>> ON THIS MONTH'S EDITION OF CONNECT NEW YORK, WE'RE UNPACKING GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL'S $252 BILLION BUDGET PROPOSAL, INCLUDING HER LEGISLATIVE AGENDA IN ALBANY.

ALL THAT, AND MORE, COMING UP NEXT.

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ WELCOME TO CONNECT NEW YORK, I'M DAVID LOMBARDO--- HOST OF WCNY'S THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM, A DAILY PUBLIC RADIO SHOW, BROADCASTING FROM THE STATE CAPITOL.

ON TODAY'S PROGRAM, WE ARE TURNING OUR ATTENTION TO THE STATE CAPITOL IN ALBANY WHERE IN JANUARY-- GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DELIVERED HER STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS AND LATER UNVEILED HER $252 BILLION BUDGET PROPOSAL FOR THE STATE'S NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH STARTS ON APRIL FIRST.

TO EXPLORE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, WE'RE JOINED IN THE STUDIO BY TWO VETERANS OF PLANET ALBANY, AND THEY ARE REBECCA GARRARD, ACTING-CO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ADVOCACY GROUP CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK, AND MORGAN HOOK, A MANAGING DIRECTOR FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS FIRM SKDK.

AND UP FIRST, I WANT TO CONSIDER ONE OF THE GOVERNOR'S TOP PRIORITIES FOR THIS YEAR, A SO-CALLED INFLATION REFUND CHECK, WHICH COMES WITH A $3 BILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG AND IS SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY-- A BUZZ WORD IN ALBANY THESE DAYS.

LET'S CHECK OUT A CLIP FROM THE STATE OF THE STATE ADDRESS, WHERE THE GOVERNOR LAID OUT HER VISION.

>> THE FACT IS, MANY AMERICANS, NOT JUST NEW YORKERS, HAVE BEEN HIT HARD BY INFLATION SINCE COVID.

BECAUSE PRICES WENT UP, OUR SALES TAX REVENUE WENT UP AS WELL.

BUT I BELIEVE THIS.

THAT EXTRA MONEY DOES NOT BELONG IN STATE COFFERS.

IT BELONGS BACK IN YOUR POCKET.

[ APPLAUSE ] AND THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED THE FIRST EVER, THE NATION'S FIRST INFLATION REFUND.

NOW UNDER MY PLAN, WE'LL RETURN BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SURPLUS SALES TAX REVENUE DIRECTLY TO 8.6 MILLION HARD WORKING NEW YORKERS.

I'M TALKING ABOUT SENIORS, RECENT GRADS, FAMILIES BRINGING IN LESS THAN $300,000 A YEAR.

THIS MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

$300 FOR INDIVIDUALS, $500 FOR A FAMILY.

I HAVE SPOKEN TO MANY OF THEM.

THEY'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS REAL MONEY BACK IN THEIR POCKETS.

SO REBECCA, THE PLAN THAT THE GOVERNOR LAID OUTCOMES WITH A $3 BILLION PRICE TAG.

IS THAT A GOOD ONE-TIME USE OF THIS MONEY?

>> I WOULD SAY NO, RIGHT?

WE DO KNOW THAT FAMILY COURT AFFORDABILITY IS A GOOD POLITICAL TOPIC RIGHT NOW.

IT WAS SAVVY AND FOR $3 BILLION, THAT GIVES ME TWO CONCERNS.

ONE IS, IS IT A GOOD USE OF THAT MONEY.

ARE WE GIVING THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT MOST?

ARE WE FORMING PROGRAMS THAT ARE TARGETED TO PEOPLE THAT NEED SPECIFIC THINGS, RIGHT?

LIKE HEALTHCARE, CHILD CARE, AND IS IT RECURRING, A ONE-TIME CHECK FOR $300.

-- >> IT IS NOT.

>> IT'S A GOOD EMPLOY PLOY BUT NOT NECESSARILY GOOD POLICY.

AND WHAT ARE THE FUNDING MECHANISMS THAT ARE ABSENT IN THE BUDGET THAT MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE.

I DON'T SEE THOSE.

>> MORGAN, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE OPTICS OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE A CYNICAL READ IS THAT THIS IS A KNEE JERK REACTION TO THE NOVEMBER ELECTION RESULTS AND THE MESSAGE THAT VOTERS MIGHT HAVE BEEN SENDING IN NEW YORK.

AND NATIONALLY.

AND A CHARITABLE VIEW WOULD BE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY FOR YEARS NOW.

WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF AN INFLATION REFUND CHECK?

>> A COUPLE THINGS CAN BE TRUE AT THE SAME TIME.

IT IS TRUE THAT KATHY HOCHUL HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY FOR A FEW YEARS NOW.

THIS IS NOT A NEW TOPIC FOR HER BUT IT'S ALSO TRUE THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE CLEARLY DECIDED THE LESSON THEY LEARNED FROM NOVEMBER IS THAT THEY NEED TO BE ALL IN ON AFFORDABILITY.

I DON'T THINK THEY'RE QUITE EXACTLY RIGHT ON THAT.

WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.

BUT AS A POLICY, I AGREE, LIKE THIS ISN'T THE MOST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO.

IT IS NOT-- THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES, TOO.

GEORGE BUSH DID THIS ONCE UPON A TIME AND SENT EVERYBODY CHECK.

IT IS A VERY POPULAR POLITICAL THING TO DO.

PEOPLE LOVE GETTING FREE MONEY.

IT'S ALSO, FROM PURELY FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT, IT IS A GOOD ECONOMIC BOOST.

PEOPLE GET MONEY?

THEY SPEND IT: IT IS GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY BUT THAT'S NOT WHY THEY'RE DOING IT.

THEY'RE DOING IT BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO BANG THE DRUM ON AFFORDABILITY AND LIKES TO SAY SHE PUT MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS.

THAT IS WHAT IS DRIVING THE DECISION MAKING BEHIND THIS.

>> WILL WE SEE STIMULUS CHECKS LIKE THIS AT THE STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL, IT'S TYPICALLY DESIGNED TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.

THERE IS GROWTH.

IN FACT WE SOMETIMES WORRY ABOUT THERE BEING TOO MUCH GROWTH AND THAT INFLATION IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO SCALE BACK.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BENEFITS, THOUGH, MORGAN.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT HAS A LASTING BENEFIT OR IS IT THE SENSE THAT YOU OPEN IT UP, CASH THE CHECK, THINK POSITIVELY OF KATHY HOCHUL FOR 10 SECONDS IF YOU SEE HER NAME ON IT AND THEN COME NOVEMBER 2026 YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY REMEMBERING, IT WAS KATHY HOCHUL WHO PAID MY UTILITY BILL BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2025.

>> I KIND OF QUESTION THE STAYING POWER OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS; PARTICULARLY, I MEAN IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO BE CYNICAL ABOUT IT, SHE WOULD DO THIS NEXT YEAR AND THE CHECKS WOULD ARRIVE IN OCTOBER RIGHT BEFORE ELECTION DAY, RIGHT?

THAT'S THE MOST CYNICAL VERSION OF THIS.

IF YOU DO THAT, YOU GET BLAMED FOR BEING THAT CYNICAL AND POLITICAL AND MAYBE IF YOU DO IT THE YEAR BEFORE, BUT I REALLY DO QUESTION-- I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS A REALLY GOOD WAY TO, YOU KNOW, BOOST YOUR POLL NUMBERS OR HAVE THE POLL NUMBERS, BUT, AND IF YOU TAKE THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE AT THEIR WORD, AGAIN, THEIR FOCUS IS ON AFFORDABILITY AND ON TRYING TO HELP REGULAR NEW YORKERS.

THEY ARE DOING THAT IN THIS OR WITH THIS POLICY BUT THE OTHER REALITY IS, HER POLL NUMBERS HAVE BEEN SAGGING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW AND MAYBE THEY SEE THIS AS PART OF A BROADER PLAN TO TRY AND CHANGE THE NARRATIVE ON HER GOVERNORSHIP.

>> REBECCA, THE GOVERNOR HAS FRAMED THE FUNDING FOR THIS AS COMING FROM A SURPLUS OF SALES TAX REVENUE.

VIEWERS, I WON'T GET INTO HOW TWISTED THE LOGIC OF THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ACCURATE.

BUT THERE IS THIS IDEA THAT WE HAVE EXCESS MONEY AND THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY MONEY THAT WE ARE PROJECTED TO HAVE INTO THE FUTURE.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE ONE-TIME MONEY LIKE THIS, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU SPEND IT ON ONE-TIME COSTS, WHICH THIS IS.

SO, GIVEN THAT KIND OF CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO BUDGETING, WHY ISN'T A REFUND CHECK THE BEST WAY TO USE THIS MONEY?

ARE THERE OTHER ONE-TIME INVESTMENTS THAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE MADE OR WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS SPENT ON RECURRING COSTS?

>> I WOULD WANT TO SEE THIS BE A THOUGHTFUL-- YOU COULD MAKE TWO ARGUMENTS, RIGHT?

IF WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW YOUR LOGIC THAT A ONE-TIME REVENUE STREAM, YOU WANT TO DIRECTLY PUT INTO A ONE-TIME SPENDING SOURCE, THEN I WOULD WANT TO SEE IT BE A TARGETED INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITIES PROGRAMS THAT NEED IT, NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD EXPENDITURE.

THERE ARE DEFINITELY FAMILIES THAT, FOR WHOM $300 IS GOING TO MAKE A GREAT DIFFERENCE.

AND TO YOUR POINT, I THINK WILL ABSOLUTELY AUTOMATICALLY GO OUT AND SPEND IT AND I THINK THERE IS A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL FOR WHOM $300 IS NOT GOING TO BE A DEAL BREAKER AND WHO MIGHT NOT IMMEDIATELY GO OUT AND MAKE A PURCHASE.

AND WE WON'T SEE FROM THAT INCOME LEVEL THAT DIRECT TIE-IN, RIGHT, TO THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS THAT YOU FOLK ABOUT.

>> AND THOSE INCOME LEVELS ARE $150,000 FOR A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL AND $300,000 FOR A FAMILY AND THOSE CAN BE DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEANINGFUL AMOUNTS OF MONEY, DEPENDING WHERE YOU LIVE IN THE STATE.

>> EXACTLY.

EXACTLY.

SO I THINK, IF YOU WERE GOING TO USE IT FOR ONE-TIME INVESTMENT, I WOULD ASSERT THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW,PROGRAMS-- YOU KNOW, SHE DID INCLUDE IN THE BUDGET A PROGRAM FOR MOTHERS WHO ARE ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, WHICH IS $100 AT DURING THE LAST TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY, A THOUSAND DOLLARS I THINK MAYBE 1200 UPON THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD.

THAT'S A ONE-TIME PAYMENT.

>> THE BABY BUCKS.

>> THE BABY BUCKS.

WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT BE RECURRING PAYMENTS.

STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT A ONE-TIME PAYMENT HAS LESS EFFECT.

RECURRING PAYMENTS ARE MORE IMPACTFUL, SOMETHING MUCH MORE SLNL TO THE WILL GO-- SIMILAR TO THE LEGISLATION BY RAMOS AND CLARK.

SO THAT MONEY COULD HAVE EASILY GONE TO PROGRAMS LIKE THAT.

THAT, I THINK WOULD BE MORE IMPACTFUL TO POPULATIONS THAT ARE MORE IN NEED.

>> ONE RECURRING PROPOSAL THAT THE GOVERNOR IS ADVANCING, MORGAN IS THE SO CALLED MIDDLE-CLASS TAX CUT.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, FROM AN OPTICS PERCEPTION IS MORE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE ONE EVERYBODY THINKS THEY'RE PART OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS AND TWO, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE A LONGER LASTING IMPACT, ASSUMING IT DOESN'T GO AWAY?

AGAIN, IT'S PART OF A PLAN, RIGHT?

I THINK IT FITS IN WITH THE OVERALL DIRECTION THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.

EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO THESE DAYS, EVERYTHING THAT THE GOVERNOR TALKED ABOUT IN HER STATE OF THE STATE OF THE STATE, EVERYTHING SHE TALKED ABOUT IN HER BUDGET PRESENTATION, EVERY PRESS RELEASE THEY PUT OUT, THEY ARE HAMMERING HOME MAKING NEW YORK MORE AFFORDABLE, PUTTING MONEY IN YOUR POCKET.

THEY REALLY WANT TO BE SEEN AS AN ADMINISTRATION THAT IS TRYING TO ADDRESS THE COST OF LIVING, THAT IS TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE TO LIVE IN NEW YORK, TO MAKE NEW YORK A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND MAKE IT JUST SORT OF BETTER FOR FAMILIES.

SO I SEE ALL OF IT AS YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE NARRATIVE.

WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO BECOME-- WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO BECOME AN ELECTED OFFICIAL THAT IS ABOUT A SPECIFIC THING, HAVE YOU TO SAY IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

YOU CAN'T SAY IT ONCE IN ONE SPEECH AND EXPECT NEW YORKERS TO HEAR IT.

MOST NEW YORKERS WERE NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE STATE OF THE STATE AND EVEN FEWER TO THE BUDGET PRESENTATION.

FOR HER TO BE IDENTIFIED AS THE ELECTED OFFICIAL IN NEW YORK STATE THAT IS OUT TO PROTECT NEW YORK FAMILIES, THAT IS TOUT MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE, THEY NEED TO ROLL OUT A WHOLE SLATE OF POLICIES, AND THEY NEED TO BE DOING IT FOR MONTHS ON END BEFORE IT STARTS TO REGISTER WITH THE PUBLIC.

SO I DO THINK, AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THAT PLAN, AND THEY HAVE BEEN VERY CONSISTENT.

I MEAN AGAIN, I SAID BEFORE, THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT COST OF LIVING FOR YEARS NOW BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN THE ONE AND ONLY THING SHE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFTED THIS YEAR, OBVIOUS SHIFT THIS YEAR WHERE THAT IS BASICALLY THE ONLY THING THEY TALK ABOUT AT THIS POINT THE ONLY THING THAT KATHY HOCHUL WHEN SHE IS OUT IN PUBLIC AND HOLDING A PRESS CONFERENCE, THIS IS THE ISSUE THAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT EVERY TIME SHE IS OUT IN PUBLIC NOW.

>> AND TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT AND BUILD ON THAT POINT, IT RINGS HOLLOW WHEN THERE IS A CONTINUOUS ABSENCE AND WILLINGNESS TO TALK ABOUT INCREASING PROGRESSIVE REVENUE STREAMS.

WE CANNOT BUILD PROGRAMS AND TRULY ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY WHEN THERE IS A COMPLETE RESISTANCE AND REFUSAL TO TALK ABOUT INCREASING TAXES ON BILLIONAIRES AND THE WEALTHIEST CORPORATIONS IN NEW YORK IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A ONE-TIME REVENUE SURPLUS, WHICH, AGAIN, WE WON'T GET INTO THE, YOU KNOW, MACHINATIONS THAT CREATE THESE OUT OF CONVENIENCE, BUT AS A STABLE FISCAL STREAM IN ORDER TO HAVE PROGRAMS FROM YEAR TO YEAR TO YEAR THAT PROVIDE FOR NEW YORKERS.

SHE CANNOT IN ONE BREATH SAY SHE CARES ABOUT THE WORKING CLASS FAMILIES OF NEW YORK AND THEN THE VERY NEXT WEEK, BE AT A REVENUE FUNDRAISER, THE REAL ESTATE BOARD OF NEW YORK, TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE ELSE WOULD SHE BE.

IT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO BE.

YOU CANNOT PANDER TO THE WEALTHIEST SPECIAL INTERESTS OUT OF ONE SIDE OF YOUR MOUTH AND OUT OF THE OTHER SIDE OF YOUR MOUTH CLAIM TO BE COMPLETELY FOCUSED ON WORKING FAMILIES.

>> THIS BUDGET PROPOSAL ADVANCES AN EXTENSION OF HIGHER INCOME TAX RATES ON INDIVIDUALS MAKING I BELIEVE $1.1 MILLION AND ABOVE AND FAMILIES MAKING IN EXCESS OF $2 MILLION WHICH MEANS THAT NEW YORK WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHEST CONTINUED INCOME TAX AROUND THE COUNTRY.

WHY IS THAT NOT ENOUGH WHEN IT COMES TO TRYING TO GENERATE REVENUE IN NEW YORK BECAUSE THERE IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT THERE IS A FINE LINE THAT THE STATE POLICYMAKERS HAVE TO WALK WHEN TRYING TO MAXIMIZE REVENUES WHILE ALSO NOT KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAID THE GOLDEN EGG.

>> FIRST OF ALL, IT'S JUST AN EXTENSION.

IT'S NOT AN INCREASE.

LAST YEAR WE SAW IN THE ONE HOUSE BUDGETS, A PROPOSED INCREASE AT CERTAIN BRACKETS IN THE PERSONAL INCOME TAX AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS AGAIN.

>> AND THE ONE HOUSE BUDGET REFERS TO THE BUDGET PROPOSALS.

>> AND PROPOSED INCREASE IN THE CORPORATE TAX.

THE REALITY IS THE PROFITS THAT WE CONTINUE TO SEE ON THE WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS IN NEW YORK AND THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN NEW YORK ARE NOT STAGNANT.

THEY'RE GROWING.

THEY'RE GROWING OFF OF THE LABOR AND THE WORK OF WORKING CLASS NEW YORKERS WHO ARE NOT SHARING IN THOSE INCREASED PROFITS.

IN TERMS OF THE CORPORATE TAX, WE ARE NOT HIGHEST.

THAT DO EASILY INCREASE AND NOT PUT US OUT OF-- >> AT A DISADVANTAGE WITH OTHER STATES.

>> CORRECT; CORRECT.

AND MOST STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT WITH THOSE INCREASES, WE DO NOT SEE FLIGHT.

THE REASON WE HAVE THIS TREMENDOUS WEALTH AND ACCUMULATION OF THE WEALTHY IN NEW YORK IS BECAUSE THERE IS MONEY TO BE MADE HERE.

>> WE MAY NOT SEE A FLIGHT BUT NEW YORK'S SHARE OF MILLIONAIRES COMPARED TO OTHER STATES IS DECREASING.

SO THERE ARE REASONS AND INDICATORS TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT OVER TAXING THIS MOBILE POP EXPWHRAITION WE DID NOT SEE AN EXODUS THE LAST TIME THERE WAS AN INCREASE.

>> NOT AN EXODUS BUT A GROWTH ELSEWHERE.

THEORETICALLY THIS NEW GROWTH IS ESTABLISHING ITSELF IN OTHER STATES THAT DON'T HAVE AN INCOME TAX TO BEGIN WITH LIKE TEXAS OR FLORIDA.

>> LET ME PUT MY POLITICAL HAT ON.

THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT MOL EXTREATMENTLY WELL.

>> POLITICALLY THIS IS VERY POPULAR.

IF YOU ARE HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HIVE I'VE.

>> THAT POLL EXTREMELY WELL ACROSS BOTH PARTIES.

ONE IS PRO-POLICING AND PRO-INCARCERATING ISSUES AND THE OTHER IS TAXING THE RICH.

IF WE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO CONSTITUENTS, WHICH IS CLEARLY SHE IS DOING WITH HER PROPOSALS ON INCREASING POLICE ON THE SUBWAY, SHE SHOULD BE LISTENING ON THE OTHER END, TOO.

AND GENERATING GREATER REVENUE STREAMS.

THERE IS THAT SUPPORT THAT INCREASING POLICING IS NOT EITHER BUT SHE IS YIELDING TO THE MASSES ON.

THIS I SUGGEST SHE CAN YIELD TO THE MASSES ON THIS.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU FROM A PUBLIC POLICY STANDPOINT, BUT AGAIN, THE LESSON-- NOVEMBER-- DEMOCRATS AGAIN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE TAKING THE RIGHT LESSONS FROM NOVEMBER OR NOT.

BUT IT SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THE LESSONS THEY'RE TAKING FROM NOVEMBER IS THAT YES, YOU NEED TO BE LISTENING TO THE PUBLIC, YOU NEED TO BE MORE POPULIST AND THINKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.

BUT ANOTHER ONE OF THE LESSONS I THINK FROM NOVEMBER IS THAT THE PUBLIC WAS NOT NECESSARILY LISTENING TO WHAT THE REALITY THE GROUND WAS.

RIGHT?

AND DEMOCRATS AND I THINK HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR THIS AS WELL.

DEMOCRATS SAID WELL THE ECONOMY WASN'T THAT BAD AND PEOPLE ARE SAYING IT'S BAD AND INFLATION HAD SETTLED DOWN BUT PEOPLE WERE STILL ANGRY ABOUT INFLATION.

AND SO I THINK AGAIN, LIKE SO MUCH OF THIS, AGAIN THE LESSON I TAKE FROM NOVEMBER IS, OKAY, GREAT, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPIN.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC POLICY ANYMORE.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW POORLY THE DEMOCRATS DID SPINNING THE SITUATION WHEREAS REPUBLICANS AND DONALD TRUMP SAID THE SKY IS FALLING AND I'LL FIX IT AND LOWER THE PRICE OF LETTUCE UNTIL I GET INTO OFFICE AND THEN GET IN OFFICE AND TELL YOU I CAN'T DO THAT.

IT'S A PERCEPTION ARGUMENT.

IF THE PERCEPTION IS THAT NEW YORK IS TOO HIGH A TAX STATE AND WE NOW OW OPPOSITION IS GOING TO RESPOND IF SHE IS TRYING TO RAISE TAXES ON ANYBODY.

THEY'RE GOING TO SAY YOU ARE RAISING TAXES, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT DAVE IS MAKING HERE.

THEY CAN LEAVE NEW YORK.

THIS IS BAD.

YOU ARE RUINING NEW YORK AGAIN KATHY HOCHUL.

IF AGAIN WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT IT FROM A PURELY PUBLIC VOTER PERCEPTION, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO BE THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO SAYS NO NEW TAXES AND I'M GIVING YOU A $300 CHECK.

>> I MEAN-- >> UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE TO STICK ON OUR SCHEDULE AND WE ARE GOING TO STILL FOCUS ON AFFORDABILITY AND STILL FOCUS ON THINGS THAT ARE POPULAR AND THAT IS A CHILD TAX CREDIT THAT THE GOVERNOR IS CHAMPIONING.

AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CLIP HERE WHERE THE GOVERNOR IS TALKING ABOUT HER PROPOSAL THAT SHE IS ADVANCING AS PART OF THE STATE BUDGET.

>> JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, I MET A MOM OF THREE, SHE ALSO HAD A TWO-YEAR-OLD.

SHE TOLD ME THAT WHEN SHE RECEIVED A CHECK LAST YEAR, IT FELT LIKE HER BIRTHDAY.

SHE PAID HER UTILITY BILL.

BOUGHT SOME EXTRA GROCERIES AND THEN SHE TREATED HER KIDS TO DINNER, SOMETHING THAT WAS SO RARE FOR HER.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

AND THIS YEAR I WANT TO SUPPORT OUR FAMILIES EVEN MORE.

TRIPLING THE MAXIMUM BENEFIT TO ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

[ APPLAUSE ] 1,000 FOR BABIES AND KIDS UP TO FOUR AND IN 2026, WE'LL BOOST THE CREDIT FOR SCHOOL AGED CHILDREN EVEN HIGHER TO $500.

FOR PARENTS, IT'S MORE FOOD ON THE TABLE, MORE SUPPLIES IN THE BACKPACK FOR 2.7 MILLION CHILDREN.

>> SO REBECCA, THAT PROPOSAL THAT THE GOVERNOR LAID OUT WHEN FULLY PHASED IN AFTER TWO YEARS WILL COST IN EXCESS OF $800 MILLION AND ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, HAVE AN IMPACT REDUCING STATE CHILD POVERTY RATE OF NEARLY 10%, SOMETHING THAT NEW YORK NEEDS TO DO AS PART OF A STATUTORY GOAL TO CUT CHILD POVERTY IN HALF BY 2032.

WHEN YOU THINK OF THIS PROPOSAL, WHAT IS YOUR REACTION?

>> I THINK IT'S A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE.

THE CHILD POVERTY STATISTICS IN NEW YORK ARE, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE, SHAMEFUL, ABYSMAL AND WE NEED BOLD ACTIONS.

AND I SAY ACTIONS WITH A PLURAL.

HAVING SAID THAT, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP, A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

IT'S RECURRING, IT'S TARGETED AND WE NEED MORE OF THIS.

>> AND I MENTION IT HAS A PRICE TAG OF $$800 MILLION.

WHAT THE CHILD POVERTY REDUCTION ADVISORY COUNCIL HAS PROPOSED IS MUCH MORE EXPANSIVE AND THEIR ENTIRE AGENDA I THINK WOULD COST AN ANNUAL FEE OF ABOUT $8 BILLION.

WHEN YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THINGS YOU COULD PAY FOR WITH NEW REVENUES, IS THIS WHAT YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT?

>> YES.

AND AGAIN THE OTHER PROGRAM I MENTIONED, BABY BUCKS, THIS IS WHAT I MEAN WHEN I SAY WE NEED MORE OF THIS TO TRULY ADDRESS CHILD POVERTY, WE NEED NUMEROUS PROGRAMS THAT ARE MEANINGFUL AND REQUIRE HUGE INVESTMENT IN ORDER TO SERIOUSLY TACKLE THE CHILD POVERTY CRISIS IN THIS STATE, WHICH IS LONG OVERDUE AND SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKING SERIOUSLY AND ADDRESSING A LONG TIME AGO.

SO THIS IS, AGAIN, A GOOD STEP AND IT'S ONE ACTION OF MANY ACTIONS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN.

>> MORGAN, PUTTING ON YOUR P.R.

HAT AGAIN OR DON'T PUT ON THE P.R.

HAT, YOU HAVE GREAT HAIR, WE DON'T WANT TO NOT EXPOSE THAT TO THE PUBLIC.

WILL THIS HAVE A TANGIBLE BENEFIT OF SUPPORT FROM VOTERS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE AS WIDESPREAD AS SAY AN INFLATION REFUND CHECK, AND IT IS DEFINITELY FELT MUCH MORE ON THE LOWER INCOME END.

SO IS THERE A BENEFIT POLITICALLY FROM SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

>> THERE DEFINITELY IS.

IT WILL BE FELT BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE KIDS THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE IN NEW YORK WHO COULD USE THIS HELP AND WHO HAVE KIDS TO YOUR POINT, I THINK ONE OF THE BENEFITS HERE IS, SO WE HAVE TO SEPARATE PUBLIC POLICY FROM POLITICAL FOR A SECOND.

WHEN YOU MAKE AN INVESTMENT LIKE THIS IN FAMILIES, IN KIDS, AND YOU REDUCE POVERTY RATES, YOU ARE SAVING MONEY IN OTHER PLACES THAT YOU DON'T NECESSARILY SEE RIGHT AWAY.

YOU ARE SAVING MONEY ON HEALTHCARE COSTS.

YOU ARE SAVING MONEY SORT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, AND I DON'T MEAN AN AMBULANCE.

BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER TO DO PREVENTATIVE WORK, A LOT CHEAPER TO DO PREVENTATIVE WORK THAN IT IS TO FIX THINGS ON THE BACK END AFTER YOU HAVE LEFT THEM UNADDRESSED.

>> IT IS A MAJOR FACTOR OF SOCIAL DETERMINATIVE HEALTH.

>> EXACTLY.

WHAT YOU CAN'T DO, YOU SAY IF THIS IS A TAX INCREASE, YOU CAN SAY THIS IS HOW MUCH.

IF YOU DO A TAX CUT, THIS IS HOW MUCH IT IS GOING TO REDUCE IT.

WHEN YOU TRY TO REDUCE POVERTY, IT'S A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO SAY THIS IS SAVING NEW YORK X OR AT LEAST TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT THEN RESONATES WITH THE PUBLIC.

NOW I WILL SAY, AGAIN THOUGH, IF YOU WANT TO BE THE GOVERNOR WHO IS STANDING UP FOR FAMILIES AND WHO IS MAKING THIS YOUR CALLING CARD, THEN THIS IS PRECISELY THE SORT OF THINGS THAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING BECAUSE THIS IS REAL.

AGAIN, I WILL-- I AM HAPPY TO CRITICIZE WRITING A 300-DOLLAR CHECK TO EVERY NEW YORKER EVEN IF IT IS GOOD POLITICALLY.

BUT THIS IS THE KIND OF POLICIES THAT I DO THINK PEOPLE WILL FEEL AND ACTUALLY WILL HAVE A LONG-TERM IMPACT ON HELPING REDUCE-- ON HELPING ACTUALLY MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE FOR EVERYDAY NEW YORKERS, WHICH IS WHAT THEY SAY THE GOAL IS.

>> IN TERMS OF FEELING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE SAW DURING THE PANDEMIC, WHEN THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO HELP FAMILIES WERE DRAMATICALLY BOOSTED THAT THERE WAS A REAL SIGNIFICANT CUT IN POVERTY RATES FOR FAMILIES.

BUT I WANT TO TURN NOW TO ANOTHER PROPOSAL THAT THE GOVERNOR IS CHAMPIONING, WHICH AGAIN, IS ONE OF OWES AREAS WHERE PROPONENTS SAY AN INVESTMENT NOW WILL HAVE LONG-TERM BENEFITS.

AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE IDEA OF UNIVERSAL SCHOOL MEALS, ESSENTIALLY MAKING IT SO THAT ANYBODY WHO GOES TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN NEW YORK OR REALLY ANY SCHOOL IN NEW YORK, HAS ACCESS TO A FREE LUNCH, REGARDLESS OF YOUR ABILITY TO PAY.

HERE IS THE GOVERNOR MAKING THE PITCH FOR THIS PROGRAM IF HER STATE OF THE STATE.

>> AS A MOM, IT PAINS ME TO THINK THAT LITTLE KIDS' STOMACHS ARE GROWLING WHEN THEY ARE SITTING IN SCHOOL AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LEARNING.

IN THE WEALTHIEST NATION IN THE WORLD, THIS CAN NO LONGER BE TOLERATED.

NOT IN AMERICA, AND DEFINITELY NOT IN THE GREAT STATE OF NEW YORK.

[ APPLAUSE ] THANK YOU.

UNDER MY PROPOSAL, EVERY CHILD WILL GET FREE BREAKFAST AND FREE LUNCH IN SCHOOL SO CHILDREN WHO ARE IN NEED ARE SPARED THE EMBARRASSMENT AND STIGMA OF STANDING OUT AMONG THEIR PEERS.

THAT IS NOW OVER.

>> SO REBECCA, WERE YOU IN THE ROOM FOR THIS SPEECH.

WE NOTICED RIGHT THERE THE STANDING OVATION IT GOT.

IT SEEMED, AS SOMEONE WATCHING IT ON TELEVISION AT THE TIME, THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST MOST WIDELY RECEIVED PROPOSALS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S 56-MINUTE ADDRESS.

WAS THAT YOUR READ ON THINGS AS WELL?

>> I WOULD AGREE.

AND I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE MORE SURPRISING, TO BE HONEST, FROM MY POLITICAL ORIENTATION, INCLUSIONS.

AND AGAIN, I THINK, WHEN I ONE I REALLY SUPPORT.

>> CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BACKDROP.

THIS IS NOT A NEW ISSUE IN PLANET ALBANY.

DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN PUSHING THIS FOR YEARS NOW.

>> EXACTLY.

WE KNOW THAT CHILDREN WHO QUALIFY FOR FREE OR REDUCED LUNCH, THE FAMILIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LABORIOUS APPLICATION PROCESS.

AND THERE IS A HUGE-- SO THAT IS FIRST OF ALL, A PROHIBITING CHALLENGE FOR A LOT OF FAMILIES.

SO THERE ARE CHILDREN WHO MIGHT QUALIFY AND BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO MANAGE THE PAPERWORK PROCESS AND DOCUMENTATION ISSUES, WE HAVE CHILDREN WHO MIGHT QUALIFY WHO THEN AREN'T ABLE TO ACCESS THE FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH BECAUSE OF THOSE BARRIERS, RIGHT?

AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY A HUGE, HUGE STIGMA ATTACHED WHEN YOU ARE THE CHILD WHO IS NOT GOING UP WITH YOUR MONEY IN YOUR HAND AND YOU ARE RECOGNIZED, RIGHT, AS SOMEONE WHO IS RECEIVING THIS BENEFIT.

AND IT'S SOCIALLY DEMEANING.

YOU ARE EXCLUDED FROM GETTING CERT, IN MANY CASES, CERTAIN ADD-ONS THAT OTHER CHILDREN CAN ACCESS.

AND SO IT'S A BENEFIT THAT IS NECESSARY TO GET KIDS WHAT THEY NEED AND IS FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED IN MAKING SURE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF OUR SCHOOL POPULATIONS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY NEED.

AND SO THERE IS ALSO CHILDREN WHO DON'T QUITE MEET THE LINE, RIGHT?

THE LINE IS SO LOW TO QUALIFY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, FAMILIES ARE SCRAPING BY TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN PAY FOR THEIR KIDS LUNCH, MAYBE THEY'RE NOT GETTING WHAT THEY NEED AT HOME, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

SO THERE IS A MYRIAD OF REASONS WHY THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM AND YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT EVERY CHILD CAN WALK INTO A SCHOOL, HAVE ACCESS TO A SCHOOL LUNCH, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THE VEGETABLES AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT IS THERE TO OFFER, WITHOUT SEGMENTING OUT ONE POPULATION FROM THE NEXT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

AND IS EXCITING.

>> I'M GOING TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE NOW.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

WHY NOT FOCUS ON MAKING THE PAPERWORK LESS LABORIOUS?

WHY NOT FOCUS ON BEING PROACTIVE IN THE OUTREACH TO THESE FAMILIES WHO MIGHT NOT BE FILLING IT OUT?

YOU TALK ABOUT THE STIGMA.

WHY CAN'T WE FIGURE OUT A WAY IN SCHOOLS TO MAKE IT SO IT'S NOT OBVIOUS WHO IS PAYING FOR LUNCH AND WHO IS NOT PAYING FOR LUNCH BECAUSE ALL OF THESE ISSUES THAT YOU ARE LOOKING TO ADDRESS, ARE THEY WORTH AN ADDITIONAL 100 MILLION PLUS DOLLARS IN STATE FUNDING?

SHOULD WE, YOU KNOW, TRY TO ADDRESS THE, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGES THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OPPOSED TO PAPERING OVER THEM WITH 100 PLUS MILLION ADDITIONAL DOLLARS?

>> I CAN EASILY SAY IT'S WELL WORTH IT, RIGHT?

AS SOMEONE WHOSE BACK GROUND WAS A SPEECH PATHOLOGIST IN A SCHOOL SYSTEM, TEACHER UNION PRESIDENT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE EFFORT THAT IS PUT INTO THE OUTREACH, THE REDUCING OF BURDEN ON THE PAPERWORK, THE ATTEMPTS AT TRYING, BY THE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THE CAFETERIA, TO TRY TO INVISIBLIZE THE IDENTITIES OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH AND THOSE WHO DON'T, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.

THEY'RE ALL GREAT IDEAS AND EVERY GREAT IDEA, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE THAT SYSTEM SEAMLESS, TO MAKE IT EQUITABLE.

AND IN THE SCHEME OF OUR NEW YORK STATE BUDGET, THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY AN INVESTMENT THAT IS WORTH EVERY DOLLAR.

>> YEAH, EXACTLY.

BY THE WAY, IT IS INTERESTING TO LISTEN TO THE GOVERNOR'S SPEECH BECAUSE YOU LISTEN TO AN ELECTED OFFICIAL'S SPEECH, IT IS GOING TO BE FILLED WITH RHETORIC AND SPIN AND WHATEVER YOU MIGHT CALL IT.

THAT DLIP YOU JUST SHOWED, LITERALLY EVERYTHING SHE SAID THERE IS JUST FACT, RIGHT?

AND EVERYTHING YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.

THIS IS A NO BRAINER PUBLIC POLICY AND WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WITH, YOU KNOW, THERE IS AN INVESTMENT UP FRONT AND IT REDUCES COSTS LATER.

THIS IS EXACTLY THAT.

I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE.

>> I'VE GOT ONE MORE POINT ON THIS, TOO.

>> I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO RESPONDING TO IT.

TO CREATE MORE BUREAUCRACY, THAT'S GOING TO COST HOWEVER MUCH MONEY TO CREATE THAT-- TRY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO FILE PAPERWORK, THAT'S MORE BUREAUCRACY AND WHAT DOES IT DO TO THE NUMBERS?

BY SIMPLY INVESTING IN THIS AND SAYING IT IS ALL FREE.

IT'S A RELATIVELY SMALL COMPARED TO THE NAWRKT BUDGET, RELATIVELY SMALL INVESTMENT AND THE BENEFIT THAT IT WILL HAVE FOR ALL KIDS IN NEW YORK WILL BE, YOU KNOW, 10 TIMES AS MUCH AS IT COSTS ON A WHOLE MYRIAD OF ISSUES.

IT WILL BE BETTER FOR THEIR EDUCATION, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR THEIR HEALTH, IT WILL BE BETTER FOR FAMILY INCOMES.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS BENEFIT BY SIMPLY DOING IT THIS WAY AND MAKING IT EASY FOR FAMILIES TO ACCESS THE FOOD.

>> GIVEN THE REALITY OF BUDGETING THOUGH, THERE IS A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN NEW YORK, AT LEAST UNTIL REBECCA IS MADE EMPRESS OF NEW YORK STATE'S FISCAL SITUATION, AND GIVEN THAT-- >> HERE'S HOPING.

>> HOW DO YOU TELL THIS FAMILY WHERE THEY ARE HAVING AN ISSUE OF AFFORDING LUNCH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE $100 MILLION PLUS THAT WE ARE GOING TO INVEST IN THIS, IS GOING TO HELP SOME OTHER FAMILY WHO CAN'T AFFORD LUNCH OPPOSED TO TAKING THE 100 PLUS MILLION AND INVESTING IT IN TARGETED PROGRAMS BECAUSE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP FAMILIES THAT NEED MONEY PURCHASING GROCERIES.

THERE IS AN EFFORT TO SET A NEW MINIMUM FLOOR FOR THE SNAP BENEFIT IN NEW YORK.

SETTING IT AT $100 A LO MONTH.

THERE ARE OTHER TARGETED PROGRAMS.

YOU ARE SAYING I HOPE YOU FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE STIGMA THAT WE ARE WE'RE ERASING BUT YOU ARE LOOKING TO HAVE DINNER, NOT SO MUCH HELP IS GOING TO BE ON THE WAY FOR THAT MEEL.

>> TWO THINGS.

ONE THING IS YOU ARE CREATING A FALSE BINARY.

>> BUDGETS ARE CHOICE AND WE ARE CHOOSING STIGMA OPPOSED TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PROGRAMS.

>> YOU ARE CREATING FALSE BINARY.

THERE ARE REVENUE STREAMS THAT COULD BE UTILIZED AND AUTOS A PERSON WHO WORKED HAVE THE VERY FAMILIES THAT QUALIFIED FOR THESE PROGRAMS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THEY WILL BE ENORMOUSLY GRATEFUL TO BE ABLE TO SEND THEIR CHILD TO SCHOOL AND KNOW THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PAPERWORK REJECTION.

THEY WILL NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THEIR CHILD BEING STIGMATIZED IN THAT SCHOOL LINE.

THIS IS A VALUE ADD IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD.

>> AND I WILL JUST ADD, I HAVE KIDS WHO GO TO SCHOOL.

AND KIDS KNOW.

KIDS KNOW WHO IS ON PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AND WHO IS NOT PAYING FOR LUNCH.

AND SO-- AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU ARE PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ROLE HERE BUT THIS ISN'T JUST WE'RE ERASING STIGMA.

THIS IS TRULY A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT KIDS ARE ACTUALLY EATING.

AND STIGMA, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOMETIME IN THE POLITICAL WORLD WHO ARE NOT SO, YOU KNOW, NOT WORRIED ABOUT PEOPLE'S FEELINGS.

THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

IF YOU WANT TO GET KIDS TO EAT.

IF YOU WANT THEM TO HAVE BREAKFAST AND LUNCH AND HAVE TWO GOOD MEALS A DAY, THEN YES STIGMA IS VERY IMPORTANT.

>> THIS DOESN'T END STIGMA.

KIDS ARE GOING TO SEE THE SHOES THAT SOMEONE WEARS THE I PHONE THAT THEY HAVE.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO WALK INTO THE CAFETERIA WHEN THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT BEING EMBARRASSED AND ACCESS TWO MEALS A DAY THAT WILL HELP THEIR EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCE EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY ATTEND SCHOOL.

>> AND I JUST HAVE TO SAY AGAIN, IT'S A SPEECH, IT'S A POLITICAL SPEECH SHE GAVE THE OTHER DAY.

BUT TRULY WE LIVE-- WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME, WE LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY EVER.

HOW CAN WE NOT FEED CHILDREN?

THAT SEEMS LIKE SUCH A BASIC THING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

SO THE IDEA THAT THERE WOULD BE A POLITICAL DEBATE ABOUT THIS IS -- AND AGAIN I KNOW I'M SUPPOSED TO BE THE POLICE DETECTIVE STRATEGY GUY HERE BUT THIS IS ONE ISSUE THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THERE IS EVER ANY POLITICS INVOLVED.

THESE ARE OUR KIDS WE SHOULD BE GIVING THEM FOOD.

END OF STORY.

AND BY THE WAY, IT IS GOOD POLITICS.

>> UNCLE.

UNCLE.

SO WE TURN TO ANOTHER ISSUE IN THE SCHOOLS AND THAT IS SCHOOL FUNDING.

AND WE ARE GOING TO PLAY YOU A CLIP FROM THE STATE BUDGET DIRECTOR BLAKE WASHINGTON WHO TALKED ABOUT SOME CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO THE FORMULA THAT IS USED TO DISTRIBUTE THE BULK OF STATE EDUCATION CLASSER, DOLLARS WHICH IS PROPOSED AT MORE THAN $37 MILLION FOR THE COMING FISCAL YEAR.

HERE WHAT IS BLAKE HAD TO SAY RECENTLY IN THE CAPITOL.

>> AS THE GOVERNOR ALLUDED TO, WE HAVE UPDATES TO OUR FOUNDATION AID FORMULA.

WE WILL UPDATE THE OUTDATED CENSUS POLICY DATA AND REPLACE IT WITH SLAIPE.

A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED VARIABLE FOR CATCHING UP TO MEETING THE STUDENTS WHERE THEY ARE MORE ACCURATELY ASSESSING NEED.

WE HAVE FREE AND REDUCED PRICE LUNCH DATA SWAPPED OUT FOR ECONOMICALLILY DISADVANTAGED DATA, A UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED METRIC WHICH COUNTS YOUR NUMBER OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS SNAP RECIPIENTS, MORE TRUER MEASURE OF WHAT POVERTY MIGHT BE IN A SCHOOL DISTRICT.

WE DRIVE ADDITIONAL AID UNDER THE PLAN TO LOW AID SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND GUARANTEE EACH DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WILL GET A 2% ANNUAL INCREASE.

>> SO REBECCA, THE BACK DROP FOR THE PRESENTATION IS THAT IN LAST YEAR'S STATE BUDGET, THE FREER FISCAL YEAR WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW, THEY DIRECTED THE ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE TO LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION AID FORMULA AND AT THE END OF 2024 CAME OUT WITH A VERY EXPANSIVE STUDY ON HOW TO OVERALL THE FORMULA THAT IS ABOUT TWO DECADES OLD.

THE GOVERNOR IS CLEARLY NOT EMBRACED THAT ENTIRE FORMULA, WHICH WE OBJECT ADVICE WILL YOU-- OBJECT ADVICELY SMU SHE WAS NOT GOING TO DO AND WE HAVE HAD ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE PROPOSALS ADVANCED ABOUT THE BY THE ROCKEFELLER ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE THAT MIGHT RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN AID IN SOME ELEMENTS OF THE FORMULA.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE A FEW DAYS AFTER THE BUDGET HAS BEEN DROPPED, ABOUT THE WAY THE STATE IS LOOKING TO TWEAK THE FORMULA?

>> YEAH, SO INITIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPOSAL IS THAT IT IS FIRST OF ALL FAR LESS DAMAGING THAN LAST YEAR'S.

LET'S GO BACK EVEN FURTHER THAN THE ROCKEFELLER.

WHAT WAS IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET PROPOSAL WAS EXTREMELY HARM PRODUCING.

SO WE ARE ALREADY IN A BETTER PLACE THAN WE WERE IN LAST YEAR'S BUDGET PROPOSAL WHICH WOULD HAVE CAUSED DRASTIC, DRASTIC CUTH TO A LOT OF DISTRICT.

>> THE GOVERNOR IS PROPOSING TO END THE WHOLE HOLD HARMLESS PROVISION WHICH ENSURES SCHOOLS WOULD NOT GET LESS AID ON A YEAR TO YEAR BASIS.

>> SO WE ARE GLAD THAT ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL WERE INCORPORATED.

RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE AND THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE BOARD OF REGENTS PROPOSAL, IT LOOKS LIKE MOST THE VAST MAJORITY OF UPSTATE SCHOOLS WILL SEE A GOOD AMOUNT OF INCREASE AND SO THAT'S A POSITIVE.

WE SAW, AGAIN, COMPARED TO LAST YEAR, WE SAW HUGE CUTS IN AID FOR MOST UPSTATE SCHOOLS.

THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE NOW IS THERE IS LESS OF AN INCREASE THAN WE WANTED TO SEE IN NEW YORK CITY.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE THERE IS A UNIFORM DEFINITION OF POVERTY THAT IS APPLIED ACROSS THE STATE AND WE KNOW THAT A DEFINITION FOR WHAT YOU CAN GET BY IN UPSTATE NEW YORK AND WHAT YOU CAN GET BY IN NEW YORK CITY, YOU KNOW, THE SAME DEFINITION CANNOT BE USED.

COSTS ARE MUCH HIGHER IN NEW YORK CITY.

SO SOMEBODY WHO IS EARNING $$30,000 IN NEW YORK CITY IS POOR.

>> VERY, VERY, VERY POOR.

>> VERY POOR AND PROBABLY YOU TAKE THAT SAME FAMILY AND HAVE THEM EARN $$50,000 IN NEW YORK CITY AND THEIR STANDARD OF LIVING IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

WE NEED TO HAVE SOME ADJUSTMENTS WHEN WE DEFINE LEVEL OF POVERTY FOR THOSE FAMILIES AND THOSE CHILDREN.

SO THAT IS THE ONE AREA THAT WE THINK NEEDS ADDRESSING BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE THE SAME LEVELS OF INCREASE FOR FAMILIES WHO HAVE, YOU KNOW, PARALLEL FINANCIAL SITUATIONS EVEN IF THE EXACT INCOME LEVELS ARE NOT THE SAME.

>> MORGAN, YOU WORKED FOR A GOVERNOR WHO HAD TO TAKE SOME HARD CHOICES WHEN IT CAME TO SCHOOL AID AND THOSE WERE SOME DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LEGISLATURE.

WHAT THE GOVERNOR IS LAYING OUT HERE, WHETHER IT'S THE 1.7 BILLION-DOLLAR INCREASE IN OVERALL AID OR THE TWEAKS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, DOES IT SEEM LIKE IT WILL BE MORE PAT ATABLE FROM THE LEGISLATURE SETTING THE 2% FLOOR FOR DISTRICTS AND THEIR AID?

>> YEAH, LOOK, THERE ARE NO GREAT SACRED COW IN ALBANY THAN SCHOOL AID AND FUNDING, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT DRIVES A MEMBER OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE OR FRANKLY ANY ELECTED OFFICIAL, THEY WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED AND IF YOUR GOVERNOR OR THE STATE IS COMING AFTER FUNDING FOR LOCAL SCHOOLS, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT A LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL IS GOING TO HEAR EVERY DAY FROM EVERY CONSTITUENT.

SO ALBANY HAS TAKEN AN APPROACH, FOR THE MOST PART AND I THINK MAYBE THE HOCHUL ADMINISTRATION LEARNED THIS THE HARD WAY LAST YEAR THAT YOU DON'T TOUCH THIS.

LIKE AGAIN IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POLITICALLY, YOU CAN'T MESS WITH SCHOOL AID FARM LAS.

YOU CAN'T EVEN ENTERTAIN THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO REDUCE IT.

I DO THINK THAT THIS LEADS THE A SITUATION WHERE HAVE YOU SOME DISTRICTS THAT GET A LOT MORE MONEY THAN MAYBE THEY SHOULD LIKE VERY WEALTHY SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT DON'T NEED AS MUCH STATE SUPPORT BUT YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND AGAIN WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE INVESTMENT IS THERE ANY BETTER INVESTMENT THAN YOUR SCHOOL COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

WE SPEND TIME IN THESE DISCUSSIONS TALKING ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THINGS BETTER AND WHAT ARE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DOING WRONG.

NEW YORK STATE HAS SOME OF THE BEST PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE COUNTRY.

THERE IS A ARE THAN FOR THAT.

I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE METRICS YOU USE FOR THAT.

WHETHER WE LOOK AT THE METRICS WE ARE BARELY AT COMPETENCY FOR READING, WRITING AND MATH.

>> I WOULD PUT UP NEW YORK'S PUBLIC SCHOOLS AGAINST MANY STATES.

>> NOT MASSACHUSETTS.

>> MASSACHUSETTS DOESN'T HAVE THE POPULATION THAT NEW YORK DOES AND CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE THE POPULATION THAT NEW YORK CITY DOES.

AS A RESIDENT OF UPSTATE, I THINK UPSTATE SCHOOLS ARE DOING QUITE WELL A LOT OF THEM.

LONG ISLAND SCHOOLS CERTAINLY ARE AWASH IN FUNDS AND THOSE SCHOOLS ARE DOING QUITE WELL.

>> AND IF YOU TRY TO TOUCH THEIR AID, THEY'LL KILL YOU.

>> AND LONG ISLAND IS A PIVOTAL PART OF THE STATE IF YOU WANT TO GET RE-ELECTED STATEWIDE.

ALL OF THIS FITS IN WITH THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT POLICIES ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE AS A BEDROCK OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION AND SCHOOL AID IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU DON'T TOUCH.

>> AND IF COULD I JUST CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO OUR CHILD POVERTY CONVERSATION AND THE EARLY INVESTMENT HAVING LONG-TERM YIELDS, WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE CHILD POVERTY STATISTICS THAT ABSOLUTELY IMPACTS THE INVESTMENTS WE HAVE TO MAKE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.

THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT-- YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT HEALTHCARE AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF BRAIN DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS IN THE FIRST YEAR, TWO, THREE OF A CHILD'S LIFE, THAT IS NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY HOUSING INSECURITY, HEALTHCARE DEFICITS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, YOU KNOW, NUTRITIONAL DEFEND DEFICITS, ABSOLUTELY IMPACT THE EDUCATIONAL TRAJECTORY OF A CHILD'S LIFE.

YOU BROUGHT UP MASSACHUSETTS.

I WANT TO POINT OUT A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE IN POLICY THAT THEY USE.

SO THE WAY OUR MEDICAID WORKS IS THAT TO QUALIFY FOR EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 50% DEFICIT IN ONE AREA OR A 33% DEFICIT IN TWO YEARS TO QUALIFY FOR SERVICES FROM BIRTH TO 3 OR 3-5.

IN MASSACHUSETTS, IF YOU PRESENT WITH A NUMBER OF RISK FACTORS PRENATALLY, YOU AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR SERVICES UNTIL THE PROVIDER DEEMS THAT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY.

SO THEY INVEST EARLY AND PROACTIVELY IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AND IT PAYS OFF, RIGHT?

WE CONSISTENTLY IN THIS STATE KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND IT IS BOTH AMORAL AND NOT COST EFFECTIVE.

WE END UP PROVIDING SERVICES FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME WITH LESS OF A GAIN.

AND IT IS-- >> HIGHER COSTS.

>> AT A HIGHER COST, EXACTLY.

IT IS A SIGNIFICANT FLAW IN HOW WE ADDRESS OUR INTERVENTION FOR CHILDREN IN POVERTY, FOR CHILDREN WITH NEEDS AND ABSOLUTELY CONTRIBUTES TO THE FACT THAT WE ARE REQUIRED AND MUST INVEST THE KIND OF MONEY WE NEED TO DO IN PUBLIC EDUCATION.

>> WE HAD THIS DEBATE A FEW YEARS ON UNIVERSAL PRE-K.

THERE IS BASICALLY NO ARGUMENT AGAINST UNIVERSAL PRE-K THEIR ABILITY TO READ, THEIR ABILITY, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT PRE-K SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT ALL KIDS ARE ENROLLED IN AND FULL DAY RLS PRE-K. >> QUALITY PRE-K TOO.

>> YES.

AND SPEAKING TO THIS LIKE SPENDING MONEY ON THE INTERVENTION, SPENDING MONEY UP FRONT SO THAT YOU ARE SAVING MONEY LATER, THERE SHOULD BE, PURE PURELY FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW, THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT A UNIVERSAL PRE-K IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING AND YET WE STILL DON'T HAVE IT IN NEW YORK.

IT'S STILL A DEBATE.

IT'S STILL OH THE COST IS SO MUCH UP FRONT.

YES, IT IS.

BUT AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POLICIES, AS THE GOVERNOR IS TRYING TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO MAKE NEW YORK MORE AFFORDABLE, WE ARE GOING TO DO THINGS FOR REGULAR NEW YORKERS, I MEAN THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF POLICIES, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE NEW YORK MORE AFFORDABLE LONG-TERM, THEN YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON INTERVENTIONS.

WE STARTED OFF THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT IF YOU HAVE A $3 BILLION SURPLUS AND YOU HAD MENTIONED ONE-TIME COSTS INFRASTRUCTURE.

I WAS THINKING BRIDGES.

MAYBE YOU SHOULD TAKE THAT $3 BILLION AND BUILD SOME BUILDINGS FOR DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT COULD HOUSE UNIVERSAL PRE-K STUDENTS BECAUSE A LOT OF DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE THE SPACE TO OFFER PRE-K. MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD INVESTMENT.

MAYBE THE SAVINGS LONG-TERM BY SIMPLY OFFERING SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL BE FELT FOR DECADES AFTERWARDS OPPOSED TO A $300 CHECK WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL.

>> WE ARE ALSO VERY SHORT ON PROVIDERS WHICH I WON'T GET INTO, BECAUSE CHANGES THEN GOVERNOR CUOMO MADE ON FUNNING OF EARLY INTERVENTION AND PRESCHOOL PROVIDERS.

SO CHILDREN ARE WAITING 18 MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, 24 MONTHS.

>> LONGER THAN THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

>> WHEN YOU QUALIFY FOR SERVICES, YOU SHOULD GET IT IMMEDIATELY AND THAT IS NOT HAPPENING BECAUSE OF CHANGES THE GOVERNOR MADE IN TERMS OF ACCESS TO FUNDING AND SO CHILDREN WHO ARE QUALIFYING-- >> MADE THE CHANGES AGAIN WHICH IS SORT SIGHTED BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING MORE ON THE BACK END BUT YES, THE RATIONALE BEING IN THE SHORT-TERM, I WANT TO PREVENT IMMEDIATE FUNDING GOING OUT THE DOOR AND-- >> SO I CAN SAY MY BUDGET IS BALANCED.

>> EXACTLY.

SO WE CAN ALSO INVEST IN IMMEDIATE, YOU KNOW, PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE MORE PROVIDERS GOING INTO THE FIELD.

>> AND STAYING IN THE FIELD.

>> STAYING IN THE FIELD.

AND THAT COULD APPLY TO MANY AREAS.

>> IN THE SAME VAIN AS PRE-K, I'M THINKING ABOUT CHILD CARE WHICH HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT HAS GOTTEN RENEWED FOCUS IN THE WAKE OF THE PANDEMIC AND THERE WAS A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT THAT GOVERNOR HOCHUL MADE.

THIS YEAR'S BUDGET THOUGH IS NOT SUPER EXCITING WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD CARE.

THE BIG SELLING POINT, COMING BACK TO MORGAN'S POINT ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE IS I THINK $100 MILLION-DOLLAR FUND TOE THAT FACILITIES CAN BE BUILT, ESPECIALLY IN CHILD CARE DESERTS.

WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK IN THE FACILITIES IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

REBECCA, THERE HAS BEEN A FOCUS IN RECENT YEARS ON THE DISIS, SUBSIDIESIC MAGGING SURE IT IS AFFORDABLE BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN A COMMENSURATE INVESTMENT IN THE PROVIDERS THEMSELVES.

WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN THE GOVERNOR ROLL OUT HERE THAT IS CLEARLY MISSING?

>> IT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR IS POLICY AND INVESTMENT THAT TURNS HER TALKING POINTS ABOUT CHILD CARE-- >> I'M A MOM, THE FIRST MOM GOVERNOR.

>> INTO ACTUAL ACCESS.

AND THE REALITY IS THAT IT IS ALL WELL AND GOOD THAT MORE PEOPLE QUALIFY AND WHEN THERE IS NOT A CHILD CARE PROVIDER FOR YOU TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO, THAT QUALIFYING STATUS MEANS NOTHING.

WE HAVE DESERTS, CHILD CARE DESERTS, MOSTLY IN LOW INCOME BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, WHICH IS WHERE I WOULD SUGGEST WE NEED THESE PROVIDERS THE MOST.

THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE WITH SUPPLEMENTAL INCOMES WHO CAN JUST DRIVE THEIR CHILDREN TO PRIVATE CENTERS WHERE FROM THIS THEY WANT.

AND THAT AMOUNT, THE SUBSIDY FOR A PROVIDER IS NOT ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE A LIVING WAGE.

WE NEED TO INCREASE IT SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN GO INTO THAT FIELD AS A CAREER AND BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THAT AS OPENING A CENTER, THAT IS A JOB, THAT PAYS A LIVING WAGE, AND WITHOUT THAT, IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD THAT ON PAPER WE HAVE THIS ROBUST ACCESS, BUT WE KNOW THAT THESE VOUCHERS ARE NOT BEING UTILIZED BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A PERSON WHO CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE CARE TO THE CHILD, INSTRUCTION TO THE CHILD, SO IT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR AND IT, QUITE FRANKLY, FEELS A BIT INTENTIONAL.

THAT AND THE VETOES OF THESE EXPANDED ACCESS BILLS THAT WERE PASSED LAST YEAR.

IT FEELS A BIT INTENTIONAL THAT IT IS ALL WELL AND GOOD TO HAVE ACCESS ON PAPER BUT WHEN YOU STRIP ANY MECHANISM TO TURN THAT ACCESS, YOU KNOW, INTO SOMETHING REAL, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU TO ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH DO YOU REALLY WANT IT TO BE MONEY THAT GETS OUT THE DOOR.

>> I THINK DIRECTIONALLY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS HERE ON THIS PROGRAM HERE TODAY.

THAT IS SOMETHING THE GOVERNOR BROUGHT UP IN THE SPEECH, I CAN SPEAK FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE ABOUT HOW FAR WE'VE COME IN TERMS OF WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING CARE OF KIDS AND LEAVE FOR PARENTS AND CHILD CARE THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED 20 YEARS AGO.

THESE ARE NOT THINGS THAT GOVERNORS MADE AS A CENTER PIECE OF BIG POLICY ANNOUNCEMENTS.

SO, YES, DID THIS SPECIFIC BUDGET GO FAR ENOUGH?

FOR ALL OF THE REASONS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, IT DID NOT.

BUT AGAIN, IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONALLY AND PRIORITIES THAT GOVERNMENT PUTS FORWARD THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILD CARE IS AN IMPROVEMENT AND YOU WOULD HOPE TO SEE IT CONTINUE TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION.

WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT MAKE CAN IT MORE AFFORDABLE, IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT PUTTING MONEY BACK IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS, I MEAN CHILD CARE IS, YOU CAN'T GO TO WORK IF YOU HAVE NOBODY TO LOOK AFTER YOUR KIDS AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO END UP NOT GOING TO WORK BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO STAY HOME WITH THEIR KIDS AND THAT MESSES UP THE WHOLE SYSTEM.

WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS IF THAT IS THE CENTRAL TENET OF YOUR ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS A CRITICAL PART OF IT.

>> VIEWERS, I HAVE GOOD NEWS ON THIS FRONT.

THE GOVERNOR'S ADVANCING ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR A STUDY THAT WILL LIKELY GET TO THE BOTTOM OF ALL OF THESE CHILD CARE ISSUES SO, YOU KNOW, FAST FORWARD A COUPLE OF MONTHS AND WE'LL HAVE THIS ALL FORWARD OUT.

BEFORE WE GO IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES, I WANT TO TURN TO AN ISSUE MORGAN THAT YOU ARE BOTH FAMILIAR WITH AS PARENTS.

THIS IS SOMETHING THE GOVERNOR HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR MONTHS, ACCESS TO CELL PHONES IN SCHOOLS.

IT IS A TRICKIER ISSUE THOUGH THAN ONE MIGHT THINK BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE INTEREST OF TEACHERS UNIONS WHICH DON'T WANT TO BE THE PEOPLE POLICING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

AND THEN YOU HAVE PARENTS, LIKE ASSEMBLY SPEAKER HEASTIE WHO WANT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR KIDS THE GOVERNOR IS LOOKING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF PROPOSAL THAT WILL GIVE LOCAL DISTRICTS WIGGLE ROOM TO CRAFT THEIR OWN PLANS.

MORGAN, HOW DO YOU SEE THIS UNFOLDING, GIVEN ALL THE LAND MINES?

>> I MEAN LOOK, I CAN SPEAK AS A PARENT IN THIS SITUATION AND I HAVE THREE KIDS AND THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF IN SCHOOL PHONE USAGE.

WE HAVE ONE SON WHO, YOU TEXT HIP, IT DOESN'T MATTER TIME OF DAY, HE RESPONDS IMMEDIATELY.

HAVE I ANOTHER SON WHO DOESN'T LOOK AT HIS PHONE ALL DAY.

I THINK AGAIN THOUGH, THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS AT PLAY.

PARENTS, AT THIS POINT, WE CAN TALK TO OUR KIDS AT SCHOOL.

WE CAN SET UP DROPOFFS OR PICKUPS.

WE CAN, WHAT ARE YOU DOING AFTER, I'M GOING HOME WITH THIS GUY OR GOING TO PRACTICE, WHATEVER IT MAY BE AND THAT COMMUNICATION IS VALUABLE.

I WOULD ALSO SAY THOUGH THAT THE POLICE DETECTIVES OF THIS ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTING.

THIS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THE EDUCATIONAL STUDIES AND YOU ARE AN EDUCATOR SO YOU CAN PROBABLY SPEAK ABOUT THIS BETTER THAN I CAN BUT I THINK THE STUDIES MAY SUGGEST THAT CELL PHONE USE IS BAD FOR KIDS IN SCHOOL.

THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THEIR CELL PHONES IN SCHOOL.

IT IS DISTRACTING.

BUT THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE THE POLICY MIGHT BE A GOOD THING, IT MIGHT BE GOOD BUT PARENTS MIGHT REALLY NOT LIKE IT.

VOTERS MIGHT REALLY DISLIKE BEING ABLE TO NOT COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR KIDS WHEN THEIR KIDS ARE AT SCHOOL.

SO THIS COULD BE A TRICKY THING FOR THE GOVERNOR TO NAVIGATE.

SHE HAS THE POLICY ON HER SIDE.

SHE HAS THE SCIENCE ON HER SIDE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN IT'S A POPULAR THING WITH VOTERS.

>> REBECCA, AS A POLICY, I IMAGINE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY SUPPORTIVE OF BUT IN REALITY, I MEAN THERE ARE CONCERNS?

>> I MEAN OBVIOUSLY WE NEED KIDS NOT TO BE DISTRACTED IN CLASS.

AND THE REALITY IS THAT CONNECTIVITY IS EMBEDDED IN ALL OUR LIVES.

THAT INCLUDES US AS PROFESSIONALS.

>> MY PHONE IS ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW.

>> EXACTLY.

IT INCLUDES OUR CHILDREN.

AND SO I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF IS HAVING ABSOLUTE S. AND I DON'T HAVE THE MAGIC ANSWER, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WILL SAY AS A PARENT, I HAVE ONE CHILD WHO I KNOW USES THEIR PHONE TOO MUCH AT SCHOOL AND I'M LIKE, YOU ARE THE REASON THIS IS A PROBLEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, STOP COMPLAINING TO ME AND I HAVE ANOTHER CHILD WHO NEVER USES THEIR PHONE BUT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO REACH OUT TO US, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING OR SLIGHTLY ANXIOUS.

SO THERE HAS TO BE A SORT OF RECOGNITION THAT THERE IS NOT-- >> YOU CAN'T PUT THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE AT THIS POINT.

>> EXACTLY.

THERE HAS TO BE A WAY, TO, YES, PAY ATTENTION DURING CLASS AND, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY TO THE KIDS, HAND IN YOUR CELL PHONE WHEN YOU WALK IN THE DOOR AND YOU GET IT BACK WHEN YOU WALK OUT WHICH IS WHAT MY KID'S SCHOOL IS TRYING AND IT FEELS CHALLENGING.

>> WE HAVE ABOUT A MINUTE MORGAN.

THE SIMPLEST ANSWER TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS WOULD BE A BLANKET, YOU COME TO SCHOOL, YOU DROP OFF YOUR PHONE, PICK IT UP AT THE END OF THE DAY.

UNLIKELY TO GO OVER WELL WITH PARENTS WHICH SUGGESTS THE PROPOSAL THAT MIGHT BE MORE PALATABLE TO THEM IS GR TO YOUR CLASS, TEACHER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICING THIS.

NEW YORK STATE UNITED TEACHERS, A POWERFUL INTEREST GROUP DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT.

DO YOU THINK LAWMAKERS WOULD EVER PUT TEACHERS IN THAT POSITION GIVEN THE UNIONS OPPOSITION?

>> I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROPOSAL THAT I THINK ON THE SURFACE WAS PEOPLE LARGELY THOUGHT WAS A GOOD THING, BUT IT MIGHT REALLY DIE WHEN IT GETS TO THE DETAILS BECAUSE THE DETAILS ARE GOING TO BE CRITICAL LIKE YOU POINTED OUT.

ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TEACHERS ENFORCING THIS?

WILL IT BE A BLANKET BAN?

THAT WON'T BE POPULAR.

SO LIKE A LOT OF THINGS IN ALBANY, YOU CAN SAY IT SORT OF IN A HEADLINE AND PRESS RELEASE AND IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT THE NEGOTIATIONS ARE IMPORTANT HERE AND THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO REACH CONSENSUS ON HOW YOU WOULD ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

>> SO THE BUDGET IS DUE MARCH 3 IS.

IF WE CAN ABOUT TO A WIDE SHOT NOW, CAN YOU GUYS RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU THINK THE BUDGET WILL BE DONE, SIGNED BY MARCH 31 AND READ TO BE IMPLEMENTED ON APRIL IS.

RAISE YOUR HANDS IF YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE.

SO NOT A LOT OF OPTIMISM FOR THAT.

ARE WE OPTIMISTIC A WEEK LATER, APRIL 7 HANDS?

>> I'M GOING TO SAY THIS.

I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.

I THINK THE DINE APRILIC-- DYNAMICS HAVE CHANGED IN ALBANY ON TIME BUDGET DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT USED TO.

IT USED TO SIGNIFY DYSFUNCTION IN ALBANY DAVID PATTERSON CHANGED IT.

IT HAS CHANGED AND I THINK GOING A WEEK LATE TO MAKE SURE YOU GET A BETTER PRODUCT IS TOTALLY FINE >> AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S ALL THE TIME WE HAVE TODAY.

MY THANKS TO OUR PANELISTS, INCLUDING REBECCA GARRARD, FROM CITIZEN ACTION OF NEW YORK, AND MORGAN HOOK, OF SKDK.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO REVISIT THIS EPISODE OR DIG INTO THE CONNECT NEW YORK ARCHIVES - VISIT WCNY,ORG/CONNECTNEWYORK.

AND FOR MORE POLITICAL COVEARGE, INCLUDING A DEEPER DIVE OF THE STATE BUDGET AND ALL THE NEWS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN ALBANY, CHECK OUT THE CAPITOL PRESSROOM AT CAPITOL PRESSROOM.ORG, OR WHEREVER YOU DOWNLOAD PODCASTS.

ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE TEAM AT WCNY — I'M DAVID LOMBARDO — THANKS FOR WATCHING.