Skip to main content

Kathy Hochul

Hochul campaign releases response to Corwin statements during today's 'debate'

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

Today's debate highlighted the clear differences between Kathy Hochul and Jane Corwin on a number of issues, including Medicare, NAFTA, Taxes, and Big Oil.

JANE CORWIN ON MEDICARE

Jane Corwin: "This is not a voucher system."
-WGRZ/Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Debate, 05/12/11

Corwin: I Would Have Voted For The 2012 House Budget

In a campaign statement, Corwin said she would have voted for the 2012 Republican budget.

“As a member of Congress, I would have voted both for this week’s plan to cut $38 billion and for the 2012 House budget resolution passed today,” Corwin said. [Capital Tonight, Jane Corwin Statement, 4/15/11 <http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/04/corwin-i-would-have-voted-yes/> ]

Wall Street Journal: Republican Budget Would Essentially End Medicare

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Republican plan “would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/04/11 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240751124518520.html> ]

Alan S. Blinder: Republican Plan Threatens To Eviscerate Medicare

Alan S. Blinder, a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, said the Republican plan “threatens to eviscerate Medicare by privatizing it—with vouchers that, absent some sort of cost-control miracle, would fall further and further behind the rising cost of health insurance.” [Wall Street Journal, Alan S. Blinder Column, 4/19/11 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576270832244940992.html> ]

AARP: Premium Support System Would Dramatically Increase Costs For Medicare Beneficiaries

According to the AARP, the changing Medicare to a “premium support system would dramatically increase costs for Medicare beneficiaries while removing Medicare’s promise of secure health coverage—a guarantee that future seniors have contributed to through a lifetime of hard work.” [AARP, 4/19/11]

St. Petersburg Times: Seniors Would Have To Pay About $6,400 More

According to the St. Petersburg Times, under the Republican proposal for Medicare, “seniors would have to pay about $6,400 more than if the program were not changed, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.” [St. Petersburg Times, 4/22/11 <http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/medicine/proposed-medicare-cuts-bring-out-political-swords/1165237> ]

JANE CORWIN ON NAFTA

Jane Corwin, asked directly if she supports NAFTA, refuses to answer.
-WGRZ/Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Debate, 05/12/11

 

Financial Services Roundtable Supports The South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Deal

In April, The Financial Services Roundtable hosted a fundraiser for Corwin in Washington, D.C. [Roll Call, 4/27/11]

In December 2010, the Financial Services Roundtable issued a statement in support of the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. [The Financial Services Roundtable, 12/03/10]

Financial Services Roundtable: Colombia Free Trade Agreement Is Good For Economy

In 2008, the Financial Services Roundtable supported the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

“The Financial Services Roundtable supports the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement and believes it is an important step in strengthening American trade.” [Financial Services Roundtable, 4/07/08]

Financial Services Roundtable Supported NAFTA

In 1993 the Financial Services Roundtable, then known as the Bankers Roundtable, supported NAFTA, saying “NAFTA is demonstrably in the national interest.” [Bankers Roundtable, 11/15/93]

JANE CORWIN ON TAXES FOR MULTI-MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES

Jane Corwin wants to cut taxes for multi-millionaires and billionaires
-WGRZ/Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Debate, 05/12/11

Corwin: I Would Have Voted For The 2012 House Budget

In a campaign statement, Corwin said she would have voted for the 2012 Republican budget.

“As a member of Congress, I would have voted both for this week’s plan to cut $38 billion and for the 2012 House budget resolution passed today,” Corwin said. [Capital Tonight, Jane Corwin Statement, 4/15/11 <http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/04/corwin-i-would-have-voted-yes/> ]

Republican Budget Would Cut Taxes For Wealthy Americans

According to the Chicago Tribune, the 2012 Republican budget would “cut taxes for wealthy Americans.” [Chicago Tribune, 4/22/11]

Wall Street Journal Column: Budget Cuts Would Overwhelmingly Benefit The Rich

According to a column in the Wall Street Journal by Alan S. Blinder, the budget cuts in the 2012 Republican budget would overwhelmingly benefit the rich.

“How many Americans know that 72% of Mr. Ryan’s claimed budget cuts would go to fund tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the rich?” [Wall Street Journal, Alan S. Blinder Column, 4/19/11 <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703916004576270832244940992.html?mod=googlenews_wsj> ]

JANE CORWIN ON SUPPORTING BIG OIL

Jane Corwin says she supports cuts to oil subsidies, but the TRUTH is...
-WGRZ/Rochester Democrat & Chronicle Debate, 05/12/1]

Corwin: I Would Have Voted For The 2012 House Budget

In a campaign statement, Corwin said she would have voted for the 2012 Republican budget.

“As a member of Congress, I would have voted both for this week’s plan to cut $38 billion and for the 2012 House budget resolution passed today,” Corwin said. [Capital Tonight, Jane Corwin Statement, 4/15/11 <http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/04/corwin-i-would-have-voted-yes/> ]

Republican Budget  Protects Subsidies For Big Oil

When asked by Chris Wallace of Fox News if the Republican budget eliminated tax breaks for oil companies, Rep. Ryan said, “the problem with our deficit is not because Americans are taxed too little.” [The New York Times, 4/06/11 <http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/clean-energy-is-a-target-of-ryan-budget-plan/> ]

Democrats make $250,000 TV ad buy, working to raise more money

By Howard B. Owens

Good overview from the Buffalo News this morning on outside spending on the NY-26 race, which now includes a $250,000 television buy from congressional Democrats.

... the committee responded to the American Crossroads effort purchased $250,000 in ad time -- in addition to nearly $100,000 it quietly had steered toward Hochul's effort, a Democratic operative said. About $47,000 of that was spent on communications, research and other political help, while the Democratic committee raised $50,000 for Hochul's campaign.

That was just the beginning of the committee's fundraising effort. Robby Mook, the group's executive director, sent would-be contributors an e-mail Tuesday, saying, "We can win this race, but with Election Day just two weeks from today, we will need $150,000 by midnight tonight for urgent rapid response resources."

UPDATE: Roll Call has more, and some pretty interesting stuff, on spending in the race, especially on the Democratic side. The article indicates the DCCC was quietly helping Hochul prior to yesterday, but were trying to keep it quite so as not to alert the big GOP spenders. Now that Karl Rove's American Crossroads is in the race, Democrats are ramping up efforts. But their Super PACs are newer and not yet infused with cash. The DCCC has $8 million in debt holding it back as well.

UPDATE: More recommended reading, the Daily Caller.

David Bellavia won't endorse Corwin, says nice things about Davis and Hochul

By Howard B. Owens

Batavia resident and one-time congressional hopeful David Bellavia is planning to endorse a candidate in the NY-26, according to neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard, and it won't be Jane Corwin.

About Jack Davis, Bellavia said:

"Jack is a veteran. Jack is a self-made man," Bellavia said. "He's a guy who will leave his factory to his workers when he dies. He's right on immigration. He's right on jobs. The issues that I disagree with Jack, I disagree with all three [candidates]. There's not one pro-life candidate in this race."

As for Kathy Hochul:

Bellavia said Hochul is a "smart, honorable, decent woman" who's had to "move left" to appeal to her party. "I do respect her and I do like her."

Jack Davis knocks Corwin and Hochul for taking 'special interest' money

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

Today, American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super-PAC funded by anonymous deep-pocket donors purchased $650,000 of television air time, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched an effort to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend in NY-26.  Both groups seek to influence the special election and defeat Jack Davis in the special election on May 24th.

Jack Davis issued this statement:

This is further evidence - if any were needed - that Jane Corwin is owned by Karl Rove, Washington lobbyists and Wall Street bankers. It's no coincidence that John Boehner travelled to Wall Street yesterday after appearing with Corwin. Jane Corwin could pay for her own campaign, but she'd rather have the special interests she's working for pick up the tab. 

As far as Kathy Hochul, her own disclosure report shows she has taken thousands of dollars from bankers, lawyers and Democratic insiders. Today, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which claims it is not involved, sent out a nationwide "emergency email" trying to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to pour into this race. 

Kathy Hochul will be ordered around by Nancy Pelosi and Wall Street, just as Jane Corwin will be ordered around by John Boehner and Wall Street.  I will take my orders from you. I have not taken any money from the special interests that have shipped our jobs overseas.

I have not taken one penny from any special interest, political party, lobbyist or influence peddler. It is clear who is on the side of the people of this district and who is on the side of the special interests.

Morning round up of NY-26 coverage

By Howard B. Owens

The Buffalo News covers yesterday's events in Erie County, particularly Speaker John Boehner's appearance at a Corwin fundraiser in Depew.

It allowed Boehner to bring up hot-button issues like a lagging economy that still is not producing jobs, as well as sky-high gasoline prices. And he continually referred to the Democrats' liberal spending policies that have produced a unified GOP effort in the House to rein in spending.

"Washington Democrats hope to steal this election so they can move their agenda of higher taxes and more spending," he said. "The president wants to raise taxes. Why? So they can continue to spend. It's time to say no, and we're going to continue to say no to higher taxes and more spending in Washington."

Boehner, who also was scheduled to speak Monday to a Wall Street audience in Manhattan, referred to Corwin as the only conservative in the race who will "stand up to Nancy Pelosi and the liberals in Washington." 

And our own Bea McManis gets a mention.

Appearing with Richtman and Hochul were Bea McManis and Judy Hale of Batavia, two senior citizens worried about the impact of the Republicans' plans for Medicare.

"The Republican budget will decimate Medicare," Hochul said. "That's what this election is all about -- people like Bea and Judy."

Public Policy Polling, the company that conducted the poll released yesterday showing Hochul leading Corwin and Davis, posted a blog item with thoughts on its own poll.

The dominance the GOP showed with independents last year is over. Hochul is winning the independent vote with 37% to 31% for Davis and 20% for Corwin. A more significant finding though is that 39% of independent voters want their new representative to caucus with the Democrats in Washington to 36% who want the winner to side with the Republicans. That suggests Hochul might be winning even in a two-way race with independents and after a year where independents nationally sided with the GOP by a 19-point margin on the national House ballot. That's very meaningful.

Mona Charen, writing for Town Hall, tells her national audience that voters in NY-26 are being duped by Kathy Hochul on her claims about the Ryan budget and Medicare and by Jack Davis, whom she says is really a Democrat. She also says Jane Corwin isn't running a very competent campaign.

The NY-26 race was discussed at length last night by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.

New Hochul ad goes after Davis and Corwin; and other campaign news

By Howard B. Owens

In other campaign news, the Buffalo News has published a story saying that Corwin's critics are calling into question claims in her professional biography.

Also, House Speaker John Boehner is in Depew today, to support Corwin's campaign and take part in a fundraiser.

In response, Jack Davis is giving away free hot dogs at Zorba’s Texas Hots, just down the road from what Davis said is a $2,500 per-plate lunch with Boehner.

A Buffalo News article also notes that Hochul is having a hard time interesting House Democrats in financial and strategic support for her candidacy, even as she seems to be gaining ground on Corwin.

Finally, DailyKos claims to have Hochul's internal polling numbers, which shows the race going 31-30-26 for Corwin-Hochul-Davis. The post says the poll was conducted by Global Strategy Group, but doesn't say when or what the margin of error might be (but it's certainly within 1 percentage point, making this at least a two-way tie and possibly a three-way tie).

UPDATE 2:34 p.m.: DailyKos is reporting that a new poll (which I think they're saying was commissioned by DailyKos and SEIU) shows Hochul with a lead in the race. The numbers break down 35 percent for Hochul, 31 for Corwin, 24 for Davis with 2 percent going to Murphy. Full spreadsheet of the poll here. One of the interesting charts is of the approval rating for the Republican-lead Congress, with 57 percent overall, and 35 percent of the Republicans in the district saying they disapprove.

UPDATE 6:02 p.m.: The DailyKos poll is making national news. Here's a story from Roll Call.

“I think they have a pretty long record of being inaccurate with their polls,” Corwin spokesman Matthew Harakal said of PPP.

When asked, Harakal declined to release internal polling from the Corwin campaign to counter the PPP survey.

“We’re very comfortable with where we are,” he said. “The fact is that Kathy Hochul and Jack are on the wrong side of the issues. The only poll that matters is on Election Day.”

Harakal also told Roll Call the lunch today was $150 per plate.

The progressive New Republican wonders if Corwin will become Paul Ryan's first "victim."

If Hochul pulls this out, it will exert a huge influence over the Congressional landscape. Democrats even in unfriendly districts will have a viable plan to unseat Republican incumbents. Meanwhile, Republicans, who have been riding high on ideological hubris, will suddenly come face to face with some cold political reality. 

UPDATE 8:49 p.m.: More on the race from The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Sean Carroll and WHAM13 has a run down of today's events in Erie County. So does Commentary Magazine.

No reply from Jane Corwin on trade and ag questions, Day 3

By Howard B. Owens

UPDATE 9:29 p.m.: Jane Corwin's answers are now added to the original post.  Click here.

It's been three days since the answers were due on the set of trade and agriculture questions we sent to the four candidates in the NY-26 special election to fill the seat vacated by Shirtless Chris Lee, and still no reply from Jane Corwin.

We've been promised the answers, but have not yet received them.

It would be interesting to know Corwin's answers because on one hand, the head of her party in the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner promised the passage of three free-trade agreements if the GOP won a house majority.

On the other hand, when she announced her candidacy, Corwin promised to be an independent voice in Washington and not beholden to the House leadership.

So we don't really know where Corwin stands on what may be one of the most important votes likely to come up during her first few months in office, should she win.

Is Corwin authentically in support of free trade agreements or will she oppose such deals? We still don't know.

With most Democrats and some Republicans opposing the deal, whomever wins the NY-26's race could wind up casting a crucial vote.

Kathy Hochul, Jack Davis and Ian Murphy all told The Batavian they oppose the South Korean trade deal and would vote no on ratifying the treaty if elected.

There are also pending free trade deals with Colombia and Panama, which Boehner has promised to get passed.

Corwin release knocks Hochul on taxes

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – As the unemployment numbers released today show the economy continues to struggle, a new survey released this week showed job creators ranked New York as the second-worst state in the country to do business. Citing high taxes as one of the most significant barriers to job creation, more than 550 CEOs surveyed <http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=187482> by a business journal offer more evidence that the tax-and-spend economic policies pushed by career politicians like Kathy Hochul are having a devastating effect on New York’s economy.

Hochul has repeatedly said she would raise taxes on small businesses making more than $500,000, which includes a significant number of Western New York’s small businesses. 

“Only a career politician like Kathy Hochul – whose only time in the private sector was spent as a lobbyist in Washington, D.C. – would think that raising taxes on job creators will create jobs,” said Matthew Harakal, Communications Director for Jane Corwin for Congress. “Despite a rise in unemployment numbers and job creators saying what they need to create jobs, Kathy Hochul still says she knows best and wants to raise taxes on small businesses.”

Having helped run a business and create hundreds of jobs right here in Western New York, Jane Corwin understands the conditions needed for small business to grow and create jobs. If honored to serve as Western New York’s next Representative for New York’s 26th Congressional District, Corwin would fight to lower taxes, cut spending and strengthen our economy to create jobs here in Western New York.

Candidates' Questions: Trade and Agriculture

By Howard B. Owens

In our ongoing effort to ask candidates questions of substance on issues that matter, we turn our attention this week to trade and agriculture.

All four candidates in the NY-26 special election to replace Shirtless Chris Lee on May 24 where asked the same exact questions.

We received responses from Jack Davis and Kathy Hochul. Ian Murphy apologizes for missing the deadline and will have his responses in later today.

As for Jane Corwin -- we've heard not a peep from her campaign. I've left messages and sent multiple e-mails today seeking a response and Matthew Harakal, her communications director, hasn't acknowledged the messages.

If Corwin replies later, we'll update the post with her answers.

UPDATE 5:50 p.m.: We received an e-mail from Matthew Harakal that he sent about an hour ago. He apologized for not responding to messages today.  He said he was away from the office all day.  He said answers will be forthcoming tomorrow. We'll add the answers to this post once received.

UPDATE: Ian Murphy's answers added below.

As previously, the questions we asked are below and the candidate answers, in the order received, cut and pasted verbatim after the jump.

What is your position on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)?

The next representative of the NY-26 is likely going to be asked on vote on the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement. If elected, will you vote “Yes” or “No.”

After offering a straight up or down answer, please explain your yes or no vote.

The U.S. has a $252 billion trade deficit with China, the largest between any two countries in the world. Does this concern you and as a congressional representative would you do anything to address it?

Would New York’s farmers find your immigration policy beneficial or harmful to their businesses?

What policy changes need to occur that you would favor in support of New York’s dairy farmers?

What policies, if any, do you favor to assist family farmers selling their products in local markets?

 

Jack Davis:

What is your position on NAFTA?

I am against it. NAFTA has been a disaster for Western New York, the United States and working Americans who have seen their jobs disappear in a “giant sucking sound” and their wages depressed in a race to the bottom. We need to get out of NAFTA.

The next representative of the NY-26 is likely going to be asked on vote on the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement. If elected, will you vote “Yes” or “No.”

Both President Obama and the Washington Republican insiders are pushing this deal which is the next NAFTA. I will vote NO. 

After offering a straight up or down answer, please explain your yes or no vote.

The Korea Free Trade Agreement would export as many as 159,000 more American jobs. It would also surrender American sovereignty to international organizations, and make “Buy American” initiatives illegal.  This is unacceptable.

The U.S. has a $252 billion trade deficit with China, the largest between any two countries in the world.  Does this concern you and as a congressional representative would you do anything to address it?

Communist China is our enemy. They’re predatory trade practices target American industries for extinction. We must use trade-balancing tariffs to level the playing field for American farms and businesses and counter the unfair advantage the Chinese government is giving its domestic industries through currency manipulation and direct subsidies.

Would New York’s farmers find your immigration policy beneficial or harmful to their businesses?

Farmers would benefit from a reliable supply of legal labor.

What policy changes need to occur that you would favor in support of New York’s dairy farmers?

We must end the uncontrolled import of MPCs (milk protein concentrates) which depress the price of fluid milk and allow processors to bypass our local dairy farmers for the production of cheese and other dairy products.

What policies, if any, do you favor to assist family farmers selling their products in local markets?

We need to place limits on imports of foreign agriculture products that drive down commodity prices for our local growers. In addition, “Buy local” provisions in government procurement of food is an important tool to help local agriculture compete for markets and to develop our local economies.  In addition, local growers should have access to credit so they can invest in facilities to add value to what they grow. There is a growing “local food” movement and with the largest markets in the US within a one-day drive, our growers are in a great position to take advantage of this. 

Kathy Hochul:

Q: What is your position on NAFTA?

A: I do not support NAFTA. All we have to do is look to Western New York to see that trade policies, like NAFTA, do not work. In this state alone, NAFTA has cost New Yorkers more than 51,000 jobs. As a Member of Congress, I will oppose any trade policy that gives corporations and manufacturers the incentives to ship Western New York jobs overseas.    

Q: The next representative of the NY-26 is likely going to be asked on vote on the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement. If elected, will you vote “Yes” or “No.” After offering a straight up or down answer, please explain your yes or no vote.

A: No, I do not support the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement. I also do not support the U.S.-Panama or the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreements. 

Millions of hard-working Americans have lost their jobs due to unfair trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA and entering into additional free trade agreements will only further harm our economy. Instead of expanding trade policies that have resulted in thousands of good paying Western New York jobs being sent overseas, we need to focus on creating an environment that gives smalls businesses the opportunity to innovate and grow, right here in the 26th District.

Q: The U.S. has a $252 billion trade deficit with China, the largest between any two countries in the world. Does this concern you and as a congressional representative would you do anything to address it?

A: I am absolutely concerned with America’s growing trade deficit with China and addressing the trade deficit begins with taking action against the Chinese government’s continued currency manipulation. Last  year, I was glad to see the House take steps to crack down on China's currency manipulation, by passing the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. As a Member of Congress, I would support steps like this to reduce our trade deficit and get our economy back on track.

Q: Would New York’s farmers find your immigration policy beneficial or harmful to their businesses?

A: Our immigration system is broken – no question. Farmers here in Western New York need the workforce necessary to sustain their land.  Once  elected to Congress, I will follow the advice of the farmers here in the 26th District and do what’s right for them, including expanding access to the H-2A Visa, which allows immigrants to travel here legally for temporary work in agriculture. While our focus must be getting Western New Yorkers back to work, we must provide our farmers with an adequate workforce if Americans are not willing to take these jobs. 

Q: What policy changes need to occur that you would favor in support of New York’s dairy farmers?

A:  We need to make dairy pricing measures more competitive and make it more profitable for farmers to stay in the dairy farming business. It is crucial that we include competitive pricing, not parity pricing, in the next Agriculture bill so that our dairy farmers can continue to sustain their farms and put food on their tables.

Q: What policies, if any, do you favor to assist family farmers selling their products in local markets?

A: When I visited McCormick Farm in North Java (Wyoming County) just a few weeks ago, I learned how they make their own maple syrup and sell it locally to different markets and restaurants in the region. We need to support these local farms and provide more avenues of support, like promoting farmers markets, which allow many of these products to be sold locally.   

Ian Murphy:

What is your position on NAFTA?

NAFTA is a scam. A factory in Texas moves 5 miles south, for cheap labor, and when that factory ships its widgets back north, it's called “free trade.” It's lowered America's living standard, for the profit of the CEOs.

The next representative of the NY-26 is likely going to be asked on vote on the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement. If elected, will you vote “Yes” or “No.”

No.

After offering a straight up or down answer, please explain your yes or no vote.

Absolutely not. If American labor doesn't like it, I don't like it. It's not “free trade” at all.

The U.S. has a $252 billion trade deficit with China, the largest between any two countries in the world.  Does this concern you and as a congressional representative would you do anything to address it?

Well, it's hard to match price with peasants working for pennies. See: Wal-Mart. This is the problem with globalization, generally. A corporation's board of directors are legally obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. They will always relocate, if the nature of their business allows, to wherever labor is cheapest. The traditional solution to this problem is to impose a trade tariff. If Wal-Mart wants to outsource it's labor to prisoners and children in China, it has to pay the US people for the right to cut them out of the wage equation.

“But then my tube socks will cost $2 instead of $1!” might be the response to that. Well, you spend the collected tariff on infrastructure and job creation. Suddenly, people can afford $2 socks, and nearly extinct mom & pop shops can compete again—putting more money into people's hands.

Also, the Chinese yuan's value isn't determined by supply and demand. They keep its value artificially low by trading their currency on the foreign exchange markets. Real pressure needs to be applied by the world community for them to peg the yuan to a basket of world currencies.

Would New York’s farmers find your immigration policy beneficial or harmful to their businesses?

This country is nothing but immigrants. Immigrants built this country. And people should still have the opportunity to come here, work hard and make a life. Farmers would find this beneficial.

What policy changes need to occur that you would favor in support of New York’s dairy farmers?

I milked cows professionally, so I know small dairy farmers work damn hard, for not enough money. They get priced out by the huge factory farms, which make it next to impossible to compete, and stress their animals to the point of infection and death—often providing us with puss-filled milk. 

We need to start building policy in terms of what is sustainable, rather than what makes the most short term profit, for the fewest and biggest stakeholders. What that would mean functionally is that we need to make sustainability profitable.

What policies, if any, do you favor to assist family farmers selling their products in local markets?

In this case, gradual market forces will invariably make locally produced goods more feasible and competitive in the future. Energy costs from traditional carbon-rich sources will keep increasing, and it will make pure economic sense for markets to buy local. That said, any potential emergency measures to keep family farmers from going broke should be taken.

The dictum is that “all politics is local.” Economics is also local to a large extent—believe it or not, in this age of “globalization.” What benefit does the American taxpayer see from giving tax breaks (or not taxing at all) huge multinationals? We get cheap junk made by slaves. We get cheap produce picked by the extremely poor. And it doesn't matter all that much because our jobs went overseas, so we can't afford even the cheapest of junk.

What we have both agriculturally and industrially is a battle between the giant conglomerates, with their cheap labor and economies of scale, versus small businesses and family operations who pay Americans a decent wage. I'll side with small, locally owned businesses every time. That's economics for the people, not the CEOs and crooks on Wall Street.

Jane Corwin's response (received May 7, 9 p.m.)

What is your position on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)?

I am a believer in the free markets and free trade but it must also be fair trade. American workers can compete with anyone in the world, but free trade has to be fair. Some of our trading partners – noticeably China – have engaged in unfair trading practices and have been manipulating their currencies to gain an unfair advantage, and if I was in Congress I would support steps to address this problem and not continue to ignore it, which the Obama Administration has done. 

The next representative of the NY-26 is likely going to be asked on vote on the South Korea – United States Free Trade Agreement. If elected, will you vote “Yes” or “No.”

After offering a straight up or down answer, please explain your yes or no vote.

Legislation can change considerably before it comes up for a vote, but Congress should work towards removing tariffs standing in the way of American job creation. Just last month the International Trade Commission released a report which said that U.S. auto industry’s exports – including those from GM, which has facilities right here in Western New York – would “increase significantly” if the South Korea FTA were to be implemented. This is a sign of the type of job creation that can come from free trade agreements.

But again, we need to ensure that any trade agreement is implemented fairly and that American manufacturers can compete on a level playing field with their foreign competitors.    

The U.S. has a $252 billion trade deficit with China, the largest between any two countries in the world. Does this concern you and as a congressional representative would you do anything to address it?

It’s absolutely concerning and it’s one of the reasons I would support efforts to address China’s currency manipulation practices. A broad range of economists believe the Chinese yuan may be undervalued by as much as 40%. The practical impact of China intentionally lowering its currency's value is to make its goods and services cheap internationally.

Addressing China’s currency manipulation is one of the most effective ways we can address our trade imbalance with China. 

Would New York’s farmers find your immigration policy beneficial or harmful to their businesses?

I’ve been a vocal advocate for Western New York’s agricultural community in the State Assembly and would continue to be in Washington. Agriculture is our state’s leading industry and a key economic driver for our region, and I’ve visited numerous farms of all sizes across the district. I have a keen understanding of the issues they face – including labor concerns – and would work closely with our agricultural community to ensure they have the resources they need.

What policy changes need to occur that you would favor in support of New York’s dairy farmers?
 
New York is among the leaders in dairy production, generating billions of dollars annually. Wyoming County is the state’s leading county for dairy production. Unfortunately, the economic crisis has had a significant impact on the dairy industry.

I’ve met with several dairy farmers across the district to learn directly from them what needs to be done to strengthen the industry. If elected to Congress, I would join the Dairy Farmers Caucus to ensure that Dairy Farmers are being treated fairly and be able to directly advocate on their behalf.

Congress needs to closely examine the process used for setting milk prices, specifically the Federal Milk Marketing Order. The Federal Order system must be more responsive to changes in cost of production and market forces, and if elected to Congress I would work towards implementing these changes.

What policies, if any, do you favor to assist family farmers selling their products in local markets?

Family farms can only sell their goods where consumers will purchase them. I’ve visited several Western New York farms and some sell their products directly at the farm, and it doesn’t get anymore seller to consumer than that.

Hochul expresses opposition to GOP effort to change aviation bill

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today reiterated her opposition to the Shuster amendment after the Federal Aviation Administration yesterday announced their opposition to the Republican-backed amendment that would unravel two years of work to reform the airline industry.   

In a statement yesterday, the FAA said they had “concerns” that the Shuster amendment protects “a set of procedural hoops that could have the effect of slowing down rulemaking projects under way and in the future.”

“Every Member of the United States House of Representatives, who voted for the Shuster amendment, is responsible for potentially endangering the lives of airline passengers from across the country,” said Hochul.

“If I were in Congress today, I would be fighting, alongside Senators Schumer and Gillibrand and Congressmembers Slaughter and Higgins, for the people of the 26th District and the families of Flight 3407; working tirelessly to ensure major changes to how the airline industry operates are enacted.    

“No one from outside this area understands the collective pain we experienced as a community following the crash of Flight 3407, which is why it is disturbing to hear my Republican opponent will not rescind her offer for Speaker John Boehner, the leader of the party that overwhelmingly supported the Shuster amendment, to travel to Western New York and raise thousands of dollars for her campaign.

“The safety of our families and loved ones must be our top priority and we must do anything we can in order to ensure such a tragedy does not happen again.”

The Shuster amendment halts major measures to combat pilot fatigue, increase commercial pilot licensing requirements, improve training practices, establish an electronic pilot records database, and set up new transparencies for regional carriers.  

GOP targets Jack Davis with new mailer

By Howard B. Owens

There was a time when Republican Jane Corwin and her GOP handlers focused their attack-ad firepower on Democrat Kathy Hochul in the special election race to fill the NY-26 seat vacated by Shirtless Chris Lee.

Then, last week, a Siena Poll showed Corwin's potential vote percentage trailing the GOP registration advantage in the district, with Democrat Kathy Hochul holding to near even with the registration numbers.

Meanwhile, Jack Davis, on the Tea Party line, isn't far behind either frontrunner and poll numbers suggest Davis, who ran two previous times for the seat as a Democrat, is drawing votes from Republican Corwin more than Democrat Hochul.

The Buffalo News reports that the poll has prompted GOP strategists to put Davis in their cross hairs.

Now the GOP is ratcheting up last week’s verbal criticism of Davis into mailers delivered throughout the district linking him to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and “liberal Democrats.”

“Meet the Real Jack Davis: A Liberal Democrat That Must Be Stopped,” screams the headline on one mailed piece. Another claims he supported Pelosi and President Obama while accepting contributions from disgraced Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-Harlem.

“With a record like this, how can we trust Jack Davis?” asks the mailer, featuring photos of Pelosi, Obama and Rangel. 

Davis responded with a statement sent to the media today.

This proves that both parties are corrupt and will do anything to protect the status quo.

Both parties supported trade deals like NAFTA that ship our jobs overseas. President Obama and Speaker Boehner are now collaborating to ram the next NAFTA through Congress, and both Jane Corwin and Kathy Hochul will vote for it.

Both parties supported bailouts for Wall Street and the big banks. Both parties supported tax breaks for multinationals that make billions in profits and pay zero taxes.

Both parties sold out our country and now to make us pay for it all, Republican Jane Corwin wants to replace Medicare with vouchers that stick it to our seniors. Democrat Kathy Hochul, of course, wants to raise taxes again.

Republican Jane Corwin will listen to Speaker Boehner. Democrat Kathy Hochul will listen to Nancy Pelosi. If you vote for me, there will be only one voice I listen to -- and that will be the people of Western New York.

Your voice will finally be heard. No more trade deals that ship our jobs overseas. No more bailouts for Wall Street. No more tax breaks for multinationals.

We need a different perspective and a different approach. As a businessman, I fought to create and keep jobs here, and as your Congressman I will fight for your job -- not Wall Street.

I cannot be bought. Jane Corwin and Kathy Hochul cannot be trusted.

That is the difference in this race -- two parties that sold us out to Wall Street, or an independent who will fight for you.  

The Buffalo News article concludes:

Meanwhile, there is still no indication that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — which champions election of Democrats to the House — has any plans to financially support Hochul despite the Siena poll showing her trailing Corwin by only five percentage points in the primarily Republican district.

But Erie County Democratic Chairman Leonard R. Lenihan said he remains “hopeful” the Washington support will materialize.

“I think Kathy is coming on strong and victory is within reach,” he said. “Everything the campaign is doing is aimed at gaining support and winning the election.”

Hochul hits Corwin on oil company profits

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

ERIE COUNTY – Oil companies British Petroleum (BP), Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil all reported first-quarter profits today, with Exxon Mobil reporting an astonishing 69-percent increase in profits. 

“While Americans are paying more than $4 at the pump, oil companies are making exorbitant profits thanks to the help of their Republican friends in Congress,” said Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District. “Speaker John Boehner says Congress ‘ought to take a look at’ tax breaks for oil companies, but we know that the House has already given them far too many.

“The 2012 House budget, that my Republican opponent supports, further fuels the profits oil companies made last quarter by cutting federal spending in energy research and development, while calling for the elimination of tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy technologies. House Republicans would rather gut alternative energy technologies and decimate Medicare, than cut subsidies for big oil. How is that competitive?”

Jane Corwin has publicly stated her support for the Republican’s 2012 budget that would decimate Medicare, while giving tax breaks to corporations and America’s wealthiest individuals. The proposal also terminates alternative energy development, innovation and exploration.

NY-26 candidate questions: Taxes and debt

By Howard B. Owens

This week, we asked each of the four candidates in the special election for the NY-26 Congressional District questions related to taxes, spending and debt.

Below are the questions. After the jump, the candidates' responses in the order received.

Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax, regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

Is it necessary to reduced the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

Jack Davis:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) I believe putting Americans to work is more important than any theory. The economic theories told us we don’t need to make anything in America anymore because we could sell derivatives and exotic financial debt instead. The theories were wrong. Economics 101 tells us the only way to create wealth is to grow, dig or manufacture a product. Common sense is more useful than academic theories in getting our economy on the right track.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent. Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) The current tax code needs to be reformed.   

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax, regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) The notion that a corporation is a “person” with the same rights as a person is ridiculous. This is another example of a theory that is completely out of touch with reality and common sense. It is wrong for GE to earn $5 billion in U.S. profits in 2010 and pay zero taxes.  They are able to do this thanks to tax laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats. This is a perfect example of how both parties in Washington have been bought off.

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) When we talk about federal agencies that need fixing, it’s hard to know where to start. The departments of education, commerce and energy are prime candidates for an “extreme makeover” or elimination. 

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) Working Americans – and those who would be working if we had a sane economic policy – should be first in line for tax relief. I oppose raising taxes.

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases?  And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) We must reduce the crippling level of debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren. The first step is to stop digging ourselves deeper into debt, and that means cutting the deficit. We will do that by putting Americans back to work. Right now, 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are working. If that rises to 64 percent, Dan Fuss, vice president of the financial firm Loomis Sayles, points out the deficit disappears entirely. At the same time, we have to change the law so corporations like GE can’t hide profits overseas and avoid paying any taxes at all.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) We need to overhaul our entire tax structure. I will closely study all alternatives to the current system. Before the adoption of the income tax, the federal government derived most of its revenue not from working Americans, but from foreigners who wanted to sell their goods in this country.  

Ian Murphy

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) To give one an idea of how very obtuse Ludwig Von Mises was, he once called Ayn Rand “the most courageous man in America." As for the Austrian School of Economics he helped shape, that misguided philosophy can be directly tied to the unregulated “free-market” madness which wrecked our economy and has made the income disparity in America greater than any industrialized country in the world. The top 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million. Mises represents economics for those 400 people.

Keynes was the man. Keynesian economic policies got us out of the Great Depression, they got Japan out of their “Lost Decade,” they are a proven way to boost an economy. For example: every $1 spent on food stamps returns $1.73 <http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm>  into the economy. And according to the CBO's assessment <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-Macro_Effects_of_ARRA.pdf> of the '09 AARA stimulus package, government expenditure on goods and services has a far superior multiplier effect on GDP than does bogus trickle-down nonsense.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) Hell yes, they need to be reformed; those tax rates are the antithesis of reasonable.

FUN FACT: Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. Even our Democratic President admires the Gipper. Oddly enough, during the Reagan years the tax rate for a millionaire was 47.7% <http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png> . Not even a Democrat could suggest such a rate today without being vilified by the wealthy elite and their propagandist lapdogs in the press.

We need a progressive tax code in this country—that is, if we want a stable society. Otherwise, keep slashing taxes for the rich like Paul Ryan would have us do—or Bush and Obama have—and invest in pitchforks and torches because they'll soon be a very hot commodity.

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) Corporations are considered “persons” for the most illegitimate of reasons. This insane precedent started with a note made in the margins of an 1886 decision in the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad by a court clerk. The clerk happened to be a former employee of Southern Pacific. The note was not legally binding, but through the hyper-litigious acts of Southern Pacific and other corporations, we've seen the 14th Amendment perverted in case after case, and the rights intended for slaves freed by the 13th Amendment extended to non-human entities. Forgive me the brief history lesson, but a pig is not a boat and corporations are not people.

There's really no need to be too clever about this. Outlaw corporate personhood, which is very important in terms of protecting the democratic process, and institute a progressive corporate tax. The end.

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) Duplicate? Does that mean every local teacher has a federal doppelganger who teaches clones of our children in shadow classrooms? That doesn't sound right—accurate. At any rate, I'm against cloning.

If there truly are redundancies and inefficiencies, rather than federal departments working in concert with state and local agencies, then they should be eliminated. That's just common sense.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) I was under the impression that the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, passed as small part of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ranged between $400 for individuals and $800 for couples filing jointly. Regardless, I would not have voted to repeal this tax credit, which benefited most working Americans.

And as many competent economists have argued <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/> , the AARA stimulus package was not large enough. Though it should be noted that the House and Senate versions of the bill were drastically different.

The Senate sharply cut back spending on states and wasted approximately $70 billion extending revisions of the alternative minimum tax, which the Tax Policy Center <http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/senatereportcard.cfm>  rated as D-, writing that this was “[n]either timely nor targeted; makes no sense as economic stimulus.” I would have voted to overturn that extension. 

(Q) Is it necessary to reduced the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) Yes, it is necessary in the long term. Unfortunately, politicians constantly evoke the metaphor of personal, family finance and belt-tightening, which is not really how large scale economies work. Unlike personal finance, it's often necessary to spend your way out of a recession, rather than cut back on spending. As it ties into the above questions, consider the return of investment on food stamps and the multiplier effect of other Keynesian programs.

In theory, the debt could be reduced without increasing taxes. But why would we do that? Sure, we should cut our bloated military budget and take measures to maximize efficiency, but we have a vast river of untapped revenue in the super-wealthy and corporations. It's astoundingly irresponsible and immoral not to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

Instead, what you'll get from Republicans is a disingenuous lecture on 'austerity' and the slashing of vital social programs on which most Americans rely. And most tragic, by my estimation, is the absolute spinelessness of Democrats. Applauding a compromise between evil and a lesser evil is evil in itself. These people would have made FDR embarrassed to be a Democrat.

The people of NY-26 may not even be aware of how their very democracy is being taken from them by hatchet-happy Republicans and their simpering, acquiescing Democratic counterparts.

One small example is a Hochul press release <http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/hochul-lauds-budget-compromise-calls-opponents-apathetic/25342>  I came across on this very Web site. My opponent “called on [her] opponents, Republican Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis, to join [her] in supporting a budget compromise to no avail.”

I'm glad you didn't ask me, Kathy. I will not support a $39 billion cut in non-defense discretionary spending. I will not support the slashing of funds for roads, bridges, schools, and myriad programs for women, the poor and the middle class. I will not support a budget that will hurt average Americans.

Excuse the rant, but that “wonderful” compromise slashed funding for PBS and, as I understand it, WNED cannot afford to produce a debate for this special election because they're broke. So it seems this is my only opportunity to rail against the evil, dumb and cowardly stances of my opponents--because of the evil, dumb and cowardly stances of my opponents.

We need to maintain the social programs we have and invest in our society again, rather than feeling lovey-dovey about being screwed by bipartisan compromise.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) Never. A flat tax or a national sales tax would shift the burden to the poor and middle class. And anyone who talks about these things as a serious option for America is either a tremendous fool or an incorrigible liar.

I'd also like to add that we need to close all tax loopholes, regulate Wall Street in a meaningful way (reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act), appropriately tax capital gains, and eliminate the Federal Reserve's disturbing and secretive, risk-free lending to wealthy jackals.

In case you didn't know, a bipartisan group including Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders recently pressed the Fed to open their books. They only were allowed to view two years of data, but what they found was shocking—a shadow budget rivaling the size of our official one.

All done without congressional oversight or presidential approval, there were literally trillions spent bailing out banks in Mexico and Bahrain—loans given to foreign car manufacturers and risk-free loans given to anyone with a connection on Wall Street.

If the beneficiaries (most notably two wives of investment bankers with no financial background <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411> ) made money off of the multimillion dollar loans, they'd pay them back at next to no interest. If their deals went south, they simply walked away. There was no penalty for default. And the American taxpayer was stuck with the bill. Again.

This is an outrage, and all abuses at the Fed must be put to an end. If I'm elected to Congress, I will demand transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve. 

Kathy Hochul:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons.  In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as GE? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) When a company like General Electric reports worldwide profits of $14.2 billion without paying a single dollar in federal income tax, we know there is something wrong with our tax code. In fact, due to G.E.’s intense lobbying efforts and slick accounting, the company was able to claim a $3.2 billion tax benefit – money that could have been invested in small businesses that create jobs here at home. The fact that every taxpayer in the 26th District paid more in taxes last year than General Electric is plain wrong. 

So yes, without question, our tax code needs to be reformed.  Once elected to Congress, I will fight to ensure the wealthiest Americans and corporations start to pay their fair share. I’ll work to close corporate loopholes and end tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. We need to invest in local businesses that create jobs for hard working American families

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services.  Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) There is no question that we need to make substantial cuts in spending and streamline government services, just like I’ve done in Erie County. However, we cannot stop investing in education, medical research or high-tech research, since these programs help small businesses innovate and grow. And we cannot support any kind of budget that will decimate Medicare. 

There are numerous programs managed by the federal government where we could cut wasteful spending. For example, under the recommendations of the Department of Defense and Defense Secretary Gates, we can cut $178 billion in inefficient programs from that one department. It is time we enact this, and so many more, meaningful reforms and get our national debt under control.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit.  Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) The current financial climate is hitting middle-class families and small businesses harder than anyone else. Last year, Congress did not extend one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history. The Making Work Pay Credit saved individuals $400 and married couples, who filed jointly, $800. If I were a member of Congress, I would have supported this tax credit. In economic times like this, we cannot raise taxes on those individuals struggling to get by.

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) There is no question we must work to reduce our national debt.  The number one way to cut our yearly deficit and reduce the debt is by cutting wasteful spending. There are plenty of federal programs that only add more and more to how much we owe each and every day.

Nonetheless, it is disingenuous for any candidate to talk about balancing the budget without discussing closing corporate loopholes on companies like General Electric, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, and so many others that paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes last year. We then need to look to America’s wealthiest citizens and ensure they pay their fair share. I will not, however, raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses, which fuel our economy and create much needed jobs.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) I reject any tax proposal that would shift the tax burden to middle-class families and small businesses, while giving large tax breaks to corporate giants and America’s wealthiest individuals.

Jane Corwin:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government.  Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) I am a believer in the free market and limited government. That’s what allowed the family business my father started out of our garage to get started, and it’s what allowed my siblings and I to help grow it and create hundreds of jobs here in Western New York. That’s one of the most basic choices in this election -- other candidates in the race think that the government should have more control over how you spend your money. I believe that individuals are the ones who best know their own needs and how their money is spent most wisely.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) Our tax code needs to be fair, and that’s something I believe Congress needs to address and if honored to be elected on May 24th that is something I will fight for. Along with most Western New Yorkers, I understand that some taxes must be paid for basic civic and social services and that we need to provide a safety net for those in need. As I said, I believe that individuals are the ones who best know their own needs and how they want to spend their money, whether they make $30,000 or $300,000.

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons.  In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) If we focus on reforming our current tax system we will ensure that everyone pays their fair share. That will enable us to eliminate the loopholes that corporations take advantage of. Again, Kathy Hochul has said that she would vote to raise taxes on anyone – individuals and small businesses – making more than $500,000.

This week I discussed my plan to lower gas prices and met with local independent station owners. Under Kathy Hochul’s plan, these Western New York small businesses would send more money to Washington instead of keeping it here in Western New York and growing and creating jobs.  

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) We absolutely need to focus on is shrinking government, instead searching for ways to grow it, which is what we’ve seen over the last few years. For example, the Obama health care law created about 160 new government agencies, bureaus and departments.

I’m honored to have been selected as the only minority Assemblymember to serve on Governor Cuomo’s Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission that will be looking at how we can rightsize government and allow individuals more of a say in what their hard-earned taxes are paying for, instead of leaving those decisions up to career politicians and bureaucrats.

I also believe that we need to constantly review existing agencies, departments, and regulations to ensure that 1) the departments/agencies/regulations in place are still needed, and 2) any new departments/agencies/regulations do not duplicate what is already in effect.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) Even President Obama said that the bipartisan December 2010 tax compromise “would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family.” He added that allowing that tax increase “could cost our economy well over a million jobs.”

Repealing the part of the failed “stimulus” law and replacing it with an across-the-board payroll tax cut, which reduced the Social Security payroll withholding from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. President Obama said that “economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth."

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) We absolutely need to reduce our $14.3 trillion national debt. It’s owed increasingly to foreign countries such as China and eventually it will need to be repaid. What do we do then? We simply don’t have the money to repay our debts. We need to get serious and focus on cutting spending so we can improve our country’s fiscal situation for current and future generations. If we focus on cutting spending we will eliminate the constant calls for tax increases.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) We should closely examine all feasible ways to simplify our tax system. One thing is for certain, however – if we don’t get serious about cutting spending so we can strengthen our economy and create jobs, the pressure to raise taxes will only grow stronger. We need to focus on cutting spending and not raising taxes, as some of the other candidates have advocated for.

Hochul campaign hits Corwin for DC fundraiser with 'Wall Street pals'

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

The following is a statement from Fabien Levy, director of communications, for Kathy Hochul for Congress:

“While voters of the 26th District express their concern over Jane Corwin’s support of the Republican budget that decimates Medicare, the Assemblymember is hitting the D.C. fundraising circuit with the same Washington insiders who voted for the proposal.

“This morning, Jane Corwin is headlining a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., with slick Washington politicians and her old Wall Street pals at the Capitol Hill Club. The fundraiser is being hosted by The Financial Services Roundtable – a group of Wall Street bankers, who were among the first to back President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

“So not only do Jane Corwin’s donors want to decimate Medicare, but they supported privatizing Social Security as well? Voters in the 26th District will not stand for politicians that support proposals that could send our seniors back into poverty, while lining the pockets of the super rich.

“Jane Corwin’s plans are wrong for all Americans and will only add burdensome costs onto the backs of our seniors, while providing massive tax breaks to America’s corporate giants and wealthiest individuals.”

UPDATE: Response from the Corwin campaign:

"Today, Jane is discussing how she would vote to cut spending and create jobs, while over the last few days Kathy Hochul has been sipping champagne with radical New York City special interests that have decimated Western New York’s economy. Instead of hobnobbing with glitterati on New York City’s Upper East Side, maybe Kathy Hochul will finally speak up and unveil her plan for cutting spending, creating jobs, lowering gas prices, or anything else for that matter."  -Matt Harakal

New commercial from Hochul attacks Corwin over support of GOP 2012 budget

By Howard B. Owens

This is the new commercial released today by Kathy Hochul's campaign. 

Here's a fact-checking assignment: The commercial cites several newspaper sources. Are the quotes being used in context?

UPDATE: A reply from Corwin's campaign: 

Statement from Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress:

“This commercial and personal attack is a bold-faced lie.Politifact has given claims in this ad a “Pants on Fire!” rating. These types of baseless scare tactics are exactly what you’d expect from a career politician like Kathy Hochul, but Western New Yorkers deserve better.”

Harakal sends along a link to a Times-Union article as well.

UPDATE: New, related PR from Hochul's campaign:

“On April 15, after a week of prodding, Assemblymember Jane Corwin finally admitted she supports the Republican’s 2012 budget that would end Medicare as we know it and give massive tax breaks to America’s corporate giants – the same corporate giants that paid absolutely nothing in income taxes last year.

“Jane Corwin talks a lot about cutting spending, closing corporate loopholes, coming up with alternative energy plans, and protecting our seniors, but the truth is Jane Corwin is all talk and no action.  She says she has a ‘plan’ that would ‘fight to begin getting our national addiction to spending under control.’  Well that plan is a point-by-point copy of the Republican budget, which does none of those things.  

“Assemblymember Corwin has publicly supported a budget that cuts taxes on major corporations and the highest-earning individuals, instead of making them pay their fair share.  She supports a budget that cuts spending on alternative energy research and development, instead of cutting subsidies for big oil.  She supports a budget that decimates Medicare, instead of ensuring we protect our seniors from burdensome costs.

“While Jane Corwin says she supports solutions for the people of the 26th District, she really only supports solutions that line the pockets of corporations, oil companies, and the super rich.”

Corwin says debt clock is ticking

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following comments today regarding Kathy Hochul’s continued silence on the $14.3 TRILLION debt facing our country:

“Despite our fiscal crisis, Kathy Hochul continues to sit silently with Nancy Pelosi and refuse to say how she would cut spending. While Kathy Hochul refuses to take a stand, our national debt has increased $32.72 billion.

Western New York taxpayers deserve an answer from Kathy Hochul on spending. Does she support the president’s $1.5 trillion tax hike on families and small businesses? Or will she finally stand with Jane Corwin and commit to cutting spending?

Every day, another $4.09 billion is added onto our national debt, but Kathy Hochul remains silent. Kathy Hochul says she fights for Western New York, but it’s hard to win a fight without saying a word or taking a stand.”

Statistics on our record-high national debt can be found HERE <http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/> , and information on how Jane Corwin would cut spending can be found HERE <http://janecorwin.com/posts/janes-plan-to-cut-runaway-government-spending>.

Corwin calls out Hochul on Obama's proposed tax increase

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following statement today after Kathy Hochul’s continued silence on how she would cut government spending:

“Now a full week after the President called for a massive $1.5 trillion tax increase, Kathy Hochul still remains silent on the dire financial condition our country is in. Will Kathy Hochul continue to stand with Nancy Pelosi and refuse to do anything to cut spending? Does Kathy Hochul support the President’s plan for $1.5 trillion in crippling tax hikes on Western New York families and small businesses? Or will she follow Jane Corwin’s lead and support cutting spending immediately to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Kathy Hochul has a long tax-and-spend record. As a Hamburg Town Board member she increased the tax burden by 45 percent and later as the Erie County Clerk, she increased spending in the DMV by an incredible 51 percent. When will Kathy Hochul make up her mind and get serious about cutting spending?”

Hochul’s silence comes even after the S&P issued a threat to downgrade our country’s prized AAA credit rating. S&P is one of the three main agencies that rate the ability of companies and countries to repay their debts. It recently cut its outlook for our country’s long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," a direct result of the failed leadership from Washington to address our fiscal crisis.

Candidates' Forum: Questions on social issues for NY-26 hopefuls

By Howard B. Owens

As part of our ongoing series to find out as much as we can about what the candidates for the NY-26 special election believe about issues, we present this week's questions and answers on hot button social issues.

Below are the questions as sent to the candidates and, after the jump, the answers from each candidate in the order received.

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

Ian Murphy:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

My position is that the American people need to choose between outlawing abortion and taking proven steps toward lowering the abortion rate. Contrary to prevailing thought, they are not the same thing. According to a global study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmaker Institute, the legal status of abortion has no effect on a country's abortion rate. The same study found that where abortion is illegal it is an extremely dangerous procedure, which results in the worldwide death of roughly 67,000 women each year.

The only things that reduce a nation's abortion rate are an increase in its overall living standard and a strong commitment to reproductive/contraceptive education. For instance, Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world, abortion is illegal, and its sex education focuses on abstinence alone. At 54 per 1,000 women of reproductive age, that country subsequently has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The Netherlands, by contrast, has a much higher living standard, abortion is legal, and the rate is a scant 6 per 1,000 women. The United States' living standard is generally on par with the Netherlands, and yet the abortion rate is 21 per 1,000—double that of Western Europe.

Why? Well, according to the National Institute of Health, the low Dutch rate can be attributed to their firm commitment to family planning services, and sexual/contraceptive education. Like so many other issues in this country, we've been given a false choice. Abortion's been framed as “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life,” legal vs. illegal, moral vs. immoral, Republican vs. Democrat.

It's a very emotionally charged debate based on false assumptions. Regardless of your moral convictions on abortion, I think everyone can agree that as a society we want fewer of them. No one likes abortion. But the thing is, that will only happen with smart policies. It will not happen out of moral outrage. It will not happen out of anger and other extreme emotions. It will not happen by threatening women with prison. So, yes, abortion should remain safe and legal until about 15-20 weeks of gestation, which is roughly when a fetus is thought to be viable—that is to say, able to live outside of the womb. I base that number on the policies of Western Europe and an average of numbers put out by the Journal of the American Medical Association. I believe, however, that a procedure can and should be performed after 20 weeks if the mother's life is in danger or there are other legitimate, extenuating circumstances—such as a terrible genetic defect, which may or may not be the result of incest.

Though it is a tragedy in itself, whether a woman is raped has no bearing on my position. Now that we know we're engaging in an overly emotional and critically flawed debate, we should step back and reevaluate the impacts of federal funds used for family planning and abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress recently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood—making a bevy of misleading and factually inaccurate claims in the process. But it's quite clear that cutting federal funds to Planned Parenthood will actually raise the abortion rate in America. So, again, as difficult as it may be, the American people need to make a choice between overheated, manipulative rhetoric and a sensible policy that will result in fewer abortions. You can't have both.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

People should be allowed to marry whomever they want, and receive equal benefit from the government.

There are some common sense areas where the federal government should intervene in matters of marriage: adults should not be allowed to marry children; children should not be allowed to marry children; sufferers of Stockholm syndrome should not be allowed to marry their captors; and no one should be allowed to marry Donald Trump. 

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

Yes. I agree with our top military brass in this matter.

I'd like to add an important point: In politics, “wedge” issues like gay rights and abortion are often used to manipulate social conservatives into voting against their own economic self-interest—and, in the case of abortion, against their own social goals.

Abortion, particularly, is an issue I know the people of NY-26 care about passionately. A candidate's views on abortion tell many people all they need to know before they vote. I've talked to a few people who really like my positions, generally, but they won't vote for me because I am not “pro-life.” Well, I'm the only candidate in this race to offer a stark break from the failed, bipartisan economic policies which have made everyone broke in this country. I'm the only candidate in favor of universal health care, universal family planning and universal reproductive/contraception education. In other words, I am the only pro-life candidate in this race.

Kathy Hochul:

Q: What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or late stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

A: This is obviously a difficult decision between a woman and her doctor, and I don’t think anyone should take this decision lightly. I do, however, believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and think the federal government should not be involved in making medical decisions. I support the continuation of Roe v. Wade, which has been the established policy on this issue since 1973.

I support federal funding for the health services and guidance provided by Planned Parenthood, including breast, ovarian and cervical cancer screenings, infertility testing, pelvic exams, family planning and other vital services.

Q: What is your position on marriage?  Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom?  Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?


A: I don’t think the federal government should involve itself on issues of who can marry whom, that needs to be determined by the states. I believe everyone should be afforded equal rights under federal law. I do support the civil institution of marriage for gay couples, with absolutely no requirements placed on religious institutions.

Gay men and women, who want to fight to defend our freedom, should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Jack Davis:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

I oppose federal funding for abortion, directly or indirectly. I oppose terminations of later stage pregnancies, including those known as “partial birth.”

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom?

Marriage is a state issue. Each state should decide its own rules for marriage.

Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. I oppose giving special privileges to any group.

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

I am a former Marine and officer in the Coast Guard and the only candidate to have served in the military. The fact is, anyone who has been in uniform can tell you gay men and women have served honorably in the military, probably since the founding of our country. Having said that, any soldier, sailor, Marine or airman whose conduct, of whatever kind, is detrimental to good order and discipline and corrosive to morale should be discharged.

Jane Corwin:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

I oppose partial birth abortion, do not support taxpayer funding of abortion, would vote to defund Planned Parenthood and am supportive of parental notification.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

I believe that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman. Unlike any of my opponents, I spoke out when President Obama announced his plans to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The President of the United States swore an oath to uphold the laws of our great country and as a member of the Executive Branch he needs to enforce those laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act. It is the Supreme Court’s job to consider the constitutionality of the law and the President should not usurp the authority of the Supreme Court.

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law nearly 15 years ago by President Clinton – he himself a democrat like President Obama – who understood that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

It’s important to look at the military’s implementation plan for allowing gay men and women to openly serve in the military, especially since we are a nation at war. Last year, Democrats made a political decision to decline to wait for the military’s report on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It’s important for leaders in the military – those who would actually be the ones implementing a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – to testify before Congress about how they would implement a repeal of the law to ensure that military readiness during a time of war is not affected.

Hochul announces she's raised more than $350K for campaign

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, will report raising more than $350,000 in the first quarter of 2011. 

In the report – that will be filed with the Federal Elections Commission today – Hochul will show having more than $300,000 in the bank. There were nearly 450 individual donors who contributed to the campaign, more than 90 percent of whom are residents of New York State.

“Our supporters are excited and committed to helping us win on May 24th,” said Fabien Levy, communications director for Kathy Hochul for Congress.  “More than 50 percent of the donations were at $250 or below, which shows we have strong grassroots support in this race. Western New Yorkers are sending a strong message that they want a fighter to represent them in Congress.”

Hochul demands Corwin state position on GOP budget proposal

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

The following is a statement from Fabien Levy, director of communications for Kathy Hochul for Congress:

“In just a few hours the House will vote on the Republican budget proposal that would end Medicare as we know it. For days, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, has called on her opponents to join her in rejecting any budget that would add burdensome costs onto the backs of America’s seniors. Today, there is only one candidate whose silence signals her intentions to break the promises made to our elderly population.

“Jane Corwin remains the only candidate in this race who has refused to tell the voters of the 26th District where she stands on the current budget proposal. As the only Republican in the country currently running for Congress, she has repeatedly dodged every opportunity to take a position on the Republican’s 2012 budget.

“While her silence signals apathy, the truth may be even worse. The people of the 26th want to know, if Jane Corwin was currently a Member of the House of Representatives, would she vote to slash benefits, increase costs, and hold America’s elderly population responsible for fighting with insurance companies? Kathy Hochul has firmly stated her opposition to this proposal and promised to reject any budget that fundamentally alters Medicare. 

“Assemblymember Corwin, before the vote is cast, tell the voters of the 26th District how you would vote today – would you reject the current budget proposal before the House or would you vote to decimate Medicare?”

Authentically Local