From six I news, this is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Well, New York state finally has a state budget.

Governor Kathy Hochul has touted the expansion of the child tax credit, along with what she calls an inflation rebate, $2 billion that will be distributed to New Yorkers, and checks of up to $400 per family, $200 per individual every year.

There are fights over school funding, child care, taxes.

This year, some of the conversation included, if the state should be doing something in the event that the federal government makes dramatic cuts to Medicaid or other funding streams for states.

We're having a series of conversations with New York state lawmakers about this budget, about the state's priorities, what they supported, what they wish maybe wasn't in the budget.

And it's a chance for you in the audience to ask questions about how it all came together and what it means.

Our first in the series of conversations.

Joining us from Albany Assembly member Sarah Clarke from district number 136, Assembly Member Clarke, welcome back to the program.

Thanks for having me.

I'm excited to be there.

I wish I was in person.

No problem at all.

I know it's been busy and I want to start with the big picture.

One thing that speaker Carl Hasty, among others, have been saying is that essentially the state, at least right now, had to deal with this budget on its own.

You can't just be trying to predict what Donald Trump or what the administration is going to do, what cuts may be coming.

You've got to deal with this now and then.

You can deal with other federal issues later.

Is that how you see it?

I do, I mean, we could all live in mini.

What if we could all live in sort of the noise of our various, you know, executive orders that have been signed or programs that have been cut, but so much of that is hard to to actually understand what that means to New York and is also working its way through the judicial process.

So we had to sort of focus in on, you know, our agenda, our revenue, where we were as a state in terms of, you know, fiscal security and what we could come up with as a budget to just double down on our efforts to really focus in on families.

But I do think the federal landscape affected us in the sense that affordability for families is affordability for day to day was a main focus we all had in mind.

Well, I am curious to know what has been the most significant challenge for you as a state legislator since January 20th and since this new administration took power?

How?

I mean, I think the biggest challenge is the trust.

There's so much noise and the panicked calls from a few folks who have actually truly lost funding and truly lost money, even when there are, judicial processes that are being filed and in terms of, you know, whether or not it's okay to take away this money through executive order or whether Congress has to be involved or not.

The reality is, as that works its way through a system in places like Delphi.

Arise was, you know, there a federal grant was cut suddenly, you know, with a week of notice.

and, you know, they do important 24 hour access work for, those with addiction issues and are really a great partner and a whole big, puzzle of, of agencies that are in that space.

And so all of a sudden just lose money and try to figure out, you know, what we can do and how we can help.

given the fact that, you know, if these cuts become reality, depending on how big they ultimately are and we don't have the resources to backfill that.

So I think that uncertainty and then the suddenness by which really important agencies can lose money has been, you know, a real struggle.

So looking at Medicaid as an example here, this budget and I'm not great at math Assembly Member Clark, you can correct me here.

It looks to me like the, expansion that New York State will allocate to Medicaid, it is pretty significant.

It's double digit.

It's I thought it was around 13% on the math I was doing, year to year.

And so, again, though, that's independent of what you expect from the feds, that's you're doing Medicaid based on what you think people in the state need for now.

Is that right?

Yeah.

I mean, it's have to we have a couple different programs also.

You know, we have an MCO tax that's supposed to raise us some revenue.

We have the 15 waiver that's giving us Medicaid dollars, on top of the Medicaid expansion.

And these are huge, huge numbers, huge investments.

so much of our federal dollars, our Medicaid dollars.

but, you know, every piece of the health care system is struggling right now.

And, you know, we had to come up with a way to ensure we continued investment and continue to care for people.

But, you know, it's there's a lot of uncertainty ahead.

And we are all a little bit nervous, I think.

All right.

So we'll come back to the actual nuts and bolts dollars and cents in just a second.

I want to start with a question from a listener named Alex.

He actually sent two in.

The first, I think is more of the big picture stuff that, really is pertinent to what we've seen in the last few weeks.

And, you know, I, I don't know who is to quote unquote, blame for a late budget, but Alex has some thoughts.

He says, while it's not as bad as it was in the 90s, Governor Hochul sandbagging of the budget process, to say nothing of how opaque it remains, leaves legislators with less and less time to actually legislate well.

The Senate and Assembly push back more forcefully next year in the height of a primary season.

That is from Alex.

Go ahead, Assembly member.

Well, I think it was definitely a frustrating budget process.

you know, I wasn't here for some late, late ones.

and every time, you know, we would kind of mention it be old days of making it to August came up a lot.

which would be very painful.

but at the same time, it is the latest we've had in 15 years.

you know, I think there's a lot of legislative language that was negotiated for weeks before we even got to, you know, budget numbers, which, I mean, I understand why the governor does it, but it does make for a process.

that is not easy and can really go longer than I think it needs to.

you know, we when we come up with our assembly, one house, we try to take out as little, you know, we put a little policy in it.

Only budget related policy.

No non budget related.

And that helps sort of in our mind negotiate.

you know as we go along in the process.

But you know there were well over close to 200 I think article seven languages from the governor and more from the Senate side.

And it just makes it a little trickier and definitely, it was a it was a very tough session, particularly those of us with families.

I mean, for all of us, you know, having to come back a bunch of times during recess and vote on extenders, it's just, you know, it seems that there could be a better way.

And but I and I hope that we find some ways to maybe make the system a little bit better.

if that is pushing back, then so be it.

but yeah, this was and and he is very true that we now have this very rushed non non budget policy season to get a lot of priorities done.

which isn't fun either.

Yeah.

So do you agree with Alex's characterization that the governor was sandbagging this budget process?

I don't know if sandbagging.

I mean, she had priorities, right?

And her priorities came from a different set of listening to people and looking at, you know, where folks are in the state and what they want and need and prioritize.

you know, we come from our districts, which, you know, they're smaller and, and we're very focused in on what priorities are for our district.

So I don't know if it came back in the word, but it definitely creates a longer process than I think needs to happen.

and you know, always feels like one of these conversations can happen off session so that we're more prepared to move things along so that we're not doing things through budget extenders.

We're actually ready to, to roll, on the budget quicker.

Yeah.

And, and can you describe a little bit of when you say that?

Look, Alex is right.

We do have less time to kind of focus on legislative priorities.

I think there's so much attention on the budget that we might forget that there's a lot that you still want to get done here and focus on now that the budget is passed, what is on the list that you say, boy, we really need to make sure we set aside time for X or Y.

You know, that is the hard part, right?

and there are a few key priorities that we've started to talk about, that, that need to get done.

you know, we've, we've, you know, our central staff is sort of divided in two ways, right?

So the team that works with us on passing legislation, the non budget related is different than the budget related.

Those who are part of the Ways and Means team.

But when you have so much policy in the budget both teams are just absorbed right during the process.

and during the negotiations, during the conversations about changing things.

And now it's a we've had a little less time during the budget negotiation to really work on our legislation, make sure it's in a good place and prioritize based on the things we want to accomplish.

in, in our house.

so now that's the question.

How do we do that over the next 4 to 5 weeks?

Now I will say, as it's made news already that, our speaker has added three extra session days in hopes that we can make up some of that last time.

But it does mean longer days and a little more grueling.

but that's what we're here for.

So now it's about prioritizing big stuff.

We're going to conference some of the big stuff around, you know, whether it's six, the extended producer responsibility and figuring out a way to get more plastics out of our system.

looking at other sort of climate change policy, better affordability around new forms of energy, whether it's heat act and other things.

But then I continue, you know, having my own priorities around, some work we're doing around childcare as we continue that work and domestic violence and I'll, you know, so there's some really large things that we have to conferences and, you know, huge Assembly majority conference and, prioritize.

And then there's, you know, some smaller things.

But all of it takes time, right?

You have to make sure you're changing the right law in the right way without unintended consequence.

And so that takes a lot of review.

And it's just frustrating that we have so little time.

Talking to Sarah Clarke, New York State Assembly member from district number 136. we can get back to your questions via email coming up.

And you can email the program connections A Cyborg Connections at npr.org.

You can join the chat on the YouTube channel.

If you're watching on YouTube and the Sky news YouTube channel, and you can call the program toll free.

844295 talk, it is 844295825526369.

If you're calling from Rochester 2639994.

So for you, Assembly member clerk, what are the big headlines from this budget?

So I mean, honestly, the top headlines for me, we made a historic historic investment in child care.

You know, as you know, we've expanded eligibility for both, income and the amount of dollars that we give to our providers who take families, who receive subsidies.

But that's put a huge strain on the system that didn't have enough money in it to begin with.

So we put, you know, 400 million more than we did last year.

So a total of $2.2 billion into the child care program.

We still need more.

Shockingly, we still kick the can down the road in terms of, really investing in the workforce.

But it's at least it's a it's an understanding of the fact that we want to be a leader in child care.

We want more families to be eligible for help.

and to do that, we need to continue to invest in the system because it's more than just caring for our children.

It's how we get our workforce.

It's how businesses become successful.

And so to know that sort of everyone's on that same page about how important child care is is great.

I think for me, some really huge, huge things are universal school meals, breakfast and lunch for every kid who walks into a school.

we should be feeding our kids, right?

There's so many reasons, you know, even a a town like Brighton, we had heard during the pandemic when universal school meals were, part of the federal, support that we were getting, during Covid.

And, you know, they saw a 40% increase.

A lot of those families, they may be on the edge.

They may not be eligible for free or reduced lunch, or they may be too proud to apply for it.

Whatever the reason may be, kids were eating that weren't eating before and we need to do that.

Like that's a first thing that we feed our kids breakfast and lunch.

and that was a big fight.

You know, we sort of expanded it over the last few years, but now we're at the point where I think everyone agrees.

I think things like what we hear about housing and how incredibly important affordable and stable housing is for families.

So we finally, through negotiation, convince the governor on the Housing Access voucher program, at least as a as a trial to four year program with only $50 million this year.

I hope we can continue to increase it, but it is a recognition that people just can't afford their rent.

They work hard all week.

They may have 1 or 2 jobs, but they still can't afford their rent.

And if we stabilize housing for those folks, so many different things improve mental health, improves education outcomes for children, improve workforce stability, improve.

It's a finally a recognition of how important ensuring affordability, like long term affordability, is for our families.

So let me ask a couple of questions about some of the things that you highlighted there.

I want to talk about the childcare.

$2.2 billion is the total price tag this year as you said, 400 million more than last year.

And again, I'm going to do some math here.

That's like a 22% increase.

That's huge.

and as as you say, might still not even be enough, but you're it is a big, big increase.

Now, what I want to ask you as a member, Clark, is, I've been, you know, reading a lot lately, and I'm sure we're going to kind of keep talking about not only the book abundance by as for Klein and Derek Thompson, but also some of the concepts from the book, including, economics writer Noah Smith's term check ism.

And he says the Democratic Party does a lot of check ism, which is you pass a bill or you you pass money for something, you know, like the $34 billion for expanded rural broadband that the Biden administration touted in 2021 and then built almost nothing and no, Smith says, you can't just tout the money.

You have to show that you're going to put it into practice and help people's lives.

And I know you agree with that.

So when you look at $400 million more for child care, how does that get spent?

How do you make sure that people access it?

How do you make sure that the providers there's enough there are enough people working to provide that?

Yeah.

So I think the fact that we, you know, we came into this budget cycle really wanting to focus on the workforce, and understand their just incredibly underpaid.

And that's the reason, you know, I know one provider in Rochester alone who has 15 classrooms right now that he's licensed for that he can't open because of workforce.

so that is, definitely something that we are we were trying to really prioritize the top, top thing we need to focus on what happened is, is because we've increased eligibility, because we've done all this great work to, ensure more families get subsidies.

And we've done a lot of education and outreach to get people to understand that they are eligible.

The program was oversubscribed compared to what we thought it would be.

And we you know, we had a huge issue in the New York City market.

and they some of it is their own doing.

But we already have ten counties upstate who have had to go to a waiting list because they don't have enough money to to support the families that are eligible and have applied.

which means that there was a figure increasingly even imagined.

So I do think it it's not only that we are getting the money out there and we're increasing the eligibility, but we are seeing more and more usages of this among families who, your trust getting by paying this huge bill every month are now paying a $400 bill every month.

That is money in their pocket.

That is real savings and a real commitment to understanding that we want them in the workforce if they want to be in the workforce.

but it means that we as a state have to do more to support that.

Okay.

when it comes to housing, you mentioned the Housing Access voucher program.

And as you say, you know, I mean, it's not a huge expenditure in this budget, $50 million, but you're concerned that too many people are working hard all week and hard all month and hard all year.

And and they can't afford, you know, a decent place to live.

Like, I mean, it's just it's so difficult.

We know that the supply is a huge issue in the Rochester region.

So I, I want you to talk a little bit more about how the Housing Access voucher program is supposed to work, but can I also ask you, are you concerned about what's happening in the state?

Something is happening?

I don't know if it's happening in localities.

I don't know if it's a statewide issue, but we just can't build new housing.

I mean, it's too expensive to build new housing.

It's too difficult to build new housing.

so we have a huge supply issue.

We don't have much supply being added to the inventory.

And I don't know if that's a state issue, but how do you see that?

So it's some of it is a state issue.

Right.

We need to figure out whether it's localities that are, you know, putting up roadblocks.

Maybe there's more that we can do to incentivize.

You know, I know this, the governor has really done a lot around, you know, housing communities and encouraging local municipalities with various carrots to get them to want to build more housing.

So I do think there is like a shortage issue.

I will say one thing in the budget that we've been looking at legislation for the last couple of years to handle, is this private equity issue, right?

More and more private equity firms are buying up single family homes.

These are homes that are meant to be starter homes meant to be.

And it it does multiple things right.

It it keeps people out of the home.

But it also drives up the affordability issue.

and anyone who's tried to buy a house in the last couple of years, it's not just that you're bidding against other families that you are betting against.

These private equity firms who have all cash offers and are ready to roll, and often are getting their offers accepted.

So I'm so happy the governor has taken this on.

We've looked at other legislation.

There may be more that I think we could do here, but that is a piece, you know, and these are often not even being rent, whether they're being rented for long term leases or turned into a short term Airbnb is it really puts a, pressure on the market that we, we can't afford to have what the housing access program will do is it's sort of our own section eight housing, which we've seen on the federal side, is a huge success.

It's just well under funded.

And there's thousands and thousands of people on the waitlist for it.

But it takes the percentage of income that you, you know, based on what you make to pay for housing.

And then the voucher pays the rest.

you know, we know that this is one where landlords agree and, and, you know, property owners agree is a way to ensure that their tenants can afford it.

Right?

We know the math.

We know you shouldn't be paying more than 33% of your income for housing.

Otherwise you're financially upside down from day one.

So how can we help?

How can we support, you know, that is the goal with the Housing Access Voucher program and to do it in state with its own parameters?

but I think it'll go a long way.

Housing stability fixes so many of the other things we struggle with, whether it's public safety, school, kids in school and struggling families and in jobs and holding down jobs.

Is there a scenario?

Is there a scenario, though, in which, a landlord knows that this voucher program exists and therefore, raises rents commensurately, trying to trying to take advantage of it?

Well, we you know, you see it in section eight housing, and I'm pretty sure section eight has some parameters around, you know, sort of the, the rate that you can, you can charge for rent based on, the median, in market factors in each region.

So my assumption is that we'll do the same kind of thing to try to keep prices level.

you know, the city also just did, its own version of, good cause eviction, which does have a cap on, the amount you can increase rent every year.

The thing it does really well with section eight does really well is ensure safety of the house, ensure that the rental unit, is is up to code, right.

And that people really should be living in this space.

and, you know, I think if you're getting guaranteed rent new feel less that, you know, the, the, the person you're renting to is going to struggle to make rent arrangement and you can keep up with code, you know, whatever the code is for that, you're, you're rental units and ensuring that it's safe, for that renter to be there.

So I do think it does a lot of good things.

and I'm excited to see how it rolls out.

But we have learned a lot from the section eight program, and I think we can we can make sure ours is modeled as successfully without, you know.

Driving up once more.

Okay.

talking to New York State Assembly Member Sarah Clark from district number 136, Cynthia emails the program to say President Trump is attempting to use price controls to bring down the cost of prescription drugs.

Does the Assembly member think that this will will work, and will it help New York State deliver more health care to people?

So I don't know if this, I don't know if a federal price controlled prescription drugs will affect your.

Well, let's start with this.

Do you think it's going to work?

You've worked at the federal level.

You've probably heard about this idea.

I mean, prescription drugs are a huge issue.

The cost of them for so many, of our families, you know, I know even some of the work we had done, in the Biden administration on lowering the prices of insulin and capping those costs.

We here in New York State, did our own version of that to ensure things like insulin are free for, lower income families and that there's no co-pay.

I, I mean, I hate to say, you know, I hope it works, but I, I mean, I guess I do, of course you hope it works.

I just think if it were this easy, it would be done a long time ago.

and I don't know what the various factors.

Well, I mean, some of it is the prescription drug lobby and how much, that sort of big take of the whole pharmaceutical system has relied on American, the American system to fund it versus the other system across cost.

globe.

so, you know, I mean, sure, I'm all for something that will work.

I'm not sure this is it.

and, you know, we will see, I guess.

but if it were as easy to sign an executive order and lower prescription drug costs.

I have a feeling it would have been done a long time ago.

Is it.

Is it strange?

Is it strange to, to observe your.

At least your political opponents, the conservatives and Republicans who have, as far as I've been as long as I've been alive, decried the dangers of price controls, endorsing price controls.

Is that strange?

you know what?

I've been strange.

I'm accepting for hundred million dollars plan.

You know, I, I, I feel like just a free airplane where I.

Come on, you take off the airplane, no strings attached.

I know I will just go back to, you know, a former boss of mine who may have gotten in trouble for being offered, you know, a $300 gift from another country.

And, you know, so I feel like we're in this place where we have a lot of, you know, if the person I like does it, it's fine.

If the person I don't like does it, then I don't like it.

Right.

and that's since you were at on the federal side and I'm not quite sure what to do with that, because, you know, my love and the reason I'm in this world is because I like the policy.

I like solving problems.

And when it when it matters more who's doing it than what's being done.

I think we get into a little bit of a weird situation where we become a little harder to solve things.

Now, again, if people change and, you know, way some guy that I don't agree with, I definitely don't agree with our president right now on those things.

But if he does do something ultimately that lowers prescription drug prices, I will be very happy because it is a burden to many families who are struggling with, we have to take our only break when we come back.

There is so much that we're going to try to squeeze in in our remaining time with Assembly Member Sarah Clarke, we're talking about the New York state budget that recently passed.

We're taking more of your questions.

Listeners, for the Assembly member, we're going to talk about, reproductive health.

we are going to talk I want to talk a little about this Bell to Bell cell phone bands.

And we get an email about that.

the office for the aging is getting more funding.

There's all kinds of stuff that it's on the list here.

And we'll come right back with Assembly Member Sarah Clarke.

Coming up in our second, our festival season is here.

Rochester's often described as a festival city.

Certainly the region has all kinds of events, and we're going to get you set with the team from City Magazine.

Their new edition is the festival guide, and we're going to take a look at the events happening from now through October.

The All Things festival next, our.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from the Levine Center to End Hate, presenting the second concert to End Hate featuring RPO trumpeter Herb Smith and his group the Freedom Trio in an evening of music and spoken word.

Saturday, May 17th at 8:00 pm.

Location and information at ND hate r o c.org.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

My guest is Assembly member Sarah Clarke, joining us from Albany talking about the recently passed new York state budget.

and a lot to kind of move through.

So we're going to try to hit a lot quickly here.

And on the subject, of outside income, Assembly Member Clarke, I know this isn't like a big, sexy headline coming out of this year's work, but I just reading in the New York Times the following.

In 2022, lawmakers placed a $35,000 cap on outside income.

The Albany Times Union reported this year that nearly 40 legislators had outside incomes above the limit.

The income cap was supposed to go into effect this year after several unsuccessful court challenges, but lawmakers included a provision in the budget that would delay enforcement for two years.

End quote.

Now, the times story isn't you know, that's not the biggest part of their analysis.

But I'm curious to know if you know why this why do you think this delay in enforcing an outside income cap is happening?

And are you worried that it could erode public trust?

I'm not hearing Assembly Member Clark.

Hi, everyone.

Behind the glass.

I'm not hearing Assembly member Clark.

Okay, so I'm here.

Oh, there we are.

That's okay.

Was probably on from there.

Sarah.

did you hear the question?

I did hear the question.

And, so the answer is, you know, I think the issue, the reason the delay ended up happening is because the national courts had found that they that, you know, they were going to overturn, this outside income ban.

And so when people ran, when people committed to outside jobs or whatever it may be, because that based on that lower court order, now that it's worked, its way up through it's gone in, is that it is legal and it does pass muster and we are ready to do it, given the fact that it was sort of tied to two other things, like the pay raise and things like that.

so the goal was to allow people to finish out their term and we run under this now new rule, so they can make the choice to run or not run.

but we wanted to give people, you know, not sort of changed the rules so drastically mid-game, even though, you know, we passed so earlier, but because the court challenges were there and people there was some uncertainty.

I think allowing people to finish out this, this session and this term and then decide for themselves based under these new rules whether they want to run again was the right thing to do.

Okay.

But what.

Well, it sounds to me like is you support and you think New York State will follow through with an outside income cap?

You're just trying to offer a kind of grace period.

So people get used to the new rules.

Exactly.

particularly given that we're in a two year term right now, it just sort of began and, it might put people in some really tough situations.

So I was sort of for letting that grace period happen.

That's a good way to describe it.

Okay.

a bell, a bell cell phone ban in schools is going to have its own conversation on this program soon.

And the governor, is now, part of a list of governors of both major parties across this country who have endorsed this.

where do you stand on the bell Bell cell phone ban on the bell?

it's an it's nice when my kids aren't around for some of these answers.

they may have their own opinions.

I mean, overall, I really, really agree with it.

I think we have a problem with phones in schools.

I get it.

I bet same parent that wants to be able to get into in touch with my child all times during the day.

So this will take on my own, behalf on my own side of a new adjustment.

But I think it's needed.

And if you look at the mental health of our children, of our teenage years, we look at education, even testing and all the other things that we measure.

Our kids really need to be focused in on school when they're in school.

you know, there's a little wiggle room for each district and each school building to come up with their plan to do this based on their needs.

And, you know, we did some carve outs for children who are caregivers and other ways that they may need to get in touch during the day with family members.

but it's, you know, it's a lot of pressure on our kids.

And I think getting back to focusing in on the day at hand and the educational piece of why they're in school and maybe learning to talk to each other again and, not just texting and Snapchatting, on their lunch, I think is important.

You know, I think there was some initial talk of just doing educational time bands, but I think things like lunch and recess and other places that, children are in more unstructured moments.

I think it's also important for them to have a phone then to, let me read an email from a listener who wants to understand an expenditure tied to this.

Charles writes $13.5 million.

That right there is one of the many reasons I can't stay in the state.

Would you like to know how much it actually cost to implement a cell phone ban in schools?

$0.

You tell the kid to put the phone in his or her locker during the school day, and if they don't do so, you confiscate it.

You make the parents come get it back.

You don't have to buy every student their own Faraday bag, but who am I kidding?

This is New York, which means Albany thinks taxpayers are a bank in his Charles words, for stupid ideas.

So he doesn't like spending money for this.

this bill to Bell ban.

He's saying, just tell students no cell phones.

That's the rule.

Why are we spending money on it?

But is there an answer?

Why?

I mean, I would say every district can do it different ways.

I think the problem with, you know, the one thing the bags do and whether people decide to, you know, districts decide to purchase them or not is really up to them.

the semi ways that with smartphones and or smartwatches, you know, if the, if the signals are blocked, I mean, kids could still technically be on to some extent the phone, if they're just in the locker instead they use of their smartphone smartwatches.

So you know, I, I get I think each district is going to really have to figure this out for themselves.

And in other school buildings like don't have lockers.

So you know it.

It's not it's not a one size fits all.

I think giving some resources to it was to not make it an unfunded mandate for those places in those schools where it's more challenging to implement.

I would argue that some people would say that on the other side of that, there might be a cost to a school, and we're not paying for it as a state.

And putting that, that, that burden on the district, which will ultimately affect taxpayers in that district.

So, you know, I think it was a good combination of both ensuring there were some resources, but not an overwhelming amount.

but for those districts that will need it.

Okay.

Back to the phones bill in Rochester.

Hi, Bill.

Go ahead.

Hi.

yeah, I was interested in the, state programs you were talking about earlier regarding housing.

And I understand you're trying to, put in programs that will bring the cost of housing down, but the programs you talked about are all involve, vouchers for, different families and has.

Seems to me that would do that would actually increase demand and, and, the rules of supply and demand and purchase, that is demand goes up, prices go up.

So I'm wondering why the state thinks that, for housing, the laws of supply and demand don't apply.

Assembly member.

Well, yeah, sure.

I mean, I think we do a couple things right.

Like I do think we are trying to crack down on, the, the, the private equity purchasing of homes.

We've also last year, last year session, did a statewide registry of homes and properties being used for short term rentals.

Right.

I, I know, even like the town of the equate is struggling with this in neighborhoods that used to be all families and all, you know, owner occupied homes are now having issues with more short term rentals and, and various people coming in and out of, of their housing.

So I think we've done a couple different things to look at some of the supply issues.

on that side of things, I think the Housing Access Letter program, again, it's going to have parameters around it of rates and market rates and, and the way we pay things so that there is some, ability to ensure that we're not, you know, that that that rents are skyrocketing.

and again, the city of Rochester, in any town, in any community can do it themselves but could cause eviction, put puts caps on the the amount that can be, rent can be increased from year to year based on inflation and other factors, and the cost of investments in those buildings.

But it does put some, some guardrails around that whole, sort of world of, of rent just, you know, going through the roof.

I think we already are.

And then of course, building I mean, that is supply, supply, supply is what we need to do.

and, you know, I know that hold on.

To quote, I know the calibrating method will become housing pro housing communities.

and looking at ways to make sure other communities are doing that as well.

but that is the second piece to this.

And how we look at why it's so difficult to build housing and what the barriers are.

I think we need to figure out ways to really ensure that we are getting rid of those barriers.

Bill, anything you want to add before we let you go?

Yeah.

in terms of price controls that she mentioned, price controls have never worked historically, so I'm not sure why she's so confident they're going to work in the in the future.

And also with regard to, changing zoning to make, housing, easier to build, I think I think that's a good idea.

But again, I don't I'm not sure she answered the question with regard to, you know, why increasing demand with vouchers is going to work to, curtail the, the cost of housing.

Okay, Bill, anything you want to add there?

Assembly Member Clark?

well, I mean, I, I, I guess the one thing I would say is, yes, there there is no perfect silver bullet that I could do right now to make it better.

I do think this is something that will step us forward.

I think one of the costs that's in the market now is, you know, when people can't afford, when there's huge numbers of people who struggle to a Fourth Amendment command that causes issues with evictions and costs to landlords and costs the property owners that and creates a more difficult system that that also raises rents and makes, it harder for people to get into places and to afford places and to pass background checks and credit checks and all the different things.

But I think that's something else that we can solve through this a bit, and I think it will make a difference.

Will it solve the problem?

Will we still run into cost control?

I mean, I guess we're going to have to figure out as we go.

I just know that if you look at all the reporting around housing right now in Rochester, particularly the city of Rochester, affordability is the number one issue.

And besides being able to, you know, wave a magic wand and have immediate, you know, units added, we have to figure out an answer, at least a step forward to, make sure we're not setting people up for failure every day.

I mean, these are people that work 40, 60, 80 hours a week and still can't afford their rent.

What are we supposed to do in this situation?

Bill, thank you for the phone call.

Talking to Assembly member Sarah Clark.

can you explain to people who will be getting a so-called inflation rebate?

well, it's very gotten a lot more complicated than it.

Suburban.

it's anywhere from $150 to a $400 check for families.

and the various caps are, Oh, my gosh, I'm trying to read through them, but, the, you know, obviously a, dependent on, your income, your and your filing status.

So I will read you the exact, the exact, parameters around it.

So if you're a single income earner, income earner, up to $75,000, you'll get a $200 check.

If you are a single earner between 75,000 and 150,000, you will get $150.

Check.

Both filing jointly with incomes up to $150,000 will get a $400 check, and those making between 150 and 300,000 will receive a $300 check.

So there's sort of four pots based on your filing status and your income.

and that went down by about $1 billion from the governor's initial proposal.

A lot of that had to do with the fact that we had to really make an investment in childcare and a few other things that popped up along the budget negotiation process.

that became very, very high priority.

The governor was big on this.

Were you big on this?

I mean, in theory, I get it right.

Things cost more last year.

So we received more in sales tax and you sort of look at that and you say, oh, it makes sense that we should give some of that money back.

It's hard because that program cost $2 billion.

this inflation is in chapter one will be $2 billion.

again, it's not a 2 billion recurring.

It will necessarily going to get you two years.

It's hard to start a new program, but are there other ways that we could have had meaningful impact unfairly?

I probably could have come up with a couple ideas, but I get it.

I get why we're doing it.

People do like to to get refund checks back from their hard earned tax dollars that go into the state budget.

So, oh, I have mixed feelings.

I can feel the ambiguity just or the ambivalence, I should say it's pouring out of you better.

okay.

let me also, ask you about reproductive health.

And again, I'm going to read from the New York Times analysis a new law specifies that abortion is considered protected emergency care, when necessary, to safeguard the life and safety of a pregnant individual.

To strengthen access to reproductive health services, the budget allocates $20 million to allow providers to cover the full cost of medication, abortion care, and other abortion services.

It also invest $4 million to fund abortion training programs for health care providers, and $5 million to modernize facilities and ensure protections for providers from violence or harassment and, quote, were you for this?

And if so, tell us why this was necessary.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm a staunch, you know, supporter of pro-choice access for people who make those decisions.

I think one of the other things we did, was, ensure Medicaid covered infertility, infertility treatment.

So, you know, it was a two different, you know, many different ways that we are tackling both the maternal health, crisis that we have in, particularly in some communities, to ensure access and affordability for those who are seeking abortions, better protections and training for those who work in the field.

we have already seen, you know, they tried to drop a lawsuit, from another state and one of our providers here.

so it is in some ways a dangerous world for those, those health care workers.

and the training and all the work we do around our abortion clinics to protect and support is really, really important.

This will always, to me, be a fundamental piece of women's health and ensuring people have the right to choose and make their own decisions.

that's fundamentally where I stand on this.

And, so I think we need to do more because it shouldn't be something that only people who can afford it, or people who live in areas where it's easy to get to a clinic, have access.

We really need to ensure that there is equal access across the state.

Okay.

I want to talk to you a little about Texas, and I want to get back to Alex's second part of his email.

In keeping with the theme that you mentioned, Assembly member clerk, where up is down and down is up.

Sometimes in modern politics, or at least politics of the moment.

you have Senator Josh Hawley, Republican from Missouri, coming out and endorsing the idea that, well, there's these reports that behind the scenes, President Trump is saying, no, actually, I'm going to raise taxes on and wealthy Americans, we're not going to cut taxes again.

We're going to raise taxes on wealthy Americans.

And Josh Hawley saying we should, they can afford it, and we should raise taxes on the richest and cut taxes on others.

I don't know where the Republican Party will.

We'll sort of settle out on that.

Historically, Grover Norquist and others have had a big grip on, conservatives when it comes to tax policy as a no tax increases for anybody at any level.

but Alex is wondering how likely, as some member, do you think it is, that the New York State Legislature will pass increased tax hikes on millionaires plus earners rather than try and cut Medicaid through eligibility restrictions?

So what would you say to Alex?

Well, I guess it ultimately depends on what the cuts are.

you know, we do have a strong rainy day fund, that although we took money out to pay the unemployment debt, which is a huge relief for small businesses and will ultimately be a relief if we have a downturn in the job market.

because the rate that we pay, the maximum rate we pay weekly will go up considerably.

So, we have done things like that from our rainy day fund, but we still have a strong one.

So you know, I think we can we can take certain hits and can't take others.

I do think on taxes, we did do another round of, lowering taxes, low and middle income earners that will start to kick in next year.

but I will say, you know, we raised the tax on millionaires, 5 million more.

Two years ago.

I'm trying to remember whose last session on the budget before, but it has been a huge success in ensuring our state financial, resources that we have to come up with our budget every year.

It has been successful, and we've seen that it gives us more dollars to do the things that people care about.

Our roads, our schools, our housing, our childcare, whatever it may be.

will is there an appetite for more?

and I think a lot of legislators are there.

I don't think the governor is, but I think that will ultimately could change depending on where our financial hit from the feds comes in and how much it is.

your office also shared some of the other priorities that have been big on your list.

And for anybody who missed them, I just want to hit them pretty quickly.

Give you a chance, maybe a minute a piece here to talk about this.

The first is direct cash support for new moms.

Yeah.

That has been something you know, we it's a very modest, modest, program coming out this year, but it is at least an acknowledgment that when we get new moms that the moment that they become parents, particularly low income families, we've seen this time and time again with direct cash programs.

The budget project is probably the most notable there in almost every community across the state right now.

You know, if we financially support at that moment when costs rise, when pressure and other health issues come into play and, you know, the struggles are real, we can literally change the trajectory of that family from one that, you know, really struggle, maybe for years and decades in terms of financial stability and ones that can thrive and become financially independent, maybe even go off public benefits.

and so I've been really advocating for that this year.

There's an 1800, cash direct cash payout for those who qualify.

you know, the one struggle they have is I'm not quite sure it's enough to make a difference, but the and again, we don't need tons of money in the program we want with a total 18 month program that would cost around $7,000 for a family.

so I'm not saying we need huge programs, but I think this one might not be quite enough, but it also requires accounting for 71%.

So I'm not sure how many local governments are going to choose to opt in, given that they have to come up with the money to do it.

but it is a start and we are acknowledging that that that's important.

so that's good.

All right.

Tell me about ending the waitlist for seniors awaiting services.

Okay.

So this is like the big, big, push that we've had, take the legislation to end waitlist, for seniors, often those who are who you maybe trust outside the Medicaid, the ability to get Medicaid and Medicaid services still struggle with day to day things, whether it's like places, whether it's, at meals in their home, or whatever it may be that they need.

And so we have started through the office of the aging this, this program to give critical services to those sort of that group of, of older New Yorkers and the waiting list has been huge, talking, you know, under 20,000.

But so a lot of people on this list waiting to be able to get these services, we put a $45 million infusion into the program this year on top of what was already invested.

I'm not sure if that will be quite enough to fully clear it, but it goes.

It's the first time in a long time that we've put a huge amount of money into understanding.

This makes a difference between whether people can stay in their homes, whether they're getting their basic needs met.

And, we are really going to be a help a lot, a lot of older New Yorkers.

Okay, down to about 90s here.

I know you also have your eye on local nonprofits, in the wake of federal cuts.

Tell me about that.

Yeah.

You know, we are trying to figure out ways that we can ensure, you know, a lot of the good programs that we're working on.

I think one of the key ones that we're doing, it's it's, it's mostly the county now, but looking at the benefits, cliff and and how, you know, we put a $3 million investment there to ensure, you know, to study how we can help people sort of not drop drastically when they, their financial situation changes so that we can maybe keep people in the workforce longer.

I mean, if the decision is to work at this job where you're just getting by, but with the help, the public benefits, you can survive.

And then also when you get to small ways and you're left out of all those public benefits, you may leave the workforce or you may not take that next step up to a new job.

And we should really be figuring that out, because if we can carry people through that, I think their success will be more.

But, you know, we're also looking at our mapping and about what they're doing and so forth together and other nonprofits that are committed to, you know, trying to change how we do things and really, you know, end poverty, decrease poverty, support families, and figure out ways to do better.

Our nonprofits are the key, you know, you'll hear more in the coming months of all the work we're doing to try to support some of them in our community that are really doing great work.

And give me your final 25 second elevator pitch, a new business is thinking about moving to New York State.

They're looking at other states.

This budget is now done.

How do you convince new businesses?

Why should they come here?

Well, my pitch to businesses always is, is that I can take care of families that make life a little less chaotic and a little more easy for folks who live here.

They're going to be able to show up every day to get their job and your workplace.

we now also have paid off unemployment insurance, so, those rates will definitely go down.

we are looking at other ways to help, but, I think we're we're centering family so that workers and employers can do what they need to do in their business businesses.

I know you're very busy, and you're generous with your time.

Sometime soon, let's come back and talk more about childcare.

We'll talk about maybe the Heat Act on a separate day, extending producer responsibility on a separate day.

Those are all big things on their own.

And, Well, I forgot about the substitute pool for childcare workforce.

That's exciting.

Well, we hope to do that soon.

Assembly member Clark, thank you for giving us your time today.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Assembly member Sarah Clark from district number 136, the first in our series of conversations with state lawmakers about the recently passed New York state budget.

More connections coming up.

This program is a production of Sky Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station, its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience, any rebroadcast or use in another medium, without expressed written consent of Sky is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.org.