Politics Unusual - Andrea Stewart-Cousins on NY State Budget, income cap for legislators delayed again

Welcome to Politics Unusual. I'm Morgan Mackay. The New York State budget process finally wrapped

up almost 40 days late. It is the largest state budget in New York State history coming in at

around $254 billion, which is $100 billion more than it was just 10 years ago. We're going to get

into all the details with our first guest, State Senate Majority Leader, Andre Stewart-Cousins

And then we'll break down two budget items that will impact lawmakers and their campaigns with Rachel Foss from Reinvent Albany

But before we get into big picture items, let's take a look at some bills that were slipped into the budget that could impact you at home

This includes provisions that will lower the minimum hiring age for New York State correctional officers from 21 to 18 years old with some limited responsibilities until they turn 21

eliminate the lieutenant governor primary and allow governor and lieutenant governor candidates

to run on the same ticket, install work zone speed cameras to MTA bridges and tunnels

require artificial intelligence companion robots, yes, robots, to tell their users they're not human

and to follow a protocol if the user expresses interest in self-harm

and require that companies make it easier to cancel unwanted subscriptions. Now, to dive deeper with us into the budget, joining us is New York State Senate Majority

Leader Andra Stewart-Cousins. Thank you for being here. I really appreciate it

Really good to be with you, Morgan. Thank you. So as you well know, the budget was the latest budget in 15 years

What made this year particularly difficult when it came to negotiations? Well, I mean, there were, as I said at the beginning, there were a good number of policies

that the governor wanted to address in this budget. And they weren't easy issues to address

All of them included a lot of different aspects, different groups of people who are interested in a lot of different things

And so it took a while to get through a lot of the policy, as well as the budgetary items themselves

with the kind of uncertainty that we have in Washington, prioritizing what was important

what would really help our New Yorkers, our working families, people who needed some security

how best to resolve those needs as well. So it did take a long time, but at the end

I think we were able to support children and family and education and housing and our environment

We made our criminal justice reforms and really, again, focused on things that we know New Yorkers want us to focus on

Yes. So one of the big items in the budget is the MTA is getting $68.4 billion over the next five years

There's going to be a payroll mobility tax increase on large New York City employers

Now, this is the MTA's largest ever capital plan. How are you guys going to ensure that the MTA finishes its projects on time, on budget

and assure New Yorkers we're not just throwing billions more dollars into a black hole

Well, you know, the MTA has understood, even in terms of our waiting, in order to be together

the governor, the assembly, the senate to figure out how best to deal with this capital project

Yes, it is the largest, but unfortunately, there have been so many decades of neglect to the

infrastructure underfunding that we are at this place where we need to make sure that our rails

are safe, that New Yorkers are getting the best experience possible, a safe experience

So we will continue our oversight with the MTA and of the MTA

But in the meantime, we realize that this is also the economic lifeblood of not only

New York City, but New York State. So it has to be safe. It has to be modern

It has to be updated. And we could not continue to ignore the fact that these things needed to happen, although

So again, over several decades, there were lots and lots of delays in actually investing in the infrastructure

So we will continue oversight and we will continue to work in partnership

But again, having a good system that delivers people to their work, et cetera, is the only way that we continue to lead, not only in the nation, but in the world

Now one of your colleagues Senator James Skoufis was on the floor the other day and he gave a fiery speech speaking about just how the budget process works And he accused Governor Kathy Hochul of acting like a monarch And so for our viewers how the budget process works is the governor proposes a budget and lawmakers have to work within the framework of this budget somewhat

And she holds a lot of power in this or power in this process. We're going to play the soundbite and then I'm going to get your reaction in just a moment

The governor has the ability, the never-ending ability, to offer demands. We have the ability to offer suggestions

The great news here is that we don't have to take up arms in a revolution

to break the shackles from a monarchy here. This process is undemocratic

It is deeply, deeply broken. You've been doing this for a long time, Senate Majority Leader

Do you think the process is broken? You know, the process has been the process for a very, very long time

For me, I make sure that my conference is involved in the conversations from the outset

Yes, the governor does have the majority of the power in the budget process

That can only be changed by a constitutional amendment, and that would take years

and the people would have to decide that they want to change the structure of how this works

So that is years out if it were to happen at all

So right now, as I've said from, again, from the very beginning of working with this governor

I have found that we are usually rowing in the same direction

We understand the importance, again, of the environment of housing, of education, of public safety, of child care

and taking care of our veterans and our vulnerable populations. So what we have to spend time on during these budgets is making sure that we get it right

So it can be frustrating. Obviously, it was frustrating for Senator Skoufis

It was a difficult process. It was a long process. But it is, again, a process that, in contrast to Washington, frankly, yielded results that, again, reemphasize the fact that we do want to feed our children

And so we are providing school meals. We do want to make sure our veterans get the services they need

We're providing the largest middle class tax cut in 70 years. We are taking care of small businesses by paying off their unemployment benefit debt

We are finding ways to invest more in our environment. We've decided that it's now important to create a housing access voucher program

We have invested in creating more affordable housing, helping homeowners. I can go on and on

So we have centered the people of New York and the expectations that they have in this budget

So, again, I can't I can't tell you that we'll be changing the Constitution, but I will tell you we'll continue to remain focused on trying to do the things New Yorkers need

Now, there was a provision tucked into the budget that will create a 10 million dollar legal defense fund for state officials to draw on

And if they're investigated by the Trump administration. Now, some are saying that this was aimed to protect Attorney General Letitia James, who's reportedly being investigated for alleged mortgage fraud

Now, she has denied that. But is this legal defense fund aimed or created with her in mind

You know, it is created with the environment that we are in in mind

We do see a lot of moves in the current administration that looks to investigate people who have investigated people and so on

I think it's important to note that in the course of our jobs, and certainly some of the jobs in government

we are usually defended in the course of the work that we do and that is is normal because this is

an unusual time this money is set aside but again it has to be determined in this case say if it

were to be helpful to the attorney general would have to be determined by the governor that this

was appropriate and vice versa the other thing uh is that it is reimbursement so the money is set

aside, but it is only reimbursable if indeed the person is found innocent. So it is not just here's

here's money, go defend yourself. It is defend yourself. And if you're found to be innocent and

that this was as they call it lawfare then you will be reimbursed Now as you know there is an existing law already on the books that requires taxpayers to cover the legal fees of New York officials if they face litigation related to something that happened on the job and they win But former Governor Andrew Cuomo has spent million

of taxpayer money for his legal fights. Some of your colleagues have expressed interest in creating

a cap or limits on this sort of fund. What do you think? Well, I think we have certainly in this

House tried to change the way that is. So, I mean, I certainly support the idea of doing that

but we have not been successful. Thank you so much, Senator Majority Leader. Thank you for

coming on. I really appreciate it. It was great seeing you, and I look forward to having you back

on very soon. It is always good to see you. Take care. You too. Coming up, mixing business and

politics. Good government watchdog groups are raising the alarm over two bills they say

will increase transparency in the state legislature. Stay with us. Welcome back. In 2022, state lawmakers passed a bill that would limit how much money state

lawmakers can earn outside of their government paycheck. It was set to go into effect on January

1st, 2025, but was held up by court challenges. Although a judge has ruled in favor of the outside

income cap, state lawmakers have decided to delay it again. So joining me now is Rachel Foss with

Reinvent Albany, a good government watchdog group. Thank you so much for being here. Happy to be here

So tell me a little bit about this delay again. Now, this is being pushed back to 2027

Correct. So this was a last minute addition into a very, very late budget. Unfortunately

probably one of the most self-serving things the legislature could do in this late budget

This outside income ban wasn't good enough from our perspective. It wasn't strong enough

and it's being delayed yet again. So it really is, you know, it's unfortunate because New Yorkers

I think, deserve legislators that work just for them. What were you told as a reason to why this

is being delayed again? Is it because the court date wasn't fixed, the court ruling, excuse me

wasn't decided until earlier this year? So the law was passed in 2022. It was supposed to go

into effect in 2025. The theory with that was that the legislators who were running for office

would know what the rules were, so they would know what the rules were in place for when they ran

But unfortunately, the pay increase went into effect, and there's no outside income cap of any

meaningful level right now. So, you know, I think the idea is for the next election cycle to pass

and then the outside income limit to go into effect. But that's just further delay where

legislators are earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in outside income from clients that they

may not have the same interests as the public. So help explain, you know, from people arguing

well, we want people like business owners to run for office and be able to return back to their

business. That way we don't have career politicians. What do you guys say to people who make that

argument? So we think the congressional model is the best model. There's a 15% cap on outside

income so they can retain some. But there's also bans on having clients where you have a fiduciary

interest for that client. That means there's that tension. Do you serve your clients or do you serve

your constituents? So it bans certain professions like lawmakers or maybe real estate agents

for example. So there's better place, there's better restrictions to put in place than what

the lawmakers passed and are still not in effect. And that would strike the right balance in our

minds. Perfect. So one more bill passed that will increase the limit on donations to be eligible for

public funds. Now, previously, candidates could have donations up to $250, and that was matched

by public dollars. And this is sort of a new thing for the state to be doing right now

But now that limit was being raised to $1,050, but the state will only still be providing that

$250 match. Is that correct? Yes. So the state, for the first time in 2024, the public matching

system went into effect. It was designed as a small donor matching system. So that means people

who are only able to donate $250 would get the match, not people who can make larger contributions

like $1,000 or more. And that was balanced with the fact that we have really large contribution

limits in New York state State senators can raise for their campaigns Assembly member 6 That higher than the New York City races we seeing going on now So the balance with that was to have a small donor matching program But now the new change will allow bigger donations

to be matched and we don't think that fits the spirit of the program at all

Yeah, the whole point of it was to be, get small donors from lots of different areas. Exactly

Perfect. Rachel, thank you so much for being on here. I know you'll be on top of it and I appreciate you

and look forward to having you coming on back soon. Thanks so much. Thank you

Now, coming up, we're headed to New Jersey. Find out what they have to say about a controversial affordable housing mandate in the Garden State up next

For this week's Pulse of the People, we went to Secaucus, where we asked residents about a topic

that has some watchdog groups targeting New Jersey representatives, and that is whether

members of Congress should be able to trade stocks while in office. Recently, President

Donald Trump said that he would be open to signing a law that would ban representatives from trading stocks. Supporters of a congressional stock trading ban say that some members

have profited off their inside knowledge to how the markets might swing

And a new super PAC is ramping up pressure to have the law signed by targeting certain members of Congress, including New Jersey representatives

So here's what some residents had to say about the issue. It's theft

Saying they got the back door. And saying they make money, they become millionaires overnight

And we got poorer and poorer. So I don't think it's a fair system

Not at all. I would like to protect them from themselves, from the greed

So maybe have your stocks traded by somebody else. But just to protect you, no, you shouldn't trade

You have too much insider information that you're not going to reveal to us. And lead us not into temptation

Another issue in the minds of New Jersey residents, the state's new affordable housing mandate for the suburbs

27 towns in New Jersey are contesting the state's affordable housing mandate

The town claims the mandate violates the state's constitution. We asked New Jerseyans, should there be affordable housing mandates in suburban communities

Of course they should have affordable housing. Why? Why? Housing is not affordable even for the rich today

Obviously people need housing, affordable housing. I'm all for it, but it has to be in a manner that, you know, coincides with the way that we all live and would like to live together in harmony

And we want to hear from you. If you have an opinion on these topics, scan the code on your screen

That's going to take you to our website, fox5ny.com, where you can type in your answer

Thank you for your responses. Last week, we'll continue to check in with people across our area

Next up, we're going to be testing your knowledge of the tri-state region. So stay with us as we take a look at some political history

Now to a political flashback. In May of 1904, the first mass rent strike in New York City happened

And approximately 2,000 families initiated the strike, which protested rent increases amid a housing shortage

The movement successfully halted many of the proposed rent hikes and set a precedent for tenant activism in the city

Finally, tonight, we're going to be testing your knowledge. Last week, we asked you what arcade game was banned in New York City for 30 years

It's not Pac-Man. The answer, the pinball machine. Back in 1942, Mayor LaGuardia initiated the ban, claiming pinball to be a form of gambling since early machines lacked flippers, making them reliant on chance

The ban was eventually lifted in 1976 after a pinball expert, Roger Sharp, demonstrated in court that the game required skill, not just luck

Now to this week's question, what was the original name of Times Square

Here's a hint. It's not the crossroads of the world. Now, don't Google the answer

But if you want to take a shot at it, go ahead and scan the code on your screen. That's going to take you to our website, fox5ny.com, where you can type in the answer

Then check back here next week to see if you're right. That does it for this week's episode of Politics Unusual

Thank you so much for joining us. I'm Morgan Mackay. We look forward to having you back here next week