Senator Gustavo Rivera on State Budget Negotiations, Health Policy, & More

Summary

Max Politics Podcast Summary
Episode: Senator Gustavo Rivera on State Budget Negotiations, Health Policy, & More
Date: March 21, 2026
Host: Ben Max at New York Law School
Guest: NYS Senator Gustavo Rivera (Bronx, Chair, Senate Health Committee)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, journalist Ben Max sits down with New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera to unpack the crucial state budget negotiations as the April 1 deadline looms. Their in-depth exchange spans Medicaid and health policy, looming federal challenges, the debate over revenue and tax increases, the governor’s controversial push to amend key climate legislation, support for New York City, mayoral control of schools, auto insurance reform, and more. Senator Rivera candidly describes both the technical and political dynamics shaping New York’s 2026 budget, especially on the health front.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. State Budget Status & Political Dynamics

• Budget negotiations are progressing, with the likelihood of a brief delay beyond April 1 due to overlapping holidays.
  • Quote (B. Rivera, 06:46): “I don't envision this being a long one after that... there's nothing crazy at this moment to report. But, you know, weird things have happened.”
• This year’s budget is seen as a “do no harm” plan, with less contentious policy than in years past—no major criminal justice reform fights.
• Major points of disagreement:
  • Tax increases proposed by the Legislature vs. Governor Hochul’s resistance to new revenue measures.
  • The governor’s push to alter the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA).

2. Medicaid, Health Funding, and Federal Challenges

• Rivera’s top concern: Insufficient state response to significant federal cuts to health care, especially Medicaid and the Essential Plan.
• Over 1.2 million New Yorkers are at risk of losing coverage over the next two years due to federal eligibility changes (notably HR1).
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 13:24): “Starting in July, probably something like 450,000 New Yorkers will lose essential plan eligibility... by the end of 2027, potentially another 800,000.”
• Proposed state responses:
  • Use state-only dollars to extend coverage for those losing the Essential Plan, even if it means modest premiums.
  • Provide premium assistance for marketplace plans.
  • Directly offer Medicaid to more with state funds if federal match is unavailable.
• Need for new revenue, particularly through tax increases on the wealthy, to address health coverage gaps.
• Caution that administrative hurdles (waiting on federal waivers, slow movement of MCO tax money) and conservative fiscal management in the Governor's office slow solutions.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 17:39): “The administration has been conservative… in how much [they spend], not in the ideological sense, but cash management.”

3. Medicaid Scrutiny & Accountability

• Federal investigation underway into New York’s Medicaid for “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
• Rivera counters these accusations:
  • New York's Medicaid is more expensive because it covers more people and services—part of the state’s social contract.
  • While acknowledging possible fraud, Rivera sees federal scrutiny as politically motivated targeting of blue states, not genuine oversight.
  • State oversight is ongoing, with Rivera introducing new legislation ("Oversight of Health Programs Act") to boost accountability for private contractors handling public health funds.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 24:30): “I just introduced a bill... we found that private companies... say, ‘We can’t share that with you, that’s a trade secret.’ That’s not acceptable.”

4. Budget Health Initiatives: Drug Manufacturing & Home Care

• Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act: Modeled after California, letting NY partner with pharma to produce generics (starting with insulin) to save Medicaid dollars and possibly generate revenue.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 30:28): “Think about us selling New York manufactured insulin to other states or to Canada…”
• Home Care Savings and Reinvestment Act: Would eliminate private “partially capitated” long-term Medicaid plans, returning to state-run fee-for-service to save billions and reduce insurance company influence as a model for broader reform (like the NY Health Act).

5. The Climate Law Showdown (CLCPA)

• Gov. Hochul seeks to delay implementation deadlines of the landmark 2019 climate law; both houses resist “watering down” or delay.
• Rivera: Such a consequential topic deserves deliberation outside budget negotiations, not as a last-minute bargaining chip.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 34:39): “This is something that should be done outside of the budget... we should not be rushing this kind of discussion.”
• He questions whether the law is responsible for increased utility costs (it isn’t, per Gov. Hochul herself) and calls for post-budget dialogue.
• Warns against the governor’s strategy of leveraging budget deadlines to pass tough policies.

6. Tax Policy & Revenue Debates

• Rivera (and the Senate) advocate for new revenue, notably increasing taxes on income above $5 million and closing capital gains loopholes, to offset federal cuts and fund critical services.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 39:53): “Not only is it necessary, but it is politically popular… Why is this such a hard sell?”
• Rebuts claims that higher taxes drive the wealthy or business out of state. Data shows more millionaires now than before the last tax increase.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 42:03): “Every study on this issue has shown that rich people don’t leave.”
• The governor remains concerned about retaining high-income individuals and corporate headquarters.

7. Supporting New York City

• The Senate’s “one house” budget proposes over $5 billion in new revenue and funding for NYC, including authorizing higher corporate taxes at the city level.
• Debate continues on whether the state will provide direct aid, allow city tax increases, or require the city to identify local savings.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 45:10): “We are open to the proposals... just above $5 billion... we want to help make the city whole.”

8. Mayoral Control of NYC Schools

• Gov. Hochul and Mayor Mamdani want 4-year extension of mayoral control; Senate left it out of their budget, reflecting mixed feelings within the conference.
• Ongoing discussions about ensuring more parental involvement and possibly codifying this into law.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 48:41): “There are varied opinions within the conference about whether mayoral control is a good thing or not… not a consensus.”
• Class size mandate issues appear to be resolving, but no consensus yet on mayoral control’s future.

9. Other Major Issues

Auto Insurance Reform

• Hochul’s late push for anti-fraud auto insurance reform draws skepticism; concerns center on potential unintended harm to communities of color and gig workers.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 54:41): “Insurance companies are not in the business of charging us less... I’m skeptical about the whole thing.”

Free Bus Pilot Programs

• Rivera is optimistic for localized pilot programs returning, but universal free buses are not imminent.
  • Quote (G. Rivera, 55:30): “We’re going to have some pilot programs come back… not the whole thing, but hopefully a chunk of it.”

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• [05:52] Rivera on his reputation: “I am known in certain circles as a table flipper... but I’ve certainly softened up in my olden age.”
• [13:24] On Medicaid coverage loss: “We’re talking about 1.2 million people who... are at the risk of losing some level of coverage.”
• [22:01] On Medicaid scrutiny: “Offering these services and providing this level of stability is part of what New York is about... If they don’t have any level of coverage... they’re still going to rely on the health care system that we got. And what we got is the emergency room.”
• [30:28] On generic drug manufacturing: “Think about us selling, selling New York-manufactured insulin to other states or to Canada, etc.”
• [34:39] On climate law changes: “This is something that should be done outside of the budget... not with a gun to our head.”
• [39:53] On raising taxes on the wealthy: “It's politically popular. Like, come on, you're running for reelection. Let's go. Let's be a champion for working class people.”
• [42:03] Dispelling tax exodus myths: “It’s a lie. Every study... has shown that the rich don’t leave. We have more millionaires now than then.”
• [45:10] On state aid to NYC: “We're open to the proposals that the city put forward... just above $5 billion... we want to help make them whole.”
• [48:41] On mayoral control: “There are varied opinions within the conference about whether mayoral control is a good thing or not… not a consensus.”
• [54:41] On auto insurance reform: “Why would insurance companies charge us less? The insurance companies are not in the business of doing that.”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Budget Process and Timeline: [06:15–08:47]
• Biggest Issues in Negotiation: [09:01–10:30]
• Health Policy & Medicaid Coverage Loss: [12:17–19:28]
• Federal Investigation of Medicaid: [19:28–24:30]
• Accountability, Oversight, and New Legislation: [24:30–27:50]
• Health Manufacturing & Home Care Reforms: [30:28–33:15]
• Climate Law Showdown: [33:15–38:52]
• Tax Increases & Revenue Debates: [39:53–42:23]
• NYC Fiscal Support: [44:06–46:03]
• Mayoral Control of NYC Schools: [46:03–51:44]
• Auto Insurance Reform: [52:14–54:47]
• Free Bus Pilot: [55:16–55:56]

---

Summary Tone and Takeaways

Senator Rivera marries detailed policy analysis with unabashed progressive politics, employing humor, passion, and transparency about legislative sausage-making. He repeatedly stresses the urgency of protecting vulnerable New Yorkers—especially in health care—by securing new revenue and resisting shortsighted budget shortcuts. He is wary of executive overreach in budget negotiations and skeptical of politically motivated federal interventions or industry solutions that don’t genuinely serve New Yorkers. The conversation, rich in candor and specifics, offers insight for anyone curious about Albany’s most pressing policy and political debates as the 2026 state budget comes down to the wire.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hello and welcome to Max Politics. This is Ben Max coming to you from New York Law School and its center for New York City and State Law. Thanks for tuning in speaking here on Friday, March 20, 2026. And that means we are deep into state budget season. A new state budget is due by the April 1 start of the new state fiscal year, though the budget being negotiated among Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul and the Democratic majorities of the state Senate and Assembly is often late, sometimes extending into late April or even May. Whenever it comes together, the state budget typically includes not only a spending plan this year expected to be around $260 billion or a little above that, but it also includes various policy decisions based on the agenda of the governor and negotiations with the two houses of the Legislature. My guest today is a key figure in budget negotiation. State Senator Gustavo Rivera, a Bronx Democrat, is back on the show. He's chair of the Senate Health Committee and having entered the legislature in 2010, at this point is one of the longest tenured members of the Senate Democratic Conference, which took the majority in 2019 when Rivera then became the Health committee chair. In the conversation ahead, we'll talk about a variety of the health policy and budget areas that Senator Rivera is most focused on in state budget negotiations and beyond. And we'll also touch on other areas of most interest and intense negotiation between the governor and the Legislature, such as changes to the state's major climate law, tax rate debates and state aid to New York City. A potential extension of mayoral control of city schools, which is set to expire in June. And the governor and the mayor are seeking a four year extension of mayoral control for Mayor Mamdani. Also get into the governor's push for auto insurance reform and a variety of other things in the conversation ahead. As always, health care and health policy are major parts of state budget negotiations, especially Medicaid, which is, along with education aid to localities from the state, always one of the two biggest portions of the state budget. In the roughly $260 billion budget, we're expecting state spending on Medicaid, which is a federal federal program administered and partially paid for by the states to provide health care to low income and disabled people. Well, it's expected to be over $40 billion of state spending in that new budget. And there are more than 7 million New Yorkers, more than a third of the state's population that are enrolled in Medicaid. So we'll talk about the state's Medicaid program as well as other New York programs to provide health insurance and health care to New Yorkers and how all of these programs are in pretty significant flux given changes at the federal level, as well as a Trump administration investigation of New York's Medicaid program and other challenges. That and much more on the show today with Senator Gustavo Rivera in just a moment. Very briefly, if you missed any recent episodes of the show, a few highlights include I just had a really good conversation on housing policy with two very smart experts, Howard Slacken of Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Ann Marie Gray of Open New York. Both of them have extensive city government experience and their backgrounds. And we talked a lot about a housing agenda for the Mamdani administration and where the new mayor and his housing team are headed on housing policy. But we also got into one key part of state budget negotiations related to that agenda that Mamdani is invested in, and that's reform to the state's environmental review laws. So I won't go into it further now, but a really good conversation there with Howard Slacken and Anne Marie Gray on housing policy. Also recently on the show, City Council Member Lincoln Ressler. We talked a lot about his push to expand the city streets plan law and also see the law on the books be implemented for bike lanes and bus lanes and pedestrian space. We also got into his legislation to create a city Department of Community Safety, which Mayor Mamdani has promised. And the mayor just announced an Office of Community Safety to get that process started, talked with council member Ressler about that likely announcement that he predicted would happen from the mayor and then how things may go from there to turn a mayor's Office of Community Safety into a Department of Community Safety. And much more in that conversation. Also a few weeks ago now on the show, a really good city budget and economy conversation with New York City Comptroller Mark Levine, who just entered that citywide office at the same time that Mayor Mandani came into office. And then also recently on the show, in recent weeks and months, I've had all three of the major candidates In New York's 7th congressional district primary on the show for extensive conversations. That's Antonio Reynoso, Claire Valdez and Julie Wan and the two major Democratic candidates in the 10th congressional district primary, Congressman Dan Goldman and challenger Brad Lander. Some other good ones in the feed as well, plenty for you to check out if you missed any of those after you listen to this one. All right. I'm very pleased to welcome back to the program New York State Senator Gustavo Rivera, a Bronx Democrat and chair of the Senate's Health Committee Committee, probably one of the most frequent guests on this program over the years, but it's been a little while now since we spoken. Senator, thanks for joining us.

[B]

How are you? I'm doing all right. How many times have I been on?

[A]

I don't know. I'm gonna have to count it up. You're definitely among the top five or eight guests here. Frequency, you know, I feel quite honored.

[B]

Good.

[A]

Well, I appreciate your availability. And we know, we know you like to have a good discussion about what's happening in state politics and government. So part of the reason you've been on frequently, though, is also because you mix it up on the politics side. So you've been, you know, the target of attempts to unseat you and all that stuff, too.

[B]

So you're so elegant in the way that you say that. Yes, I am known in certain circles as a table flipper, but, you know, but the leader does point out Andrea Stewart Cousins, who has been a friend and a mentor for a long time. I used to work for her a long time ago. She has told me that I have certainly softened up in my olden age. So believe it or not, I'm less of a cable flipper now.

[A]

Believe it or not, I've seen a little of that. I think that goes with the territory. Okay. We're speaking here on Friday, March 20, 2026. So we are 10 days from, you know, the end of 11 days from the end of the month. A state budget is supposed to be passed by April 1st. Very often it goes into May. Where are we here in the process of getting to an agreement among the governor and the two houses of the legislature? Where are we as we speak here on March 20th?

[B]

I think we're making some fair progress. I don't, I don't envision us, if I had to call it today, I'd say that probably the first is going to be, probably we're going to go over a little bit, but we are making some fair progress. There's been other years in which at this time I could, I could have told you very clearly, oh, there's no way we're getting done because there's way too many things that are kind of up in the air. This, this budget was never a, was never didn't have anything crazy or, or too, you know, anything in it that it's, it seemed to me like a do no harm budget, which in which in certain term, which is certain ways is disappointing to me. But regardless, I think that we are making good progress and I would not be Surprised if we get it done on or around the first. There are some, there are some, you know, technicalities about the first because there's like a Jewish holiday that kind of crosses over and then we're going to lose some folks at a certain time if we don't get done by a certain time, etc. So there's, yeah, there's something to be thought about that. But I, I, I don't see, I don't envision this being a, a long one after that.

[A]

Yeah, I was going to say April 1st is actually really a deadline of sorts because Passover begins that evening, then you get into Easter weekend right after it. So you're either done by April 1st or you guys are then going on break for at least several days and then coming back.

[B]

So I don't envision and I don't if there is, and we have done this in the past where there have been on, when there has been on paper a break after that, but we have stayed through to be able to finish it. I think if I'm not mistaken, that's what happened last year where there was a, technically we were quote, quote, unquote, a break right after the April 1 deadline. But then we stayed for a couple of extra days and it ate away into our quote, unquote free time. But just, we just needed to get done with the thing. So we will see how it goes. But there's nothing, there's nothing crazy at this moment to report. But, you know, weird things have happened.

[A]

Yeah, well, the smart money is on somewhere in, you know, mid April, I would say.

[B]

Are you, are, are you, are you sponsored by Kelsey perhaps?

[A]

I'm not and I, and I've never used it and I don't bet on New York politics and I wouldn't.

[B]

But that's some inside, that's some inside.

[A]

What is like inside insider trading?

[B]

No, that's not trying to do that either.

[A]

No, this is a public conversation that's going public. So.

[B]

But is this going to be recorded for like.

[A]

Okay, so yeah, I mean the idea of you all being done by April 1st seems far fetched, but also I think ties into the idea that the state fiscal year should be moved. But we won't get into that now. What do you see? So there's no big criminal justice reform debates this year. That's been something that's held up the budget multiple times in the last few years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the, it seems like the biggest issues now are whether there'll be some revenue raising tax increase measures that the governor's mostly been opposed to. The legislature wants to bring in some more revenue. So it's getting to some type of agreement on whether there will be revenue raisers and tax increases in the budget and to what degree, what types of. And now the governor is making, as she has basically every year, one last minute sort of push for something that she has decided as a top priority and this seems to be her interest in adjusting the 2019 State Climate act, the Climate Leadership and Community Protection act, clcpa Am I correct that those are maybe the two biggest buckets of potential disagreement here or would you add anything to that list?

[B]

I would say that you're correct that they're the biggest places that we have disagreements. I would say the thing that I am a little bit more than a bit concerned about and will not be surprised by this is what I view as, as a, there's a lack of response, of real response to the, to the, to the immense cuts that are coming from the federal administration as it relates to healthcare around Medicaid just this year alone. I mean this during this budget year. So the fiscal year obviously from, from you know, to, from April to April and you have in within that budget year you will have not Only the over 450,000 people that are losing some sort of coverage this year, but at least 200,000 more that will very likely use, lose it at the beginning of next year. So that's January, which is within this budget year and we have like somewhere in the neighborhood of like just over like over a million people who have, who will be at risk of losing some of this, some of their coverage within this budget year. And I do not think that there's enough in the budget currently to actually address it. So that's, that's my number one concern. So we're you know, something like over 1 million people potentially at risk by the end of next year because remember there's like the HR one sets different, different, you know, deadlines for changes in eligibility requirements, etc. And they, so they hit at different times, but at least a couple of them are within this budget year. So besides raising taxes on the wealthy. And I've been pretty consistent on this and I absolutely think we should do it. And, and the issue of as you said, the clcpa that, that one is my, that one is my main concern.

[A]

So this is incredibly complicated. But this is your area, the you know, chair of the health committee and without us the weeds of all the health policy. You mentioned the federal law HR1, also known as the one big beautiful bill.

[B]

We not call it that, Max.

[A]

I'm just saying that's what people, people

[B]

better than this, bro.

[A]

You're that there as you're getting at, there's different timelines and new requirements and new thresholds for who's allowed to be covered by federally funded programs and all sorts of details here. So without going into all the weeds of that though, when you say not enough is being done in the budget to account for some of those concerns and some of the hundreds of thousands of people at risk of losing coverage at different points, are there one or two things that you're fighting to be done in this budget that you can explain to people in terms of like what are the things that you, you think some version of X and Y need to be in this budget to help move toward a path of, of ensuring that not that many people lose health coverage?

[B]

So, so it is, it is true that there's a lot of technical jargon here. So I'll just break it down for people real simple. Starting in July, there is there probably something like 450,000 New Yorkers will lose essential plan eligibility. So 450,000 people in January of next year, there's 200,000 more. And by the end of 2027, there are, there potentially could be another 800. So we're talking about 1.2 million people who between today and the end of next year are at the risk of losing some level of coverage. That is an enormous impact because most of these people again will still get sick, will still require health care in some way, shape or form. So I think that there is, that we need to deal with that. So how do we deal with that? We're, we're never going to be able to cover every single one of them. Unfortunately, that's just the reality and I accept that. But because we need revenue to be able to deal with, with identifying the ones that are most vulnerable and be able to protect them. That's why we need to raise taxes. I've been pretty consistent on this. It's one of the things that we need to do. As far as ideas, there's a couple of things that are floating around. We could have. One, there's a couple of ideas. One of them refers to using state only dollars to provide essential plan coverage for those who fall off the program. It could include, this could include a modest premium on these individuals. So it would offset the program a little bit, but it would be cheaper than, you know, than private insurance. So obviously there would be some people would have access to it. There is another one would be to provide premium, premium assistance for individuals to reduce the cost of qualified health plans in the marketplace. So that's also something that we could potentially do. Another one would be just to use state only dollars to provide Medicaid coverage to, to more and we could use state dollars for whatever we want. So we, if we don't get, if we're not seeking a federal match, we can use federal, we can use state dollar for whatever we want. So there's different levels that we can do. But, but the reality is that we're not talking about these options right now. It's as if though these, these folks, you know the, and I know that obviously the governor in the second floor knows this. It's just not something that they want to necessarily deal with right now. There's like words, but there's not enough numbers put into the budget that deals with the fact that again, between now and the end of next year, somewhere like 1.2 million people are very likely to either lose their coverage completely or be at risk of it.

[A]

And that's in the state's essential plan, which is different than Medicaid, where there's millions of other people on that central plan and Medicaid.

[B]

Because when you think about the workforce requirements that are changing next year, these are, these are by default designed by the federal government to kick people off the program. Because if you make it harder for people to stay on, and there's plenty of studies that show this idea that's like when people got to work for their benefits, you're setting up standards that are not, that are very hard to meet to be able to work and not work enough so that you, so you're still eligible, but then do the paperwork that's necessary, et cetera. These workforce requirements are designed to kick people off the program. So based on all of that, there's, there's various organizations like the Community Service Society, the Fiscal Policy Institute and other organizations that have come up with some potential solutions here. The bottom line is that we just have to talk about them and then figure out how much, you know, how much revenue it's going to take to be, to at least be able to cover some of it.

[A]

Right. And what I was getting at is part of the issue is people can't just easily switch from one to the other necessarily given some of the current requirements or past requirements and the shifting requirements to make it, make it more difficult as you're getting at in some ways, at the same time, There, there's federal permissions being sought for certain changes. So I mean, I think that's part of why the Hochul administration has been hesitant to try to put so many numbers to some of these things because they're waiting to see what the federal government allows them to do in terms of shifting programs and shifting people from one program to another other. Is that fair to say?

[B]

That is, that is, that is fair to say. And they've, and they've certainly been. There's some ways in which this administration has been conservative. And when I use that word, I'm not using it in the ideological perspective, but I'm saying from the perspective of cash management. They have been conservative in how much they. For example, I have a sense that there's. You're familiar with the MCO tax. Last year we imposed a tax on mass care organizations that. Long story short, there was a. We only have until the end of this year to. Between last year and the end of this year to collect this, this tax which gives us directly money to actually put into the healthcare system. And there was. We started collecting it last year, but up until the beginning of this year a lot of the money hadn't moved. And even though the money had been collected and had been appropriated, so we knew that we had already negotiated that such an amount was going to go to hospitals, such an amount was going to go to nursing homes, such an amount was going to go to assisted living facilities. And yet the money hadn't really moved. And part of it I have suspect is because the, the administration said we're just going to hold on to it for a second and we're going to send it eventually and they're moving it now because we did poke them and they started to move it, which is good. But so they've been. So it is, it is true to say that sometimes they're, they're a little bit conservative in their efforts to keep to not cash management issues. So yes, the, the idea that we're still waiting for the federal government, we have part of their waiver authority to go back to an earlier version of the essential plan, but we still got to wait for another one from the feds. And under normal circumstances, and I've said it before, this would be a gimme. It would be simple to just get that approval from the federal government, but these are not normal times. So. So they have been somewhat reticent to, to spend money that they already have. And I kind of, you know, kind of know why.

[A]

Well, and at the same time you've got the federal government announcing it's going to is launching an investigation into the state's Medicaid program and looking for waste, fraud and abuse and questions about the degree to which enrollment, spending, all sorts of aspects of New York's Medicaid program are worthy of some scrutiny, according to a number of sources who are wondering about, you know, those expenses and questions about why New York, you know, is, is a pretty significant outlier in its spending on Medicaid. Are you.

[B]

We're outlier A couple of things. First of all, we're an outlier. We're, we're, as you said, an outlier on Medicaid because we have a broader program because we believe in protecting New Yorkers. So when the reason why our program spends a lot more is because we cover a lot more because we know that we have to protect those who are most vulnerable. And so the, so offering these services and providing this level of stability is part of what New York is about. So yes, it does cost more, but it would cost so much more if we provided nothing to these folks because it's not like these individuals who have Medicaid are not going to get sick. This is what people don't seem to understand. It's like unless, and we are going to talk about the New York Health act, by the way, we are going to get there, but we're not there just yet. Right at this moment. People are going to get sick because they are humans. And if they don't have any level of coverage whatsoever, they're still going to rely on the health care system that we got. And what we got is the emergency room. And so which there's still a lot of people that use the emergency room as their primary care. Do you think that's cheap? That's incredibly expensive. Not only that, but it puts people at risk as far as their health. So these investments that we make in the Medicaid system, number one, are because we're a much larger state and we are have, we have a program that provides more. Second, it is true that there might be some fraud, wasted abuse within it, but nowhere near the levels at what the, at what the federal level is alleging and we already have seen. I think the thing is, I don't take the federal government seriously when they say that they want to, they want to use their powers to thoughtfully and intelligently look at a program and see if they can identify wait, fraud, abuse. That's not what they're doing. They're using, they're weaponizing official agencies, whether it's like the, in the federal government, whether it's law enforcement or administratively and they're targeting the, their, their enemies. That is what the administration is doing. We see it and we see that we have a Department of Health. I mean would like Doct Oz. I'm, I'm going to take Dr. Oz seriously.

[A]

I mean I, in some ways you got to take seriously. They have more power.

[B]

Yeah, they have authority. Yes, but I'm not going to take, but I don't think that they have, that they are serious in their effort to weed out or to, to what happened in Minnesota is a clear example of what I'm talking about. They might have been some cases that of, of, of fraud, waste and abuses, they keep saying. But then they use that as an excuse to put a thuggish police force on the ground to actually start attacking the community there, starting to snatch people off of corners. And this is, this is what the, the escalation of ICE was a direct relationship to what, to what the administration claimed was this widespread abuse etc. It tells you what they're, they're, they're telegraphing what they're doing. So in this case they are alleging that there's all this crazy fraud in the state of New York. I do not believe that that is accurate. Do they have an authority to go and look at it? Yes, they do and we're going to have to deal with that. If they ask for documents, we should provide them. If they ask for, you know, if they're going to seek to investigate parts of our program, then they should do so. And, and as you know, and I don't only have a reputation, but I have a, but I have a record, a track record that shows you that I believe deeply in accountability in the system and have done as much as I can to. When I see malfeasance and messed up ness in it that I go out and I do and I, and I try to flip tables over as we talked about earlier. So I have, so I don't think

[A]

you've done that on Medicaid. I mean have there been increased efforts at accountability and Medicaid? Have you held the hearings? Have you done the oversight? I mean you think yes.

[B]

You've not come to my hearings?

[A]

Well, I've, as you know, I'm a generalist. I pay attention to a lot of this. I mean I know there's been, I know there's been obviously and there's annual budget hearings where this is examined and this is a main, you know, focus of, of questions, but it's not just that New York, you know, wants to cover more people. There's all sorts of aspects of the program and per capita spending and different things that are. Again, New York is a pretty big outlier on a variety of fronts when it comes to its program. And two things can be true at once. Like you said, there can be issues that need more examination. And the federal government, this federal government in particular, can be seeking out certain states and certain opponents of the president and so forth for greater scrutiny. That's, you know, should be warranted in other places as well. But those can be true at once, right?

[B]

Yes, they can be true at once. But let's, but let's talk about accountability. So there is, I certainly believe that there's times in which we do not have enough authority as a legislature to actually hold private companies accountable for the, for the type of work. We have a lot of private companies that do work for the state of New York that run some of our programs or aspects of our programs. Therefore, I just introduced a bill. It's a, I forget the way that we officially call it, but I call it the trade secrets bill. We have found in the last couple of years that there's been many instances in which private companies that have literally billions of dollars of state money flowing through them to run public health programs or health related programs. We asked them questions as a legislature in an official capacity and said, hey, could you tell us X or Y? And then all of a sudden they say, we can't share that with you. That's a trade secret. That's not acceptable to me. Particularly when again, billions of dollars flowing through programs that, that, that need more accountability and more oversight. So it's the Oversight of Health Programs act is what it's officially called, and it's a bill that I just introduced just a couple of days ago, and it would give authority to the, to the state, to the, to the legislature. If you're a private company that is looking, that is, that is running programs for the state of New York, then we have the authority to ask you to tell us about that program, how you're spending the money, why you're spending it that way, etc. Etc. You can't just tell us, oh, it's a trade secret. We can't really share that with you. And we're like, okay, do you have to. You have a timeline. You have a timeline to tell us why you're not telling us. You have to break it down. You have, you're obligated. You would be obligated Legally, to provide that information to us. That's, that's a tool of oversight that we haven't, that we haven't had before. That, that I'm, that I'm very much trying to seek. But when we've had to do public hearings on different issues, I've done them, I've done them over the years. Just last year did a, did a, a long hearing on, on the CDPAP program, on the rollout of it and, and issues that I had with it. So, so certainly I think the bottom line is there is, it is true that there's a level I do have to take serious and the state has to take serious. The fact that the federal government is saying we're going to be looking at the Medicaid program, I take that seriously. I just don't think at the same, at the same time, I don't think that they're being serious. I think that they're being, that they're, that they're targeting the state of New York not because of things that they see as far as malfeasance, but because we are a state that stands up to the federal government and resists the federal government and the efforts that they have had of the federal government to, to try to attack our communities, to, to, to scare our communities. They're not acting in good faith. If you're acting in good faith, God bless America. They're not. I don't think that they've demonstrated that

[A]

you are, of course, are tasked in certain ways with your legislative oversight. But in terms of actually uncovering fraud and Medicaid, that's not really your responsibility per se. Right?

[B]

I mean, we have, we have an office to do that, the office of the Medicaid Inspector General.

[A]

And is that office active enough, do you think? I mean, is this going to be a situation where the feds come in and that office and the people who are supposed to have had over sight of it are going to, are going to be like, oh crap, we really should have been on top of this office because it hasn't been doing its job.

[B]

I'm not going to call any governmental office or anything run by humans as perfect. But I would say certainly that Omega has been doing the job over the last couple of years to uncover, to identify when, when fraud has occurred. You know, I, I don't, as you said, I do not have, you know, I'm not an investigator. I don't have the, the authority to, to go and root around. And that's not what I do on my day to day basis. I do have the job of oversight and I take the job seriously. But we do have agencies, both the attorney General's office has a part of their office that looks into Medicaid fraud, and we obviously have the office of the Medicaid Inspector General. Then I do think they have been doing, they have been doing their job. You know, have they caught every single knucklehead? Probably not. But I just don't think that there is a, I have not seen evidence of a widespread, you know what, what the feds are trying to do is to paint any system that serves poor working class people and maybe people of color or immigrant communities in a negative light. That's what they're trying to do. And that's, let's just be clear about that. It's like we can't, it's this, this whole, oh, I want to be a devil's advocate thing, which I'm not necessarily saying you're doing, but people usually, in this moment right now, if someone said, oh, I want to be a devil's advocate, it's like, no, you're being a devil. It's like, let's look at the actual actions of this administration. The federal administration is not acting in good faith. They're not trying, they're not pursuing, I

[A]

mean, again, I'm not arguing with that point. Obviously, from the Department of Justice through the rest of the administration, there's a lot of targeting of, you know, Trump's perceived and real enemies and blue states and no red states and, you know, things like that. But we've talked about this. Well before this federal investigation. You come on, we talk about the budget, we talk about Medicaid spending and reform. And I mean, this is like perennial New York conversation. The federal investigation is another layer on top of that. But this is an area of scrutiny in the New York budget because of the immense expenditure, because of the size of the program and all of that. That is perennially talked about.

[B]

Yeah. And I'm sure that we'll continue to talk about it.

[A]

Yes. So tell me, there's other pieces of the health budget here. I want to get to some other topics with you, but are there one or two other aspects of what you're fighting for in this budget, realistically, things that you're trying to get over the finish line here that your Senate colleagues are supportive of? And the conference then is taking into the negotiations with the assembly and the governor to try to push over the finish line in the health vertical.

[B]

Yeah, two, One, that made it, that made it completely into the into the one house and one that in concept made it into the one house. One which I called the Affordable Drug Manufacturing Act. It is modeled after a bill in California in which they partnered up. The state of California partnered up with a private company, a pharmaceutical company to produce generic drugs, particularly starting with insulin for use for their Medicaid program. So it's like the, there that would be a way for us to produce, to save a whole lot of money to be able to produce generic drugs starting with insulin and potentially moving to other drugs. That's something that made it into the one house. I, I sincerely believe in this, in this bill as a way for us to save money in the long term. We are, it takes a couple years to spin up. California is already, it is already somewhat operational, including their, their potentially even selling some of their insulin to Mexico. Look at that, think about that, think about us selling, selling New York manufactured insulin to other states or to Canada, etc. So that's one thing that made it into the budget. One thing that did not make it into the budget in its, in its entirety, but the concept of it did, and I'm very much pushing forward is something called the Home Care Savings and Reinvestment Act. In very short term, this would eliminate what are known as partially capitated Medicaid long term care plans and replace it, take long term care and switch it back to a fee for service model. And ultimately what this means, this was a product of something that happened back in 2011 called Medicaid Redesign Team or the MRT. So there was a bunch of things that were put into effect that were kind of experiments to how to make the system more cost effective, deliver better care at lower costs, et cetera. This I think was a part that was implemented that should be done away with. And what we're doing here is we would take private companies, again, we take partially capitated Medicaid long term care plans and take them out of the business of providing, of making decisions about long term care. Excuse me. And by doing this, save the state potentially billions of dollars. And one of the reasons that I love this bill is because it would be a case, a case in point. It would be a model case for the idea of excising insurance companies from the process of health care which leads us directly into the New York Health act, the notion that every single person in the state of New York should have healthcare because it's a human right and we could have a system that is cheaper, that is more efficient and that does not have profit at its core. But has the benefit of the patient at its core.

[A]

We will revisit the New York Health act at a future date. It's not going to be part of this budget. So let's, let's put that on hold for now and further discussion, but noted on some of your other budget priorities there. Let me come back to the governor's last minute push here for changes to the state's climate law. The clcpa. She wants to push back the deadlines that were signed into law in 2019 when she was lieutenant governor, passed by the legislature. This is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, transition to clean energy. She basically wants to delay the timeline here and not have as tight a requirement by the 2030 deadline for a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which of course requires a significant bolstering of the state's clean energy capacity. Where is this going to head the legislature? Both houses have been very much against watering down the law and delaying the timelines. But the governor, like I said earlier, usually has one of these things at the end of budget negotiations here where she's got lots of leverage and she pushes something through, whether it's changes to the bail law, the discovery law, the Buffalo Bill stadium deal. Where's this going to head and how do you sort of foresee these negotiations unfolding over these last however long it is before a state budget deal is in place.

[B]

Yeah, but first, first and above all, just on principle and things like this. This is a complicated issue. We should deal with this outside of the budget. I have been pretty consistent on the fact this is not this, this is not about this, Governor. It's just about the way that the structure works in the state. York, the governor has an outsized level of power, which is the reason why I think we should amend the constitution to kind of equalize it with the state legislature. But that's another discussion for another day. Bottom line is that during the budget there is the idea that there is, there is the power the governor has to just put something, even if it's a last minute thing and just say like, well, you're gonna, you're gonna include it along with everything else and y' all gotta go thumbs up or thumbs down. That's the only thing that we can do. I think that something as complicated and as consequential as this needs to be discussed outside of the budget. The CLCPA was not something that just came together over a fortnight. We're talking about something that was negotiated, that was fought over, that was fought for for years and years and years. And we have something that we have to and I think that we have to have a, a real discussion because this, this is, this is, we're talking about a consequential piece of legislation. This is a consequential piece of legislation getting the state of New York, one of the biggest and most important states in the nation, to set the standard for what emissions should be, for how we should switch some of our public utilities, et cetera, et cetera, to kind of make it so that we have a state that spends less energy, that is more efficient. And all these things are incredibly important. This is something that should be done outside of the budget. And we're talking about. We should not be rushing this kind of discussions. Like if the biggest concern and the governor expressed says that the biggest concern that she has is that the cost of utilities will increase significantly, that's a fair concern. But the fact is the CLCPA has not actually gone into effect and utility cost, utility bills have already been going up. So one thing is not necessarily tied to the other. Right. So it. Right.

[A]

She's even acknowledged the CLCPA is not the cause of the of recent increases, but she's worried that this timeline would mean more increases.

[B]

The timeline then needs to be post April. Let's have a real conversation post April. I do not believe that this is something that should be determined now.

[A]

And I that's all fair, but this is obviously a strategy by her. Right. She, she has been readying to do this for a while. She chose to not make this really clear in her proposal until March 20, similar to some of the other examples I mentioned of past years. Right. So this is, this is clearly going to be the thing. She's willing to hold up the budget and exercise her leverage because once the budget deal is done, she has virtually no leverage.

[B]

I, first of all, I disagree. I think that we have, we have for many years. We've kind of just looked at that she still has the leverage of being a damn governor like we the but

[A]

if she wants the legislature to change a law, she.

[B]

Because the outside. No, she can't do that. But check this because of the fact that we've just taken as a given that there's this outsized power. But during the budget, it's as if though the governor doesn't exist for the rest of the, for the rest of the budget year, we still got to negotiate with her to get our bill signed, bro. Whether it's the, whether it's the budget or not. So the governor still has the authority and not only that she has to implement the thing. So that's her executive agencies that do that. So there's a whole bunch of leverage that she still has because she's a governor outside of the budget. I don't think that this is the moment. If we're gonna. There's there. I'm just hoping that, you know, I'm not the person at the table. Obviously. This is the type of thing that certainly gets decided between the speaker, the governor and the majority leader. And I trust that the majority leader will carry our voice as she always has. She will carry that voice ably in that conversation. The Senate has a very strong position on this issue. We have. We voted on it. We voted on it almost unanimously. We believe strongly that this is something that we need to do. If there's tweaks that need to be made to it, we're certainly open to it. But not during. Not, not with a gun to our head. Just not. And I'm hoping that this is not what, you know, that that grinds everything to a halt. I have not heard it. I have not heard that to be the case yet, but I hope it's not.

[A]

And both houses of legislature, unlike the governor, put a billion dollars into funding to try to advance clean energy projects into their one house proposal. And there's obviously other questions about. But again, one of the things the governor points to is that you now have a federal government that's pretty hostile towards clean energy projects. The state has been having to sue the federal government to even finish these wind farm projects that were almost done or on the pathway. So there's a lot of unknowns and variables. There is the question of maybe again adding some of that funding in the state budget to help advance some of those projects. What is your sort of forecast here on these, on these revenue raisers and these tax increases? This is obviously something where there. It's also tied to help from the state to the city of New York and its budget challenges. Where is this going to land? The governor seems adamant. She doesn't want to do any income tax increases.

[B]

Often she softened. She's. There is a statement that she made just in the last couple of days that said that tells me that she softened up a bit. But look, this is where we are. It is not only absolutely necessary to have more revenue from the state, and I'll remind everybody that my bill on capital gains is. Is one that would generate up to $12 billion of new revenue right now. Rich people are not like you and me. They do not make their Money from a job. Our checks get taxed at a certain rate because we make money from income. But if you make capital gains, which is where most rich people make their money from, they do not get taxed at the same rate, even though they make so much more money than us. Let's just do that. And how about the fact that they're already getting a break from the federal government, even if we just hold them steady. So whatever it is that the federal government's break that they give them, we actually take that money for the state and not give it to the feds. That would. They would still be filthy rich and we would still. And we would have more revenue. But look, so not only is it necessary because of the immense cuts that we're getting from the federal government, but it is politically popular. This is the one thing that's just like. It is like me run up against a damn wall. Why is this such a hard sell? Just look at the democratic population. Just look. Not even Democrats. Just straight, straight up and down. This is incredibly politically popular. So not only is it necessary as far as policy, but politically it's popular. Like Congo, you're running for reelection. Let's go. Let's be a champion for working class people in the state of New York. Let's raise taxes on the wealthy. Come on, let's do it. I want to stand right by you. Raise your hand, we're winning. Let's go.

[A]

To be clear, most of the discussion in the legislature is on increasing personal income taxes. People making over $5 million and more per year.

[B]

Just make more than 5 million, bro.

[A]

Not currently, but I don't think I

[B]

made more than 5 million my entire.

[A]

But the governor seems to have very sort of deeply held beliefs that she's concerned about high income, high worth individuals. I know, I know. There's not a lot of.

[B]

It's a canard. It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie. It's a lie. Every study that has told you, every study that has been made on this issue has shown that the rich people don't leave. You know, the last time that we raised tax in the state of New York a few years ago, guess what? We got more millionaires now than then. Let's not keep buying into this bull crap.

[A]

All I'm saying is that there's a tipping. There's a tipping point potentially. And also she's concerned on the corporate side about. And again, there's very real evidence on some of this that there's companies expanding in other States with lower tax environments. Rather than expanding in New York, there's companies expanding in New York, of course, there's headquarters being built in the city especially. You know, it's not like this is some crisis situation. But again, she has some very seemingly real, deeply held concerns that it's not just about what's politically popular. To your point, the polling shows that increasing these taxes is popular, especially among Democrats, but that she's got some real beliefs there that companies and individuals, you know, would be potentially looking at the exits or again, not necessarily expanding at the potential rates they would otherwise if, if the rates were different. But where is this heading where we're living?

[B]

The people that are living the state of New York are not the wealthy. They're working class folks and, and middle class folks that can't afford to stay here. That is. So we need to make it so that they can stay and that they have the support structures that are necessary for them to be able to stay. So your question is, how possible is it? Well, some of us are going to continue making noise, are going to continue pushing and are continue flipping tables over. See, we're getting back to the beginning. I started there, I'm ending there. I'm going to continue flipping the table over. We need this. The state of New York needs this. It is politically popular. We need more revenue to be able to provide stability for our folks and to be able to do more. So we need to do it and we can't do all of it. Great. We can't do all of it, but we got to do some of it.

[A]

What is the Senate fighting for to help New York City? In your one House budget, you got a particular list that was put out. New York City directly provide over $5 billion in revenue and funding by allowing the city to increase its corporate tax rates, variety of other revenue raisers for the city. Are there anything you can share in terms of where those conversations are going and sort of the degree to which funding for the city is being prioritized? Because obviously there's this, this question of Mayor Mamdani is threatening to raise property taxes in the city. That seems unlikely no matter what because there's virtually no one that's come out in support of that idea. And he's even said he doesn't want to do it, but he's freaking a whole lot of people out by threatening it. But then there's the question of is the state going to authorize tax increases to help the city with its budget situation, or is the state just going to provide Some more funding through the state and then also say to the city, you got to find some more savings locally.

[B]

I think that there's, I think that there's a little bit of this and a little bit of that. It is true that some of us, that some of my colleagues and myself included are certainly nudging the city to see places that potentially savings could be found. I do not believe in austerity or in cutting, but there might be places where savings can be found. And certainly having that conversation is important. But we are open to the proposals that the city put forward to, to the tune of something just above $5 billion, I think is the proposal that they put forward to be able to close the gap. We're certainly open to that and we'll be having conversations with them over the next couple of weeks. We know how, how important it is for the city to have some level of stability. And in the state Democratic, the Senate Democratic Conference certainly wants to help that happen. So we're going to be finished having those conversations with the city over the next couple of weeks to make sure that we can make them whole.

[A]

As much as one of the other things the mayor wants that the governor put in her budget is an extension of mayoral control of New York City schools. The governor proposed a four year extension. This is obviously something where Mayor Mamdani has, has changed his mind as he actually became mayor. Funny how that happens. I just, there is, there is tape by the way of me throughout the mayoral campaign saying he was going to change his mind on that.

[B]

But, but cowsy, bro, you should have gone to ca.

[A]

What, where's the appetite in the Senate? Obviously some of this is tied in with Senator John Lew and obviously I can ask him. You don't have to speak for him. Expressing, expressing some openness to also loosening up, Speaking of loosening up some state requirements, the class size law perhaps giving the city a little more leeway in meeting those reduction targets because again of the expense attached. Mayoral control being extended previously under Eric Adams was tied to more efforts to meet the class size mandates. Because folks at the state level, including Senator Lew, are getting very frustrated with Mayor Adams pushback on that. Where are we in those conversations? Why won't the Senate just give the new mayor an extension of mayoral control? Why does this have to be either an every year, every two years bargaining chip here, here?

[B]

Well, first of all, this should be another post budget issue. This is another one that kind of, that probably requires something that's a little bit, that requires a little bit more space than what the, the, the budget crunch allows. That being said, the, the position of the, as you saw, the position of the Senate was that we did not include it in the one house. And the reason we did not include the four year extension of the one house is because there are varied opinions within the conference about whether mayoral control is a good thing or not. That is not a, that's not secret. That's constantly been there. Also there is. There was the, the, the issue of, of class sizes, which I believe is something that for the most part has been resolved. In other words, there have been conversations about commitments of the city to be able to fulfill its. To fulfill its duty there and again, you should definitely talk to John about it because he's been deeply involved in it. But it's my understanding that those conversations have happened and they've been very productive and very positive. So it looks like that is going to be. The city's committed to fulfilling that commitment,

[A]

but with some loosening of the requirements.

[B]

I don't know if that's the case. You should talk to John about the details. But the, the conversations have not. Been. Have not been combative. I'll just say that it was like from my understanding, right, the mayor is

[A]

supportive of the class size law.

[B]

So, so, so, so the sort of. But as far as the mayoral control is concerned, there's many of us who have been. I mean, I've been kind of on the fence about it for years and I've always thought that, that there. Although I was not. I certainly was not around with the school board system. I've heard enough about it that, that, that certainly there, there needs to be going back to it overnight. So letting this expire so that, that technically that's what would happen. It would automatically go back to the old system is not something that I think we should. We could abide. But I've always been concerned about the lack of parental involvement in the, in what the. In what the system involved when mayoral control kind of is really, you know, unilateral as opposed to trying to be more cooperative. I'm not the biggest voice in the conference on this. I'll be honest. I've always been. I've always been reticent on Mayo control, but not like not banging the wall or against the. Or banging my fist against the table for or against. There are some folks in my conference who certainly are to do so on either end of it, which again is the reason why we didn't have. We didn't agree with the four year position, but it's being, it's being. There's conversations right now. I do not see it being an enormous, you know, obstacle to us getting a budget done. But. But again, I am always been. I will repeat that this is one of those issues. Clcpa. This should be things that we discuss off budget.

[A]

Last couple things for you. I know I gotta let you go, but I mean, let me just say also on that, I mean, Senator Lew is one of those who has had a similar position where he's skeptical of mayoral control and has concerns. But again, you know, even the people who have skepticism, nobody's offering another plan, nobody puts forward another proposal. Nobody wants to go back to the old school board system. And it's kind of like we just hold on.

[B]

Nobody's putting before. Nobody's saying we should go back to the old school system. Some people might, I don't. But we, but some of us are proposing, at least generally speaking, that there needs to be more parental involvement. Like.

[A]

But there is.

[B]

And the things need to be codified because that's the thing. I am obviously the last that I, it is pretty clear where I felt about the last mayor. I think I made that pretty clear over and over again. And I'm a big fan of this mayor. But I still think, regardless of the mayor, there's things that should be in statute or at least in regulation that establish the. As it would establish what the parameters are as far as parental involvement. And I just don't think that this necessarily has the. So that's so.

[A]

Well, you guys last time added members to the panel for educational policy, and, you know, you did some tweaks to, to try to already, you know, do some of that. But obviously there's room for codifying more that. There's also room, by the way, for, you know, letting the city council have more say here, like on every other issue in the city and not having it be a state, a state thing every, you know, year, two years, maybe

[B]

it's not a popular opinion. I'd be open to that, that I'd be open to that.

[A]

Because, I mean, I'm not saying that that's the right answer because the city council could gum plenty of stuff up too, or, or whatever.

[B]

But it's, but this, but this is what I'm saying, like, that they're, they're different. They're differing opinions on this. And it's like, and again, I'll just, I'll wrap it up by saying in this particular issue, on this, as is clear, we do not have a consensus right now, there certainly wasn't a consensus that we wanted to agree with the position of the governor that we needed to expand it for four years. There's a reason why, excuse me, it didn't make into the one house. So there's conversations right now from folks that are far more knowledgeable and involved in the, in the whole thing, as I am, than I am on how it should look.

[A]

Last thing, the governor is making a very big push on this auto insurance reform issue. She's saying, speaking of fraud, there's way too much fraud in auto insurance. It costs the MTA tens of millions of dollars a year because the MTA gets sued when a bus is involved, even if it's not the bus's fault. All sorts of issues. There seems to be skepticism from the legislature. Do you have a sense of where that's heading and if there is an appetite? I mean, this seems like one of the things where the governor has made it such a priority. It could also be one of these final things where she's really holding out for a deal. What do you, what do you, where do you think that's headed? Because the, again, both houses didn't really get on board with this.

[B]

I think there's obviously conversations that we can have about anti fraud measures. But I understand some of the concerns. I mean, the opposition, it's not some, this is, again, because I've been so deep into the health stuff, I haven't digged to this proposal. But from my understanding, the opposition of the proposal, there are folks who feel that it may affect communities of color and workers, including taxi delivery or rideshare drivers if they suffer injuries when they were work. I think that we need to take all this into account. I'm a car, I'm a, I'm a car owner myself. Yeah, I'm a car owner myself. I wasn't before I became a guy. Before I became a senator, I had, I lived in New York from 98. From 98 when I moved here from Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico, you need a car to get a, to get a gallon of milk. You can't, you can't walk everywhere. It's crazy. But then I got to New York and I loved it. And I could walk everywhere, take a cab or a bus, whatever, or train. And then when I became a senator, I had to get a car. So I have a car and I got new one a couple years ago, an electric one, by the way. But anyway, so I, I certainly, so I certainly feel the pitch of the, of, of the, of the insurance of the insurance monster, if you will. I was, I would just want to make sure that as we're, as we're having the conversation that we don't, you know, that we're thoughtful about how we do it so that it's not just like, oh, so this is, there's the promise that we will pay less for insurance. What exactly does that mean? Like, what it, what is what is being ultimately changed to supposedly allow that to automatically happen? I don't. Why would insurance companies charge us less? The insurance companies are not in the neighbor. I'm not in the business of doing that. You know, the governor.

[A]

The governor, yeah.

[B]

I'm skeptical about the whole thing. I have to take a deeper dive into the, into the issue.

[A]

So the governor has mechanisms in her proposal that she says would account for that. Right. If you, if you reduce, you know, if you, if you put new requirements in around, you know, what can be what, what, you know, what opens the door to litigation and certain claims that there would, there would be requirements for how those savings would have to be factored in. Anyway. Senator Gustavo Rivera, thank you for the time. Always appreciate it.

[B]

Absolutely. And I got, I got to sing in your, in your, in your podcast.

[A]

Well, we, we always, always want to hear your, your vocals. Very yes or no, will there be any free bus return to a free bus pilot in the state budget deal? The Senate sort of said so.

[B]

There's like, listen, I was asked the other day and, and there's some people have called me and said, like you said we were going to have it. I was asked the city and state thing the other day political. We're going to have it, whether we were going to have it by next year. And I said no. What I meant is that we're not going to have Universal by next year. I think that we're going to have some pilot programs come back. So parts of the city, yes, we're not going to have the whole thing up and running by next year, but we're going to have a, hopefully we have a chunk of it. I'm a big believer in it.

[A]

All right. Because the mayor hasn't even been pushing that hard for it publicly at least. So that's interesting. Okay. Senator Gustavo Rivera, thanks for all the time and thoughts and stay in touch.

[B]

Will do. Take care.

[A]

Take care. It.