to enforce these things. I think that, maybe it's because of my background, I do not mind making examples of people to reset the tone.
Speaker 1 (45:22):
Great. And the second question, what strategies do you envision for convincing your colleagues in the party to adapt your approach, and what can voters, middle class voters, and others, do to support it?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (45:39):
Yeah, I wasn't asked to do it, no one suggested, I didn't ask permission to, but I think we need more ideas and vision, period, in the party. Anyone who's putting something out right now, there's obviously books that are being written and stuff like that that everyone's talking about. So more ideas, good. And then can we try and find ideas where we agree rather than just focus on the ideas where we don't agree?
(46:08)
And I think, for many of my peers, certainly for those who ran in tough states, purple states or red states, there's a lot of alignment on the economy and on getting back to basics. And so, I think I just got tired of waiting for someone else to put something out and just said, "In the world that I come from at the Pentagon and CIA, like if you see a problem, you don't just wait and let it fester, it's a bias towards action." And I think sometimes Democrats don't have a bias towards action. We have a bias towards navel-gazing.
Speaker 1 (46:48):
Or admiring the problem.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (46:50):
Or admiring the problem, as we'd say at the Pentagon. And that needs to stop. And I think we got a real splash of cold water in November on that.
Speaker 1 (47:02):
And I guess, I'd follow up. I think it's really important for us to think about our affirmative agenda, but also to think about a discipline around our critique, right? So again, we've talked about this, but in many ways, like it's sort of shocking about the moment that we're in, is that this is an administration whose policies are being borne by the very people that… disproportionately borne… The harm is being borne disproportionately by the people who just voted for them. Right? So I mean, I think the thing about discipline is it's important to have it across the spectrum. Again, it's important to have discipline on offense and defense.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (47:48):
It is. I would add to that though, that we're never going to break through just if we all get on the same talking points. There's also a very hard to hold onto thing that I see in Michigan all the time, which is Democrats have lost some of their alpha energy. I keep saying this, some of that bravado, some of that football coach energy.
(48:16)
And when you talk to people in my town, 'cause I live in a town that voted for Donald Trump. I've never won my town. I've never won my precinct. I've never won my neighbors, they're lovely, but we just disagree on national politics. I brought my town supervisor as my guest to Trump's swearing in, and he cried when I called and said, "Do you want to come with me to Trump's swearing in?" He's such a fanboy that he just completely reduced to tears.
(48:40)
So in Michigan and in other places outside of the Beltway, we live our lives, where my dad was lifelong Republican, my mom a lifelong Democrat. That used to be very normal. Sometimes people are not looking for the 13-page policy treatise on the website. They're looking for you to just show some fight and some planning and some like be the coach that's going to lead people from a losing record to a winning record. How are we going to do that and bring people along with you? And we don't do that. We're very like our book reading hands, we're very much like… This is what we need to… You can feel it. And I don't love this idea that, well, people were voting against their interests or whatever. It's like, their interest was in believing in somebody that someone was going to do something different. And while I don't believe Donald Trump for one second on what he's been selling, he at least was offering something different. And we need to hear that.
Speaker 1 (49:47):
Yeah. I also think what you described, which is having a plan, leading people, telling them what it is, and really believing in your own plan, believing in what you're saying, that's also a definition of leadership.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (50:06):
It helps when you believe your own plan. Yes.
Speaker 1 (50:09):
I have one last question here, which is, with Georgia and now New York working to open new nuclear power stations, how can we make sure the important part of clean energy policy doesn't disproportionally affect disadvantaged communities?
Senator Elissa Slotkin (50:24):
I would note, add to that, that Michigan is probably going to be the first to reopen a previously closed nuclear power plant. So we are moving out on the all-of-the-above energy approach. I think this was kind of my point is we need it all. We shouldn't preference some, we shouldn't downplay others, we need to allow the marketplace to also help in this moment. But we need to, again, rebuild in a different way. So if we're going to expand energy, we know the history, certainly we know it in Michigan, of the dirtiest coal plants being put in the poorest communities. We know that the air quality in a place like Detroit is markedly different than in the suburbs just 40 minutes away. So we have to be willing to accept that and understand that we've had an issue with equality and who gets the downsides of our environmental policies in previous generations.
(51:28)
And I think some of the ridiculousness of what's been going on around energy is that the president and the Republicans say that they care about energy for the future, but they're trying to cut off at the knees a bunch of different types of energy because it is woke or whatever. And those people do not care about the cost of energy for citizens. They don't. Because those are other types of energies to hook into the grid and help create more supply, so that people aren't paying just absolutely absurd electrical bills. I mean, that's what's going on right now.
Speaker 1 (52:04):
And also if you care about costs and cost of living, you wouldn't be decimating a whole slew of plants that will come online in the future.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (52:15):
Correct, correct.
Speaker 1 (52:16):
We are out of time. I want to thank Senator Slotkin for your great remarks on cost of living and the economy. We look forward to working with you.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (52:26):
Thanks, everybody.
Speaker 1 (52:29):
Thank you.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (52:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (52:29):
Thanks.
Senator Elissa Slotkin (52:29):
Thank you so much.
