>> From WXXI News.

This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson.

Well, our connection this hour is made with this new state budget from Governor Kathy Hochul, which followed up the governor's state of the state address last week.

And now we're starting to see the outlines of where the legislature may go here.

We're going to be talking to your elected leaders in the weeks to come.

Yesterday, we had State Senator Jeremy Cooney leading off today, Assembly member Josh Jensen.

We're going to talk to their colleagues one on one so you can understand what they see in this budget, what they'd like to see prioritized or changed or not.

And it's a chance for you to ask really anything you like of your elected leaders.

As we sit down for these conversations and as I mentioned, my guest this hour is a Republican in the New York State Assembly.

New York State Assembly Member Josh Jensen, representing district number 134.

Welcome back to the program.

>> Happy to be back, Evan.

>> So you know, it's interesting, yesterday talking to Senator Cooney, I was reading from some of my my colleague Jimmy Elkind's work, and Jimmy was pointing out that the governor's budget always gets a bit of a fight, whether going back previous governors and typically in the state Democrats, though not always, you know, in the future, who knows.

But but the governor tends to have a fight within their own party about things like school funding, sometimes child care funding and notes that this year there's a little less of that stuff, that the biggest item within the Democratic Party is going to be whether there should be new taxes or higher taxes on the mega earners, the super millionaires, taxes.

And the governor says no.

And some Democrats say yes.

I think you're probably with the governor on this one.

>> Yes I am.

and typically what happens and you're not wrong in Jimmy is not wrong about the assessment.

And but the way I look at it is I think the fight may be coming later.

Typically, what we've seen over the past four years is that the governor will go very aspirational with her executive budget proposal, and she'll put in a lot of things, probably with the knowledge that she's going to have to negotiate some of that back, and she puts it in so she can take it out and get something else from the legislature.

What I think is going to happen this year, mainly because we are in an election year where the election of Zohran Mamdani the governor's own primary, I think is going to push a lot of these fights closer to, the April 1st deadline to get a budget.

and really be instigated more by the legislature about what they want to see happening to respond to political realities from the folks they represent.

>> What's the biggest fight you see coming?

>> I think it's going to be about raising raising revenue.

and that's always the battle we have as a state is that, you know, the governor proposed a $260 billion executive budget proposal, the highest in the state's history.

but a lot of it is based on recurring programing and very rarely does the state do one off fundings.

We don't do a ton of capital projects.

It's a lot of it is we're creating new child care avenues.

We're creating new fundings for schools and for health care.

And and I think what the fight is going to boil down to this year is that I think based on why Zohran Mamdani is now the mayor of New York City, I think there may be a push that we want to be even push the boat out even further and try to create more programs.

What they are.

I don't know at this point, but looking at ways to create revenue so that we can the state could be more aspirational in their eyes.

I don't necessarily think that's the right avenue to go, but I think that may be a political reality, especially coming from New York City based colleagues.

>> You I mean, you were a colleague, of course, of Zohran Mamdani before he becomes the New York City mayor.

Although different caucuses.

I mean, did you interact much with him over the years?

>> Yeah.

We the first couple years, he was part of the card game I was a part of.

>> Card game.

>> He he, interestingly didn't redistribute his wealth to the folks who lost when he won.

But you know, certainly.

>> That's such an easy shot for you to take, isn't it?

>> And it's not even mine.

I stole that from another member of that card game was Congressman Mike Lawler.

because we were just a bunch of freshmen in Covid with nothing else to do.

>> yeah, I had a very pleasant relationship with him.

When we'd see each other in the hall or in the in the members lounge.

I don't think he and I ever debated a bill.

on the floor.

we didn't ever really talk policy.

but we, you know, in the course of being colleagues for four years or five years yeah.

Knew him, you know, not intimately, but, you know, we were friendly.

>> Is he a good card player?

I mean, he's not as good.

>> As you.

I mean, I'm a pretty bad card player, so I don't have that great of a poker face.

so I think everybody's a better card player than I am.

>> Okay, now, he does strike me as sincere in where he wants to take New York City, and he's going to be asking the state to partner.

One of the first big announcements came with the governor on child care.

Did that proposal does that go too far for you?

>> I don't think it goes too far.

One of the the issues I've had with the way we've tried to address the child care crisis, which 100% needs to be addressed, is that the state solution has often been to throw money at the problem and say that the current way it's constructed, it'll solve it.

More money will solve it.

And that's not the case.

What we saw with the governor's childcare proposal was that at least now we have some sort of plan.

It's it's very New York City centric.

but I was very happy to see that Monroe County is one of three counties in the state outside of New York City to get, I think it was $20 million for a pilot program so that we could create more child care seats.

I think it's like 1000. but really allowing local leadership to determine the best way to make those dollars effective.

I think the larger question is, how are we going to look at childcare differently, because access to childcare more often than not, is going to be the driver.

And what determines whether or not a parent is going to reenter the workforce or stay home?

And I think that's, you know, my own family had that that conversation when we had our twins.

was my wife going to go back to work or was she going to, to stay at home?

And that's I think that's an important conversation a lot of parents have, whether they're new parents or their kids, are elementary or middle school age.

>> One of the things I hear from some of your colleagues in the Republican Party is, of course, childcare is important, but the state can't do everything that the state doesn't have money to do everything, and that there's got to be limits here.

How do you feel about that?

>> I mean, I think it's it's all about what is the return on investment and are we utilizing if we're going to look at what the state is doing in that the construct of a $260 billion budget, are we spending the money as efficiently and effectively as possible?

You know, we don't take despite the comptroller's best efforts.

We don't ever do, or at least it's not shown to me and the colleagues that I speak to.

A forensic audit of how state taxpayers are being spent.

Are we creating new recurring programs that are being duplicated elsewhere in state government?

Our local government is doing a better job of administering something in the states, duplicating services there.

And I think that's an important part of determining if it's a thing that we can afford as a state on behalf of our taxpayers.

>> A couple of other things with child care, it sounds like, correct me if I'm wrong.

It sounds like you think at least the notion of a pilot idea is better than just sort of a sweeping, brand new program that throws a lot of money.

Are you down with the whole pilot idea?

>> I love the idea of a pilot program, because we're actually going to find out if it works, and if Monroe County, Dutchess County, which I think is one of the other ones, I can't remember the third county that's receiving these funds.

But if we're all doing something different, we can see what the current situation is.

If the investment has made a difference.

And maybe that can be a model for other communities that are having the same circumstances.

you know, certainly, you know, you talk to the children's agenda.

I think our lack of access for child care, early intervention services, probably higher than a lot of the other places in the state.

But can we figure out a mechanism to address these?

That could be a model elsewhere.

And the only way you're going to do that is through pilots.

>> So I have a question that's probably pretty ignorant here.

But I mean, I'm just thinking about your point about just putting money towards something doesn't automatically solve it.

And one of the things that we hear with child care, it may be similar to what we hear with early intervention or nursing home care is that yes, we have issues with the workforce, people feeling like they can make more money doing other things, people leaving if we put a lot of money toward child care just for, as an example do we automatically know that there's a workforce that's going to step forward and take more jobs if we open them up?

Maybe there is, I don't know.

>> No, you don't, you know.

>> Is it possible?

There is.

>> It's possible.

but you don't know.

And what's the you know, I'm sure somebody smarter than me has may have this data, but what is our current what's Monroe County's current child care workforce?

How many total child care spots are available?

Where are child care providers not having certain spots online because they don't have the staff.

And I think that's an important metric to figure out.

Okay, where is there capacity?

Part of the governor's proposal is also to increase access to early childhood education, which I think we want to get kids on a more solid foundation, to be lifelong learners, to succeed in our modern society.

I think having full universal pre-K is going to be a critical aspect of doing that.

And that's why it's not just about creating more capacity to do that, but also it's the capital investment to allow school districts other early childhood education providers to build out the physical space, to hire those people, to bring kids in when it's age appropriate.

>> This is where I think you get some interesting bedfellows when it comes to issues where sometimes this looks like an obvious, like Republicans are going to be on this side, Democrats on another.

But it's not always the case when it comes to child care.

There is a there's a pronatalist movement that is pretty typically pretty socially conservative, but is concerned about birth rates in the United States, birth rates in the Western world, and they've been plummeting.

Our birth rate now is below replacement level, and there's a lot of concern about that.

So how do you encourage more people to have kids?

So pronatalist are often in favor of things like child tax credits and opportunities for families to feel like they can have kids or have more kids.

at the same time, there is a a strain in the social conservative movement that says it's better when kids are raised by their direct parents and that we don't want kids in daycare all day, that if we can create a system and sometimes it looks like often the male's a breadwinner.

the female stays home.

Not always, but that's more desirable than just daycare all day.

Where do you fall on some of that stuff?

>> I mean, I think certainly parents play a huge role in the development of their children, in the raising of their children.

but I don't think it's a it's a one size fits all approach, and it's going to be different for each family.

you may live in a, somebody may live in a part of a state where you need to have a two income household, and the two incomes have to come from both sets of from both parents, not just one parent having two jobs, because that's also not the best case scenario, where you have one parent staying home, but yet the other parent has to work 2 or 3 jobs just to maintain the financial viability of the household.

you know, I know that the vice president, JD Vance, has been very outspoken on birth rates.

I saw that yesterday or two days ago that he's doing his part to fix that, because his wife's now expecting their fourth child.

>> Yeah, that's right.

>> But it's but I also think it's one of those things that if families want to have more children, they have to know that there's going to be a way one to afford it, but also to make sure that there can be a safe place for them to be.

If both parents are going to be working.

And so I don't think it's an either or.

I think you can have like, yes, we want to have parents, we want to have kids being raised by parents.

But we also have to understand there needs to be options.

If that's not the reality for every family.

>> Okay.

And one other note on this, we talked yesterday with Senator Cooney about his concern about the federal government possibly withholding funds in this area with concern about fraud.

And so there's a very serious fraud investigation going on in Minnesota.

And the Trump administration has said there's five other states that they're looking at withholding funds from because they're concerned about fraud.

And New York State is on that list.

Do you think those are legitimate concerns?

>> I think when we have the governor of New York State coming out and completely changing the way we're managing a program like CPAp and saying that the biggest issue for that is fraud.

And we have similar programs where it's essentially, Scout's honor.

I can >> Exhausting due diligence to ensure that there's fraud not happening.

What I would have liked to see is that if the federal government has concerns, instead of saying, we're going to pause, shut the tap off while this is investigated, I'd rather say, okay, listen, we're going to we're going to closely scrutinize this.

We expect you as New York State and the attorney general and any office that's appropriate to closely investigate and then make appropriate corrections.

If that fraud does exist.

I think cutting the money off for an undetermined amount of time could potentially do harm if there is not, as much fraud or as widespread fraud as the federal government may think there is.

I think certainly we should root out waste, fraud and abuse.

But I have to I do have concerns about what it could mean if it takes two years to fully investigate without state involvement in that investigation.

>> There's probably no doubt that there is some non-zero level of fraud 100%.

>> Yeah.

>> In an area like this and every state in the country 100%.

Okay.

Is there anything that you've seen, any evidence that says New York State has got another Minnesota on its hand?

>> Evidence that I haven't that I've seen.

Yeah.

No.

Okay.

But I also don't have the same resources as the federal government or even the state inspector general.

and I think when you and I don't know the five states off the top of my head, but my guess is that they are very high population states as well.

So I think.

>> That they're all states that voted for Kamala Harris.

Do you think there's anything political about this.

>> Coming out of Washington, D.C.?

I don't think anything political ever comes out of Washington, D.C.

>> Okay.

Well said.

Assembly Member Josh Jensen is my guest.

He represents district number 134.

I want to talk to you about an issue that a couple of our callers yesterday brought up.

And listeners, as we talked to state lawmakers, if you want to join the program, you can call toll free 844295 talk.

It's 8442958255263 WXXI.

If you're in Rochester, 2639994 email the program Connections at wxxi.org.

Couple questions about affordability yesterday.

What's the state's role in making life more affordable for New Yorkers?

>> One of the biggest things I hear from the folks that I represent is that it's expensive and hard to be a New Yorker, and whether it's they're going to the grocery store, they're getting gas.

They're trying to send their kid to college, which, you know, they may you know, they're not saying whether they're sending their kid to a Suny institution or private school or state, but they they I hear a lot, whether it's people coming to my office, me going door to door that they're like, it's hard for us and it's hard because it's expensive.

And I think what the state's role is in addressing an affordability crisis is taking a holistic, wide ranging look about what is causing that lack of affordability for residents.

Is it the taxes and fees?

Is it what's in place for businesses that are choosing to divest from New York and move to other states?

Is it families saying they want to raise their kids elsewhere, or retirees saying, I just can't I can't do it anymore on my retirement and Social Security, and I'm going to move down to the Carolinas.

And I think that I don't think there's a magic wand to address it, that that Kathy Hochul can, can whip out.

And, you know, Avada Kedavra it.

But I think there is something that the legislature should look at.

How can we what are the what are the key indicators and what can the state do to lessen the burden of unaffordability?

to make New York grow financially?

>> I'm going to try to fact check you on the fly on one thing.

>> Perfect.

>> I think it's Avada Kedavra.

>> It's also it kills people, so it's probably not the best.

Harry Potter.

>> is there an R in there that he missed?

We should.

Really.

This is a very important fact check.

Yeah.

Anyway, I think it's.

>> Because that's the come to me spell, I think.

>> I, I actually didn't even read all seven books, but I thought I remember the.

>> I was, I was a nerd who I would go to Barnes and Noble on the at midnight so I could buy it.

>> And I.

>> Love that.

I'd read the I'd read the entire book in the first 24 hours.

>> Unfortunately, I saw the movie, saw a great onion headline that said new Harry Potter Movies open kids up to the magic of not reading.

Now that.

Let's get back on track here.

Yes, sir.

So back to back to the question of affordability.

I'm very curious to know what you think about what looks like a burgeoning debate about auto insurance.

So it came up yesterday.

Senator Cooney brought it up, and he seems to be on the governor's side that says it's it's a it's a little too loosey goosey that that the governor's proposing, as Jimmy Belkin reports, to tighten up the definition of a serious physical injury in a car accident.

Under state law, a designation that allows someone involved in an auto crash to win damages for pain and suffering.

In addition to their medical expenses.

And the governor says this is driving up premiums and that is making it hard to afford life in New York State, that we've got higher premiums in other states.

She knows that trial lawyers are against this.

That's a big lobby.

But she also knows the insurance companies are for this.

That's another big lobby.

So it's kind of a substantive debate.

You've got powerful money interests on both sides, but it's a beta about whether the current system is is right.

That is it too loose.

Are there too many people claiming pain and suffering and getting big damages and driving up premiums for the rest of us?

Or is is that an overstatement?

Where are you on that?

>> Well, I think, you know, I'm not going to claim to be an expert on auto insurance.

I do sit on the Assembly Insurance Committee.

but we do less on auto insurance than on a lot of other insurances.

But it was funny when we were chatting before the show, the Newsbreak was talking about how New York is among the nation leaders.

I think in auto accidents.

>> So highest number per capita accident.

>> That's and somebody., somebody had to fact check me along with Harry Potter.

But I thought I heard that as we were talking.

And certainly if we're going to have rates of accidents at a nationally high level.

Yeah, my guess is that that is the biggest indicator of why insurance companies may be charging higher premiums, because they're paying out more claims for these accidents.

and so I think that's a big issue.

I also don't know, I don't think there's a lot of disclosure from insurance companies about how premium rates, whether they're auto insurance or healthcare rates, are determined.

Everything.

It's in a black box.

You get a letter and it's like, okay, this is what it is.

And there's not any clarity.

At least with utility rates, they have to go before the Public Service Commission and they have to justify it.

And there's public comment period.

That doesn't exist for insurance.

And I don't know if that's a problem that we used to have as a state, a Department of Insurance, a standalone state agency.

Now it's a part of Division of Financial Services that also regulates the money markets.

Would we have greater oversight?

by the state of insurance companies, if we had a standalone insurance company or insurance department as the regulator, not part of a larger department.

And that's those are all questions.

I don't have the answer to.

>> So correct me if I'm wrong.

It sounds like you need more information before you figure out which way you may go on this.

>> One, and I'd be very interested to hear either from the governor or from insurance companies, or for advocates advocating for this policy, like what is the driver of auto insurance costs?

>> Yeah.

Okay.

do you think that this is likely to be a big political fight?

>> I don't know how much of a it may be a political fight amongst lobbyists, but I don't have a lot of I don't have a lot of constituents calling me and saying I'm okay with my insurance rates being so high.

And, you know, I want to take the side of the auto.

Auto insurers.

So I think it's going to be more of a backroom fight than a political fight that's going to be fought, you know, in the news.

>> Okay.

that is certainly one we'll follow.

I mean, until the last few days that that was down in the weeds, I had no idea that was even brewing.

>> And I think that be I think somebody who who, you know, worked in the field, maybe as an attorney representing these, these types of cases, they may have a better understanding about what the mechanism is in being able to go after folks if they do stage an accident, cause an accident.

So I think even somebody, you know, a legislator who has a greater background knowledge, maybe, maybe more able to talk about the, the, the intricacies of how these processes are determined.

And if this is a common sense way to approach the larger problem.

>> All right.

Let me ask you about a separate issue.

That is, again, another one that was not on my radar.

Alcohol licensing.

Yeah.

What's going on.

>> So the governor proposed some new alcohol licenses and it would be allow for adult care facilities to have on premise license, airline lounge licenses, which I always thought they could serve alcohol, but maybe there's something different.

Cafe licenses, higher education, on premises licenses, hotel concessions for licenses and permits, and early morning sports bars.

So it sounds like taking the one size fits all approach about how we allow for places to serve alcohol and really breaking it down into what type of business or location it is to determine, like, what license they can get.

>> What's the purpose of this kind of change?

>> It's a very good question.

my guess is, you know, I've had I had a older woman who lives in a independent living facility in in Greece call me because she had.

And I forget what the state agency was that she wanted to drink wine on her balcony.

>> And she wasn't allowed.

>> She was not allowed to.

>> Huh.

>> And because the place where she was living, the complex, they didn't have a liquor license.

So even though that was her home because she was drinking it outside the walls of her apartment room, it was forbidden.

So my guess is, I think the cynical way to look at it was, well, now if we create all these different licenses now, we can get more people to pay the license fee for it.

And maybe that's a way to increase fees.

The other way to look at it would be, okay.

We see that soccer fandom is taking off, and you and I are both Everton football fans.

and now maybe a place that doesn't have a liquor license may want to host, you know, watch parties for Arsenal games, and they may want to get a liquor license to do that, but not to serve alcohol throughout the day.

So I think maybe it's to create more options for circumstances that that may exist.

>> Okay.

So it will be it will be advertised as a way of creating more freedom and more options for people.

>> I think it could.

>> Be it could be tied to more revenue for the state.

>> It could.

I mean, you look at colleges and I don't know, you know, I went to Niagara University.

We didn't have a bar or restaurant on campus, but they would often host galas or other things where alcohol would be served.

And now maybe that's a circumstance where they don't they instead of getting a one off special use permit every time they want to do a gala, they can get a higher education on premises license for these type of events so they don't have to reapply every time they want to do it.

>> See, the other interesting thing that's happening at the same time is Americans are drinking a lot less.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

CBS news just had a report on what they described as oceans of unsold alcohol from some, you know, some of the bigger producers.

And I'm thinking about the Finger Lakes wine industry.

I'm thinking about local brewers and distillers.

It's not an easy time, but it doesn't look like that's related here.

It might be more related to either personal freedoms or state revenue.

Not just that people are drinking less.

Let's find ways to get.

Yeah, okay.

>> I mean and there wasn't really it was it was part it was part of the budget proposal, which I'm surprised it wasn't in the state of the state.

but it I think it'd be an interesting conversation to have, especially about the larger debate about whether or not we're going to move on something like wine and grocery stores.

>> Well, where are you on wine and grocery stores, by the way?

>> I'd like to see more data and more what the effect has been on other states where they've allowed it.

I know one version of the bill would say that if a liquor store is in the same plaza as an eligible grocery store, that the grocery store wouldn't be eligible.

so I think we need to learn more information, and I'd like to know the true impact on the small businesses that are liquor stores, about how they would be impacted, and if it is going to be something we're going to do, then both sides need to benefit.

And maybe that's allowing liquor stores to sell cheeses, crackers and other things.

>> But I've heard this debate for years.

Yeah, it doesn't seem like it's got much zip compared to past years.

This.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

>> It gets it gets, you know, as we get into usually around budget time towards the end of session, it gets a little, you know, like somebody gave it a shot of caffeine or in Pulp Fiction when John Travolta.

And it gets a lot of adrenaline.

Right.

And then it kind of dies out.

but I think it's an important conversation.

but I think that once again, the devil is going to be in the details.

>> So after we take our break, I'll get some questions from listeners for state Assembly member Josh Jensen, who's joining us this hour.

He represents number 134, and we're talking about the proposed state budget from the governor.

The priorities that Assembly Member Jensen would like to see, and analyzing some of what might be behind some of these new proposals.

So we'll take that break.

Come back to your feedback on the other side.

Coming up in our second hour, my colleagues from the WXXI newsroom join us talking about some of the hottest stories from the week, including a pretty dramatic decrease in crime in Rochester in 2025.

Gino Fanelli joins us to talk about what it means.

Racquel Stephen joins us to talk about the shortage of beds available in medical systems, what that means for patients and hospital systems.

And then we'll close the week talking about the dismissal of Sean McDermott as bills head coach.

That's next.

Our.

>> Support for your public radio station comes from our members and from Bob Johnson Auto Group.

Proud supporter of Connections with Evan Dawson, believing an informed public makes for a stronger community.

Bobjohnsonautogroup.com.

>> This is Connections.

I'm Evan Dawson first, Chris wants to know is there any discussion about analyzing whether the estate tax cliff is beneficial or detrimental to the state?

Does the fact that no other state has one raise concern that it pushes some out?

I don't know what this one is.

>> So just on the estate tax, which I'll be honest, I'm not as familiar with it.

I don't have an estate.

but my guess is it's about passing that, if you will, your home or your estate to next of kin, that there's a, you know, essentially an inheritance tax.

That's my guess.

but I think that's part of what I was talking about larger, is that we need to actually figure out about do the things that we have in place, whether they're taxes, are they benefiting us or are they causing more harm?

Are people not buying larger properties, larger homes, or not passing them down because their their children have to pay a tax on it?

And I think that's an important part of we're going to talk about affordability.

Everything needs to be scrutinized to figure out what makes sense, what doesn't make sense, and and where.

those types of taxes can be overwhelming.

>> Okay, Chris.

Thank you.

Pete wants to know if what you have seen in our state from Ice looks appropriate to you.

>> So certainly, I don't think we've seen at least in the the news that I've seen that we're seeing quite as much ice enforcement action or to the level that it's been in other states.

Certainly.

What what happened to the the woman in Minnesota?

You know, it's heartbreaking.

Anytime somebody loses their life in that type of conflict.

you know, there has been I've, you know, obviously saw the thing a couple of months ago where there was an enforcement mechanism in the city of some roofers.

Yeah, right.

Westminster.

Yeah.

The rating of a, I think a manufacturer in central New York.

and I don't think, you know, certainly I don't think it's been as Ice involvement has been as widespread or as loud in New York as it's been in some other states.

but that just could be that it's not being done loudly.

And that's I don't I don't know what's the case.

>> Does the Renee Good shooting look justified to you?

>> I'm not going to claim to be an expert on on what is justified and what's not.

certainly I don't know what's going through a law enforcement officers head when they pull the trigger of their firearm.

whether it was that incident, whether it's incidents we've seen here locally I don't know what's going through somebody's mind.

I also don't I wasn't there I'm looking at it from one angle.

>> On a more than one.

>> Angle, but that's we're seeing it, so I don't I wish I, I wish I had an answer to that question.

I don't I don't want to see law enforcement ever have to be in a situation where they have to take somebody's life.

>> Do you think they should be allowed to wear masks?

Ice agents?

>> I think it depends on the circumstances.

I have a tough time when we see legislation come through or proposals that come through, especially when we're talking about law enforcement prerogative, doing a one size fits all approach.

I've always been the type of person like, listen, especially when you're dealing with issues of law enforcement, of public safety, that the situation hand should dictate the appropriate response and action.

I've never been a cop.

I don't know what it is appropriate and when it's not appropriate for them to have facial coverings.

so I think it'd be important to hear from law enforcement on whether or not they deem it warranted.

>> Yeah, I guess my question for them would be what makes you different as an Ice agent?

It's a high profile public facing job here.

but the public has a right to know who is interacting with them when they're armed officers of the state, don't they?

>> I think that's a fair thing.

But we've also looked at after the, the, the the, the protests a few years ago where we had police officers being doxed.

And so I think that, you know, there is a law that they have to have their name visible, their badge number.

But if we also have law enforcement officers being doxed, then I think that's also part of their safety as well.

>> Well, on the subject of protesting, I want to read more from Jimmy Wilkins reporting on what may end up being sort of a political flashpoint this year.

And he's writing about the governor's push, which started last year, a push for additional restrictions on people, on people wearing masks in public, and then proposing now to create a 25 foot protest free buffer zone around houses of worship.

And this is from Jimmy Wilkins reporting, quote, similar to the masking restrictions, the current proposal has support from Jewish leaders and legislators.

But it raises First Amendment concerns, said Justin Harrison, a senior policy counsel for the New York Civil Liberties Union.

He says, I'm not sure we want to give the police yet another tool to single out protesters for the offensive.

Things that they may say, and that's exactly what a buffer zone law like this would do.

But the governor says it would help combat anti-Semitism.

And this is what some of what Governor Hochul said in her state of the state address, quote, protesters led Pro-hamas chants outside of synagogue in Kew Gardens Hills.

That's not free expression.

That's harassment.

Those who simply want to pray can do so without fear or harassment, end quote.

So that's what the governor says about that.

In Minneapolis, we saw people protesting Ice go into a house of worship, and a lot of people were very nervous about that moment.

So what do you make.

>> Of this?

I also remember during the Iraq War that there would be protesters at the funerals of service members who died in the service of our nation in a war that they didn't declare, but they answered the call of our country.

And they had protesters at their funerals, both at the cemetery and at the at the churches where their funeral massacres were taking place.

And that was inappropriate.

And so I think that when, when individuals, when Americans are seeking to have the free expression of their faith, I guess, and this is where a constitutional law scholar would would have to weigh in, is what amendment is the first one?

Is it freedom of speech or is it freedom of expression?

And which one is which one is both?

Because if people are not able to freely express their religion because there's protesters and they don't feel safe, does somebody's freedom of speech which which right is.

>> Does it supersede someone's right to worship freely?

Correct.

Because certainly some people's right to worship freely has been disrupted.

And we saw that in Minneapolis.

>> And I've talked to colleagues who are Jewish in the Assembly, in the Senate, who feel threatened in their own communities because of their faith.

I've talked to Jewish members of our own community here in Rochester, in Monroe County, who through actions of other folks, they they feel unsafe.

And I take that.

I take them at their word.

And I guess that's I, I think that's a question each person would have to answer about.

Well, my inclination is that you still have your freedom of expression.

Do it 26ft away.

>> When the governor says when protesters lead, Pro-hamas chants outside synagogue, that's not free expression, that's harassment.

Do you agree?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

Is this going to be a political flashpoint at all, or do you think this this one passes?

>> I think I think it will be a flashpoint.

I mean, we looked at last year's budget fight to ban the wearing of masks on public transportation in New York City.

That became a political fight.

and I think this is even more I think there's even more passions on this one because we're talking about people's faiths and we're talking about and I'll be honest, I think some of these protests are designed to inflame tensions and are designed to try to provoke a response to further their own cause.

is that really your freedom of speech at that point?

Are you trying to incite something?

>> No.

What I find kind of baffling when you look at just take Minneapolis so people go into a house, a house of worship that's holding a service.

You walk into a church and you know the people who are there to pray and worship were scared.

Yeah.

And the optics are so bad.

This is a moment when the way independents look at ice is cratering.

Now, polling shows that Americans are pretty evenly split on whether they still want the deportations that are happening, but they don't like what they're seeing from Ice.

Unless MAGA Republicans do.

Non MAGA Republicans are like a thin majority.

Pro ice independence.

It's cratered.

And then you do this.

You go into a house of worship and the optics are so bad.

And I don't think it actually benefits the cause of the people who were doing.

I would love to ask them, what do you what were you hoping to accomplish with that?

With that moment?

But I mean, that says nothing about whether it should be legal.

Yeah, just strategically, I don't get it.

>> Yeah, that's.

>> But that's not the same as standing 26ft out or even ten feet outside a house of worship.

But you're comfortable with the 25 foot rule.

>> because that is the if somebody's standing 25ft in front of a house of worship and they're stopping people, but they have to step back one foot, they still have their freedom to express themselves.

Yeah.

and if that's what the governor and law enforcement and faith leaders believe is a safe distance to allow people to still access their place of worship, then I'm inclined to support that.

>> I mean, I remember covering the Westboro Baptist Church in their heyday.

Do they even still exist?

>> I don't think so.

>> I kind of hope not.

>> I'm sure vice has done something on that.

No free ads, but I'm sure vice has done something on it.

>> Yeah, they would protest funerals.

Yeah.

They show they would protest all kinds of stuff.

And when you talk about protesting a soldier's funeral, it's distasteful to most Americans at minimum.

I don't know that it should be illegal.

I don't know that you should be able to kind of, again, disrupt or block a service.

But this is where it's tough because even distasteful expression is largely protected.

>> Right?

I mean, we have and this is this is not this is an apple and oranges comparison.

But you're not allowed to yell fire in a theater.

You're not allowed to yell bomb on a plane.

Out of concern for public safety.

That's I think there is a correlation that we've already have under the law, certain limits on people's safety, on how you can express yourself.

I think that would fall in line with the same type of constitutional viewpoint.

>> Let me grab a phone call from Rick in Brighton.

Hey, Rick, go ahead.

>> Evan, thanks for this discussion.

All I wanted to do was add one other detail to it.

My understanding is that in the abortion protest movement, there were safe zones around abortion clinics that limited the distance under which protesters could have access to the clinics or their clients.

And it seems to me that that was constitutionally upheld, that zone of where you couldn't interfere with someone's exercise of their constitutional rights, whether it's their personhood rights or their religious rights.

So I just wanted to add that dimension to the discussion that this this was a part of the protest in the anti-abortion movement 30 years ago.

I'll take my discussion off the line.

>> All right.

Thank you, Rick, I appreciate that.

What do you what do you make?

>> Well, I also think there's I remember when I, when I, when people protest, I think this is also a whether it's what Rick just brought up or on House of worship.

We're also talking about private property.

So I know that there are when people have gone to protest government offices that are in a strip mall, that sometimes that the property owner will say, listen, I know I have a public office here, but the parking lot is still private property, so you can't protest in front of this office.

The sidewalk is public.

Go ahead and protest there.

And maybe, maybe that's the situation where, especially in New York City, where you may have synagogues, other places of worship that are right off a parking lot or right off a sidewalk.

Maybe that's where there's a difference.

Whereas if you're talking about a doctor's office, you're talking about a church and a synagogue upstate in our community that set back, maybe it's it's a little bit different because there already is a buffer zone of private property.

>> Rick, thank you for that phone call.

Let me grab an email from Charlie who two points.

The really important point was he said I was the dad who waited at midnight for the next Harry Potter book with my ten year old.

You and millions of others, Charlie.

But more importantly, he says, please ask Mr.

Jensen his opinion on improving tier six for young teachers.

He says, my millennial teaching colleagues are hurting.

They truly can't afford to retire and certainly can't teach for 40 years to wait for their retirement.

It's not sustainable.

Teaching and education schools are closing.

Who would want to teach under these conditions?

That's from Charlie.

>> Yeah, I mean, Charlie, you can tell your son.

I support reforming tier six and tier five.

We've gotten to a circumstance.

>> Explain what that is, by the way.

>> So tier five and tier six are New York state retirement tiers.

And so we have six tiers.

And every tier has certain level of benefits.

I happen to be a tier four employee.

so I had to pay into the system for five years to become vested.

And once I hit 20 years of state service, I qualify for for a pension.

with tier five and tier six, the state reformed under Andrew Cuomo, reformed those tiers so that it takes longer for state employees, public employees to vest, and they have to work longer in their career.

and there's no, you know, if I retire at 55, I retire at a percentage of a certain salary level for the newer tiers, you have to work longer and you get a lower percentage of that back when you retire.

I think that when we're at a state not in a state, but at a state where we have a lack of public employees, whether they're teachers, first responders, prosecutors state employees, you know, you look at one of the criticisms I have is DFS, and the way they regulate insurance is they don't have enough employees to regulate insurance, especially health insurance, because they can't attract and recruit and retain these employees because the retirement tiers d.o.h.

Department of health can't statutorily inspect nursing homes on time because they can't hire enough nurses to enter state service to do these inspections.

So if as a state, we want to attract more public employees to serve the public as public servants, whether they're teachers, firefighters, state workforce, DPW, snowplow drivers, which we're going to need we have to make sure that it can compete with the private sector when it comes to retirement benefits.

And I think looking at getting tier five and tier six more in line with what exists with tier four, I think would help to allow greater recruitment and retention.

>> You also wanted to talk a little bit about online culture, online gaming, what's going on there?

>> Yeah.

So the governor is she's picking up some of the legislative proposals of an Assembly colleague of mine out of Queens.

Nily Rozic to really look at what online options are available to kids, not restricting necessarily kids using it, but what the back end is making available to kids.

And so what the governor is proposing and what Nily Rozic has proposed through her legislation, is that it would if you're a child and you have a child account, they would have blocked people from being able to send you direct messages.

A.I.

chatbots wouldn't be applicable.

it would block location sharing and it would cut any ads or access for online gaming platforms.

You know, certainly I've been on my laptop and I've never done online gambling.

I've never done sports betting.

And I'll have an ad pop up telling me to set a bet and take me to where I'm going.

Right.

my son is seven.

He went to our neighbor's house and he played Roblox and Minecraft.

and desperately wants it.

But we don't want to let him use it because it.

People can chat with you.

with the A.I.

we got for for my wife's birthday, I bought her the Amazon thing that you put in your kitchen where you can have your calendar, you can bring up recipes, you can watch TV, which I like doing the dishes.

Literally.

Our son was in there last night talking to Alexa and having a full conversation.

And Alexa asked about the family dynamics.

It's like one.

What prompt were you asking to get her there?

But I think having these sort of common sense protections for children, especially as we're in a greater, digitalized world, I think make a lot of sense.

and going back to the conversation about parents knowing what's best for kids, making sure that parents are the ones deciding when their kids are going to utilize some of these other enhanced capabilities.

>> Are you comfortable with kids of the present and the future?

Having A.I.

relationships?

>> No, no, I mean, we yeah, it's funny when, you know, I've seven year old twins.

It's funny when they ask Alexa to play the song.

or have them tell her have her tell them a joke.

but I don't want I don't want my own kids thinking that a conversation with an A.I.

bot is the same as having a conversation with their friends in the lunchroom.

>> Or a friendship, or even in the future romantic relationships.

I mean, all these things are happening now already.

Yeah, they're going to happen more often.

So is there anything that governments should be doing to stop that then?

>> I mean, I think we've already done some stuff on social media in last year's session.

We put some greater restrictions on child accounts being able to scroll.

I think it would make a lot of sense for tech companies to have to create a different set of standards in a different platform, within the same platform for adults versus children.

certainly, you know, I think every adult right now uses ChatGPT probably more than we probably should.

but it's also having the digital literacy to know what you should use that for and what you shouldn't use that for.

And I think that we're not doing enough to teach children and adults about responsible use of this technology.

>> My sense in general is that if there's a problem in society and you can fix it through the culture, through public discussion and awareness, and you don't have to regulate it, that's that's probably preferable.

My fear with tech is if you don't regulate it, it's going to be hard to stop it.

>> I understand, agree, and I've been saying this to to people a lot lately is that we are now in a society of immediate returns.

You know, we have a small little thing in our pocket, the size of a pack of cards that has every aspect of human knowledge of human history in our pockets.

When we order something for food delivery, I think most people, they don't look at the star rating, they look at how quickly it's going to get to their house.

And we're now more of a society built on immediate returns rather than the quality of the service we're using.

And I think when you look at A.I., you look at chatbots, it's like, well, I can get an answer.

I can, I can know what's in the governor's budget proposal by just typing in a prompt, and I don't have to do any research.

That's great.

Well, are you really going to go back and check the sources or check the veracity of what that's telling you?

I doubt most people are.

>> are you familiar with Dave Ramsey?

No.

Dave Ramsey is an online.

well, it's not just online.

He's written books about finance.

He's got a podcast very, very popular among American Republicans, but popular in general.

And he recently went on a rant saying online sports gambling is destroying a generation of young men.

And it was a mistake for states to allow sports betting.

Do you agree?

>> I've never I've never placed a bet online.

I also I've gambled money at casino once in my life, so I. I might be the wrong person to ask whether or not, just because I don't have any experience with it.

I do know my brother in law, my father.

They they, you know, they'll bet on they'll bet on the UFC fights and they'll bet on and I think this is where the struggle always is.

Are people doing it responsibly, or are they doing it in the way that you can?

You're paying for entertainment just like you would going to a movie.

And are you doing it responsibly?

And I think the question is, is the government whether New York state government or any other municipal or any other entity that's legalized this, is that are we doing enough to.

Safeguard how people are using it?

I also think that once again, the almighty dollar reigns supreme.

Where, you know, you see NFL players get suspended for doing mobile sports betting.

But every stadium has DraftKings or sports betting advertisements.

>> Absolutely.

>> And every segment on ESPN or Fox Sports is, you know, the DraftKings bring you the NFL draft.

So you also have these institutions that are pushing people to utilize these things, but they're also the ones who are controlling it.

And I think that is the question about ethically, what is the right way to have these services available because.

>> Like, can you fix this in the culture or do you need more regulation right now?

Do you think we need more regulation of it?

>> I think I'd be interested.

Once again, this is going to sound like a coward's way out.

I'd like to see more data about I.

>> Don't think that's a coward's way out.

>> Are we.

>> Seeing this is a big decision?

>> Are we seeing enough?

how many people are utilizing the addiction?

Gambling addiction services?

Are we seeing bankruptcy?

And especially if we talk about trying to raise revenue through online casino gaming, which is another topic that might be coming up this year or years to come.

>> No, I don't think that's a dodge at all.

I mean, I think there's a lot that we still have to learn, and hopefully we'll start to get more data soon on that.

Yeah.

thank you for the time, as always.

Great to see you.

>> We appreciate it.

>> Assembly member Josh Jensen represents district number 134.

It's part of our series of conversations with your elected leaders about the proposed state budget and what's coming in 2026.

More Connections coming up in a moment.

>> This program is a production of WXXI Public Radio.

The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of this station.

Its staff, management or underwriters.

The broadcast is meant for the private use of our audience.

Any rebroadcast or use in another medium without express written consent of WXXI is strictly prohibited.

Connections with Evan Dawson is available as a podcast.

Just click on the link at wxxinews.org.

>> Support for your public radio.

Support for your public radio station comes from our members, and from the Prospect Fund.

Announcing the film, all that's Left of You, a multigenerational drama that traces the hopes and heartaches of an uprooted Palestinian family.

Screenings at the Little Theater, January 23rd through 29th.

Showtimes and tickets at the Little Doors.