WELCOME TO THIS MONTH'S EDITION OF "THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM" WHERE WE ARE COVERING SOME OF GOVERNOR GUN CONTROL'S PRIORITIES FROM HER BUDGET PROPOSAL AND STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS.

ALL THAT AND MUCH MORE COMING UP NEXT.

THIS PROGRAM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MEMBERS OF WCNY.

THANK YOU.

♪ ♪ I'M DAVID LOMBARDO AND YOU ARE WATCHING "THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM," WCNY'S RELAUNCH OF CONNECT NEW YORK WITH INCREASED FOCUS ON THE POWER AND POLICY BEING WIELDED IN STATE GOVERNMENT.

THIS WILL BE AN EXTENSION OF THE "THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM" RADIO BROADCAST THAT I RECORD EACH WEEK DAY FROM THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE CAPITOL BUILDING IN ALBANY.

AND ON THIS MONTH'S EPISODE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE YEAR AHEAD AT THE STATE CAPITOL POLLING THE RELEASE OF GOVERNOR HOCHUL'S BUDGET PROPOSAL AND THE STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS.

LATER IN THE SHOW WE WILL DO A DEEP DIVE INTO THE STATE'S FINANCES WITH THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET DIRECTOR.

BUT FIRST WE'LL HEAR FROM OUR PANEL OF ALBANY INSIDERS AND POLICY WONGS.

LET YOU DECIDE WHO IS WHO.

AND THEY ARE REBECCA GARRARD, COMPANY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK, JACK O'DONNELL, MANAGING PARTNER OF O'DONNELL AND ASSOCIATES AND CAM MACDONALD, GENERAL COUNSEL GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY.

I WANT TO START WITH THE IDEA WHAT IN THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE OR BUDGET PROPOSAL WILL IMPACT THE LIVES OF NEW YORKERS?

I THINK TO 2025 AND IT'S A 250ISH BILLION-DOLLAR SPENDING PLAN PACKED WITH POLICY AND LOTS OF SPEECHES AND THERE WAS CONTENTION AND IT WAS LATE.

AND I THINK IN 2025 AND ON, THE THING THAT PEOPLE PROBABLY FELT THE MOST WAS RESTRICTIONS ON SMART PHONES IN SCHOOLS.

THAT MIGHT BE THE LEGACY AND THE MOST SUBSTANTIVE THING FROM THE WHOLE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

IS THERE A SMART PHONES IN SCHOOLS POLICY IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET OR HER STATE OF STATE PROPOSAL, AS YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAS BEEN LAID OUT SO FAR?

>> WELL, I THINK ONLY FOR SI EN USERS, RIGHT?

I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, THE BUDGET IS TO AVOID THOSE FIGHTS.

>> David: ALMOST LIKE IETION AN ELECTION YEAR.

>> ALMOST LIKE IT'S AN ELECTION YEAR.

I THINK IT IS ALMOST THE REVERSE OF WASHINGTON.

THERE IS A LOT OF CHANGE AND IMPACTS ON NEW YORKERS.

I THINK THE GOVERNOR IS TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE DAY-TO-DAY IMPACTS ON FOLKS AND JUST ALLOW THEM TO LIVE THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES.

>> David: AND YOU BRING UP SI INS BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR IS PROPOSING TO TAX THESE NICOTINE POUCHES THE WAY OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ARE TAXED.

AND MY FAVORITE PART ABOUT THAT IS THAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO USE AN AN ADDITIONAL $50 MILLION OF REVENUE FROM REVENUE ON TOBACCOS TO BASICALLY SHORE UP HOSPITALS.

AND I THINK, THIS SPEAKS TO AN ISSUE THAT THE EMPIRE CENTER HAS WITH THE WAY THE GOVERNOR IS APPROACHING THIS BUDGET, WHICH IS BASICALLY BUSINESS AS USUAL ON THE HEALTHCARE SIDE FOR MOST PART, WHICH MEANS NOT ADDRESSING SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS IN THE WAY WE PAY FOR HEALTHCARE AND THE WAY WE ADMINISTER HEALTHCARE.

>> IT'S EVER UPWARD, RIGHT?

IT'S WHAT, ANOTHER 11% OR SO INCREASE IN THAT SPENDING.

AS WITH EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING IS JUST, YOU KNOW, CRANK THE VOLUME UP ON THE SPENDING SIDE.

>> David: TURN IT UP TO 11.

>> AND LET'S FIND THE REVENUE.

WE ARE FINDING, YOU KNOW, GREAT, WE HAD A GREAT YEAR.

LET'S KEEP IT ROLLING, WITHOUT LOOKING AT WHAT IS DRIVING ALL THIS.

WHAT IS DRIVING THESE EXPENSES?

IT'S NOT REALLY-- WE ARE WELL OVER DUE FOR A REPORT THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE THAT BILL HAMMOND HAS BEEN ASKING ABOUT AND SO ON.

THERE IS NOT A LOT OF LOOKING WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE FOR THE CDCAP EXPENSES.

WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR THE VISITS.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE SERVICES THAT ARE REALLY CAUSING THESE HUGE EXPENSES IN NEW YORK.

WE ARE AN OUTLIER AMONGST THE 50 STATES.

>> David: REBECCA, I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU AND THE IDEA OF THIS BUDGET AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR ORDINARY NEW YORKERS.

WHATEVER ORDINARY IS.

THAT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER.

WE ALL THINK OF OURSELVES AS ORDINARY.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE IMPACT ON EVERYDAY LIVES OF PEOPLE.

>> IT IS MIN MINIMAL.

I WOULD SAY PEOPLE WHO ARE ENJOYING THEIR TOBACCO POUCHES MAY FEEL A HIT, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF RELIVE AND I THINK NEW YORKERS REALLY WANT RELIEF RIGHT NOW.

AND POLITICALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR IS MAKING A CHOICE TO AVOID PITFALLS OPPOSED TO TAKING BOLD INITIATIVES.

WE'LL SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT.

I THINK WE ARE IN A MOMENT, GIVEN, YOU KNOW, THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS NEW YORK HAS BEEN IN PRIOR TO THIS FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CERTAINLY EXACERBATED, RIGHT, BY OUR FEDERAL POLICIES.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, OUR NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL ELECTION, THE TURNOUT FOR A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT IN NEW YORK CITY IN 2024, SHOULD BE TELLING US, WHAT I TAKE FROM THAT IS THAT NEW YORKERS WANT BOLD NISHS AND SOMETHING DIFFERENT, RIGHT, NOT A KIND OF DUCK AND COVER STRATEGY.

>> David: WHAT DOES BOLD LOOK TO YOU BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT RELIEF FOR NEW YORKERS, I THINK THAT, AGAIN, COMES THE IDEA OF THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS ON WHAT IS NECESSARY AND WHO NEEDS HELP.

THERE WAS EVEN, TO MY AMUSEMENT, A DEBATE ON THE SENATE FLOOR ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES A MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY IN NEW YORK WITH THE SENATE REPUBLICAN LEADER HAVING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VISION THAN WHAT IS MAYBE IN THE MAINSTREAM IN NEW YORK.

SO WHAT DOES RELIEF LOOK LIKE TO YOU?

>> YEAH, I MEAN WHEN WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT STILL HALF OF TENANTS IN THIS STATE ARE RENT BURDENED BY EVERY ACCEPTABLE FINANCIAL METRIC, WHEN WE HAVE ONE IN FIVE CHILDREN THAT ARE IN POVERTY, I THINK THE NEED FOR RELIEF SHOULD BE A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED FACT AND NOT SOMETHING THAT IS UP FOR DEBATE.

I THINK IT CAN BE PROVIDED BY AN INCREASE IN PROGRESSIVE REVENUE.

CLEARLY THIS GOVERNOR HAS NOT WAIVERRED IN HER STANCE THAT PROGRESSIVE REVENUE, INCREASING TAXES ON BIG CORPORATIONS, ON THE ULTRAWEALTHY IS NOT SOMETHING SHE IS WILLING TO DO.

THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT REMAINS ENORMOUS POPULAR ACROSS PARTY LINES, IF YOU POLL REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS.

IT IS EXTREMELY POPULAR.

SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ASSERT THERE IS MONEY TO BE HAD.

I HEAR CAM SAYING-- THROWING MONEY AT THE PROBLEM IS NOT ALWAYS THE SOLUTION.

BUT I THINK IF YOU ARE A PERSON WHO IS STRUGGLING TO PAY FOR YOUR ACC SUBSIDIESES STRUGGLING TO KEEP YOUR HOUSE, YOU KNOW, KEEP YOUR FAMILY HOUSED, STRUGGLING TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE WITH FOOD SUPPLEMENTS BEING HIT,... >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING REVENUE, BUT TO SPEND ON WHAT SPECIFICALLY?

IS IT JUST ABOUT SUBSIDIZING ALL OF THOSE DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE THINGS THAT PEOPLE ENCOUNTER FROM THEIR DAILY BILLS, WHETHER IT'S RENT, WHETHER IT'S HEALTHCARE, WHETHER IT'S CHILD CARE.

IS THAT HOW YOU SEE ALL THIS MONEY BEING SPENT?

OR ARE THERE OTHER WAYS YOU THINK THAT INCREASED REVENUE SHOULD BE INVESTED?

>> I THINK IT'S A COMBINATION.

I DO THINK THERE ARE STRUCTURAL THINGS TO CAM'S POINT, THAT WE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTING AS A STATE FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE, RIGHT?

FOR-PROFIT SYSTEMS DON'T TEND TO BODE WELL FOR PEOPLE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF HUMAN RIGHTS SOCIAL SERVICE NEEDS LIKE HOUSING, LIKE HEALTHCARE, LIKE CHILD CARE.

SO I THINK THERE ARE DEFINITELY STRUCTURAL CHANGES.

AND WE COULD GO DEEP INTO THAT IF YOU WANT BUT I'M TRYING NOT TO HOG THE TIME.

BUT THERE IS ALSO A TRIAGE MOMENT.

THERE IS A TRIAGE MOMENT AS THOSE POLICIES SHOULD MOVE FORWARD, WHERE PEOPLE NEED IMMEDIATE RELIEF.

NEED IMMEDIATE RELIEF FOR THINGS THAT ARE JUST ACTUAL NECESSITIES.

AND, YES, I DO BELIEVE OUR STATE GOVERNMENT HAS AN OBLIGATION TO INTERVENE.

>> David: CAM, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME ELEMENTS THAT ARE POSITIVE, FOR INSTANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE IDEA OF SECRET REFORM, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REFORMS.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE YET, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE STATE-BASED LAW ISSUES THAT CAUSE DELAY AND A LACK OF ABUNDANCE WHEN IT COMES TO HOUSING.

AND THERE ARE ZONING ISSUES AND INFILL THAT COULD BE ENCOURAGED AND SOME OF WHAT THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS EXACTLY THAT.

YOU DO HAVE PROBLEMS FROM COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY, THE NIMBYISM THAT KEEPS OUT DEVELOPMENT, KEEPS OUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT HAS TO BE OVERCOME IN SOME WAYS.

BUT WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF-- IT IS REFRESHING THAT THERE IS SOME ATTENTION BEING PAID TO SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS THAT CAUSE THAT, WHICH IS A LACK OF ABUNDANCE, A LACK OF OPTIONS FOR HOUSING, A LACK OF, YOU KNOW-- AND IT COMES DOWN EVEN TO THE SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL CHOICE AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTING.

PEOPLE ARE LIMITED BY THEIR SIP ZIP CODE WHESHZ WHERE THEY CAN GO TO SCHOOL WHICH MAKES REAL ESTATE IN DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS UNAFFORDABLE FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS TO APPROACH LOW END COSTS FOR EVERYONE IN THE HOUSING AREA THAT INCLUDE THINGS LIKE SCHOOL CHOICE AND REMOVING BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT.

>> I GUESS I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THE GOVERNOR IS TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THOSE THINGS, RIGHT?

I THINK WE ARE SEEING, WE SAW AN INCREASE IN INVESTMENT IN SOME OF THE HOUSING STUFF THAT SHE IS DOUBLING DOWN ON.

WE SEE INVESTMENT IN CHILD CARE IN SUPPORT OF MAYOR MAMDANI'S CHILD CARE PLANS.

I THINK SHE IS TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS BUDGET.

>> SO I WOULD ADD, THIS IS ALSO AN OPENING BID.

NOW WE GO THROUGH THE GRIND, THE SAUSAGE MAKING IN THAT CLOSED ROOM.

AND LET'S-- ONE THING THAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR THAT WAS THE BIG EVENT WAS CELL PHONES IN SCHOOLS WHICH CAME OUT OF THE GATES PRETTY STRONG, STRICT RULES, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH SCHOOLS.

AND THAT GOT CELL PHONES IN SCHOOLS BUT THAT GOT WATERED DOWN SO IT BECAME SORT OF LIKE WELL, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO HAPPEN BUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS CAN DECIDE ON THE LEVEL.

IF YOU GO BACK TO COVID, WHAT THE DISTRICTS AND THE SUCHTS AND SCHOOL BOARDS ARE LOOKING FOR ARE A WAY TO GET A COP OUT AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDY IF THE LAW SAID PHONES MUST BE HANDED OVER AT THE DOOR.

IT WOULD HAVE ELIMINATED DEBATES WITHIN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SO ON.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO WHATEVER THE GOVERNOR HAS PROPOSED, THERE IS AN EXCELLENT CHANCE A LOT OF THIS STUFF IS GOING TO GET WATERED DOWN BEFORE-- AS IT GETS WASHED THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.

>> David: I WANT TO HAMMER HOME THAT POINT.

WE HAVE TWO PLUS MONTHS IN THIS BUDGET PROCESS, MAYBE LONGER, DEPENDING ON HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS STRETCHES ON PAST APRIL 1, WHICH IS THE START OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

WHAT DOES THE LEGISLATURE MAKE OF THIS?

DO THEY SEE ANY MAJOR ISSUES?

ARE THERE ANYTHINGS IN THIS PROPOSAL THAT YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE DEMOCRATIC MAJORITIES?

OR BECAUSE THIS IS ELECTION YEAR AS WE ALLUDED TO IN THE PAST, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO KEEP THEIR HEADS DOWN AND GET OUT OF DODGE AS FAST AS THEY CAN?

>> I THINK THERE IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE SOME OF THAT, RIGHT?

THAT THEY'RE IN A HURRY.

PRIMARIES, OTHER THINGS, RIGHT.

BUT THAT SAID, I THINK IT'S LESS THAT THERE IS A LOT IN HERE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FIGHT AND I WOULD ARGUE THAT CELL PHONES BELL TO BELL AND THE GOVERNOR STAYED STRONG ON THAT AND SOME OF THAT WAS GOOD.

BUT IT'S THE ABSENCE, RIGHT?

IT'S WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S WHAT ELSE SHOULD BE DONE?

I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE ARE GOING HEAR FROM THE LEGISLATURE.

IT'S THE PLUS UP, RIGHT?

THAT I THINK PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT AND HOW WE PAY FOR THAT.

>> David: REBECCA, WHAT DOES THE LEGISLATURE GET OUT OF THIS?

WHAT DO THEY RETURN TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE DELIVERED?

THE BUDGET?

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THIS IS A GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL BUDGET.

I CAN'T SEE WHAT SPEAKER HEASTIE WOULD COME BACK TO HIS MEMBERS AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE DELIVERED FOR YOU OR MAJORITY LEADER ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS, WHICH IS WHAT WE DELIVERED FOR THE SENATE MAJORITY.

WHAT DO YOU SEE THE LAWMAKERS INSERTING INTO THE PROCESS?

>> I WOULD AGREE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WATERED DOWN THIS PROPOSAL.

IT IS ADDITIVE AS IT MOVES THROUGH.

LOOK, THEY BOTH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF PROGRESSIVE TAXES AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE NEGOTIATED.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RECKON WITH WHEN THEY GO INTO THE THREE WAYS IN THAT ROOM.

THIS.

THEY HAVE BEEN THE CLEAREST THEY HAVE EVER BEEN.

THAT THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

>> David: YOU THINK SO?

I'M FASCINATED TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE WAY THE GOVERNOR HAS SAID WE LOOKED UNDER THE COUCH CUSHIONS AND BOY WE FOUND MORE CHANGE, A RICH UNCLE MUST HAVE COME OVER AND JUST DROPPEDDED ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER YEAR WHERE THEY PUT OF ANY SERIOUS DEBATE ABOUT RAISING TAXES WHILE NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MAMDANI HAS MADE REFERENCES TO INCREASING TAXES, IT SEEMS FOR NOW THAT PAYS LIP SERVICE WHAT MAKES YOU THINK LAWMAKERS WILL GO TO BAT MORE THAN IN THE PAST?

>> I THINK THE RHETORIC WE HAVE SEEN OUT OF THE SPEAKER AND THE MAJORITY LEADER HAS BEEN MORE AFFIRMATIVE IN TERMS OF PROGRESSIVE REVENUE THAN WE HAVE SEEN HISTORICALLY.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THEY WILL NECESSARILY WIN THAT BATTLE OF THE THREE WAY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK AGAIN THE GOVERNOR HAS VERY STRONG OPINIONS ON THIS.

AND SHE HAS OUTSIDE SIZED POWER IN THAT PROCESS.

SHE CAN HOLD EVERYTHING UP UNTIL SHE GETS HER WAY.

SO THERE IS A LIMIT, RIGHT, TO HOW MUCH POWER THEY HAVE TO PUSH THINGS THROUGH THAT SHE DOESN'T WANT PUSHED THROUGH.

BUT MY SENSE IS, YES, THEY HAVE ALWAYS HAD OR FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS, HAVE HAD TWO PROPOSALS, THE P.I.T.

AND THE CORPORATE IN ONE HOUSES, THEY HAVE DIED WHEN IT HITS THREE WAYS EXCEPT FOR THE EXTENSE IN THE-- EXTENSION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR OF THE CORPORATE.

BUT MY SENSE IS THAT IT IS GOING TO BE PUBLICKED HARDER.

WE HAVE NEW YORK CITY, WHICH IS MAYOR MAMDANI IS QUITE CLEAR HE IS FACING A BUDGET DEFICIT, THAT HE WANTS HELP WITH.

UPSTATE MAYORS ARE NAMING THE SAME THING.

AND SO I DO THINK WE WILL SEE SOME SORT OF RECKONING AROUND ALL OF THAT.

AND THE OTHER THING, I THINK WILL BE A PRIORITY FOR THEM IS IMMIGRATION POLICY.

I KNOW SHE MENTIONED IMMIGRATION IN HER SPEECH.

IT WAS POPULAR.

GOT A LOT OF APPLAUSE.

I THINK IF WE REALLY LOOK AT THE POLICY, I'M NOT SURE THERE IS ENOUGH THERE TO SATISFY TO LEGISLATURE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO ANSWER TO THEIR COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, I DELIVERED ON THIS.

>> AND THAT'S WHY I THINK YOU WILL SEE THE LUGHT YOU ARE STAND-- LEGISLATURE STAND UP ON THE POLICY AND WE SAW SOME OF THAT, THE RAISE ACT, RIGHT?

THEY'LL PASS IMPORTANT LEGISLATION THAT THEN PUTS THE GOVERNOR IN A BOX AT THE END, RIGHT, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> David: FOR VIEWERS, THE RAISE ACT REFERS TO AN ARREST TO REGULATE SOME OF THE CUTTING EDGE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEVELOPMENT IN NEW YORK.

BUT I WANT TO STICK WITH THAT ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION, JACK, AND YOU ARE OUR POLITICAL EXPERT SHEER, ALONG WITH REBECCA.

AND THE GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT GOING AT THE IMMIGRATION ISSUES LARGELY USING HER EXECUTIVE POWERS.

THERE IS A BILL THAT HAS BEEN KICKING AROUND FOR A FEW YEARS KNOWN AS NEW YORK FOR ALL.

THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HAS SAID THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR ME ESSENTIALLY CODIFYING WHEN AND WHEN NOT LOCAL OFFICIALS CAN WORK WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICIALS.

THE GOVERNOR SAID I THINK THE CURRENT BALANCE WORKS.

WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A NEW LAW.

DO YOU THINK LAWMAKERS WILL PUSH THAT THIS YEAR?

BECAUSE IN 2025, WE SAW ASSEMBLYMEMBER ARTICLE HEASTIE SAY I WANT TO PAY OFF THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEBT.

HE GOT THAT.

IT WAS UNIQUE THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER SAID THIS IS THE BILL I WANT TO PASS THIS YEAR.

DO YOU THINK THAT CAN GET DONE DESPITE THE GOVERNOR SAYING WELL, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A LAW.

>> YES, I THINK THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO PUSH THAT, RIGHT?

I THINK THE GOVERNOR-- I MEAN YOU SAID THE WORD THAT I THINK ABOUT A LOT HERE, WHICH IS BALANCE.

KATHY HOCHUL IS A DEMOCRAT BUT SHE IS A LAW AND ORDER DEMOCRAT, RIGHT?

AND SHE IS VERY COGNIZANT OF DEMOCRATS POLITICAL WEAKNESSES ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.

AND COGNIZANT OF THE ENERGY FROM SOME ON THE LEFT AROUND STANDING UP TO ICE AND ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN MINNESOTA AND SOME OTHER THINGS.

BUT TRYING TO BALANCE THAT, I THINK, IS A REALLY HARD PLACE FOR THE GOVERNOR POLITICALLY FACING A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY AND THEN A GENERAL ELECTION.

BUT I THINK THE LEGISLATURE, YOU MENTION ANDREA STEWART-COUSINS.

I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF LEGISLATURES THAT THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE MUCH LOUDER AND MUCH MORE FORCEFUL.

>> David: I WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU, CAM, AND THE STATE'S FISCAL PICTURE.

ON THE ONE HAND YOU'VE GOT REBECCA AND SOME DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS IN NEW YORK TALKING ABOUT THE NEED TO INCREASE REVENUE.

THIS BUDGET, FOR THE MOST PART, IS HOLDING THE LINE ON THE EXISTING TAX STRUCTURE.

BUT THE EMPIRE CENTER HAS MADE THE CASE GREAT, WE ARE GLAD YOU ARE HOLDING THE LINE BUT WE THINK THE CONVERSATION SHOULD GO FURTHER AND LOOKING AT CUTTING TAX.

I'M STRUCK BY A STATEMENT FROM THE NEW HEAD OF PARTNERSHIP FOR NEW YORK CITY WHICH REPRESENTS LARGE BUSINESS GROUPS, THEY DESCRIBED THE BUDGET PROPOSAL AS RESPONSIBLE AND PRAGMATIC.

AND THIS COMES AT A TIME WHEN THE GOVERNOR IS LOOKING TO EXTEND A SURCHARGE ON LARGE CORPORATIONS, WHICH SUGGEST TO ME, BASED ON THE STATEMENT, THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT.

THEY'RE OKAY WITH THE LANDSCAPE.

SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE TAX STRUCTURE AND WHERE THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO POTENTIALLY CUT TAXES, CUT WHAT BUSINESSES OR INDIVIDUALS ARE PAYING, WHERE DO YOU SEE ROOM FOR MOVEMENT?

>> SO, I GUESS TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU ARE EXTENDING A TAX THAT IS SUPPOSED TO EXPIRE, I WOULD ALSO CALL THAT A TAX INCREASE.

SO THE GOVERNOR IS NOT ALL THAT TERRIFIED OF A TAX INCREASE.

>> David: MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO.

>> WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARTNERSHIP FOR NEW YORK CITY, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF LARGE CORPORATIONS WHO ONLY HAVE SOME FRACTION OF THEIR PROFITS IN NEW YORK CITY AS SUBJECT TO-- AND IN NEW YORK-- SUBJECT TO THE HIGHER TAXES.

SO WHAT THIS REALLY HURTS MOSTLY IS SORT OF THE MORE MIDDLE SIZED BUSINESSES THAT ARE PRIMARILY NEW YORK, DRIVING MOST OF THEIR PROFIT IS FROM NEW YORK.

IT'S GOING TO HURT THEM THE MOST.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW REPRESENTATIVE THAT COMMENT IS.

AND THE BOTTOM LINE IS ALSO THAT COMMENT RELATES TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NOT CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE A PROPOSAL FROM THE GOVERNOR TO INCREASE TAXES ON WHAT ARE CONSIDERED THE VERY RICH AND SO ON.

AND, AGAIN, TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S 1% OF PERSONAL INCOME TAX FILERS PAY HALF OF THE TAXES.

IT'S VOLATILE, JUST LIKE THE REVENUE FIGURES THAT LOOSE CHANGE FOUND IN THE CUSHIONS WAS A GOOD YEAR FOR THE STOCK MARKET, WELL, YOU KNOW, HEY, S&P 500 GOES DOWN 2% YESTERDAY BECAUSE OF THE VOLATILITY COMING FROM THE PRESIDENCY, AND WHO KNOWS WHERE THINGS GO.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A-- IT'S PLACING A BET ON THE STOCK MARKET, WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, THE REVENUE NEXT FISCAL YEAR AND THEN WE STILL HAVE DEFICITS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE YEARS.

UPWARDS OF $5.5 BILLION A YEAR.

SO THERE IS ISSUES WHERE THERE IS JUST NO MORE BLOOD TO COME FROM THOSE STONES POTENTIALLY.

OR AS POTENTIALLY VOLATILE.

YOU DON'T NEED THAT MANY ULTRAWEALTHY PEOPLE TO LEAVE TO REALLY PUT US IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION.

>> David: I WANT TO STICK WITH THE IDEA OF VOLATILITY THOUGH BECAUSE AS YOU POINT OUT, THESE REVENUES THAT WE SAW THAT EXCEEDED EXPECTATIONS WERE IN LARGE PART DUE TO THE STRONG PERFORMANCE OF THE STOCK MARKET, AS WELL AS SOME, I GUESS LESS THAN EXPECTED IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ECONOMY FROM THE TARIFFS THAT WERE IMPLEMENTED IN 2025.

BUT VOLATILITY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

HOW SHOULD THE STATE BE RESPONDING TO THAT BECAUSE THE WAY THE GOVERNOR HAS APPROACHED IT IN HER BUDGET, FOR MOST PART, OKAY, IVER GOT ALL THIS MONEY.

I'M GOING TO MAKE UP SOME OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE LOST FEDERAL DOLLARS WHETHER IT'S HEALTHCARE OR OTHER AREAS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR DO YOU THINK THIS IS TIME TO DO MORE INTROSPECTION INTO HOW WE GOT INTO THIS POINT OPPOSED TO SAYING WE CAN CONTINUE OUR OVERALL SPENDING INCREASES AS LONG AS THE STATE MAKES UP THE DIFFERENCE?

>> SO I THINK THE LESSON FROM THE UNEXPECTED REVENUE FROM THE PAST FISCAL YEAR IS A PRETTY GOOD LESSON FOR THE FUTURE IN THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE-- THERE ARE SOME AMOUNTS NOT BEING TAKEN OUT OF THE RESERVES, RAINY DAY FUND NOT GETTING AS MUCH AS IT SHOULD BE.

THERE IS NOT THE BUILDING UP FOR THE INEVITABLE DECLINE THAT MAY HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, WITH RAINY DAY FUNDS AND RESERVES.

>> David: WE DO HAVE RECORD LEVELS OF RESERVES COMPARED TO THE LAST 20 YEARS.

>> THAT'S NOT SAYING ANYTHING.

>> David: FOR CONTEXT.

WE HAVE MORE MONEY IN THE RESERVES THAN WE NORMALLY DO.

>> EXCELLENT CONTEXT, YES.

WE WERE ON OUR WAY BRACK AND THIS IS-- BACK AND THIS WAS A POSITIVE TREND THAT THIS IS IN SOME WAY REVERSING.

>> David: IS IT NOT RAINING OUT WHEN WE ARE LOSING $10 BILLION?

IS THAT NOT THE RIGHT TIME TO TAP INTO THOSE RESERVES POTENTIALLY?

>> NO BECAUSE THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR MORE FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND MAYBE THEY'VE JUST BEGUN.

>> David: THIS MIGHT NOT BE A ONE-TIME THING.

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT THAT YOU ALLUDED TO IS COUNTING ON WALL STREET TO STILL BE HERE, RIGHT?

WE ARE HEARING FROM YOU KNOW, STORY IN THE PAY TEAR TODAY ABOUT ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, BANKING INSTITUTION MOVING TO FLORIDA WHO IS ACTIVELY COURTING FOLKS FROM NEW YORK CITY.

TEXAS IS ACTIVELY COURTING INTO THESE FOLKS.

KNOWING THEY'RE GOING STAY HERE IS ALSO SPECULATIVE.

>> I MEAN I JUST HAVE TO GIVE THE OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVE ON THAT, YOU KNOW.

THE REALITY IS WE KNOW WHO IS LEAVING NEW YORK AND IT IS LOW MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES, PEOPLE WHO EARN BETWEEN 30 AND 60 THOUSANDS.

IT IS NOT THE ULTRAWEALTHY THE DATA SHOIS US IS LEAVING THE STATE IN DROVES.

AND TO THE POINT OF SQUEEZING FLOOD FROM A STONE, I WOULD ASSERT THAT THIS, RIGHT, THAT 99% ARE THE POPULATION THAT WE CAN'T SQUEEZE ANYTHING ELSE OUT OF.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST 50 YEARS, THE GAP IN WEALTH INEQUALITY JUST CONTINUES TO GROW AND GROW AND GROW UNTIL WE ARE AT A PLACE NOW THAT IT IS UNSUSTAINABLE.

AND I HAVE A HARD TIME WORKING UP TOO MUCH ANXIETY OR SYMPATHY FOR THE IDEA THAT THESE TOP 1% EARNERS WHO CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR RECORD PROFIT-- LET'S BE CLEAR.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE INFORMATION THIS THESE DARK ECONOMIC DOWNTIMES, IT IS NOT THEM WHO ARE BEING HIT.

THEY CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR PROFITS AND INCREASE THEIR EARNINGS.

I REALLY WANT TO LEVEL SET US ON THIS, YOU KNOW, FEAR AROUND CHASING OFF THE WEALTHY.

NEW YORK IS-- >> WHO IS THEY, THE CORPORATIONS?

>> IT'S CORPORATIONS, IT'S INDIVIDUALS AND BOTH.

>> FUNDING OUR PENSION SYSTEM AND RETIREMENT FUNDS?

>> David: THAT'S THE POINT I WOULD MAKE.

IF YOU LOSE ONE PERSON WHO IS PAYING A DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE STATE'S TAX REVENUES, THAT IS MORE PROBLEMATIC TO OUR REVENUE PICTURE THAN 10, 20, 30, 40 PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING BELOW THE 60,000 THRESH THRESHOLD THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THE STATE BUDGET IS A REFLECTION OF ECONOMIC PRIORITY.

AND IF WE ARE GOING TO CONCEDE THAT WE ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THE LITERAL WELL-BEING, ABOUT I NOT PROTECTING SOCIAL SAFETY NETS OF NEW YORKERS BECAUSE WE ARE WORRIED WE MIGHT LOSE ONE MULTIBILLIONAIRE, WHICH WOULD MEAN PERHAPS A SLIGHT INCREASE ON THE ULTRAWEALTHY AGAIN, FIRST OF ALL WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT HAPPEN.

THIS IS SPECULATIVE.

AND I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A PROBLEM IF THAT'S HOW WE ARE DESIGNING OUR BUDGET AND OUR FUNDING AND OUR PROGRAMMATIC DECISIONS.

>> I MEAN I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING ABOUT THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OUR SOCIAL SAFETY NET BEING IN JEOPARDY, YOU KNOW, AND THERE IS JUST-- I MEAN YOU READ THROUGH THE BUDGET BOOK AND IT'S 50 MILLION HERE AND 2 MILLION HERE.

>> NOT TO INTERRUPT BUT WE HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LOSING HEALTHCARE BECAUSE THEY'RE LOSING SUBSIDIES.

THAT'S A SOCIAL SAFETY NET PEOPLE ARE LOSING.

>> David: YOU ARE SPEAKING TO THE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES.

>> I AM BUT DO WE NOT HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO STEP IN ON BEHALF OF-- >> David: WOULDN'T THE ARGUMENT BE, WHY CAN'T WE MAKE HEALTH INSURANCE MORE AFFORDABLE IN NEW YORK.

>> I AGREE.

I WOULD SAY WE ARE IN A TRIAGE MOMENT AND SYSTEMIC CHANGES WE NEED TO MAKE.

I WOULD AGREE.

>> David: DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT?

>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WILL PROBABLY BE A THEME OF LINE FOREVER IS THAT THE OTHER SIDE OF THESE EQUATIONS.

HEALTHCARE IS EXPENSIVE, HEALTH INSURANCE IS EXPENSIVE BUT WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MANDATED CARE UNDER OUR SYSTEM?

WHAT ARE WE FORCED TO PAY FOR THAT WE SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE FORCED TO PAY FOR WHEN WE ARE BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE?

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WAS DEBATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL MOST RECENTLY WITH PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN THAT HAD LESS MANDATED COVERAGE, YOU KNOW, FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF PROCEDURES THAT CAUSED EVERYONE'S INSURANCE TO GO UP.

SO YEAH, LET'S LOOK-- LET'S GET UNDER THE HOOD AND REALLY LOOK AT WHAT DRIVES THE COSTS HERE.

THAT'S MINE.

THERE IS AN UNWILLINGNESS TO DO THAT HOWEVER.

>> David: I WANT TO COME TO AN ISSUE THAT, IF YOU LIVE OUTSIDE OF NEW YORK CITY, IS PROBABLY MEANINGFUL TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND THAT IS THE COST OF CARS INSURANCE.

I THINK WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POCKETBOOK ISSUES, THIS IS A BIG ONE FOR PEOPLE AND THE GOVERNOR HAS LAID OUT A DIFFERENT, A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS TO TACK THIS WILL, SOME ANTIFRAUD MEASURES, ADDRESSING THE STATE'S NO FAULT REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS When the system allows out of co payouts, those costs get passed on to you in the form of higher monthly premium bills.

New Yorker should not pay more for the same and this is the yea we're going to do something abou We're putting the brakes on frau running a system that rewards illegal behavior.

And if you are driving drunk, drivin without a license, or committing at the time of the crash, you should not get a payday.

This is about finally standing for millions of New York drivers who deserve a break.

REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS ENCOURAGING SAFE DRIVING INCENTIVES.

YOU UNDERSTAND HOW ALBANY WORKS THOUGH.

AND WHILE THAT MAY SOUND LIKE THE MOST REASONABLE SET OF CRITERIA EVER LAID OUT DOES NOT MEAN A SLAM DUNK IN ALBANY IN PART BECAUSE THERE ARE CONSTITUENCIES THAT LIKE THE STATUS QUO, FOR EXAMPLE SOMEWHERE A TRIAL LAWYER IS HEARING THIS AND SAYING THIS IS ALL BAD.

THIS IS PROBLEMATIC, BAD FOR NEW YORKERS.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR IS ABLE TO GET THROUGH ON THIS FRONT?

BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN WHEN SHE LEANS INTO SOMETHING, POWERFUL CONSTITUENCIES IN ALBANY, WHETHER IT IS A.I.

COMPANIES, WHETHER IT'S OTHER HIGH TECH BUSINESSES, THEY WILL YIELD.

SO IS THIS AN AREA WHERE YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR CAN GET HER WAY; THAT SHE CAN DO SOME OF THESE ANTIFRAUD MEASURES, SOME OF THESE CHANGES TO NO FAULT INSURANCE?

>> I DO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE WILL GET EVERYTHING AND I'M NOT SURE-- I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER PLACE THAT REALLY MIGHT NOT LOOK LIKE IT DID WHEN SHE STARTED.

BUT I THINK THE IMPORTANT PART IS THE GOAL HERE, RIGHT?

I MEAN YOU MENTION THIS BEING A POCKETBOOK ISSUE.

IT'S INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED BETWEEN TRIAL LAWYERS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVERYONE WHO IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS.

BUT I THINK THERE IS A WILLINGNESS TO WORK AROUND THAT THAT, IF THE GOVERNOR CONTINUES TO PUSH, IF SHE LEANS INTO IT AS YOU SAY, I THINK SHE WILL GET SOMETHING DONE HERE.

>> David: CAM, PART OF THE BROADER CONVERSATION I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING FOR, IN NEW YORK IN 2026, WHICH IS ABOUT INSURANCE COSTS MORE BROADLY.

WE OF TALKING PRIMARILY THROUGH THE LENS OF HEALTH INSURANCE.

BUT I JUST MENTIONED CAR INSURANCE.

THE SENATE HAS BEEN LOOKING INTO THE COST OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY INSURANCE.

IS THIS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE , TO YOU, NEW YORK REALLY STANDS OUT AS BEING A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF THE COSTS AND THERE ARE THESE INSTITUTIONAL FORCES THAT ARE HOLDING US BACK?

OR IS THIS A CHANCE FOR NEW YORK TO BE A LEADER OPPOSED TO JUST CATCHING UP WITH OTHER STATES?

>> I THINK WE ARE CATCHING UP GENERALLY ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS ESPECIALLY ON SOMETHING CALLED THE DISASTLED LAW WHICH IS A BUG ABOO BECAUSE IT IS ANG ANCIENT 130-YEAR-OLD LAW ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT PUTS BASICALLY LIABILITY ON OWNERS AND CONTRACTORS WHEN SOMEBODY HAS AN ACCIDENT FROM ELEVATION.

>> David: IT'S LIKE THE SACREDDEST OF SACRED COWS FOR THE DNLT MAJORITY IN THE LEGISLATURE.

>> YES.

AND YOU CAN BE DUMB ENOUGH TO PUT A PAIL UPSIDE DOWN LEANING ON A 2 X 4, IT TIPS AND YOU FALL AND IT'S THE OWNER'S FAULTED AND THERE IS NO CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

THERE IS NO ASSESSING MY PART IN THE WHOLE DRAMA.

AND SO ON.

AND IT'S LEGITIMATELY A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE ARE INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT JUST WON'T UNDERWRITE PROJECTS IN NEW YORK BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS SCAFFOLD LAW IS SUCH A DRIVER OF LIABILITY AND COSTS.

>> David: WHAT ARE YOUR EXPECTATIONS FOR DROPPING OF COSTS IF THE GOVERNOR IS SUCCESSFUL, IF THE LEGISLATURE GOES ALONG WITH DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE CAR INSURANCE REFORM, IF THEY WERE TO SAY, TACKLE SCAFFOLD LAW REFORM BECAUSE TO REBECCA'S POINT WHEN I THINK ABOUT FOR-PROFIT BUSINESSES, THEY'RE NEVER USUALLY LIKE HEY GUYS, HERE IS SOME MONEY BACK.

THERE ARE USUALLY OTHER WAYS TO KEEP PEOPLE'S MONEY.

DO YOU THINK THESE TYPES OF REFORMS WOULD HAVE THE IMPACT OF DRAMATICALLY LOWERING COST FOR PEOPLE?

WOULD IT JUST SLOWLY LIMIT THE GROWTH OF SOME OF THESE COSTS?

WHAT DO YOU THINK PEOPLE'S EXPECTATIONS SHOULD BE?

WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY OF THE FINAL TEXT OF ANY OF THIS MIGHT BE OR IF ANYTHING GETS ADOPTED PEDDER.

>> YEAH, I MEAN COMPETITION DOES WORK.

I THINK YOU WOULD FIND, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN NEW YORK CITY, YOU WOULD FIND MORE COMPANIES COMING INTO UNDERWRITE THESE PROJECTS AND THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO PIT BIDDERS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER WHEN IT COMES TO INSURANCE COVERAGE.

WHEN IT COMES TO AUTO INSURANCE, AGAIN, THERE IS A MARKET.

THERE ARE COMPANIES.

I MEAN THE ADS ON TELEVISION WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE THERE IS HEALTHY COMPETITION IN THE AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE INDUSTRY, WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE LOOKING TO GAIN MARKET SHARE WITH MORE AGGRESSIVE UNDERWRITING BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT RUNAWAY VERDICTS OR THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE LEVEL OF FRAUD THAT OCCURS IN NEW YORK AND OTHER THINGS.

SO THERE ARE FACTORS THAT DRIVE THESE PRICES THAT ISN'T JUST PROFIT TAKING BY THESE BUSINESSES.

>> David: REBECCA, WHEN YOU HEAR THE CONVERSATION ABOUT CHANGES TO INSURANCE THAT ARE DESIGNED TO EITHER DIRECTLY OR HAVE TRICKLE DOWN BENEFITS FOR NEW YORKERS, IS THERE A RED FLAG THAT GOES UP FOR YOU BECAUSE THERE IS THE SENSE THAT, WELL, INSURANCE IS A PROTECTION AND THESE EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS, THEY'RE DESIGNED TO PROTECT SOMEBODY.

AND ONE MAN'S, YOU KNOW, MISPLACED BUCKET ON A LADDER IS ANOTHER PERSON'S, YOU KNOW, IMPORTANT PRECAUTION THAT THEY NEED TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF.

DOES THIS RAISE ANY RED FLAGS FOR YOU OR DO YOU APPROACH THIS CAUTIOUSLY BUT MAYBE OPTIMISTICALLY?

>> I MEAN WE DO HAVE RED FLAGS, YES.

I MEAN THESE POLICIES ARE IN PLACE FOR A REASON.

SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL THAT PEOPLE MAINTAIN PROTECTIONS.

AND VERY OFTEN WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE AFFORDABILITY ISSUES, RIGHT, WHETHER IT'S HOUSING SUPPLY, WHETHER IT'S COMPETITION, YOU KNOW, TO UNDERWRITE A POLICY, YOU KNOW, WE HEAR THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND ARGUMENT, COMPETITION AS A SORT OF SALVO, A SOLVE ALL FOR THE PROBLEM.

I WILL JUST NAME THAT I'M NOT AN ECONOMIST-- >> David: DO YOU PLAY ONE ON "THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM."

>> EVERY SO OFTEN.

I'M ABOUT TO.

>> David: THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THAT.

>> BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I HAVE JUST SEEN IN PUBLIC POLICY WHERE THAT DOES NOT PLAY OUT.

CASE IN POINT, YOU KNOW, SYRACUSE HAD A VERY STEADY 10% VACANCY RATE, VERY STEADY.

THAT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ROBUST ENOUGH FOR THERE TO BE PLENTY OF OPTIONS FOR RENTERS TO CHOOSE AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND SHOULD TELL YOU THAT, YOU KNOW, RENTS SHOULD BE LOW.

AND, IN FACT, SYRACUSE HAD THE SAME, IF NOT HIGHER RENT BURDEN STATISTICS BECAUSE SUPPLY AND DEMAND WORKS WHEN YOU ARE-- I ALWAYS USE THIS ANALOGY WHEN YOU ARE CHOOSING FROM A BOWL OF FRUIT.

IF YOUR APPLE IS TOO EXPENSIVE, YOU GO WITH THE ORANGE, BUT WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEEP NECESSITIES WHERE THERE IS NO ORANGE IN THE EQUATION, PROFITEERING IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE.

PROFITEERING WILL RULE.

COLLUSION AMONG THE GROUPS THAT SET THE PRICES WILL RULE.

AND SUPPLY AND DEMAND WILL NOT ALWAYS PLAY OUT IN CONSUMERS FAVOR.

>> David: CAM, DO YOU THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH CONSUMER PROTECTIONS AT THE STATE LEVEL TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS MEANINGFUL COMPETITION IN SOME OF THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE?

>> YEAH, WE'VE HAD LAWS EVERYWHERE.

>> David: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOOD LAWS, EFFECTIVE LAWS OR BEING POLICED CORRECTLY.

>> WELL, THAT COULD BE.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY SHORT ANG OF-- ANY SHORTAGE OF CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS IN NEW YORK.

GETTING BACK TO THE SCAFFOLD LAW THAT IS 130 YEARS OLD.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF LABOR LAW PROTECTIONS IN THE STATE.

WE'VE GOT LAWS COMING OUT OF OUR EARS.

WE'VE GOT LAWS THAT ARE DOUBLE NUMBERED.

THEY CAN'T EVEN GET THE NUMBERING STRAIGHT ON MOST OF THE LAWS THAT ARE PASSED.

WE COULD PROBABLY USE A BIG CLEANUP OF IT ALL.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS LIKE CONSUMER PROTECTION ISSUES IN NEW YORK AT ALL.

>> David: JACK, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THIS CONVERSATION WITH A COUPLE REFERENCES TO THE NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MAMDANI.

AND I WONDER HOW BIG OF A FIXTURE YOU THINK HE IS GOING TO BE OVERALL OF THIS.

WE ARE GOING TO GET A VISIT FROM HIM, AT LEAST ONE MORE MOST LIKELY ON TIN CUP DAY WHEN LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS COME AND TELL THE LEGISLATURE WHEN THEY NEED.

BUT DO YOU ANTICIPATE HE IS GOING TO PLAY AN OUTSIZED ROLE IN WHAT HAPPENS IN ALBANY?

OR DO YOU THINK THAT HE IS GOING TAKE PROBABLY A MORE PRUDENT, CAUTIOUS RESERVED APPROACH TO WHAT HAPPENS IN HIS FORMER SEAT OF GOVERNMENT?

>> WELL, I WOULD SAY SO FAR, WHAT WE ARE SEEING FROM HIM IS THAT HE IS MORE LIKELY TO TAKE THAT RESERVED ROLE, RIGHT?

HE STEPPED IN TO SUPPORT SOME ESTABLISHMENT POLITICIANS AND PRIMARIES BUT I THINK HIS VICTORY IS GOING TO PLAY AN OUTSIDE ROLE WHETHER IT'S HIM OR NOT.

YOU KNOW, THE ENERGY THAT CAME OUT OF THAT ELECTION THAT IS AROUND THE DSA AND SOME OF THESE PRIMARY CHALLENGES KNOW, SEVERAL LEGISLATURES CAME UP TO ME LAST NIGHT AND SAID BY THE WAY, I HAVE A DSA CHALLENGER NOW.

CAN YOU HELP, RIGHT?

I THINK HIS ELECTION IS CHANGING THE FACE OF THINGS, WHICH ALSO FORCES THOSE LEGISLATORS TO YOUR EARLIER POINT.

WHAT ARE THEY GOING HOME WITH?

WHAT HAVE THEY GOTTEN DONE, RIGHT?

IT IS A CYCLE, TOO, AND IT WILL FIRE THINGS UP.

>> David: REBECCA, I WOULD ARGUE WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE, TO SOME DEGREE.

IN 2018, A.O.C.

HAD HER SURPRISE PRIMARY VICTORY.

THERE WAS ALSO THEN A FEW MONTHS LATER, A WHOLE BUNCH OF ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRATS WHO GOT KNOCKED OFF.

PART OF THAT WAS DUE TO PENT UP ENERGY.

BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR-- >> THE I.D.C.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE KNOW THAT AKRON IN.

I'M CURIOUS WHAT YOU SEE AS THE ROOM OR LEVEL OF VOLATILITY GIVEN THE POTENTIAL THREATS OF DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES IN 2026 FOR STATE LAWMAKERS BECAUSE, AGAIN, I'M KIND OF SKEPTICAL OF THIS IDEA THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO BE AFRAID OF THEIR SHADOWS AND LOOKING TO EMBRACE, YOU KNOW, THE MAMDANI AGENDA HERE IN ALBANY.

>> I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SEE PRESSURE, RIGHT?

I DO NOT THINK YES, WE ARE GOING TO SEE DSA SCRIPTED ONE HOUSE BUDGETS.

NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO THAT FAR.

BUT I THINK PEOPLE MUST BE FEELING PRESSURE.

THAT WAS A HISTORIC VOTE TURNOUT AND I WOULD ASSERT VERY FEW PEOPLE SAW THAT PRIMARY RESULT COMING.

AND IT SAYS SOMETHING.

AND YOU KNOW, I KEEP SAYING THIS.

MY TAKEAWAY FROM THIS IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD WE HAD, YOU KNOW, THE HIGHEST TURNOUT IN NEW YORK CITY FOR A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT SINCE THE 80S AND 12 MONTHS LATER, YOU HAVE THE HIGHEST TURNOUT FOR A NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL SINCE THE 1960s, COMPLETE OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM.

VOTERS ARE SCREAMING FOR CHANGE.

THEY ARE SENDING AN ANTIESTABLISHMENT MESSAGE.

AND IF I WERE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, I WOULD BE REALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT.

>> David: I THINK THERE IS CLEARLY AN ANTI-INCUMBENCY IDEA, OR ANTIESTABLISHMENT IDEA.

BUT WHETHER THAT IS ORIENTED AROUND SPECIFIC POLICIES, I THINK IS HARDER TO CLAIM.

I MEAN AS REBECCA POINTS OUT, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DONALD TRUMP, PEOPLE ARE GOING FOR MAMDANI.

I WAS CONFUSED OF OBAMA TRUMP VOTERS, THE IDEA OF A MAMDANI TRUMP VOTER IS MORE CONFUSING.

>> THEIR MESSAGES, IF YOU CAN FILTER OUT SOME OF WHAT I WOULD REFER TO AS THE INSANITY ON THE PRESIDENTIAL SIDE.

>> David: I THINK I INTO YOU WHICH SIDE YOU WERE GOING TO SAY.

>> BOTH OF THEM RAN ON VERY SIMPLE AFFORDABILITY MESSAGING.

THERE WAS NOT COMPLICATED RHETORIC.

IT WAS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, VERY SIMPLE AFFORDABILITY MESSAGING.

AND THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF OVERLAP IN THAT.

>> AND IT WAS ANTIESTABLISHMENT, RIGHT?

IT WAS CHANGE, RIGHT?

AND IT WAS THAT WE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE AND SO SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE.

I THINK THIS IS LESS TRUE ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

BUT THE MAYORAL CAMPAIGN IS ALSO GENERATIONAL, RIGHT?

NOT JUST THAT YOU HAVE THIS TURNOUT.

YOU HAD YOUNG TURNOUT.

YOU HAD A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN PART OF THE POLITICAL PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME FINDING A PLACE TO GO.

WHETHER THEY FIND THOSE PLACES TO GO, WHETHER THERE IS LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES WHO OR GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATES WHO CAN TAP INTO THAT, I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET.

BUT WE GOT A WAYS TO GO.

>> David: YOU SAY SIMPLE MESSAGE.

I THINK THE ONE THING ABOUT TRUMP AND MAYOR MAMDANI IS THAT THEY'RE GOOD COMMUNICATORS WITH THE PEOPLE THEY'RE TRYING TO REACH.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS I THOUGHT WAS A SHORTCOMING OF THE GOVERNOR'S STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS AS WELL AS HER BUDGET IS THAT THERE IS NOT A SIMPLE MESSAGE FROM THIS.

THERE IS NOT AN EASY CATCH PHRASE DESPITE HER EFFORT TO TRY TO TALK ABOUT YOUR FAMILY, YOUR FIGHT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I'M NOT GETTING IT QUITE RIGHT.

DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNOR HAS A MESSAGING PROBLEM HERE?

AND IF SHE DOES, WHAT SHOULD SHE BE SAYING?

AND IF SHE DOESN'T, PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS THAT MESSAGE?

>> SHE HAS THE CHALLENGE, RIGHT.

AND AGAIN, I THINK THAT CHALLENGE COMES FROM WHERE SHE IS IDEOLOGICALLY AND WHERE SHE IS IN THE SPECTRUM.

SHE IS NOT ON THE LEFT.

SHE IS NOT ON THE RIGHT AND SHE IS TRYING TO BALANCE A BUNCH OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT'S A MODERATE MESSAGE.

AND THAT'S NOT A BUMPER STICKER, RIGHT?

THAT IS NOT A HASH HASHTAG AND THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A CHALLENGE FOR HER.

FOR ALL HER STRENGTHS AS A LEGISLATURE, AS AFTERNOON EXECUTIVE NOW AND A LEGISLATOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT ORATORY AND THAT SIMPLE COMMUNICATION SKILL HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE HAS EXES SELLED AT.

I THINK THAT IS A CHALLENGE FOR HER IN THIS CAMPAIGN.

I THINK SHE DOES BETTER AT CONNECTING TO FAMILIES, RIGHT?

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SAW SOME OF THAT.

THERE WERE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO MAYBE DIDN'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THE AFFORDABILITY CHECKS OR THE INFLATION REBATE CHECKS.

BUT I THINK PEOPLE RELATED WHEN THEY SAW HER SHOPPING WITH OTHER MOMS AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT THINGS COST.

I THINK SHE CAN CONNECT WITH PEOPLE THAT WAY, AS SHE IS ONE OF US.

WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT FIRST MOM AND CHILD CARE AND I THINK SHE IS CONNECTING ON THAT.

>> David: WE ARE GOING TO RUN OUT OF TIME SOON AND YOU AND I, REBECCA CAN BET SEPARATELY OFF LINE ABOUT PROGRESSIVE TAXES AND WHAT CHANGES ULTIMATELY THEY MAKE INTO THE BUDGET, BUT I THINK THE THING WE SHOULD GET ON RECORD RIGHT NOW.

THE BUDGET IS DUE MARCH 31.

AND I HAVE BEEN USING THE LINE AND I'M PRETTY HAPPY WITH MYSELF THE ONLY THINGS CERTAIN IN LIFE ARE DEATH, TAXES AND A LATE BUDGET.

DO YOU GUYS ANTICIPATE A LATE BUDGET?

AND IF SO, HOW LATE IS THIS BUDGET GOING TO BE WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION CALENDAR INCLUDES A TWO-WEEK BREAK IN ALBANY AND IF THEY'RE NOT FINISHED WITH THE BUDGET ON TIME, THERE GOES THE TRIP TO WALT DISNEY WORLD THAT LAWMAKERS KIDS MIGHT BE EXPECTING.

SO CAM, WHAT IS YOUR PROJECTION FINISHING OF THE BUDGET?

>> I THINK IT WILL BE A FEW DAYS LATE.

>> David: TIMELY IN THE CUOMO PARLANCE?

>> YEAH I THINK IT WILL PROBABLY END UP BEING TIMELY.

I THINK EVERYBODY IS GOING TO TRY TO PASS ON THE REALLY DIFFICULT STUFF THIS YEAR.

AND I THINK IF ANYTHING HAPPENS, IT WILL BE IN SEPARATE-- ANYTHING BIG HAPPENS MIGHT BE LIKE THE IMMIGRATION STUFF, IT COULD VERY WELL BE IN SORT OF THE END OF SESSION, SEPARATE LEGISLATION THAT KIND OF SITS OUT THERE THAT THE GOVERNOR NEVER SIGNS AFTER SHE IS RE-ELECTED.

>> David: WE'LL HAVE TO GET JACK AND REBECCA'S PREDICTIONS OFF LINE BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE FOR THIS DISCUSSION.

MY THANKS TO -REBECCA GARRARD, CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK JACK O'DONNELL, MANAGING PARTNER OF O'DONNELL & ASSOCIATES CAM MACDONALD, GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE EMPIRE CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY BUT BEFORE WE LEAVE YOU, WE ARE GOING SHARE OUR CONVERSATION WITH STATE BUDGET DIRECTOR BLAKE WASHINGTON WHO TALKED WITH ME ABOUT THE GOVERNOR'S FISCAL PLANS FOR NEW YORK.

THANKS SO MUCH FOR MAKING THE TIME, BLAKE, I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> David: I WANT TO START WITH THE WAY THE GOVERNOR IS APPROACHING PAYING FOR THIS BUDGET BECAUSE COMING INTO THE PRESENTATION, THERE WAS AN ANTICIPATION THAT WE WERE FACING A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR BUDGET HOLD FOR THE COMING FISCAL YEAR THAT STARTS APRIL 1.

BUT GOOD NEWS, STATE TAX REVENUES CAME IN MUCH, MUCH, MUCH PAUSE FOR EMPHASIS, MUCH HIGHER THAN ANTICIPATED.

THE STATE IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DEFICIT GO AWAY.

AT THE SAME TIME THOUGH, WE ARE GOING TO BE SPENDING MONEY ON EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, THE TWO BIG AREAS OF THE STATE BUDGET IN A WAY THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR, AND I'M CURIOUS, ARE WE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR SOME TOUGH CHOICES DOWN THE ROAD BY ESSENTIALLY CONTINUING THE GROWTH IN THESE BIG AREAS WHERE WE ARE USING BASICALLY FOUND MONEY?

I MEAN WHAT HAPPENS IF THE PROJECTIONS, YOU KNOW, REVERSE THE OTHER WAY AND WE GET LESS REVENUE THAN WE ARE ANTICIPATING?

>> WELL, THE STORY OF THIS BUDGET IS THE FACT THAT OUR ALREADY PROGRESSIVE TAX CODE DID YIELD HIGH LEVEL RECEIPTS OUTSIZED RELATIVE TO WHAT WE PROJECTED BACK IN APRIL.

IN APRIL, MAY OF LAST YEAR, WE WERE PROJECTING RECEIPTS DOWNTURN IN OUR ECONOMY, WHEN THERE WERE SOME OTHER FACTORS OUT OF WASHINGTON.

>> David: YOU GET A TARIFF.

YOU GET A TARIFF.

>> TARIFFS AND LIB RAYING DAY WEIGHED HEAVILY ON OUR PROJECTIONS.

AS YOU MOVE THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR, THAT DIDN'T COME TO BEAR AND GOOD NEWS FOR NEW YORKERS, RECEIPTS WERE IMPROVED.

NOW THE RECEIPTS DID IMPROVE GREATLY AND THAT DOES, IN FACT ALLOW TO US MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS THAT YOU IDENTIFIED.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE VERY PRUDENT FISCAL MANAGEMENT ON OUR STATE AGENCIES AND CERTAINLY THROUGH THE DIVISION OF BUDGET.

WE MANAGED COSTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

I WOULDN'T WANT VIEWERS TO THINK IT'S ALL UPSIDE AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE JUST FUELING NEW COSTS WITHOUT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE UNDERLYING GROWTH AND PROGRAMS.

WE ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO FIND THOSE EFFICIENCIES, THE GOVERNOR INSISTS UPON IT.

THAT FISCAL MANAGEMENT, COMBINED WITH THE RECEIPTS ALLOWED US TO MAKE THE MOVES WE DID IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET.

>> David: WHAT IS ITSELF WAY TO ADDRESS THESE AREAS OF SPENDING IN THE FUTURE IF THERE ARE DOWNTURNS IN THE ECONOMY, IF PROJECTIONS ARE HIGHER THAN WHAT ENDS UP COMING IN.

DOES THAT MEAN WE TAP INTO OUR RESERVES WHICH WE TYPICALLY THINK OF FOR ONE-TIME EXPENSES NOT NECESSARILY COVERING RECURRING COSTS LIKE EDUCATION SPENDING, LIKE SUPPORTING OUR HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY?

>> I THINK RESERVES GENERALLY SPEAKING ARE ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, A TOOL OF ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT OR INTENDED TO FIX PROBLEMS, PUBLIC POLICY PROBLEMS THAT ARE NEAR TERM AS THE GOVERNOR DID JUST LAST YEAR.

SHE PUT $7 BILLION INTO THE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE TRUST FUND TO PROVIDE A BENEFIT TO BUSINESSES AND WORKERS ALIKE.

WE USE RESERVES FOR THAT AND IT WAS A NET POSITIVE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WE HAVE RESERVES THAT REMAIN.

AND THOSE ARE AVAILABLE TO US ONLY IN THE INSTANCE OF AN ECONOMIC DOWNTURN, ONLY IN THE INSTANCE OF, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTE EMERGENCY.

THOSE ARE THE LAST THINGS YOU WANT TO TOUCH WHEN YOU ARE DOING ANY BUDGET.

THAT'S GOOD FISCAL MANAGEMENT.

THAT'S THE GOVERNOR'S LEADERSHIP, BUILDING IT FROM CAPACITY TO MAKE UP THOSE LOST DOLLARS, GIVEN THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR AND GIVEN WHAT THE STATE'S CAPACITY.

NOW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A BUDGET PROPOSAL, WHAT WAS OUR CAPACITY TO BACKFILL CHANGES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL?

ARE THERE AREAS THAT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO BACKFILL?

AND IF SO, WHERE ARE THOSE?

>> WELL MANY OF THE FEDERAL CHANGES ARE GOING TO BECOME KNOWN OVER TIME.

>> David: SURE.

>> OUR BUDGET PROTECTS AGAINST THAT AND PROVIDES RESOURCES TO PROVIDE FOR A GLIDE PATH TO GROW INTO THOSE CHANGES.

WE KNOW THEY'RE COMING.

WE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, UNDER THE GOVERNOR'S LEADERSHIP, HAVE TO ACTUALLY ADAPT WITH THE RULES AS THEY ARE, NOT AS THEY WISH THEM TO BE.

SO I THINK THAT AS YOU SEE OUR BUDGET, ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE PROTECTED NEW YORKERS WAS IN THE AREA OF MEDICAID.

WE HAVE A CONSTANT DIALOGUE WITH CMS, WORKING WITH THEM ON A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS POST HR-1 THAT IMPACT COVERAGE FOR FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

WE ARE OPTIMISTIC THAT SOME OF THE CHANGES WILL TAKE EFFECT SO THAT WE HAVE A BETTER GLIDE PATH TO GROW INTO THE CHANGES.

AND THE STATE BUDGET PROTECTS-- IT PROVIDES THE GLIDE PATH FOR NEW YORKERS SO THERE IS NO ABRUPT ENDING IN COVERAGE AND WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE A SANE DIALOGUE WITH OUR PARTNERS IN GOVERNMENT.

CERTAINLY THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE THEIR DIALOGUE TO TRY TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO SHAPE PERSPECTIVE RECEIPTS TO THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS AND WE'LL CONTINUE THAT DIALOGUE WITH THEM.

>> David: I WANT TO FLESH OUT THAT POINT A LITTLE MORE.

YOU REFERENCED CMS REFERRING TO BASICALLY FEDERAL HEALTH OFFICIALS WHO CONTROL THE FATE OF GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM THAT NEW YORKERS WHO MAKE TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID RELY ON.

YOU ARE LOOKING TO DO THIS TRANSITION.

YOU WANT SOME FLEXIBILITY ON FEDERAL DOLLARS.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T GET THAT FLEXIBILITY MOVING FORWARD IF THE TRANSITION AWAY FROM THE ESSENTIAL PLAN THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH, BACK TO WHAT IS KNOWN TO AS THE BASIC HEALTH PROGRAM, IF THAT ISN'T GREEN LIT BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN AND WILL THAT REQUIRE TAPPING INTO RESERVES?

>> WELL, STARTING WITH THE LAST QUESTION.

NO.

AND THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET, SHE HAS TAKEN PRUDENT STEPS TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN ORDERLY TRANSITION.

NO MATTER WHAT OUR OUTSIDE TRAJECTORY UNDER CURRENT LAW ABSENT ANY CONGRESSIONAL INTERVENTION TAKES US THREE YEARS OUT TO WIND DOWN EXISTING SURPLUS POOLS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT IN THE CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET, THE GOVERNOR HAS RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO ABRUPT LOSS IN COVERAGE AS A RESULT OF ANY ADVERSE DECISION MAKING PROCESS.

WE DON'T EXPECT THAT.

BUT THE GOOD HOUSEKEEPING SEAL OF APPROVAL WHEN YOU ARE DOING BUDGETING, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE PREVENTING AGAINST THOSE SORT OF SHOCKS TO THE SYSTEM.

SO THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET DOES INCLUDE RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A STATE ABILITY TO PICK UP SOME OF THOSE COSTS IN THE NEAR TERM.

LONG-TERM... I THINK THE MEDICAID PROGRAM NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY WATCHING AT HOME, IS GOING TO GO THROUGH CHANGES.

AND WE ARE GOING TO KNOW AS WE GO FORWARD, WE ARE GOING HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PROGRAM AT LARGE AND ADAPT TO WHATEVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT-- HOWEVER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RULES SHIFT.

THAT'S JUST NOT THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

THAT'S ALL 50 STATES.

EVERYBODY IS GOING HAVE SOME LEVEL OF CHANGE.

THINK ABOUT EVEN NEXT YEAR, THERE IS A WHOLE HOST OF CHANGES ON SNAP AND WORK RULE REQUIREMENTS AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THE FACTS BEFORE US.

WE ARE GOING TO MANAGE IT.

THE STATE AGENCIES ARE DOING THEIR LEVEL BEST TO PLAN FOR THOSE ITEMS WHEN THEY START TO ROLL OUT AND WE ARE GOING TO HANDLE IT RESPONSIBLY AND HAVE THAT CONSTANT DIALOGUE WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WINS AND EVERYBODY-- WILL MITIGATE THE DAMAGE TO THE NEW YORKERS.

BUT THAT WE ARE DOING IT IN A WAY THAT IS THAT REPRESENTS THE BEST OF NEW YORK STATE.

>> David: SO YOU MENTIONED SNAP AND THINKING ABOUT SNAP AND HEALTHCARE AND CHANGING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THERE HAVE BEEN CONCERNS RAISED ABOUT THE ABILITY OF THIS CLASS OF NEW YORKERS KNOWN AS LEGALLY PRESENT IMMIGRANTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO ACCESS A VARIETY OF THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SOCIAL SAFETY NET.

DOES THIS BUDGET DO ANYTHING TO ENSURE THAT THEY AREN'T FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS SO TO SPEAK BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CLEARLY INTERESTED IN ENSURING THAT NO UNDOCUMENTED NEW YORKERS ARE ACCESSING CERTAIN PROGRAMS AND THERE ARE CLEARLY RESTRICTIONS ON WHO CAN ACCESS CERTAIN FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THAT UNIQUE CLASS OF NEW YORKERS, AS WELL AS, SAY, LEGALLY BRNT CITIZENS WHO MIGHT BE THE KIDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE STATE ILLEGALLY?

>> THERE HAS BEEN LONG STANDING PROHIBITIONS AGAINST FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR NON-DOCUMENTED PERSONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK MUCH AND THOSE ARE ALL BAKED INTO OUR PROCESSES AND WE HUGHED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WE HAVE DONE FOR TIME IMMEMORIUM.

THERE ARE PERSONS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK THAT ARE LEGAL LEGALRY PRESENT AND RECEIVE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVING THROUGH THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR MANY, MANY YEARS AND WE ARE DOING OUR LEVEL BEST TO MAINTAIN THAT AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

SOME OF THE FEDERAL RULES RELATED TO PS AND OTHER, THE STANDARDS BY WHICH THEY HOLD PERSONS IN THE STATES ELIGIBLE OR INELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE, ARE THINGS THAT ARE BECOMING KNOWN OVER TIME AND WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT.

THE GOVERNOR'S CHARGE IS REGARDLESS WHO HAS THE COVERAGE TODAY, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE WE DO OUR BEST TO PRESERVE THE COVERAGE THAT BEE DO HAVE.

THIS IS-- WE KNOW HALF OF NEW YORKERS, WELL OVER HALF OF NEW YORKERS HAVE SOME FORM OF PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE.

THEY'RE OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS.

THEY'RE IN OUR BACKYARD.

AND PROVIDING THAT COVERAGE FOR AS LONG AS WE CAN IS EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE.

>> David: THE WAY THIS SYSTEM WORKS IS, ON JANUARY 20, THE DATE THAT BUDGET HAD TO COME OUT, IT'S PENCILS DOWN, LAY OUT THE BUDGET.

AND I'M CURIOUS.

WERE THERE ANY THINGS THAT YOU WERE WORKING ON THAT MAYBE WERE NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME THAT ARE STILL BEING BAKED INTO THE OVEN SO TO SPEAK IF I CONTINUE WITH THE STRAINED METAPHOR THAT WE MIGHT SEE IN FUTURE AMENDMENTS OR MIGHT POP UP ON MARCH 31 AS WE COME DOWN THE WIRE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE BUDGET?

>> I THINK IMMEDIATE-- NOTHING IMMEDIATELY COMES TO MIND.

FROM THE GOVERNOR'S PERSPECTIVE, THE WORK IS, YOU KNOW, IS NEVER COMPLETE, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE SORT OF NOTION OF AFFORDABILITY, HOW WE CAN PROVIDE MORE AND MORE BENEFITS TO NEW YORKERS WHEREVER THEY BE, NOT NECESSARILY ON-- MAY NOT COME IN THE FORM OF A CASH TRANSFER OR CHECK FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO A PERSON BUT WHAT PROCESSES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK CAN WE ENACT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR PEOPLE, MAYBE TAKE SOME COSTS OFF TAME.

ONE OF THE BIG ITEMS IN THE GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IS AUTO INSURANCE REFORM.

ELIMINATING FRAUD AND ELIMINATING EXCESSIVE PAYOUTS.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT PROVIDE REAL RETURNS FOR PEOPLE IN UPSTATE NEW YORK THAT TEND TO DRIVE.

WE'VE ALL WITNESSED OUR PREMIUMS GO UP EXPONENTIALLY IN THE LAST HANDFUL OF YEARS.

THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT INTERVENTION SPECIFICALLY AS AN AREA OF AFFORDABILITY.

IF ANY OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES ARISE BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF MARCH, WE ARE GOING TO KICK THE TIRES ON IT BECAUSE AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND BECAUSE IT'S WHAT NEW YORKERS DESERVE.

>> David: AND SHE KNOWS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO SLEEP IN YOUR OFFICE OR DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO, YOU KNOW, GET HER VISION ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, RIGHT?

>> SHE KNOWS THAT FOR SURE AND APPRECIATES IT.

NOT JUST ME, FORGET ABOUT ME BUT THE 300 PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE DIVISION OF BUDGET WHO PUT ASIDE THEIR LIVES FOR SO MANY MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR TO DELIVER THE BUDGET.

THE GOVERNOR IS GRATEFUL.

SHE TELLS ME ALL THE TIME AND ME AS BOSS, I AM, TOO.

>> David: HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SPECIAL LINE ITEMS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE THINGS THERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING THE TIME.

I APPRECIATE IT AND GOOD LUCK.

>> THANK YOU AS ALWAYS AND APPRECIATE BEING HERE.

>> David: AND THAT'S OUR SHOW.

FOR MORE STATE GOVERNMENT COVERAGE, CHECK OUT THE "THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM" AT CAPITOLPRESS ROOM.ORG AND FOR A DEEPER DIVE OF NEW YORK POLITICS, CHECK OUT OUR INSIDER PODCAST AVAILABLE ON ALL YOUR FAVORITE PODCAST PLATFORMS.

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

THIS PROGRAM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY THE MEMBERS OF WCNY.

THANK YOU.