From WXXI news.

This is connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

We think of connections as the public square.

Your chance to engage directly with elected leaders.

And we've been holding a series of conversations with New York State lawmakers following the passage of the state budget.

Today, we welcome a Democrat, a member of the New York State Assembly, and there is a lot to discuss.

New York is one of a number of states attempting to deal with the spread of data centers and artificial intelligence, and the Trump administration won a legal battle against New York State's efforts to force Ice agents to take off their masks when conducting immigration enforcement.

Assemblyman Demond Meeks from district number 137 is with us.

We're going to talk about a wide range of issues.

Public safety, education and a lot more with the Assemblymember.

It's nice to have you back here.

Thank you for being thanks.

Thanks for having me.

So, there's a lot to discuss, and I'm going to start right with the stuff that is kind of the top of the national news, one of them being data centers.

I just got an email from some of the folks down in Seneca Lake they're concerned about, a possible data center there.

And the governor wants a one year moratorium on data center saying that people don't want it.

We want to slow it down.

Where do you stand on data centers?

Yeah, I was, part of that huge bipartisan vote.

Yes.

Vote, in favor and in support of the, one year moratorium on the data centers.

I mean, there's so much research that we must do as a state.

And we have to be intentional in protecting New Yorkers.

You know, when we look at data centers, there's been, a plethora of challenges, looking at driving up electricity rates, the cost of electricity putting a strain on the electric grid, which is highly costly.

And some of these things will end up on the backs of, ratepayers.

So we have to recognize the environment and the effects thereof.

There's a huge need for water supply, you know, for these data centers, you know, did we get that water back?

You know, do we lose the water?

There's so many questions and so much research that must be done.

And I want to commend my colleagues as well as the governor.

For, you know, supporting, supporting this effort.

And we look forward to the governor signing off on the legislation that passed, with a huge bipartisan vote in both the New York State Assembly and Senate.

I have mentioned to some of your colleagues on this program that when I drive around the state, even in rural areas, I see no data center signs all over the place.

And when you see the polling on this issue, it does look pretty bipartisan.

Yeah, but the people who are elected leaders in the state who have been on this program, who are Republicans, have largely opposed the moratorium.

For example, your colleague Josh Jensen, a Republican in the Assembly, said that, you know, that that really should be a federal decision, that if New York state decides we're going to do a moratorium on data centers, that doesn't mean the neighboring states will that just means development continues and other places that aren't here.

What do you make of that?

Well, you know, that's often the case.

You know, New York state has taken a lead on a number of things historically.

I mean, I remember when we stopped, smoking cigarets in public spaces, right.

And then go over to Pennsylvania and, you know, you're going somewhere and you come out smelling like an ashtray.

So I think that we have to recognize what we need to do, to the benefit of New Yorkers.

Okay.

Yeah.

They may, you know, jump out there and get ahead of us on creating a data center.

It may take us a year or more later.

However, I think what we're doing is, to the benefit of the communities that we serve, knowing what our best practices and what type of effects it could potentially have.

I mean, when you look at companies, that we've had here in this community, like, like Kodak, you know, you go to certain areas and you see language in a deed that protect them from being sued because of what potential harm may have been done historically.

So, I mean, I think we're doing the right thing, in getting ahead of this, doing necessary research and making decisions from there.

And, you know, we represent communities and we want to get feedback from these communities as well before we move forward.

The smoking ban thing, it's interesting.

It feels like ancient history.

It was like 20 years ago.

Yeah.

But I remember the first time I was in a bar after the smoking ban had taken effect for a year or two, and then I was in a bar in another state where there's smoke and I'm like, oh my gosh, I feel like I'm back.

I'm here.

So to your point, yeah, sometimes there are going to be different standards, state to state.

Yeah.

I'm curious to know why you think this has become largely a bipartisan issue to voters and to residents of New York State?

I just think, sort of knowing the history of how new things come about and we don't know the effects and, you know, after the fact, we're hurt by it.

So I think, you know, folks are, you know, learning from mistakes of the past to just try to be better.

This isn't a no vote on the data centers, but it's saying, hey, let's take our time and do the research.

Now, we know that there's a number of folks who are in support of, you know, some of the Republicans are supporting it, while others don't.

But then you also have some who are in the building trades, you know, that's looking forward to, you know, building these data centers, which would create, you know, additional revenue for for those industries.

And some of them are union guys.

Right.

And, I'm a huge supporter of labor unions.

However, on this particular matter, I just agree that let's stand with this moratorium and move forward from there.

And artificial intelligence in general is moving very quickly.

It truly is.

And there are a lot of people saying the same kind of thing that you just said about AI generally, that is there a way to slow it down?

Why are we breakneck speed into the future when the AI companies themselves are saying that, like best case scenario, it wipes out millions of jobs?

Yeah, worst case scenario, Hollywood has already covered the ending.

Like, look, why are we doing this?

How do you feel about that?

So I agree, something that I brought to the attention of my colleagues.

I said, hey, remember I said this on this day, with artificial intelligence, we may need we may have to be intentional as legislators to think about, a universal basic income beyond just the fast food industry, right?

Like, you know, certain industries, folks don't make a lot of money.

And it's like, okay, let's give them additional benefits to help, help, make ends meet.

But when you look at artificial intelligence, it's just a matter of time before we see the automotive industry highly effective.

And you know, that industry good middle, you know, middle income.

Labor jobs and great benefits.

But what happens when I takes over that industry?

And I think we have to look at the top of the food chain as early to how much money and revenue has being generated by AI who was whose lap it's landing in, and how do we move forward to say, hey, we're going to hold you accountable because if we don't generate revenue is like taxpayers.

Is every day working class people, how do we survive?

So I think that we're going to have to be intentional about conversations around a universal basic income around different industries that will naturally be phased out because it's not as simple as go learn a new skill trade and go back to work.

Sure.

That simple?

Sure.

And then certainly there are tech companies themselves who are making a lot of money.

There's a small sector that's getting rich pretty quickly.

And so, you know, whether it's a UBI or some kind of a wealth tax, I know there's a lot of ideas out there.

The governor, Governor Hochul, has opposed a super wealth tax in general.

Yeah.

She's concerned that wealthy New Yorkers can move to other states.

Do you, where do you stand on a super wealth tax?

I have been supporting it from from day one.

It was since I entered the, the state assembly.

I've introduced legislation, personally, looking at different ways to generate resources by way of, millionaires tax in looking at the wealthier New Yorkers and, and calling for them to pay their fair share.

You know, when you look at wealthy New Yorkers, they're often making money on or different industries, making money on the backs of those who are struggling to stay afloat.

When you look at the health care industry, those who are working as, home health days, those who are working as CNAs, Lpns and so on, a number of them are struggling, but they're providing care for industries that's making millions upon millions of dollars.

But there's no momentum in your party to get this done.

I would say there's some momentum.

As it relates to legislative colleagues, however, you spoke of the executive in their position, but I can tell you that a lot of us, that's not our position.

So you need the governor's rung on this one.

Oh, absolutely.

I don't agree with, you know, the governor on this one.

I think that we can be intentional in generating additional revenue, to make sure that we're funding things that we need when we look at the effects of the federal government and the big whatever bill, however they want to call it, it has had, you know, dire effects on us as a state, our health care industry, you know, food insecurity, you name it, it's having effects on us as a state.

So we have to be intentional and doing right by, you know, the masses to say, hey, at this time we need to implement this, millionaires tax in this manner to generate X amount of billions of dollars in order to stay afloat.

Now, once we get a new president, a new, majority in Congress, then maybe we can walk certain things back.

But I think that at this time we have to be intentional and doing something to protect New Yorkers.

You're already looking ahead, thinking you're going to your party is going to be winning in 2026.

And, we claim that midterm, you might not I don't know, but but look, can you be specific what's there's a lot of flavors.

But what's an example of a, a specific whether it's a percentage or what do you support?

What do you think should happen?

So, I mean, there's been a number of different things introduced, looking at, like having different tiers of, of tax rates, opposed to simply saying, okay, you pay like 78%.

Well, if you're making this amount, yours would increase, you know, based upon the amount of money that that you're bringing in.

And, you know, what we also find is sometimes we're taxing incomes where you have, you know, the ultra wealthy that may not have a, a consistent income like a new and can then be a lot of assets.

Yeah, exactly.

So looking at, you know, transfer of wealth like transfer taxes where you're transferring wealth from one family member to the next and things of that nature.

But I think we have to be creative, and, and paying attention to how money works, in this day and age.

But, you know, your colleagues who disagree with you on this would say, well, let's say I made $1 billion and I want to transfer it to family members.

Shouldn't I have the right to do that?

Why are you putting government hands on that?

Well, you know, maybe it's my my personal views, but I was always taught to he who much is given, much is required.

And, you know, while some of us operate like that, we've been dealing with generations of, you know, this idea of trickle down economics, which we know going back to the Reagan era, it just doesn't work.

And when you look at these levels of poverty, it brings about so many other challenges in our community.

And I think that, you know, we have to hold the ultra rich accountable because folks aren't just doing it on their own.

Yeah, you get some, you know, the Warren Buffett's from time to time that may do something, you know, a grand gesture of sorts, but I think that there's many more here in this state that that can do better.

Okay.

So and I take your point about it should be new income.

You want to tax new income.

Yeah.

And new income as well.

Okay.

Okay.

And you want to tax transfers of wealth.

Absolutely.

Okay.

But new income at what is it $1 million.

Is it 10 million.

Like what's the level that you really want to aggressively go after?

I think the, the wealthy.

Right.

So you're talking like but wealthy means different things to different people.

Well see there's rich and then there's wealthy.

Right.

Okay.

I who was I think Chris Rock explained it best.

He said, you know, when Shaquille O'Neal played basketball, he said, you know Shaquille O'Neal, he's rich.

He's making millions of dollars.

But the man who signed his check, he's wealthy.

Okay.

So you want the wealthy?

Yes.

Okay.

You want some of the rich do, but we definitely want the wealthy.

Okay.

All right.

But right now, again, if you're just joining us, Governor Hochul is pretty consistently opposed this.

I would say a lot of sort of centrist Democrats have opposed this, and you haven't been able to get anything over the finish line, right?

No.

Well, we we have, made some strides as it relates to, implementing wealth taxes.

We have done that at the state level of government.

But as far as, I mean, where you want to go and not rest of as you where you want to go.

Yeah.

So I'm, I'm part of and I've introduced legislation in what we call the Ione bills which is invest in our New York.

So looking at everything that's on a table as it relates to the invest in our New York bills, we we haven't quite arrived to where a number of us are trying to go.

And one of the biggest critics of Governor Hochul has been the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America.

They said that she's been too much of a corporate Democrat.

They want to see more aggression from the Democratic Party on this.

What do you make of the DSA having this moment of growth and influence that they're having?

You know, my my thing is funny because when I first got into state government, for some reason, it was assumed that I was DSA.

I don't know why, but that was.

But you're not.

I'm not.

I'm I'm a it's funny because when they said and I said I'm, I'm a black man in America, last thing I need is another title, right.

But I'll say this.

I'm about the community and the people who I serve, you know, and if the people are in need, we as elected officials, who and a representative government have a responsibility to, help people and to meet them where they are and help them grow.

When we look at so many challenge systems, throughout our community and throughout our state, we are in positions of power to affect change.

You know, if it's certain, have health issues, we can put additional moneys and resources into research to, to accomplish, an end goal of sorts.

So that's that's just where I stand with it.

You don't need the DSA labels.

I don't need a label to do to advocate for those who I serve.

And, you know, one of the things that I often say, and I truly believe this and we have to get the masses to understand, is that the power of the people is stronger than the people in power, right?

They elected us to be here.

But it it has to be an ongoing, level of accountability.

It can't be this election season.

We voted you in and now we let you go and play.

No, there has to be a consistent, check in of sorts and engagement and to to do what the community needs.

Do you think DSA is growth?

This particular election cycle has been healthy for the Democratic Party.

Do you think the influence of the DSA is good for the party?

I think, you know, when you look at what's what's taking place, I think it's something that everyone can learn from.

As it relates to the party, I guess the question is what aspect of the party and who's benefiting from that aspect of the party?

You know, I've seen some folks who, ran on the issue of housing insecurity on the issue of food insecurity.

And in some instances, they won Democratic primaries.

So maybe they were bringing forth a message that, you know, the incumbent or whoever they was running against just didn't quite understand or relate to as relate to the community they're serving.

So some way, somehow, I think I, you know, my hat goes off to them as far as their organizing efforts because we see they're doing some great organizing.

But on the same token, I think that, it has to be a wake up call for the Democratic Party to recognize that, hey, there's certain communities, in particular African-American communities that have been Democratic loyalists.

And when we look at some of the challenges in our communities, it's like, okay, we've given our vote, we've given our vote.

But in turn, what type of benefits have we seen?

So I think that, you know, you have individuals like myself that recognize that, that go to bat for my community, that go to bat for the Rochester community and beyond.

And I just think that it's a wake up call coming up in our second, if I we're going to talk about some of the things on the list that Assemblymember Meeks is talking about there when he talks about his vision of going to bat for Rochester.

Well, we'll talk coming up about, very specifically about what that means and how that will get applied here.

I also want to tell our listening audience today, if you want to join the program, you can email, as always, connections at six, cyborg connections at wxxi.org.

You can call the program toll free 844295 talk.

It's 84429582552635.

Call from Rochester 2639994.

If you're watching on YouTube, you can join the chat there on the Sky news YouTube channel, Dallas says regarding wealth and taxing wealth, he says Elon Musk created Tesla.

He leveraged that wealth into Starlink and SpaceX.

Would those things have been possible if we limited his amount of wealth?

Well, we're not limiting his his amount of wealth.

We're just calling for, some levels of accountability as it relates to taxes.

Well, I mean, you take in some of his wealth.

Yeah, yeah.

But we're not putting a limit.

He can continue to make even more, more money, but we're still calling for him to do his part to pay a higher percentage in tax.

Absolutely.

Okay.

But you're not going to put an end cap on how you're not in favor of of saying, look, no one should be a billionaire.

No one should be.

I mean, he's on his way of being a trillionaire, right?

So, I mean, that's that's just not what we've done.

You know, that's not something that we're saying that you shouldn't be a trillionaire.

But I am saying to a billionaire, I wouldn't say it's immoral, but I would say in, in when you have a country like the United States that's considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we should not walk out our doors.

You shouldn't come to work every day and see the level of poverty that you ride by on your way to work that just should not exist, right?

And I understand that.

I think part of what Dallas is asking is if you get this level of taxation you're looking for, would it have stopped, for example, Musk from saying, oh, okay, I made X amount of money with Tesla.

Now I'm going to leverage that, and I'm going to try to create Starlink and SpaceX and all these other industries.

Would he be so limited by the taxation you're talking?

You don't think so?

I don't think it would limit him at all.

I mean, we we have our share of billionaires.

I mean, Elon, I wish he wasn't in New York State.

We could, tap into some of those additional resources, but, no, that's just not the case.

But we do have our share of billionaires in New York State in our share millionaires, that, you know, we we've, we feel like can do more.

And like I said, this isn't to say we want to set something in stone permanently, but I think that we have to look at, you know, what we're challenged wit in this time to say, okay, how do we lift everyone up at this time and move forward?

Maybe on that note, Chad says, if we're walking down the street together and I have $10 and you have $100, and we meet a beggar asking for some charity, and I give him one of my $10, and you give him five of your hundred, who is more generous with their wealth?

That's what Chad is asking.

I would be giving more, but he would be more generous.

Yeah, yeah, I mean, I think that's.

I think that's where you're going.

Chad.

Tell me if I'm wrong there.

If you want to send an email to follow up there.

Okay.

So I want to pivot to a separate story that was in the news about three weeks ago, and I'm going to read from the New York Times.

A judge blocks New York State's attempt to force Ice agents to wear masks, quoting from The Times.

Now, New York's law prohibiting federal immigration agents from wearing masks and requiring them to display identification was blocked after a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction halting the ban.

The Department of Justice has vehemently opposed New York State's efforts to rein in Ice, saying they represent an illegal push to regulate the federal government.

In June, the Trump administration sued Judge Maddie D'Agostino of the Northern District of New York partially granted the Justice Department's request, saying she expected the federal government to succeed at trial with its argument that the state's face covering and identification acts directly regulate federal officers in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Judge D'Agostino wrote that New York officials might be correct that federal immigration officers wearing masks and not displaying identification creates certain dangerous situations that the face covering an identification act's remedy.

But she added that settled law establishes that federal, not state, authorities, make the policies that animate the enforcement of federal immigration laws, and The New York Times concludes the ruling is a victory for the Trump administration, which has argued that Ice agents need to wear masks to protect them from harassment.

What do you make of this?

So, if I'm not mistaken, I think we won probably 2 or 3 decisions along with that, that same one that I was going to.

So here's the separate.

So I don't know how to in front of me.

Here's the separate one that the judge did rule it with New York State on the state's broader ban on formal collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration agents.

That goes into effect tomorrow, August 25th.

In her ruling, Judge Agostino allowed that measure to proceed so as it relate to the wearing a mask.

I believe there was something.

And I need to tap into some of my my lawyer buddies, but that allow you the right to face, someone in court, right, that may have violated you.

And if someone violates you with a mask on, how do you point that person out in the courtroom and say it was him?

It was her that violated not only a constitutional right.

No.

No badge, no displayed identification.

Yeah, yeah.

So I truly feel like that practice is constitutional.

And, you know, for me, being one who knows my history is really ugly.

And it's a really grim practice, and it just naturally takes me back to, you know, what so many people endured in, fleeing parts of the South and dealing with hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

The difference is we're funding this group unlike.

I mean, but what do we fund better?

The military?

I mean, this is one of the largest budgets in our federal government right now that the, the, ice budget.

So with that being said, I don't agree with that practice.

And I think that we need to appeal this and fight it further.

If you're engaging, you know, people throughout our community, they should have the right to know who you are.

And I just I don't think that's a good practice reading.

Reading the judge's words, she seems to indicate that on the merits, she agrees with your and the state's critique there that this practice of wearing masks that Ice age in Ice agents are doing and not showing any identification.

She seems to think that that's a problem.

She's also saying that she thinks it's pretty well established in law, that the federal government is going to have the final say in this, not not individual states.

So do you think it just ends there?

I mean, or do you think, look, we're going to keep trying to fight this higher?

Yeah, I think there's a need to continue to to fight it.

And you know, my, my hat goes off to, the attorney general.

I mean, there's been a number of victories that we've seen in New York State as early to pushing back against some of the things, that have been handed down from the white House.

And, you know, one of the things that I recognize, being an elected official, being one who took an oath to serve and to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of New York State, I think is, the Constitution seems to be only as strong as those who are committed to upholding the oath, because we see certain things that's happening at the federal level of government that's absolutely unconstitutional.

So you ask the question, how does this happen?

Why are people standing by?

Well, if you took the oath and you don't honor it, it doesn't mean much.

And I think that's something that we're challenged with.

I'm going to take Jackson and Charlotte, Lynn and Brian in just a second on the phones.

One other point on this, though, that separate issue that I also read about, the judge did say that New York State's broader ban on formal collaboration between local law enforcement and immigration agents can proceed.

What does that mean to you?

I that means that I mean, when you talk about resources from the state of New York, from our localities, that we're not utilizing those resources to, to move a a federal or Trump agenda.

That's what it means to me.

Okay.

But does that mean that the RPD that the Brighton police Department, that whoever that the gate PD, they're not allowed to work with Ice or they don't have to or what.

What's that more so that they don't have to, and it also goes back to resources.

Right.

You know, I think back like historically when, legislation was passed by, I think it was Reagan administration regarding, the age of drinking.

Right.

And it's like, okay, well, we're going to implement this across the country.

And if you don't follow these guidelines, you wouldn't be eligible for additional resources that we're providing.

And I think that's one of the things that we we may have to do as far as accountability.

You know, we're saying that these resources from the state will not go towards this agenda, that Ice has put forth.

And we're not expecting our localities to collaborate with them because the reality of it is there's so many people that are being affected adversely by these practices.

And you get some folks who are our neighbors who are that that have all of their documentation, born and raised here, but still going through, these challenges.

Yeah.

I mean, you've seen people murdered in recent months by Ice that were US citizens.

So I think that this sort of pushes back against some of those practices.

Our last point in this, then I'll take the phone calls, what I will say, and probably what some supporters of Ice will say, is that New York State's law regarding collaboration between local police and Ice is going to block ice from being able to track violent, violent, illegal immigrants.

What we know is that the vast majority of who Ice has been going after this year have not been violent people.

They have been people who have lived in communities for a long time.

They've been people who've worked in various sectors of communities.

Obviously in Rochester, the roofers were the most high profile, but there's farm workers.

I mean, I'm hearing stories in the Finger Lakes all the time about workers being picked up on the job, so they're not going after violent people the vast majority of the time.

Having said that, let's say there is a case where there is a violent person and someone who has come here illegally and they have been violent.

Would this law prohibit local law enforcement from working with Ice regarding someone who's been violent?

It would not.

It would not know Hibito and local law enforcement also have, you know, rules and regulations that they're, you know, they can make an arrest, right.

And they can also hold that person accountable.

And personally, I feel like, you know, this whole thing of, you know, the violent criminals, if you it's like when you go to court is you versus the state of New York.

If you violate someone here in the state of New York, you need need to be held accountable in the state of New York.

You need to do your time in the state of New York, opposed to a pat on the wrist and possibly been, you know, shipped off elsewhere.

So I don't agree with that practice.

All right.

Let me grab, this is Lynn in Brighton on the phone.

Hey, Lynn.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Great show.

I have two quick points.

One is that, it is all seems overwhelming.

You have a lot of shows about this.

It's a lot on the news.

But what your guest is doing is saying it's not that complicated.

Let's keep let's keep going back to our basic democratic principles, to the Constitution.

That's our touchstone.

And so things become much less overwhelming and complicated.

And people can have opinions, and not feel overwhelmed by all these details.

And it's all these cases and all these court cases.

They want to make us feel overwhelmed.

So we don't need to feel overwhelmed.

We can do what your guest is doing and keep returning to our basic foundational principles.

The other thing I just want to point out is that your guest, or rather the caller who asked, Would Elon Musk have been able to do what he did if we had taken away some of his wealth?

Taken away is an interesting question, but, I, you know, the person who asked the question.

And so I mean, in general and the way the is framed dictates how we think.

I have a different question to ask.

And that is, would Elon Musk have been able to accomplish anything without the engineers, scientists, computer geeks, the the people who are produced in this country, by us founded educational system that our tax taxes paid for by universities that were the best in the world and were funded in part by government grants.

And no, he wouldn't have been able to do anything he did.

So let's think about what questions we're asking.

If we let the tech billionaires define the questions and the framing, we may not really understand what's going on.

Let's think about the questions that we're asking and take a step back and think about the questions.

I'm sorry they weren't I'm not really asking questions.

I'm making observations.

But, you know, they just seem to me to be, important.

Okay.

Sure.

Thanks, Liam.

Thank you very much for the phone call.

Go ahead.

Assemblymember Meeks, I didn't have a response.

Okay?

I think she was more or less making a statement.

Okay, well, I think part of what she's saying is, no one gets to where they.

They get to on their own, truly know that there's always a support structure.

Yeah, an educational system, sometimes different safety nets.

And so she's saying the question shouldn't be about how much is too much to tax Elon Musk Elon Musk didn't create Tesla on his own.

He didn't create space X on his own.

I understand that argument.

I, I also feel like to play devil's advocate.

If the tax rate was 98%, that probably would stop people from being innovative, right?

I mean, so so there's probably a line somewhere.

And I think part of what the previous email was asking is where should that line be?

Right?

I mean, I understand Lynn's point to no one can truly say they did everything alone.

That's true.

So.

So where's the line?

How do you find it?

Oh, I mean, I think one of the things it's like stepping back and taking a look at how much they actually contribute.

You know, when you look at, those who tend to be extremely wealthy, they tend to know or have access to, those who know all the different loopholes, that they can go through or avoid and not pay as much in taxes.

You know, I remember years ago and I never forget it.

During, Trump's first term, he said, I don't pay taxes.

And if you do, you're kind of a sucker.

Yeah.

You remember that?

Yeah.

Of course, because he thought it was a gut punch.

Right.

But a lot of the people who support Trump were like, well, he's just a smart businessman.

Yeah, yeah.

But it's interesting because I remember, you know, when I was a labor organizer, doing some of the advocacy for millionaires tax in New York State and I remember talking to one of my dues paying union members and saying, hey, you know, I need you to sign this petition.

I need you to support this.

And he's like, well, why would I support that?

And I'm like, it's a millionaires tax.

It's called for those who make more to do a bit more.

He said, well, I wouldn't want to do more if I was a millionaire.

I said, well, okay, well do you have plans on being a millionaire?

Maybe someday.

I said, well, how would you go about that?

Said, well, I might hit the lottery.

I said, well, interesting.

So how many millionaires, you know personally that have hit the lottery?

It's like, Zilch.

None.

You know, and I just think that sometime people who are extremely wealthy or systems are in place that make those who who are not feel like they did something wrong.

And it's so far from the truth.

You know, when you look at everyone who who are, you know, working or doing something, they're contributing to society in their own way.

You know, you have people who work make good money that, hey, you know what?

Tonight we're going to this restaurant to have dinner opposed to.

But you may have someone working there who's making minimum wage, who's depending on those tips, you know.

So I just think that's an interconnected system.

Yeah, it truly is.

And everyone's contributing someway, somehow I let me grab Jackson and Charlotte next day.

Jackson go ahead.

Yeah.

Hey, Mr.

Dyson, look, in all due respect, man, whenever I want to listen to some insane liberal woke speak, I mean, okay, a couple of points.

You're complaining about ice wearing masks, but it seems like BLM and MTF.

It's fine, but, but ice is a problem with masks.

Okay.

Got it.

Number two, Mr.

Meeks, I believe, served.

You do not create wealth by taking wealth from others.

Now, this is the most insane conversation in the nation right now with a party, the Liberal Democrats.

We have tons of insane talking points.

You do not help society by more handouts, by taking from people who have spent their lives with the liability, the toil, the work, the gambling, and to punish a man or a person or an entity for making it big and give to you someone who may be sitting on the porch waiting for their ship to come in, is not the way to go about this.

I believe in the capitalist system.

If people are complaining about poverty, you gotta find a better way.

If you don't find a better way, you don't find a better way.

I'll ask you this.

How many times have you seen a major special?

One of the big dominant lions killed the zebra and moved out of the way.

Well, the zebra, who just can't quite catch this.

Even before the lion, it.

The dominant lions don't move over for the weak of the pack.

We are the only species on the planet that is asked to move over for the weakness of the pack.

Who can't do.

And this conversation, man, this whole democratic socialist movement or woke speech has got to go because you're pointing to a useful idiot and they can't comprehend their own.

So you spoke on capitalism.

Let's tap back into capitalism.

Let's talk about our our history.

What is your take on UN reparations?

Those communities that you built historically helped help build this country.

And and people made wealth, I mean, billions of dollars on the backs of others who work for free.

Is that your idea of capitalism?

Hey, now, I'm not talking slavery and capitalism.

Two different animals.

So don't even get me into that corner, Mr.

Meeks.

And my take on reparations.

It's called the welfare system.

So you've had it all right?

Yeah.

That's my take on reparations.

The welfare system is your reparations.

Wow, guys, who is your.

Now when you say you are who you are, you spend is your reparations as like, we've been an African-American man.

I'm saying for for people in general.

I'm saying to people who can't do I have no way.

You did say you're you say you do a black man who's, by the way.

No, he's not part of the.

Wait a minute.

Oh, I have no issue having my tax money going to people who need a little help.

It's the single mom who's busting her.

The.

You can't quite make it.

I have no issue.

I have no issue for someone who is so, you know, messed up with an arm or health condition.

No issue about it.

So.

So, Jackson, why why can't we just, Why can't we just pay the people?

Jackson.

Like you said, that single mother who's busing her back.

I mean, those that cna work at I home health eight oppose a Pan Am mama wage $20 an hour.

Why can't we pay them?

Why can we pay them $100 an hour?

Oh, okay.

Then the hamburger is going to cost 300 bucks an hour.

So now you concerned about the cost of a hamburger?

But what about her?

Her back.

She's breaking her back.

Oh, man.

I've been farming my whole life.

I've been in construction.

I go to work every day with a broken back.

I don't have my hand out.

So it can take.

I hold on one sick Jackson.

I just I do want to ask you one question, and I want to say I appreciate you calling.

I appreciate you listen here.

And you can call every day if you like.

We'll take your call.

So, I mean, I could not take the level of foolery going on, but I if that's what you think this program is, I don't think you're listening very often, but, let me also just say this.

You just made the point that you watch the nature channels and you think we're the only the only species that actually steps aside and helps the weaker are the humans.

And you seem to have a problem with that, that there's something.

Oh, that's what I'm saying.

Natural law cannot be violated by manmade law.

It cannot exist.

Okay.

You can't praise the lions.

You know, tracking down the weaker beasts and saying, why can't we be like that?

And then say, but look, the single mom breaking her back, I'll give her a little bit now, now you're now you're realizing that you didn't actually support us being like the lions.

Oh, you got it all wrong.

I mean, what I'm saying is, you never see the dominant lions get out of the way for the weaker lions, who can't do is what I'm saying.

And, But you and I are both saying that in the human species, we are the only ones who do that.

And thank goodness that we don't just behave like the law of the wild, right.

But this is what I'm saying is that system cannot maintain itself.

It is not maintainable.

You know, Jackson, that no, it's not okay, okay.

I don't I just also think, like, you know, when you talk about taxpayer, anybody that goes shopping right in New York State, they're they're paying taxes someway, somehow.

I mean, but we, we act like the Elon Musk of the world didn't get hundreds of millions, if not more in government tax breaks.

I mean, when we have businesses that come here, I mean, think back to Xerox when they built a tower here in Rochester downtown, 30 years tax free, you know, so I think that we have to assume that people are free to just put themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that's just not reality.

They lean on government.

They lean on us as working class people paying taxes to benefit them, building their their wealth and their.

Yeah, I completely agree.

I would love to eliminate the IRS and go to a national sales tax.

Oh absolutely I could, I nothing would make me happier than destroying the IRS.

All right.

And going to a national sales tax.

So if you buy a car in Monroe County, that's national sales that goes directly to Monroe County.

Then Monroe County deals with the state of New York, not Joseph Tax, not mom and dad.

Monroe County deals with New York state and state sales tax.

Then New York State deals with the federal government and keep Joe Sixpack right the hell out of it.

Yeah, no, we can agree on that, sir.

Absolutely.

Jackson, I just because I have to take a break an hour and I'm 17 minutes late.

I'm going to let you go, but please email us anytime it connections at six 9.org and call anytime.

Despite what you think about whatever certain bent you hear, what we're trying to do in the public square is examine the issues.

The reason that Republicans come on this program from New York State, the reason the Democrats command is they know we're going to ask a lot of very thorough questions as Assemblymember Meeks knows he's going to be interrogated on his views.

That's why I pressed him for specifics.

That's why we're going to we come back from this only break.

He's going to tell you about a list of things he's been working on, and it's your chance to interrogate their ideas as well.

And so please call any time.

Jackson.

Thank you.

We've got to get this only break in.

We've got to do it now.

And we're going to come back with the semi member Damon Meeks on connections.

Coming up in our second our connection Summer sessions brings back one of my favorite hours ever on this show.

The question of the Great Filter, the idea that in the universe we are probably not alone.

There is probably a lot of life out there, but something stops life from evolving into the kind of life that can travel the stars.

So what is it?

And what if it's climate change?

That's the conversation next hour.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Mary Carolla Center.

Proud supporter of connections with Evan Dawson, believing and informed and engaged community is a connected one.

Mary Carrie ola.org.

All right.

We got a lot to cover here.

Some of them are Demondd Meeks is our guest.

We've been talking to New York state leaders since the passage of the very late state budget in late May.

Latest since you've been, I think, in the Assembly.

Is that right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, it's always a little late.

It was.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It was so let me let me kind of give you the floor here.

You've got Grant talk about you've worked on public safety, education, infrastructure and I know you want people to know what is sort of top of mind for you and your office.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I mean, there there's a number of things that we've been intentional doing.

Some capital projects for organizations or community organizations that's doing some, some great things.

We're looking forward to I mean, it's been in street those buildings over on Vienna Street have been there for well over 100 plus years.

So we're working with them on a major capital project, which will be a major facelift, to the community, but it will have, some, some major impact, as relate to the physical facilities, expanding the, family safety net resources and creating safer, community spaces as well.

So that's that's going to be huge, always engaging and workforce development and, pipelines to help individuals get into like some, some great, union, jobs in order to create, wealth.

So we created, additional resources to go to, to, to create a, how can I say, a debt free pipeline into the skilled trades so individuals can actually go into a number of programs?

Map is one of them, multi Craft Apprenticeship preparation program.

They're paid while they're trained on a job, and then they can land a good union job.

And when you look at some of these jobs, we know that even with artificial intelligence, these jobs aren't been out.

So I was going to ask you about this, because when you look at the history of job retraining programs, the government tends to spend a lot of money on.

The results are mixed at best, and some of them are pretty poor results.

Yeah, it's hard to retrain workers.

It's not impossible, but it's even it's going to be harder in the future.

In an AI world, you feel like this kind of a pipeline is more these jobs are gonna be more sturdy.

I think they are.

I think they are.

When you look at, like the work, the carpentry work, the skill.

Mason.

Electricians, I mean, this is some intricate work that, you know, we have folks who have those skills and they live a really nice life.

You know, I know some folks who are in the construction trades and, you know, they, you know, live beyond the city and a nice suburban home or some nice acreage.

And, you know, I think sometime we talk about these opportunities, but we also have to show our, our youth like, hey, this is how this individuals living and this is the industry that they've been in for X amount of years, because so many of us, we watched MTV cribs growing up.

Right.

And we seen the fanciness of that.

Yeah, but to go and see a person who's in this, who has a skill trait that's making great money and providing for themselves and sometimes passing that skill tree from one generation to the next.

Yeah.

So I think that's huge.

On your list of public safety ideas here.

So, 3D printed ghost gun legislation.

What is it?

So what it does, is it, those who are selling 3D, 3D printers in the state of New York, they actually have to assure that, that printer doesn't have an app on there that can actually create these guns.

So you can sell a 3D printer in New York State, but it should not have the option for a person to print a gun.

Now, the old ones, there's not no law against that right now.

So with technology, technology is moving, right?

Like overnight.

I mean, the things that we're seeing a new app every day, new systems, it's not like the telephone where you went from the rotary phone to the push button and so on, so forth.

So it it this technology is quickly moving.

And honestly, I don't think that the, the laws keep up with the technology.

So it's another thing where we're we're playing catch up okay.

We're playing catch up okay.

So that in a lot of these spaces that's regarding ghost guns.

And you supported what's going to be more than $38 million for aimed at domestic violence reduction.

How's it going to work?

Yes.

So when we look at, Rochester, you know, per capita, we have higher incidence of domestic violence for, for some reason.

And it's truly a challenge.

So with, with those moneys, it's statewide funding.

The money will go towards some of the criminal justice services dedicated specifically to intimate partner violence, domestic violence intervention and non domestic sexual assault responses.

And these these resources will go not only to like law enforcement, but also to a crisis response team here in the Rochester community and victim advocacy groups that exist that are doing great work in this space, such as Willow for for domestic violence.

Okay.

Education and the Rochester City School District.

Now, every year it's a question of school funding and foundation aid.

Just briefly paint the picture on what's happening in this budget on education and what you wanted to see.

So I think that there's some improvement as it relates to resources.

For, for our schools, we were seeing a, an increase of over a historic increase delivering over $1 billion of over each year, going to the school budgets across New York state.

We've seen a huge increase in the Rochester City School District as well.

And by millions of dollars or like one, what is it?

It's in the tune of millions.

But then also looking at some of the challenges that we've seen, as it relates to health services.

So we, were able to secure 1.2 million, specifically a direct allocation to maintain school nurses mental health support and student student health clinics.

We find that, a number of our, our children, have some mental health challenges and don't have access to needed resources.

So we're being intentional in securing those funding, that funding there.

And then when we look at the trauma of the mass shootings in our community, some of those things directly impact students.

So you may have lost a loved one, and then you're going to school the next day or the next week, and they're expecting you to be able to function, but your family didn't have the resources to connect you to a therapist or someone that could talk you through the trauma that you've experienced over the past weekend.

Right.

So so with that, we wanted to be intentional with and that's the 1.2 million for for Rochester safe School District.

Okay.

And by the way, with infrastructure, I know we've talked about the High Falls State Park, which you've supported.

There's money for the for the state park, which is going to be kind of unfolding year to year.

There's a lot planned there, $20 million in direct aid for Rochester and, 452.

Oh, well, looks like about half $1 million in road aid for the town of gates.

Infrastructure?

Yes.

Basic infrastructure.

Absolutely.

You know, when we look at the roads, that's that's often a challenge.

And, you know, that's one of the conversations we often have with the town of gates, you know, additional money and funding for, for those resources, relating to chips or, the roads.

And also in gates, we, secured some capital funding and additional funding for the library system there as well.

So, I mean, I'm the representative of the 137th district, which is a large portion of the city of Rochester, including all of southwest Rochester by a large portion of downtown, northwest northeast, and a snippet of, the, what is that the a snippet of.

I was told there be no geography quizzes here.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

The snippet of southeast.

But anyway, we, you know, represent those areas and also the town of gates.

So we're intentional and bring in additional resources not only to the city of Rochester, but also the town of gates.

15 seconds.

You're going to hear the music.

So we're we're at the end here.

$2 million for double up food bucks.

Yes.

Snap cuts have been a big issue at the federal level.

Can New York State afford to fill in these gaps?

It's possible.

There's ways that we could possibly do it, but it's really tough when you took look at the food and security, health care.

I mean, we have millions of New Yorkers that's directly impacted by both of these things.

So what the full bucks do, that's something that I continue to push through my door.

My tenure here, it's a dollar for dollar match on your snap benefits when you go to the public market.

Some of the farmers markets as well as tops markets.

So Tops has also joined us and our efforts to feed the community.

All right.

And you got to do this in one letter.

Give me a letter grade, because you want to invest $25 million in cannabis reinvestment fund.

How is New York State doing with Equitable cannabis industry?

Abcdef.

I would say a c it's a C, yeah.

Can we talk about this on a future program?

We can.

All right.

Let's come back, talk about this on a future.

So it's it's not where you want it to be yet.

We'll talk about Assemblymember Demondd Meeks.

Make some different number 137.

You're generous with your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate you having more connections coming up.

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 expressed written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the connections link at WXXI news.

Org.