All right, we're back now with the Democratic leader and representative, could you explain to the people at home why you told your caucus not to vote on a proposal to basically hold your pa if you didn't get a budget done?

How can you explain tha to the folks at home?

It's easy.

It wasn't a serious proposal, right?

Wait a second.

It was on the table.

It was on the board.

There was a vote.

How can you call that not serious?

How many minutes before the vote was given to our caucus?

25 minutes.

And it was a joint resolution meaning that it needed members of the Democratic caucus to vote on it.

And so if if this is something that was done in good faith, absolutely, we would hav entertained these conversations.

But it wasn't it was a political stunt.

It was a distraction from the fact that there wasn't a real budget.

And what did that do to actually progress the conversation right now in 2025?

At best, that proposal woul have helped in fiscal year 2028.

And so we need we should be using every waking resource and time and energy that we have to get a budget done.

Right now, there's no need to worr about the budget in fiscal year 2028 when you can't produce one in 20.

But here's the problem that just took you 30 second to explain to the voters at home why you didn't allow a vote on it.

And they're going what we pay them to vote on stuff, whether it's a phony thing or not.

I think the people of Michigan, it's going to be very made, very clear to them that the speaker doesn't know what he's doing and he's leading us to a government shutdown.

When there's accountability, it should be on the speaker himself.

If he's the one that's hijacking this.

What do you think?

People lawmakers should get their done, their payment set aside until they get a budget.

That already exists?

Right.

That already exists October 1st, the legislators are going to lose their pay.

I think what's unfair here is that when one person is hijacking it, the other 109 have to suffer.

And so, you know, whenever we do accountability measures and, you know, I know Democrats have a bunch of ideas on how that could be done.

It should be aligned with what the issue is.

And so if there's one bad actor, why should the other 109 have to suffer.

Later for going back to this discussion about increased tax revenue for roads, what tax increases would you personally.

Support?

Yeah, I kno that is the big question here.

And so here's my take o this is the time for negotiating this through the press and very publicly, as long as it is long gone, that ship has sailed.

Yes.

Leade Puri you're in the hot seat now.

So you got to answer the question, what tax increases would you support personally?

Not not as the leader of a caucus or in terms of negotiations.

I'm saying when you look at it yeah, as a lawmaker, what would an excise tax on marijuana something on gambling, gas tax?

Yeah, I you know, you and I have had this back and forth a couple of times and I can understand that there might be a frustration that we're not going to label out specific taxes.

But the reality is that there's not one tax out there that's going to get us there.

It's going to be an assortment of a number of different options out there.

The reality is tha there's a finite list of things that we can actually use, the triggers that we can actually pull.

There's no magic stone unturned that's going to have $3 billion of new revenue.

We want our taxes to be fair and just and right to have some level of equity in terms of how they're being administered.

And there's a number of ideas out there.

And we're I'm ope to an assortment of all of them.

Right.

There's some that ar on the table, some that aren't.

But the reality is, is that we nee something as politically viable, something that can get 56 vote in the House, 20 in the Senate, and have the governor signature.

And so I don't have a prescriptive formula of how that done, because the way that should b done is having the right voices at the tabl in good faith and negotiating.

That's not meant to punt your question.

That is truly how I fee that negotiations should be done to making sure that it i a politically viable solution.

So but I guess my concern as a reporter is that those conversations are held exclusively in the negotiating table and then launched on voters.

When you pass a budget in the middle of the night implementing those tax increases or, you know, planning fo those tax increases in a budget.

So I guess I get that a lot of this is done at the negotiating table, but some of it has to be brought out into the public, too, so that voters can see kind of where you guys are moving and voice concerns if they happen.

I absolutely agree.

And so that's why there was a deep amount of frustration with how the budge was done in the House this year.

We should be having committee.

We should note it shouldn't be something that's just I it shouldn't be something that pulled out at 5:00 and told that we're going to be voting at 6:00.

We should be having testimony, you should have in committee hearings and going through the process of having public sentiment shown in terms of what is working and what isn't working.

But you can't do that when you're cooking up a budget than holding an embargoed for months and then putting it on the legislators and the people of Michigan at the 11th hour and expecting everyone to just believe that we did everything for the right reasons or in good faith.

If the benchmark is political viability, though, I mean, what tax increase is politically viable?

You have Republicans who are still seeking a solution that doesn't involve taxes at all.

Like is there a solution out there that even if it were a mix of of different options, as you've described, is is an tax increase politically viable?

Well, I guess that's a question for the Republicans, right?

I do.

I wouldn't characterize that they have a plan.

I think they have an idea.

And that falls into the lis of the other 100 ideas out there that there are in terms of ways that we can fund the roads.

But if there is going to be a solution, we are in split government is going to take both parties to take some courageous votes and increasing revenue.

And so that is something that we're going t have to work through together.

And so if they're going t just sit there with their hands folded and draw hard lines and say this is the only way to do it, where the Senate has said tha that plan is not getting a vote in in the Senate.

And the governor said that that's not her preference in terms of how it should be done, then that plan's not politically viable.

And so if they truly want to get roads done, then we should call them out and say, okay, well then let's let's we're willing to find efficiencies and then you should be willing to find some revenue.

When it comes to voice and your concerns, do you feel like there needs to be more people in the negotiating room?

Currently, there's no Hous Minority appropriations chair.

We still hear a lot about the quadrant.

The four leaders of the legislature this week, the Triangle met just the governor and speaker Hall and Leader Brinks.

Do you feel lik you and Minority Leader Nesbitt, for that matter, need to be in the Senate?

Do you feel like they need to be more involved in negotiations as well, in in the rooms?

Invited to the rooms?

Absolutely.

I think that I can add a perspective and make up for the deficiency of leadership in the House to make sure that their perspective is is given in that room.

But the reality is, is whether we need more people or not.

I don't know.

There is one problem in a speaker who is a rookie and just doesn't know what he's doing.

And if he's going to continue to make rookie mistakes, you can throw 100 people in the room and we're still going to have those issues.

So what would you if told you you couldn't come in the meetings?

I don't kno how those meetings are set up.

I would have t you know, I've asked the speaker very publicly at Mackinac to let schedule some time and he said he doesn't need me.

And so I'm not sure how those are set up and I have not been.

But have you asked your governor why you're not in there?

You know, I talk to the governor all the time.

We have a great relationship.

In talking to the governo all the time.

Did you ask her?

I have not.

I've not asked her that that that question.

So because if I was governor and the guy who I'm keeping out of the meeting doesn't ask me why he's not there, I'm going to think he doesn't want to be there.

Yeah, well, again, I don't know if I am needed.

I don't know if that' going to fix all the problems.

But all this time this has never happened.

The quadrant has never been taken apart and turned out to be a triangle.

You must have been really unhappy when you found out you were left out, right?

Well, again, I think I'm not the speaker of the House.

I don't get to control those shots.

And I think the speaker's made it very clear that he doesn't want me in the room.

Representative, you know what I'm asking you here.

You were part of the negotiating process.

The tradition has been four leaders and you're not in the room.

Again I would put that back on the speaker.

Wait a second.

He was not the one who told you not to show up.

Did he tell you not to show up?

He's made it very clear that he doesn't want me to show up and he doesn't want me to b a part of those conversations.

And so you rolled over in played dead.

I don't need to roll over and play dead, I think what we're witnessing here is the fact that he doesn't know what he's doing.

Look like I, I, I have children, okay?

I made the mistake of taking my kid to Meijer to pick up groceries at night the other day.

And I.

Sorry.

The mistake I made on the way out to check out I went through the candy aisle and my toddler, I'm holding his hand and he sees a bunch of chocolate bags, chocolate bars, and he wants one of them.

And I said, Hey, you can't do that, bud.

And he starts to throw a little bit of a tantrum.

And I think as some young parents have maybe experienced, he gets to the point where it escalates.

He's on the ground of the grocery store yelling and screaming, kicking the he's not getting his chocolate bar.

And so at that point, you as a parent are left in the situation of how do you deal with this?

Right.

Do Explain to him in a rational thought that, hey, maybe at 9:00 at night, it's not a good idea to eat chocolate bars?

Hey, maybe we should be some apples instead.

Or hey, those aren't good for you.

Try that.

Or hey, do you just let him kind of wail, yell and scream until he works through his feelings that that assessment and that framework of how you deal with the tantrum is what I bring to work every day to deal with Matt Hall.

And so he is the speaker of the House.

Right?

And so the reality is, i that he gets to call the shots.

And so when he is mid tantrum and he's not listening to anyone, it' really hard to change his mind.

And so we are going to have to kind of suffer through his deficiency of not knowing what he's doing and when that may become.

It made very public and very clear that he doesn't have a plan, that maybe he's he'll be open to a new approach.

And working with with Democrats across the aisle to making sure a budget gets done.

Do you feel like you need as a Speaker Hall both as speaker of the House and also as minority leader last session?

You know there is no shortage of moments when Republicans needle Democrats, whether that be walking out during lame duck or whether that be passing various resolutions that Democrats were very unhappy with.

Do you feel like your caucu as a minority caucus needs to be more of a thor in their side of the majority?

You know, we don't want to be obstructionist.

Like I don't view this job the way the speaker does, to view everything from a the viewpoint of ho I can own the other party, how whatever is going to d to help me win my next election.

I'm here to do the work for the people on behalf of the people of Michigan, to make sure the institution runs the way it does, you know, so we don't want to be obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist.

I don't know what the speaker, again, with that tantrum last year accomplished to to serve th needs of the people of Michigan, he scored some political wins.

And so that's just not the lens that we're approaching this job with.

We want to actually do the work.

We want to be the ones that are meeting in the middle and split government and finding pragmatic solutions.

And so we're going to continue to lead with that.

And so obviously, we're not going to roll over and just let the speaker do whatever he wants.

But the reality is, is the way this institution set up is if the speaker has all the power.

And so we need to find our leverage point and then we'll use it accordingly.

Does not being involved directly in the budget negotiations this cycle help or hurt?

In 2026.

For?

For House Democrats?

I guess we'll find out.

You know, I think, you know, we can control what we can control.

We feel really good where the cycle is shaping up for u and we're doing a lot of work, you know, and I, I don't know if that helps or hurts us.

I guess we'll find out in the end.

But, you know, again, I think we're very happy with the work that we're putting in and what where we're headed for in 2026.

So the campaign theme will be.

Matt Hall Bad.

Democrats, Good?

No, you know, I think we're past the point of just having our elections just be and pointing fingers at how bad other people are.

Then we are going to end up with a very robust agenda of what Democrats in power can look like going forward.

I think we've listened to the people of Michigan and we're very intentionally going around the state and holding listening and finding out why it is that people are frustrated with government, what we can do to make it, make it work better.

And so we'll have our own or our own vision.

And again, as I've said, I'm I'm not Matt Hall.

I'm not here to score political wins and talking points.

I really want to do the work for the people of Michigan.

Representative, thanks for showing up.

Thanks for having me.

Always good to see you.