>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Our connection this hour was made earlier this month when Governor Kathy Hochul followed up her state of the state address with a formal budget plan.

And now, before you find something else to listen to or do today, I just want to make a plea to really our entire region for people who say they don't feel like government answers to them, they don't feel like they have a connection to their elected leaders that they can't get through.

We are doing something on this program that I hope is a service to this region, and is a chance for you to find something you don't find anywhere else, which is an hour with your elected leaders one on one, no restrictions.

The questions that we want to ask, the questions that you want answered, and it's a chance for you to hear them at length, not just a quick soundbite, not something on tick tock.

No offense to TikTok, but this is a chance to do something that people claim is going away entirely, and we're glad to do it.

And this is our third such conversation with local elected leaders since the governor's budget came out.

And we're welcoming this, our New York State Assembly member, Sarah Clark, from district number 136, who is joining us this hour?

Assembly Member Clark, welcome back to the program.

Thanks for making time for us.

>> Thanks for having me all the way from Albany.

>> All the way from Albany.

In fact, we're going to be talking child care, higher ed funding.

We're going to talk education and pre-K.

Some of the items on Assembly Member Clark's agenda.

We will talk all kinds of things taxes, economic development.

But I want to start where a lot of people's focus is.

Assembly Member Clark.

And you heard your colleague in the state Senate, Jeremy Cooney.

We had a soundbite with him just just moments ago talking about Ice, talking about what states can do, what people can do.

Senator Cooney was the first person on this program after the governor's budget.

That was after the killing of Renee Good.

That was before the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

He said he saw no justification for the killing of Renee Good, and he was horrified by it.

We then had Assembly member Josh Jensen on before the killing of Alex Pretti.

He said he wasn't sure about the killing of Renee Good.

He said that, you know, he needed to see more, that he didn't feel like he had enough information to say if that was a justified shooting and killing of a citizen or not.

Where are you on what you have seen with these two police killings?

Now?

It's not police.

I'm sorry.

Let me correct the record on that.

Ice agents are not police officers.

Ice or Customs and Border Patrol, CBP, where are you on these two events?

>> Yeah, I mean, from what I've seen, I think both clearly are tragedies and are not justified.

I think if if people need more information and they get it and it's somehow then becomes justified, we have a bigger problem.

Right?

I think in these situations where people are protests, people are accidentally turning around in the street.

you know, I, I just think and there is a bigger issue than with the entire system, if somehow anyone can come to the conclusion that these are justified obviously that doesn't mean that more information might come forward and we can all take a look at that.

But it it only reaffirms, I think, many of our commitment to say the system is so broken, and American citizens are literally getting murdered.

In my opinion, that's what I put out in my statement.

and it it is just so tragic.

>> There's this piece of video that comes out yesterday of Alex Pretti, a week before he was killed, and he's at a protest in Minneapolis.

And in this video, there are Ice agents driving away, and he's spitting at their car.

And then he kind of chases after and he kicks the tail light out.

And that's what leads to the kind of skirmish that led to him having a broken rib.

But in fact, those Ice agents show a lot of restraint.

in that video, a much more restrained, a very different approach than what we saw when they killed him.

but the weird thing for me, Assembly Member Clark, is I don't know what that has to do at all with the killing of Alex Pretti in that and the day and in the moment that he was killed, did you see anything in that new piece of video that changed your mind?

>> No, I think what happens in a situation should clearly be unrelated to you know, first of all, I want to say, when it comes to protesting that there are times when they're uncomfortable and many police and law enforcement officers are put under undue amount of pressure to remain calm and deescalate.

But that is really the responsibility of our, you know, government and sanctioned enforcement officers.

And if they're not doing that, we're not living in this country that we all say we are where you have the freedom to protest.

I don't always agree with every single tactic that happens at protests, but as long as people aren't physically hurting others, you know, I think we have to understand that it it will get uncomfortable at times.

People are very, very angry right now.

it was what is happening in Minneapolis.

So no, nothing that has come out since has changed my mind.

I think if we laser focus on that day, which is where the situation happened and when the situation happened, is there any sense that you know, people even knew him or knew understood what happened a week ago?

I mean, that's just crazy.

But I do think it is a mission to give reasons to make it okay.

And I just I think that's also abhorrent and not something we should be doing.

>> Right.

I mean, obviously, there's no reason to assume that the people who killed Alex Pretti knew what he had done a week before.

But also, I hope there's no reason to assume that if they did know that, that they felt justified in killing him.

I mean, like, exactly.

I still don't understand.

I'm watching Guy Benson, who's a Fox News contributor and a talk show host of his own.

He shares this new video of Pretti and says, well, this changes things in the context matters.

And I'm going like, so the context is he kicked out a tail light.

So a week later it's appropriate to shoot him ten times in his back.

He never pulled his gun.

In multiple incidents.

He was never brandishing a gun.

But Benson goes on to say, well, no, I'm not saying it justifies the killing of him.

But in Benson's view, and some of those on the right, what they say is this Assembly member Clark, they say that the political leaders on the left who are calling Ice agents, you are saying what they're saying about Ice, saying that these events are murder.

Are stoking the American public that would otherwise be more peaceful into these violent confrontations with Ice, and that the the lawmakers who come out forcefully against it are guilty of whipping people up.

Do you feel guilty of whipping up the American citizenry?

>> I do not I mean, I feel like honestly, if anyone reads the Federalist Papers or the original framing of the Constitution and all the things that we debated back then, I think it is actually our responsibility to to stand up and protest.

and make people to some extent, uncomfortable.

I mean, I think that's the only way you make change.

Oftentimes the civil rights era was not kind and soft and teddy bear all the time because it wouldn't have built up the pressure we needed to make real change.

I don't I mean, I hate that I even have to say it.

I do not want anyone to get hurt that it's it's crazy that you constantly have to say that.

But at the same time, I mean, I think it is actually our responsibility to protest what we see happening as a direct affront to everything that we stand for as Americans and everything that we want.

When 2000 sort of officers of ice come into Minneapolis, more than tripling their normal law enforcement, I can't see why it's speech or it's loud and and sometimes annoying.

Protesting is the thing that is escalating.

what what is happening?

It's just that just makes no sense.

>> The implication from the right is that without the strong language from Tim Walz Ro Khanna Ilhan Omar, Josh Shapiro, Sarah Clark, whoever, that the American people would not be so moved to go out into the streets.

And it doesn't sound like you buy.

>> That subdued.

>> I don't.

>> Know, quietness.

>> But that's their.

>> Claim.

>> I just the rhetoric is the fact that there's like a match of whose rhetoric is driving more of this is, you know, to me, not useful to the conversation.

I think that we have clearly seen both from the initial reaction of calling this man a domestic terrorist.

I mean, it.

Yeah.

My my question in these moments is, are you saying whenever you call out the left, if you're a person that calls out the left for their rhetoric when the right does it, are you calling them out the same?

And the answer is almost always no.

And it's it's kind of true on both sides.

And so you're not purely identifying a problem if you only call it out on one side, if it even is.

I mean, I would argue that the left's very passionate fight for an economy and a country that works for more people, that's more inclusive, that, you know, understands that we are not we can't afford our basic needs, like I it's just the fact that those are sort of identified as fringe left is, to me, kind of crazy.

But but overall, I think that if you're not sort of seeing both sides on all of your issues or cases examples that you give, then you're not really pointing to any kind of problem.

>> So two other questions on ice.

Then we're going to move to all kinds of other stuff this hour with Assembly member Sarah Clark.

Assembly member, their kind of policy questions.

So you've got you've got some Democrats at the national level, and you've for those who don't know, I mean, you've worked alongside people like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, you've worked in Washington.

I think you understand some of the machinations and the policy fights that happen.

And sometimes their good faith, good faith arguments, and sometimes they're not.

In this case, you've got some on the right saying, oh, well, if we're going to abolish Ice, then you just don't want to control the border, whereas you've got people like Congressman Ro Khanna, for example, came out yesterday and said that Democrats across the country at every level should be saying our position is abolish Ice, not because we want an open border, not because we don't want border enforcement, he said.

We had Immigration and Naturalization Services before Ice.

We had deportations before Ice of people who needed to be deported.

We need to pursue deportation of people who are threats, dangerous criminals, violent, et cetera.

but the problem is that Ice and Congressman Khan's mind is demonstrating that it is out of control, poorly trained, willing to escalate when it should de-escalate, and that there's no saving it.

So it's not a it's not a binary.

It's not a either there's Ice and there's immigration enforcement or it's open borders forever.

There is a middle ground.

Do you agree with that?

On the policy side?

>> So in theory, yes, I mean Ice is an agency that was that came about after 9/11.

It is not something we have had historically had for centuries.

I mean, Border Patrol and Customs Enforcement is different.

They've been around for a very long time doing exactly that.

I would even go further to say, I mean, part of the the issue that we are seeing with Ice is that our immigration system is really broken, and there have been moments in time where there's been bipartisan agreements at the federal level to fix it better.

But it's hard.

You know, people say, of course we want criminals removed.

Yes, everyone does.

but the the gray area that many people have operated in for decades where they are waiting for asylum hearings, they're waiting for final rulings, has always been one that was protected.

And it's only now that all these people who are showing up and doing the right thing are are getting taken at those interviews.

And so when you have this very, this gray system that a leader can then decide, I'm going to target all those people, even though they don't have criminal records.

they're trying to get through the system.

it just so it's scary.

I mean, it's scary to watch ice do this, not to mention just American citizens that are getting caught up in this green card holders.

racial profiling, all the things that we are watching in real time.

>> one more thing then and then we'll do is I'll grab a couple phone calls and then we're going to move off of this one.

But I asked your colleagues who've been on this program in the last few weeks, and I'll ask you on the state level, if we see an increase in Ice activity.

I mean, we obviously we've seen Ice activity all across New York State, but if we see something like Minneapolis, what do you want people to do?

What do you think the state's responsibility is?

You know, and do you think that that is possible in cities in in this state?

>> I think it's real that we have to be ready.

Right.

And I have faith that the the governor is taking this very seriously based on many of the comments she's made over the last few days.

But I do think both coming up with a plan, how we will respond if ice shows up here in those same kind of numbers.

we've heard from even the Minneapolis police like how difficult it was to understand how best to keep their own community safe.

>> Yeah, they've been very critical of ice, overwhelmed.

Yeah.

You know.

Yeah.

>> and so we have to have a plan.

But I also think we really have to work with our localities.

you know, I have multiple police forces in my district, and I don't think there is a lot of guidance coming down of what to say.

And I hope the appetite there is there, though, to really do something and be prepared to make sure our communities feel safe.

and then obviously we've got lots of state proposals, including the New York for all, which would ensure that on these civil matters that there is no collusion.

One of the things we saw for years during when I was working in the Senate, was that local agencies would pull people over mostly for traffic stops and they would call Ice in for language interpretation.

And then all of a sudden it would start this, this roller coaster of, of upending this person's life or many people's lives.

And it again, I'm not saying that we should have a better system for immigration.

We should.

That is what we should be all working for.

But to use Ice as a language interpretation for no reason, there are way many other services you can use as a way to back end into finding people.

and, and rounding them up for, you know, not having the right papers yet or whatever they may be waiting for.

I just it it's a run around our due process and sort.

>> Of the things.

>> You're not talking about, people who are violence, people who've been running drugs.

>> Etc.. >> Taking like a taillight is out.

>> So someone who's been here for 20 years.

>> Someone who's been working and building.

>> Yeah.

>> Community.

Okay, okay.

>> And so I'm just saying, like, we do need to figure out how better through, I think ensuring that we don't have cooperation in these civil matters.

obviously when there and there have been countless, you know, multi-agency task force on those who have really committed horrendous crimes.

And we see the very big appetite to ensure that those people are are identified and taken into custody.

>> All right.

Let me grab a phone call from Bill first in Rochester.

Hey, Bill, go ahead.

>> Hi, guys.

Thanks for taking my call.

A couple of issues.

I'm conflicted on this.

On this whole matter.

you know, I understand that there are some people being.

>> Being captured who really shouldn't be.

They shouldn't be they shouldn't be arrested just because they're an immigrant or an illegal immigrant or whatever.

But I've also heard that those sanctuary cities, they're county jails do not turn over illegal immigrants with a criminal record to Ice officials.

They release them back into the community, and then the Ice officials have a much harder job.

They need multiple agents in order to capture these.

These people.

And that creates a bit of a conflict.

And the second thing I wanted to mention was that the protesters, I've heard they they engage in activities that that are especially disruptive not only to the law enforcement officers, but also to normal citizens by blocking roads.

I've heard sometimes they block airports.

I've also heard that that there is a concerted effort by interest groups that finance some of these protesters.

So they're more or less professional protesters.

I don't think that's right either.

I do think protesters have a responsibility to follow rules that those rules are, you know, they can't disrupt others from conducting their daily lives.

They can't block roads, they can't block airports.

And I worry that that message isn't getting across in this program and in other media outlets.

So do you reject those principles or do you just reject the idea that the protesters are engaged in that kind of activity?

And with regard to sanctuary cities, do you think that illegal immigrants have broken laws should just be released back into the community rather than turned over to Ice officials?

Thanks for your answer.

>> Yeah.

So, Bill, a couple of things before I send it over.

Assembly Member Clark, because there's a lot there.

To the extent that you feel like this program hasn't addressed enough, the behavior of protesters, I'll take that criticism and I'll say that what I hope is clear is that my disposition is not what's going to drive public discourse.

I'm trying to be a funnel or just a place where the public square here.

But I do believe that we have to set a baseline bar that says we need no more violence.

Please.

I mean, violence is not going to it's only going to escalate.

We've already seen that.

And can you imagine what more escalation where that's going to take us?

Now to Bill's point about blocking roads, blocking airports.

You know, those are important questions about what's in bounds and what's out of bounds.

And I'll start there.

Assembly Member Clark, what do you what do you make of Bill's points there?

>> Yeah, I mean, I think that we have to be very clear and have very clear protesting policies.

I think it doesn't mean that people won't choose to, you know, go above and beyond them or break them to a certain extent.

and, and there are consequences to that.

And I think that's okay.

I just don't think the consequences should be death.

so I do think we we need to really understand that.

I mean, I think if you have a clear protesting, I tell this to a lot of people who want to engage in civic disobedience in different ways.

Is that or civil disobedience?

Is that if you clearly know what you can and can't do, and you choose to still do what you can't do, by, by law or, or whatever, then there are going to be consequences.

And you have to be willing to accept that.

And that is part of protesting.

If you choose to do that.

So for me, it's it's, you know, I don't want things to escalate.

I do think there is a lot of pressure on our law enforcement officials and Ice to ensure that it doesn't escalate.

but it doesn't mean that I don't think there are consequences if you break break rules and break laws.

And on the second piece, you know, I think one of the biggest things that we've been pushing for is that that we are asking for the warrant.

Right?

So if there is someone who ends up in, in a local jail or in, in the system locally for something, for a law broken or for being a criminal or whatever, whatever it may be, if if Ice wants that person, they have to give the warrant.

I mean, that is the biggest thing about due process is that there there exists something before and often what I have heard.

And again, I think this is why we all need to really dig into how this works and, and how we should be doing it, and why it really matters that we pay attention is that if given a warrant, then yes, absolutely.

That is, you have presented something that has been approved by a judge.

And we should follow through on that.

>> You don't believe in state and local.

>> Bills asking if you support or if he thinks sanctuary cities should mean even undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes should be protected.

You're saying no, you don't want to go that far?

>> No.

>> But the issue is that I have heard over time and time again, is that no warrant is presented.

And so it puts a lot of pressure on the local and state to say, is there, you know, it.

I don't know.

So I think if we really want to protect this sort of process of, of, of our judicial and our system, then we need to ensure that those pieces are working.

>> Okay.

>> you know, I when I think of, you know, one of the justifications for sending all of these Ice agents into Minneapolis was fraud.

It was like, well, investigate the fraud.

I mean, no one's saying, don't do that.

It's just this is a disproportionate response to that.

That is really putting people's lives in danger.

>> So.

>> Bill, thank you.

let's get Erica in Rochester.

Go ahead.

Erica.

>> Hey, there.

so what I see is I see an extremely heavily armed force, and I think immigration just happens to be the flavor of the week.

It could have been homelessness.

It could have been drug use.

It could have been mental health.

It could have been a variety of different things.

But I think what we're missing is the fact that as a society, we have consistently allowed our police forces and our federal forces to continue to arm themselves.

But we forget that they're arming themselves against the population.

Like where where are we going to stop giving individuals who don't have to be accountable by hiding their face?

and where are we going to stop just giving these massive firearms to federal and local law enforcement?

They're using it against the people.

>> Well, what's.

>> The kind of weapon that you think?

So take police, for example, because police cannot hide their face.

Police, generally speaking, what we've seen from Ice, the reason you have so many police departments and police chiefs coming out against this is because they're afraid it's going to make people look at all law enforcement in a negative light.

I think Americans, generally speaking, when they're protesting, part of it is because it's not that they don't want any law enforcement.

They want it to be conducted professionally.

And when you see Ice officers mooning people like we saw, flicking people off, pushing people to the ground because they're shooting video, which is their legally protected right.

That is what is infuriating.

So many people when they see the way Ice is behaving.

If police officers do that, they face accountability.

Ice is saying, well, we've got immunity.

Police officers do face accountability for that.

And they would probably say, Erica, that they're not armed to be against the population.

They're armed to try to protect the population on occasion.

Now, you may disagree with that characterization, but what are the weapons that you think police should not have?

>> That's a good question.

I would say anything that holds over 21 bullets, you know, any sort of magazine that holds over 21.

>> I.

>> I mean, honestly, if it was me, I would love to see a certain degree of policing where it's actually not armed and not violent against the individuals that we choose to determine as other.

Today.

Like this is this is the natural consequence of having a militarized police force.

Like you're going to see it be used against the people.

>> Do you want to see police defunded or abolished?

Erica.

>> No, I want them to actually live up to the phrase live like, defend and protect.

You know, police decide that they're going to actually utilize deadly force.

They don't generally get penalized for murdering people.

>> So so a couple of things there.

Guardian instead of warrior is part of what Eric is saying.

The mentality not warrior but a guardian mentality.

Eric is not saying defund or abolish, which is interesting because somebody emailed not that long ago was like, you never talk about the abolish the police movement on the program anymore.

Well, that's an idea that the American people really considered, I think a lot over the last decade, and most people have rejected it.

Even people in the poorest Rochester neighborhoods.

There's research on this from RIT and other places that people don't tell you they want to abolish the police.

They want police to be good.

They want police to be effective.

And a lot of people feel that police generally are pretty effective, but they want to see good policing.

Erica is concerned, as you remember, Clark, about the amount of weaponry and the way police use it.

Do you share that concern?

>> Well, I think all of our law enforcement agencies should have very clear rules of engagement oversight.

I think when you take places like the RPD, having a really strong community input, I think the PAB has worked really hard to try to really improve their relationship so that there is this feeling that the community being policed has a voice in how it is policed.

the goal is obviously for everyone to be safe.

and so, you know, I think we need to have these spaces and places where people can discuss what that looks like and how that is how that is shown in our communities and our neighborhoods.

So I do think that that is a very important piece of this.

but, you know, I think there have been, you know, as there's a federal program that allows, you know, discontinued tanks and huge pieces of weaponry that are used in very specific federal programs that have are, you know, donated to local police.

So I do feel that pressure of you know, what do what do local police officers really need to ensure both their safety but also most the community safety as well.

And I, you know, I would just second that by that I will say, like what we have seen even just on the policy side, coming down from the feds is the criminalization of those suffering with mental health, substance abuse.

and really putting pressure on localities to treat those folks struggling with that more like criminals.

And it is really painful and and hard to to be a part, watch it happen in front of us.

>> Maybe we ought to put out a call for local police chiefs.

Do you want to come on this program and tell us if what we are seeing from Ice looks like good training and proper training to you?

We had retired Officer Gary put up with us a really powerful conversation earlier this week and got a lot of praise for, you know, Gary's expertise and and his experience.

But we ought to continue that conversation after this break.

We're going to move to a number of other things that are really kind of percolating in Albany, because the governor's budget covers a lot.

Assembly member Sarah Clark's got her view on what should be prioritized this year.

So let's take a short break.

We'll come right back and we'll hit all that stuff next.

Coming up in our second hour, a conversation with some of the dozens of local and regional businesses that are closing tomorrow as a kind of show of solidarity across the country, a protest against the behavior of Ice in cities like Minneapolis.

But in more places than that, too, of course, we're going to talk to some of the participating businesses about what they hope to accomplish.

That's next hour.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Cariola center.

Supporting residents to become active members of the community, from developing life skills to gaining independence.

Mary Cariola Center Transforming lives of people with disabilities.

More online at Mary Cariola.

Org.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson so Assembly Member Clark, let's start with childcare.

And let me start with a question, you know, related to some of the you had mentioned briefly that there is a serious fraud investigation going on in Minnesota that that does need to be fully understood and investigated.

And there's probably going to be a lot of consequences for that.

The federal government has made it clear, the Trump administration, that they think five other states in New York is on the list, also have performed fraudulently with federal funds, and they want to withhold in this way.

How does that affect us?

Do you think there's any reason to believe that there is a Minnesota like set of fraud that you've seen in our state?

>> There's no reason to think there is any fraud of that level or I mean, I don't know, I mean, I don't know what is actual happening in Minnesota, but that there is any discernible level of fraud in our child care program.

it is a pretty tightly run and you know, has a lot of checklist programs for people to be eligible for child care assistance program.

I will say, historically, I have watched time and time again families struggle who are eligible to receive child care assistance, not get it.

So it is more often that the long process to get approval actually causes more people who are eligible to not ultimately get it, than then I could ever see happening in the reverse way.

so there are a lot of checks and balances built into it.

And, you know, I don't see any kind of fraud that the this is purely, I think, a political target on our backs as a democratic state.

>> Do you think that it will fail?

Do you think the federal money will come through?

>> I mean, that is my hope.

I told our attorney general, who obviously is part of the the multi-state suit against this.

And we originally got the stay in place, but that expires, and we have to actually, you know, continue to fight this.

But I do sleep better at night because she exists and is willing to take on these fights.

we've seen success in other places overturning these kinds of very targeted, unconstitutional.

You know, these are these are dollars that Congress appropriated.

That is their job.

They have the power of the purse.

This there's no, way or anything that I have seen in our history that would allow this.

So it is my hope that we are successful.

>> You have worked for years on child care in in a number of different sort of flavors.

Why don't you lay out for listeners what is going on now, what at least is in the governor's budget and and what you'd like to see come in the final budget this year when it comes to child care?

>> Yeah.

>> So she obviously it's a little difficult and fragmented because New York City has a completely different setup, and they have millions of people all run by one agency versus the rest of the state that we administer our child care programs county by county.

so, shockingly, there are differences even among different regions of the state.

But outside of New York City what this budget does is include more money for the child care assistance program.

If everyone recalls.

We saw waitlists over the last few months in certain counties who had run out of dollars.

we've done a lot to increase eligibility and make more families.

qualify for this program.

But we didn't put in enough money to fund all those new families.

So that that is a big thing and that will help us as we build up to universal child care by ensuring we are at least getting all these families that are eligible under our new guidelines.

the child care assistance they need.

But what she also has suggested is these three trial counties to take $20 million each and really begin to look at how we can move to more universal child care so that, you know, people we're removing some of the administrative burden for for folks who very easily should be qualifying we can look at different, you know, nights, weekends, drop in rates co-payments, sliding scales so that the moment you make a dollar too much in terms of eligibility, you don't lose everything.

I mean, these are kinds of things that we should test to really see if we can find a way to make child care more universal, more accessible, and definitely affordable.

so.

But what I would like to see is that we really haven't addressed sort of the elephant in the room around child care, which is so child care, workforce pay.

you know, we've done a lot around capital and giving folks, the ability to build out space.

We've helped employers who want to build out child care in their in their buildings.

But what I see time and time again is that because we have not fixed the pay for child care workforce, that is why people can't get child care right now.

Like if you are searching for slots, I know multiple centers that have multiple rooms closed.

It is not a physical space issue.

It is fully a staff issue.

And when you can make more in a fast food restaurant, it is hard to take on the burden and the responsibility.

It's not a burden.

I'm sorry.

The responsibility of caring for children.

you might think twice about that.

And we need to pay that workforce what they deserve for doing literally the most important job.

>> Yeah.

So a couple things there when it comes to how to fund it.

I think some of your colleagues in the Republican Party in the state are just saying, we're already stretched as a budget.

And the state, you know, we already we already spend a lot of money to begin with.

How are we going to pay for that?

Some of your colleagues on the political left have said super wealth tax.

The governor has said no to a, you know, a super high earners tax this year.

I'm wondering where you are.

Can this be paid for?

And does it start with where do you where do you come down on that super wealth tax.

>> So first of all, the super wealth tax is very old, is overwhelmingly popular in my district and other places across the state of New York.

I do think the disparity of of how people invest in our programs and who we ask to invest really needs to we need to really make sure that those who can afford to pay are not.

I will tell a quick story that my son just told me that for one of his business classes, they've been playing monopoly a lot lately.

And I said, well, that game really has a history of trying to teach people how sometimes capitalism can go awry and how it doesn't always help everyone when we don't think of basic needs and other things.

And he was like, well, can't we just see that now in our, in our society?

I mean, we have billionaires.

I don't think people understand how much a billion is compared to people who, you know, work 40, 60, 80 hours a week and can't even afford their rent.

So, you know, the skew is, is there.

And I think when it comes to child care, we need to look at all possibilities.

I also personally think employers have a lot more.

They benefit a lot from childcare.

And I have proposed time and time again a small payroll tax on our largest grossing company so that we're not, you know, really impacting our small businesses that we know struggle.

But really coming up with a way that we create a pot of, of dedicated revenue that way, given how much our employers benefit from a healthy working childcare ecosystem.

>> So you would support a super wealth tax, but the governor does not.

Is it going to be a fight?

>> We shall see.

It hasn't come up yet in conference.

But you know, it's always a discussion I think there what's funny is most of my colleagues all can come up with things that they wished were funded better or more in the budget, but that means we do have to come up with revenue.

so it is this, this balance that we have to take on here, but I think there will be a lot of voices, including, you know, our teachers union and others who have all shown up to really push for a higher tax brackets for high wealth earners.

>> Okay, let's hit some things.

Not rapid fire, but let's hit some things pretty quickly here because we got a lot to still cover here.

Higher ed funding.

What's going on there.

>> So we you know the governor's done a lot on reconnect which is this program in our community colleges to, reconnect people back into higher ed for, for careers that are in demand and will financially be supportive and all the good things that we want.

so there's an expansion of those types of programs that will be covered under that.

You know, one of the things that MCPs and other community colleges have shared with me is that currently, the program says you have to have no college degree, but there's been a few folks who are older who got a college degree 20 years ago or so, and, and, and their, their field is not really what it used to be.

And they want to go back.

And so it is my hope.

And we've we've got some legislation introduced on that that would you know, allow people who got college degrees 20 years ago or more to also qualify because I do think it's a great program.

the the big thing for me is that in the governor's proposal around tuition assistance program, she sort of taking back some unspent funds and unobligated funds.

We've done a lot to expand Tap and make more people get tuition assistance for higher ed.

I have this idea that we should really include a certain graduate programs under that and give people more help because we require graduate programs, graduate degrees for certain fields.

If you're a teacher, you have to have a master's.

I feel like as a state, then we should use those unobligated tap dollars to pay for you to get your graduate degree that you need to teach.

There's other professions.

We also require this.

I think we should do more to support those students, given how expensive it is.

so there's but there is some great work being done.

in in her budget, both on ensuring, you know, we have no tuition raise for Suny in her budget.

she is eating or proposing to eat that, that increased cost so that students don't have to take it on.

so that is really exciting.

Lots to work for, for in higher ed.

>> So some.

>> Work to be done.

>> So that's, that's that's higher ed typically there, you know, even if the governor is the governor often is in recent years a Democrat, there's typically some kind of a fight over education funding, sometimes pre-K.

What's the status there.

>> Yeah.

So education you know, she does continue to to fully fund foundation aid obviously and give some increase on inflation.

I think there's a lot of good there.

You know, she's taking the pre-K rate, you know, as more districts have come into offering pre-K, they've been getting higher rates to do it per student.

But our old districts that had already been doing pre-K were locked into these much lower rates.

So one of her wonderful proposals in the education budget would base up everyone to that $10,000 per student, which will help a lot of our districts.

We do have a little bit of an issue in the city school district, because New York City is getting money.

They do three K. They don't just do 4K.

City School District does it as well.

and they, by the way, that you would help them on 4K but not help on pre-K outside of the city would actually give them less money than they're currently getting to do that program.

So there's I always say the devil's in the details, as you know, as we've come on and tried to talk through it all, I do I mean, I'm very grateful for her commitment to the, the K through 12 education and what we should be doing, but we're going to have to, I think, really ensure that we're working on some of these smaller issues.

and I, I get I, we just had our budget hearing today and our superintendents from the city school districts down here, and I hope to get to ask him a few questions about the budget himself and how it will impact our district.

>> And something else on your radar is policy related to aging.

Tell me about that.

>> Yeah.

>> So I've been trying to really you know, older New Yorkers are a majority of all the demographics in our state, and it's only increasing.

Yet the budget often isn't as isn't doing as much for them as it is for others.

And so we've been really trying to work on a couple different things.

For me.

One thing that's really personal, you know, the long term care Ombudsman program, which is a great advocacy.

We've really professionalized it across the state to ensure that these Ombudsman's are going into long term care facilities and advocating for residents and their families.

but you know, what we saw with the tower that was just closed a couple months ago?

that does supportive housing, you know, for me to really start to include our senior supportive housing in that ombudsman program as well it was clear that there were people you know, aging New Yorkers who were in those programs living in that building who were not getting the services they were promised.

And, you know, put them at risk, had to, you know, and then the whole program got closed down, you know, people's lives were disrupted.

They had to move within ten days.

and so some of that is, is how can we prevent that?

And if supportive housing is one of the ways we're helping more and more of our older New Yorkers, we need to really include them in that ombudsman program.

and then, of course, my fight of all fights it's not going to be a fight, I don't think.

But lifespan has done, you know, great work statewide to on elder abuse.

but what we're really seeing the big issue now is, is fraud.

And and these scams.

And so we are really fighting and pushing for you know, including more funding for the statewide work that they're doing around this, but really focused on the scams and the fraud.

>> All right.

let's get some more listener feedback here.

Trisha in Rochester has been waiting on the phone.

Hey, Trisha, go ahead.

>> Do we have you there?

Trisha?

I'm gonna put Trisha back on hold, see if we can get Trisha.

Let me get a couple questions from Joel, who writes to the program.

Wants to know what Assembly Member Clark thinks about nuclear power.

Nuclear.

Sarah.

>> Oh.

>> I would say you know, I understand the concerns on many levels.

I'm not.

I'm definitely not a hard no at all.

but I'm also very trying to wrap my head around the real concerns that we have out there.

Obviously, you know, technology has changed the how we handle waste is still a big thing.

And in shore, communities are protected.

I think my biggest issue now is that we're facing we're facing, you know, utility issues, energy.

generation problems now.

And even if we were to commit to nuclear, it's a ten year timeline.

So, you know, I'm not a hard no, but I, I really do need to hear from more experts.

on on some of the issues.

I do see why there's this push for it, because it would really help on the generation side of things in a way that we are sort of figuring out other ways to do now through multiple ways of generating.

But again, ten years is a long time of these really difficult problems.

And I think we have some shorter term solutions.

We could really be focused on.

>> the Buffalo Bills will move into their new stadium, got plenty of taxpayer help for that.

Joel wants to know, does Assembly member Clark support taxpayer dollars to redo the sabers hockey arena?

>> Oh.

>> I didn't even know that was.

>> Out there either.

>> I don't know if that's a thing.

Is that a thing?

>> It may be.

you know, I will say we have given some dollars to our Red wing stadium.

including their new training facility that is now state of the art.

And is really quite amazing and being used in multiple ways.

It's.

These are hard balances.

I definitely don't think it's economic development.

you know, often it's seen as economic development.

These are not necessarily job creators, but they are community institutions that mean so much.

so I think it's a balance.

I don't agree with everything.

every time.

but at the same time, I will say over the years, you know, New York City has gotten a lot, lot like billions and billions of dollars for capital projects that are meaningful to their communities.

And we have not always gotten the same.

So I do support wherever we can getting more of these dollars upstate.

>> Well, the Pegulas need the help.

We'll see.

>> And that is not that is that is fair.

>> I don't.

>> Know, I would love to ask Terry Pegula, you know.

Hey, man, you've made a lot of money fracking.

You're a billionaire.

Like, are you not able to cover it?

Like, I mean, like, are you hurting?

Can I buy you lunch?

I don't know what's going on.

that's for another day.

speaking of capital money, is Rochester getting more capital money in this budget.

>> In 300 billion.

>> $300 million?

>> Did you say.

maybe?

You said maybe.

>> Well.

>> I, I mean, obviously the governor's proposed it.

We as the legislative branch are very supportive of it, but we're not at final budget yet.

So I never want to, you know, take the victory lap till we're ready to.

>> Where's that money going to be spent?

>> 75 million for the High Falls State Park, which is so good.

And I've got so many ideas of how to move that up to my neighborhood, so, you know, but that is.

Oh, my gosh, it is going to transform downtown to have a High Falls park there.

And when people get to go to the lower level and really see that whole gorge from a different perspective, I think it's really going to be great.

the rest of it is for this Monroe County city of Rochester Transformation initiative.

You know, I think often we sprinkle dollars here and there as a, you know, when we're trying to give support.

but often what communities really need is, is this big one time shot to really do build out what they need to in multiple ways so that the the Connections are there, whether it's, you know, ensuring public spaces along with development on housing, along with you know, whatever it may be, sidewalks and everything to to really transform areas.

And so this is a big piece and Albany has gotten a big chunk.

Buffalo's gotten their chunk from time to time.

So I think this is a this is a huge win to Rochester.

And I do want to shout out our county exec and mayor for for really working together and making this something that the governor and the rest of us could easily look at and say, yes, this is what we need to do.

>> We'll see if it's in the final budget.

That'll be a conversation for a few months from now to follow up on that.

So two more.

>> Things for.

April 2nd, two more things.

>> Real quick.

Oh, you think it's gonna be on time?

>> I don't know.

I was dreaming.

>> Two more things real quick.

So there's this an issue that I had no idea until my colleague Jimmy Vielkind reported on.

And I've been asking your colleagues on it.

I'll ask you.

Governor Hochul is essentially making the case that one piece of affordability for New Yorkers is that our insurance rates are high, especially with car insurance.

And she believes part of that is because we have way too loose of a set of standards or laws regarding being able to claim pain and suffering after a car accident, and that drives up insurance rates for everybody.

And she wants to see a tightening of that.

Now, trial lawyers don't like that.

The insurance companies do.

And I'm curious to know where you come down on this.

>> Yeah.

>> So I am I am trying to get into the weeds a little bit about I do feel car insurance, particularly for some reason in New York City is high.

it's high everywhere, right?

The cost of fixing cars, all these things that we have, those are nationwide problems.

for me, I, I'm always open to figuring out ways to make things work better and be more affordable.

The problem?

I see, is that sometimes your unintended consequences of these ideas is that people who truly are justified in their ability to reclaim some dollars can't.

And that's the line we always have to, to walk, right?

We we want to make sure that there we can crack down on abuse, crack down on fraud.

give people what they are due, not overpay.

But at the same time, you have to protect people.

to ensure that they, they can when justified.

>> So you're still studying.

>> This issue.

>> Is that I'm.

>> Still looking.

>> In it.

Okay.

>> And I will tell you when you have.

>> Assemblywoman Jen Lunsford on it that no one knows this issue better.

>> We are so lucky to have that.

hey, last.

>> 30s, I saw a conversation between Utah Governor Spencer Cox and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

They were so lovely to each other.

It was like it was like a different planet, but but briefly, they disagreed on whether states should try to follow Australia in banning social media for people 16 and younger, would you get on board with something like that?

>> I definitely have my concerns as a mom of someone 16 and younger.

I think state by state, it's hard to do a lot of things, although we can often drive change.

But when there is lack of movement at the federal level, I mean literally to the point even on A.I., where the.

the president said, we're not going to do anything.

I mean, it's just crazy.

so I agree, I think the states can do should take a look at what they can do.

>> It's it's really algorithmic media or anti-social media.

But.

>> You know.

>> It's algorithmic.

It's it's creating this likes which creates this so many things.

>> Yeah.

I mean that's conversation also for another day.

A lot of these things are and we're going to cover them in depth.

But this is a chance to see sort of the broad range.

And I know our audience wanted to talk a little bit about Ice today, and I want to thank you for being willing to engage them with that and for talking about all of these issues.

Assembly Member Clark, thank you for making time for the program today.

>> Absolutely.

Thanks for having me.

>> Assembly member Sarah Clark from district 136 joining us from Albany.

It's part of our series of conversations with your elected leaders, talking about the proposed budget and what they want to see in that final budget.

More Connections coming up in a moment.

>> This program is a production of WXXI 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 express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the Connections link at wxxinews.org.