B (6:38)

You know, I'm a long suffering Mets fan, so I'm accustomed to things like this, but still, still not good.

A (6:44)

Likewise, it's tough going, but there's always, always room to turn it around here in the, in the first few months of the season. So also though, let me actually start with this. This is your last budget as a legislator. You're not running for reelection. We're not going to process all of that and do an exit interview here this time around. Hopefully you'll come back for that. But feeling about this being your last budget negotiation?

B (7:13)

Well, it's a great time to be asking me that because this is about as painful as the process gets. I'm feeling pretty good about it right now. You know, once the budget's done and we're rocking and rolling on legislation and doing Good things. The sweet part of the bittersweet feeling will come back in. But right now it is what it is. I've done this for a long time, so it's. I feel comfortable with the decision.

A (7:39)

And do you as, especially as deputy leader, do you get like a top priority that you really get to put into this budget? Is there a going away budget legislative gift here? How does you know? Do you get any extra weight or are you already sort of less listened to?

B (7:55)

Not, not that it's been pretty much par for the course. I mean as a member of the leadership high up in the Senate, I've always had the ability to prioritize my issues and have some success in getting them included. That's neither been enhanced nor diminished this year. It seems like it's just the usual amount of budgeting and legislating that I usually do.

A (8:20)

So there's a whole bunch of issues that the legislature and the governor are working through. You know, a lot of that's been covered and discussed, you know, ad nauseum here as this has has dragged on a bit from the, you know, April 1 start of the fiscal year now a month. And I do want to touch base on some of those major issues. But speaking of your focus areas, is there something that you are most sort of individually interested in making sure is in or out of this budget deal? Is there something that's a top Michael Generis priority here?

B (8:52)

Well, as the highest ranking senator from New York City, I've been working closely with the mayor and his team to try and make sure the city's budget is, is taken care of. As you know, they're facing us pretty significant budget crisis themselves and we have made some strides in helping them. I'd love to do some more. Right now the, the pit of tier tax is locking in at about half a billion dollars, but the city's needs were about 4 or 5 billion. So I'm hoping as we get into the closing days and start talking about dollars and cents we can squeeze out some more for, for the city. And of course the, the free bus program that I with then assembly member Mamdani, we're trying to get back back on the book. So hopefully we'll succeed in getting at least a pilot of that reinstated.

A (9:42)

So it seems like in terms of more help for the city again the governor as you just got at, has sort of come around and, and seems to be getting to an agreement on a Pieta terror tax that could bring in some additional revenue. She continues to seem staunchly opposed to any personal Income tax increases or corporate tax increases or even allowing the city to adjust own rates. So what is top of the menu, do you think, in terms of the prospects for that additional aid to the city? The mayor has put out a variety of asks. In terms of a menu, there's different ways the state could shift costs back to the state that have been put on the city. There's additional, you know, funding that the state could send the city on a variety of fronts. Do you, do you have a sense of what could be, you know, the mechanisms to do that?

B (10:32)

Well, and I think the mayor and the council speaker got together to promote this pass through entity tax rollback, but the governor has no appetite for that. I think we're at the stage of the process now where the governor has gone as far as she's willing in terms of raising new revenue. At this point, I would focus energies on just trying to find some more money. Whether that just comes in in terms of basic AIM payments, aid to municipalities or quote, unquote, found money seems to exist in a budget this large. I would love to find ways to just help the city deal with the immediate problem they're facing.

A (11:13)

Right. And the governor found some of that money earlier in the cycle and in her budget amendments she added sort of unrestricted aid to the city as part of it. So seemingly that could just be bumped up even further if the state is pretty flush with, with cash, which seemingly is the case, even though there's obviously a lot of people asking for it and a lot of need and a lot of challenges. But you know, the mayor has talked about a variety of ways in which he believes the state city relationship has gotten unbalanced over the years. Do you agree with that assessment? I mean, you know, he points the finger at Governor Cuomo, but Governor Cuomo hasn't been in office for quite a while now. Do you think it's been sort of a failure of the legislature and Governor Hill not rebalancing that state city relationship better that the mayor keeps pointing to. He calls it, you know, the drain, end the drain on the city.

B (12:03)

Well, what I've noticed in my years of service is that inertia is the defining principle. And I think what the reason the fingers point back at Governor Cuomo is he's the one who did real damage to the city's budget in reducing the aid that, that the state would give back when he was in. In a squash. Yeah, exactly. And so absent some major campaign issue, campaign to reverse that, which this mayor is now engaging in, the forces would Just kind of carry on as things were. Right. But we now have a mayor who has highlighted this issue and is, is trying to course correct on it. And so I give him credit for that. And I don't think it's wrong to point at the point of origin for this problem and that that was back in the Cuomo administration.

A (12:55)

Interesting, interesting take on it and what it requires to sort of undo and that force of inertia that obviously can be, can be very present. So in terms of, let's just stick with the city priorities here for a second. You mentioned the free bus pilot. Reinvigorating that. How likely is that to be part of this deal here? Would you give that a very high chance of, of being part of it? Where does that stand?

B (13:20)

It's really hard to say. It's a very nominal amount of money in the scheme of things, depending on how many lines you want to include in a pilot. If we go up to three lines per borough, which was what we were contemplating a couple of years ago, that's about $45 million, which, you know, $45 million is $45 million. I don't have that kind of money, of course, but, but in the scheme of a $260 billion budget, that doesn't seem unreasonable for an initiative like this. But the problem with which I'm sure we'll touch on too, the problem with our budget process is, and this governor particularly has taken this approach, is she doesn't want to talk about the budget until the non budget issues she is interested in get resolved first. And so whether that's the CLTPA or CECRA or the auto insurance issue or immigration, we're now at the point where we're beginning to close those down. But the real work of the dollars and cents of the budget are going to be taken up in earnest hopefully next week. And that's where I can tell you what chances any of this stuff has to get included. But we haven't really gotten to the point of speaking in great detail about them yet. Got it.

A (14:28)

But you're pushing hard for that. You're pushing very hard for that.

B (14:31)

I'm pushing hard for that. I, you know, I pushed hard for it. A couple years ago we instituted a pilot of one line per borough. The data was very successful by all metrics and we were poised to increase it. And it ended up not getting done and so it kind of faded away. But fortunately the assembly member I was working with at the time on it is now the mayor and has made it a major issue once again. So hopefully we'll, we'll be able to get that back on the drawing board.

A (15:02)

All right, so we're getting to a place, as you said, in this process, where a lot of these big policy issues are starting to really have a sense of a finish line of compromise. You listed some of them, and then you get into more of the dollars and cents. All right, so I'll touch base with you again next week about the likelihood on the bus pilot, but do you think, you think three lines in each borough is a good idea? You don't buy into this argument that doing like you did, a pilot program of one in each, you have your takeaways from that. The data you just cited, I know you know MTA chair and CEO Jan O Lieber has a different take on it, but we won't, we won't debate that right now.

B (15:39)

He's wrong, but.

A (15:40)

Okay, but do you think another pilot is a good idea? Do you?

B (15:46)

Well, the, the, the concept, when we started this was a gradual escalation to continue to test how viable it is to do this on a growing scale. And so we started with one, and we're trying to take it to three when it fizzled out. And so just kind of kick starting that process again and going back to where we were of trying to grow it to three would make sense to me. Then you, then you evaluate the data on 3 and decide if you want to go even larger. But all of the indicators were positive. And so look, what I've come to realize is bureaucracies have their own pride of ownership of ideas. And I think a lot of the eggheads over at the mta, this is not their thing. They prefer to try and tackle affordability if they care to at all, in a different way. But this is what the city's mayor now has embraced. This is something we have tested just a couple years ago, and it was very successful. So I think it's worth continuing to move in that direction.

A (16:50)

Yeah, I guess I just keep wondering, you know, how much more experimentation is needed once you did the one line pilot. Is it like, is this not something that could sort of just be modeled better, you know, by professional modelers and, you know, you sort of, you're either going to do it or not. But it's partly, it's this question of actually getting the funding for the full loaf that the mayor, you know, ran on.

B (17:13)

You want to take it, you want to, you want to gradually increase the scale of something like this, in my opinion, because there are issues where, okay, you do one line per borough and you're focusing on certain lines that are more conducive to this sort of thing, that's fine. But when you really need to address. Are you just displacing people from subways to buses? Are you sliding people from one bus line to another? How many people are really getting out of their cars to get into the buses? You really need to do it at a larger scale. And while I would be game for trying to do it all at once and figuring out as we go because I have confidence it would be successful for those who are more skeptical, I think gradual approach would assuage them.

A (17:55)

Yeah, there's something that I just keep coming back to about like being a bus rider, which I am, and just, you know, again, most bus riders, you have the typical line or lines that you most often use. So then you would know if it's a free line or not. But just that confusion of like, oh, there's three in each borough that are free, and then these others you have to pay. You know, it gets a little messy,

B (18:14)

but yeah, I agree with that as well. But, you know, we're trying to balance all the various factors and deciding how best to move forward here. And. And one of them is financial, right? There's a difference between a 45 million dollar ask and a 7 or $800 million ask, because then you're talking about real money things.

A (18:32)

Speaking of the full ask and the real money, you just reminded me actually of something that I think, I'm pretty sure you said when the mayor was first elected and we talked here on this podcast and you know, you said one of the big things that his election showed was sort of like the time for half measures is over. Do you think that since his election and since him taking office here, that this first budget is going to be indicative of that, or are we still in the sort of era of incremental progress and half.

B (19:08)

We are certainly in the era of incrementalism and half progress. And that's, as we've discussed previously, a source of great frustration for me. But the mayor doesn't snap his fingers and make these decisions on his own. And so when you're trying to deal with the governor and the legislature and the competing interest involved, that's how we've gotten where we've gotten, which is a less than impressive ambition, making change. I'll say this, though, having a mayor who is of that mindset, pushing hard, has moved the needle further than would have normally been the case. But we're still Dealing with gradations of increment. Incrementalism, unfortunately.

A (19:52)

Well, we'll talk another time about what a full fledged, you know, full measure outlook would really be like. But let's, let's deal with the here and now. So it seems like there's going, there's pretty widespread agreement on giving the city relief on the class size requirements. I had Senator Liu on the show here. He seemed like he's on board with that. It seems like he would be a leading indicator of whether that's going to happen or not. Is that fair to say that it looks like the city will. That that timeline will sort of be relaxed for the city to meet those class size reduction requirements?

B (20:24)

Yeah, I think Senator Lew has been clear that the timeline is less a concern than the plan being in place. And so he has asked to see specifics of the city's intentions to do it and, and within a reasonable time frame and how many schools will get compliant when. And you know, put some meat on the bones. So I think if that happens, then I think everyone will be comfortable. Right.

A (20:53)

And it seems like there is agreement happening on some changes to the state environmental review law. You mentioned it secret about allowing for more housing development more quickly. It seems like that's getting to conclusion. And there was, there was originally more agreement on that seemingly than some of these other issues that the governor is infused. Do you see those reforms and leading to faster housing growth, especially in the city as, as almost definite at this point?

B (21:25)

Yeah, I would think so. That was always the least contentious of the issues that have been floating around. And there's been widespread consensus that additional housing stock is necessary, affordable housing stock particularly. And so, you know, we're all trying to get there. I think that's going to be the least controversial of, of all of this.

A (21:45)

I guess one of the questions on that one is will it be watered down to a point that it's not that impactful? Speaking of half measures and incrementalism, I

B (21:53)

certainly hope not because like I said, we're all trying to achieve the same goal there. And so without doing damage, of course, to environmental considerations. But I think, I think there'll be something impactful in that space.

A (22:06)

And what's your sense or stance on whether an extension of mayoral control of city schools will be done? Senator Lew basically said to me a week or so ago, he doesn't know if it'll happen in the budget, but it'll happen before it expires and it'll be less than four years. Do you have a different take on that. And are you, are you foreseeing it getting sort of jammed into the budget? Because why not get to a compromise on that since since the legislative session is going to be very short after the budget.

B (22:36)

I defer to Senator Lou. I think he's expressing the will of the conference on that. Whether it's in the budget or not depends how quickly we can figure it all out. You know, this. I think the, the timeline now is we're hoping that monetary issues in the budget get dealt with this coming week, and then we can maybe pass some bills the week after, which puts us on a very short time frame, even for the budget. And so whether it's the short time frame left in the budget or the short time frame for legislative action post budget, it'll get done at some point, I'm sure.

A (23:13)

So will there be a budget in place by May 13, when the mayor now is supposed to be giving his executive budget presentation? They bumped that back because they want to see the results.

B (23:28)

I'm not predicting any specific dates, Ben, because that's a fool there. And but I'm hopeful that at least, you know, the city will have knowledge of what the conclusion as it relates to their issues are by then. Right, right. Okay.

A (23:41)

How has the mayor handled his first state budget cycle as mayor? You know, obviously coming out of the assembly, you would think he would know how to navigate some of the halls of power, so to speak. But it's different when you're the mayor. And not only is it is it a different set of dynamics to navigate, but of course, any mayor is coming in with a whole lot of political capital and confidence and wind at their back, which can be dangerous in dealing with Albany, but also helpful, of course. How has the mayor handled it from your view? I mean, he's taken a pretty careful approach, wouldn't you say? I mean, speaking of this idea of incrementalism, he's kind of, he's continued to push and probably annoyed the governor some on the tax issue, but I don't think she would have thought he was just going to give up on that since he ran on it. But how do you think he's done with both the legislature and the governor in navigating these dynamics?

B (24:33)

I think he's done great. First of all, just being in a situation of where there's no hostility is an improvement. And I'm not just talking about Cuomo and de Blasio. That was a recent and very pronounced example. But throughout history, mayors and governors have squabbled and there's Been a very contentious relationship. He has avoided that. And I think that's why he's seen success. And the aid that he's getting, it's not as much as he would. He's asking for as much as some of us would like. But 500 million in Peter Terre, over a billion in other aid, hopefully we get some more even before we're done is pretty significant. And then if you layer on top of that resolution to school control and that sort of thing, and I think you could look back and say it was a very successful first few months for the mayor. Yeah.

A (25:21)

And he's, he's been very into this secret reform. He sent some deputies up to Albany. The housing commissioner and planning commissioner were up there. Right. Trying to, trying to make sure that happens. So on these sticking points, you mentioned the debates around negotiating auto insurance reforms and changes to the state's Climate act, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection act, also immigrant protections. Anything you can sort of say in terms of clarity around where any of those are landing, you know, sort of the key principles that are being agreed on. Do you have a sense, you know,

B (26:00)

at this point it's mostly been publicly reported. I would just say the reports seem to be accurate. Whoever's, whoever's leaking is leaking accurately. So the climate law seems to maintain a very hard requirement on 2050 being an endpoint. The regulations on cap and invest would need to come in. I think we're at 2028 now, if I'm not mistaken. And so that seems to be kind of the universe we're dealing with. Although until it's final, it's not final, but that's where things seem to be going. And on the auto insurance issue, there were two major components to the governance plan. One was the elimination of the joint and several liability, and the other was on the comparative negligence question. And we've kind of gotten to the point where the former is, is no longer on the table, but the latter is. And again, we're, we're not done yet. So who knows where it lands, but that seems to be where, where we're headed on it.

A (27:08)

And are you doing anything related to sort of how insurance company profits are, you know, required to be sent back to ratepayers in a different way or how, you know, any reforms to how those insurance rates are set in the first place?

B (27:30)

The short answer is yes, that's, that's the, those are the dangling, dangling participles, if you will, that are still being resolved. I think there's been some discussion about the automatic increases that are permitted being reduced. You know, some of us were floating an idea of requiring any savings from these changes to be passed on to the ratepayers. I don't know that that's going to be in the final product, but something ensuring that rates are actually reduced one way or the other, hopefully will be, because that's why we're doing any of this. You know, I think everyone's trying to get to a point where rates are reduced. That's the goal here. We're not trying to enrich insurance companies. We're not trying to enrich trial lawyers. But at the end of the day, it's the people who are paying the rates that we're trying to help. And so whatever we construct needs to as close to a guarantee as possible that that happens.

A (28:29)

And will, will there be reforms around immigrant protections and changes to how, you know, to state law around cooperation between local governments and federal immigration enforcement? Is that going to be in the budget? And do you have a sense of the contours of, of where that compromise might be landing?

B (28:50)

Yes, I believe it will be. And I think the sticking point there, there's been widespread agreement on providing those protections and restricting cooperation in circumstances that don't interact with the criminal legal system in law enforcement. The sticky part has been that issue, and we're still kind of circling each other on that. The governor is not as going as far as maybe many of us would like on in terms of providing protection for those who are interacting with law enforcement, because a lot of, look, it's a tricky issue because on the one hand, people that are genuinely dangerous, we're not trying to protect them, they should be dealt with accordingly. And if they are subject to deportation, they should be deported. But there are many people who are not in that category who do interact with law enforcement and then end up getting caught up in this over aggressive ICE administration. And so, for example, there was an incident in Putnam county just last week where somebody went in to report a crime as a victim of a crime and ended up getting detained and is now in a deportation proceeding. That's. Those are the people we're trying to protect.

A (30:09)

And so by not allowing the local law enforcement on a matter that's not of criminal nature with that person to contact federal authorities.

B (30:20)

Correct. And now, you know, it's easy enough to say, well, in that circumstance, they can't. But it's also very easy for a law enforcement official who is desire, who is sympathetic to suggest that there's some kind of criminal component to an interaction with Someone just so that they can justify. And that's where a week or so ago, you may remember, the governor floated this idea of only when there's probable cause that a crime has been committed. But that's very much subject to the discretion of an individual member of law enforcement. And very easy to see how that circumstance can be abused to the detriment of the people we're trying to protect.

A (31:02)

So you want things related to judicial warrant, sort of a bar. That's whether where there's a judicial warrant in place or there's been a criminal conviction or criminal charges have been filed.

B (31:19)

Well, you're touching on the conversations now that we're, that we're having. But you know, how far to do that and where do you draw the line and it may end up, you know, being, you know, we'll take what we can get and then the remainder of the disputed issues get kicked out. But we're still trying to figure out as much as we can before we conclude.

A (31:40)

Let me connect this to the politics for a minute. It seems like obviously the broader national and New York conversation where a lot of this policy meets politics has swung, right, that Donald Trump won again in part because he painted Democrats as too soft on immigration. And now given how some of the Trump administration actions around immigration enforcement have gone, especially in Minnesota, we've seen a lot of backlash and we've seen them even back off significantly in a lot of ways. And so the politics seem to have swung significantly in the other direction. I wonder how you think about that going into an election year here in New York state, Governor on the ballot, obviously your entire Senate majority, some key battleground House races, does creating, you know, fairly liberal sanctuary state policies at all risk some of that political gain that Democrats seem to have made? Do you worry about going too far in the other direction here and setting up Republican opponents for saying, yeah, maybe Trump was a little heavy handed, but now look what Democrats are doing to protect immigrants, you know, who, who they won't allow law enforcement to communicate with each other.

B (32:59)

Well, the, the details matter here. And you pointed out at the outside of your question, the public opinion as it relates to ICE has swung very dramatically. And we're seeing it in our own internal polling as well. Putting restrictions on cooperation with ICE right now is broadly popular. And so I wouldn't worry about it from that perspective. But where, where you have a divergence is people do not want to see violent criminals protected. And, and so that's where what we construct and where we end up drawing the line is Important, because if we give, if you want to look at it politically, if you give your opponents the opportunity to credibly say you're protecting people who are committing violence in their communities, then that would be a problem. But if you're talking about the hard working immigrants who are here trying to provide for the families and have been for years and would otherwise be separated from their children, that's a very sympathetic example that the public would be on your side for.

A (34:04)

So there's a lot of these high profile things both on the spending and the taxes and then these policy items we're talking about. Is there anything under the radar here that's particularly interesting or important that we haven't talked about? I'm not going to keep you too much longer, but are there things, you know, that are particularly impactful or interesting that are not commanding enough attention that we can give some attention to here? I mean, things I think about are like state funding that could help with NYCHA repairs. You know, you know, there's so many things that could come into a budget conversation on funding or policy. There could also be some things, you know, to, you know, plan for a rainy day further or whatever it might be. It doesn't all have to be extra spending, but like, are there things that are under the radar that are top of mind for you that, you know, are of interest to people and people should be expecting, you know, that you're fighting for or that perhaps might be part of a budget deal?

B (35:01)

Well, that, I mean, you're getting into the more routine budget conversations as it relates to school aid or, or healthcare and that sort of thing. There's tons of issues like that. And as we also touched upon, the frustrating part is we haven't really gotten to it yet. It's going to be jammed into a one week or so conversation. So yes, I mean there's, there's a ton of that going on. I was just speaking to one of my colleagues this week about the need for additional NYCHA support. So you, you touched on one of probably dozens and dozens of issues that are what we deal with every year in the absence of higher profile things. And so that will certainly continue on a very abbreviated time frame, unfortunately.

A (35:48)

Interesting. And is there any conversation happening around the adjustments to the rent laws that happen in 2019 that, you know, there's obviously the mayor ran on a rent freeze to rent stabilized apartments. The rent guidelines board process has kicked off. This is going to be, you know, a huge matter related to the mayor's platform and delivering. It's going to be, of course, of importance to all of those tenants about whether you know, whether or how much their rent may increase. But it's also, of course, a matter of especial importance to the building owners and landlords, especially of the buildings that are highly rent stabilized or all rent stabilized, where there's a lot of distress in the system. Any conversation around state action related to any of that, is that on the table at all in terms of adjustments to those changes to the rent laws or anything really? I know the mayor hasn't followed through yet on a promise to propose a property tax reform plan that's much bigger picture than this. But anything related to sort of the rent laws and rent stabilized housing that's on the table in Albany right now,

B (36:59)

we're always evaluating the need to make adjustments. I think we did a significant amount in the last year or two in that respect. And Senator Kavanaugh is always looking for new, new ways to improve the housing situation our state. He, like myself, is not running for reelection, so he's trying to get what he can done before he departs public service. But I think the conversations I've had with him have been along the lines of dealing with rent regulated housing outside of New York City, which is kind of a, a growing area. You know, the city has had rent stabilization for decades, but for most of the rest of the state, we only opened that door to them in 2019. And so we're still tweaking kind of how other localities are able to deal with their own housing shortages.

A (37:58)

Okay, so not. So your sense is there's not any fire in Albany right now around those conditions of some of those rent stabilized buildings that are highly rent stabilized or all rent stabilized? That's more of a city issue to deal with right now.

B (38:16)

I think the city's going to play a lead role in it. Like I said, we're always looking for adjustments we can make if necessary. And so to the extent there's some issues that pop in that respect, we'll certainly take a look at them. Of course, doesn't necessarily need to be a budget issue in that regard. Could be in the few short weeks we might have post budget to deal with. But you know, housing, there's few issues that are evergreen in terms of what we do. Housing is one of them. Health care, education, they are perennials. And I'm sure we'll have our share of issues in those subject areas to deal with.

A (38:53)

So last thing, what's your, what are you sort of envisioning now that you have some sense Again, there's plenty of details to be worked out as we've been talking about throughout this conversation. But like, when you, when this budget's wrapped up in another, you know, 10 days, two weeks here, what's, what are you envisioning sort of thinking or feeling about this budget deal? Like, is it going to be something that is a strong statement about, you know, as the governor sort of outlined her agenda for this year and the legislature was all about this as well, like the affordability crisis. I mean, that's obviously like Trump's victory in 2024, Mamdani's victory in 2025, not to mention many other signs of this that, you know, people are really concerned about, you know, day to day and, and month to month affordability issues. Do you think this budget is going to feel like, you know, significant progress in dealing with those issues for New Yorkers?

B (39:46)

Yeah, I think it will. But, you know, it also will feel incremental. You know, as we discuss. And this whole discussion, we haven't even mentioned the success the mayor's had on universal childcare. Right. Pretty big investment in increasing and expanding that. Those are the kind of things that people will feel and they'll feel in their family budgets. And that's going to be when people look back and say, did we tackle affordability? Yeah, we tackled aff. Affordability and we made life a little bit more affordable for folks in a very expensive place. But if you're talking about, we would like, love to make it a lot more affordable. I think there's still some work to be done in that respect.

A (40:25)

Okay. And just quickly, I know you haven't made any. I don't, I don't think you've made any decisions on this yet. But what are you looking at doing? Well, first, are you gonna, are you gonna finish your whole year, your whole term here, or are you going to get through the session and then head out of the legislature like some, some folks do? Are you playing around?

B (40:44)

I think it depends kind of what, what I find and how long new opportunities might be willing to wait for me. But I'm here through the session. I know that much. I think, you know, I'll then start exploring in earnest what I could do with myself in future life. But whether that's December 31st or, you know, shortly before then is relatively immaterial. It'll be, you know, sometime in the second half of the year, I'm sure.

A (41:14)

Okay. And you have a real primary. Forgive me if I missed anything here because I haven't been following it. Super closely. But you have a real primary for your seat. Are you planning on endorsing there and getting involved?

B (41:27)

I have not at this point. I know both of the leading candidates. Assemblymember Raga has been a colleague for a long time, even before his election to the Assembly. He's the head of one of our big civic organizations. I think he's very diligent and would make a great public servant. And then Abir Kawas is kind of a leading member of a burgeoning community that is thirsting for representation. And I've met with her a couple of times, and she seems genuinely interested in being a very good public servant for Western Queens. And at this point, I'm just watching and letting them have it out before the electorate, see where it goes.

A (42:12)

Sounds like you're a little more familiar and fond of the assembly member, though.

B (42:19)

I mean, look, I'm more familiar with him, for sure. There's no doubt about that. But I wouldn't characterize relative fondness at this point. I'm fond of both of them. Yeah. I think either would. Would make a great state senator. And, you know, ultimately, you know, what I want is not as relevant. I mean, I have a vote and I'm a member of this community, so I'm going to segue back to being a constituent as opposed to an elected official. So.

A (42:43)

So no plans to endorse at this time?

B (42:46)

Not at this time. We'll see how the race develops. Okay. More focused on the budget right now, anyway.

A (42:51)

For those not familiar, this is like another one of these sort of like progressive versus DSA Democratic primaries. It's not all clean like that because there's a variety of factors, but, you know, it's seen as a little bit of another one of these kind of proxy battles, a little more of an experienced legislator who's progressive. But then there's a DSA candidate who might be more of a movement candidate. A lot of these.

B (43:17)

Very apt description of what's happening not just here, but in a lot of these primaries that are occurring in the city particularly, which is you have like the. The experience hand, which might represent more of a status quo and. And a change agent who's. Who's more of a movement candidate. And so far in the last couple of years down here, the. The movement candidates have done very well. We'll see. Including. Including teasing the mayoralty. Yes, we'll see how it goes this year.

A (43:48)

There's a lot. A lot of frustration among some of those experienced progressives who feel like the. The movement, DSA Candidates are coming up behind them and not necessarily appreciating the progressive track records they have. I feel like it's a very fascinating dynamic here.

B (44:04)

I mean. Yeah, but you know what? I've always thought about that thing, and I appreciate that people dedicated so much time to making things better, as I have, who would feel that way. But these seats are not for us to own or to hold. It's for the people who cast votes to decide who represents them. And if a particular community decides they want to be more aggressive with their representation, I don't think anyone should feel personally aggrieved by that just because they've been around long enough. I mean, that's not my vision of how government should work.

A (44:38)

Yeah, listen, it's democracy. It's politics. It's like, if you've done such a good job, tell the voters about it, I guess.

B (44:44)

Right.

A (44:44)

It's, you know.

B (44:45)

Yeah. I mean, look, when I first ran for the assembly, my opponent had run for the Assembly. I think that was his fourth time for the same seat. Yeah. And one of the arguments was, well, I've been doing it for so long, I deserve it. I'm like, you don't deserve anything. People don't want you representing them. Like, that's got nothing to do with it. And too many people, I think, look at these seats as kind of a personal holding, and that's not how I do it.

A (45:07)

Interesting. All right, Michael Gennaros, deputy leader of the state Senate. Really appreciate the time and thoughts as always, and we'll be in touch, I'm sure.

B (45:16)

Thank you, Ben. All right.

A (45:17)

Thank you,

B (45:41)

Sam.