Jack Davis

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.”

A reader e-mailed me about this earlier this week and I've not had a chance to get down to Darien and check it out.

Charlie Flagg, muralist, has planted some 5,000 Jack Davis signs on his property. He says it's a project where politics meets art.

The Jack Davis campaign made the video of Flagg and his signs.

A press release after from the Davis campaign after the jump:

You know it’s election season when the lawn signs sprout like mushrooms after a spring rain. And they sure are sprouting on Charlie Flagg’s lawn – 5,000 of them. The Western New York artist has turned his property into a statement of support for Jack Davis, the independent candidate for Congress in the special election on May 24th.

“I’ve incorporated the world of art and politics together. I’m making an artistic statement to the electorate – Jack’s in the race, he’s a good man, probably better than anyone else who’s come along for the district in a long time,” says Charlie Flagg.

Charlie Flagg is known for the murals he has painted throughout Western New York. He says his support for Jack Davis is rooted in his distrust of professional politicians.

“I’d like to see Jack get in because he’s not a political person. From my experience dealing with political people, I will never vote for anyone who ever came up from the political ranks,” Flagg said.

“When I was a kid growing up in the Sixties, you could walk out of a job at 12 o’clock and by 3 o’clock have another one. Now that’s not the case.  They’ve sold all our jobs overseas. We need to get some of those back, and you’re not going to do that with a professional politician,” Flagg said.

You can see the installation at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI-Y5LDPUSk and by visiting Charlie Flagg’s property in Darien at the corner of Tinkham and Chick roads in Darien.

For high quality video of the installation and to contact Charlie Flagg, contact Curtis Ellis.

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.

Press release:

Statement from Jack Davis, Independent Candidate for Congress (NY-26), on Report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing 1st quarter economic growth of 1.8 percent as the trade deficit widened:

Today’s report confirms what people outside Washington and Wall Street already knew: The economy is not getting better. 

Today’s report shows the trade deficit widened as businesses bought imported goods to restock their inventories. 

We need to put Americans back to work, and the surest way to do that is to make more of what we buy. If each American spent just 18 cents a day on American made products, it would put 200,000 people to work.

Every dollar spent on imports represents a job an American doesn’t have.  

Both parties in Washington continue to push failed economic policies that send our jobs overseas and make us dependent on imports from unstable foreign sources.

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.

Press Release:

Democrats and Republicans continue to push partisan agendas rather than honestly confronting the problems Americans face.

The Republican plan for cutting Medicare is unacceptable. The Democrats propose continuing tax, spend and borrow policies -- business as usual.  This is unacceptable.

There is a third way: Put American men and women back to work. The inflow of revenue to the U.S. Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from taxes paid by working Americans and profitable businesses will solve the deficit problems.

It is time to reinstitute trade-balancing tariffs on imported manufactured products. With a level playing field, U.S. businesses will hire Americans to produce the goods Americans consume. From 1789 to 1913, a major source of revenue for the U.S. government was tariffs on foreign goods, not taxes on working Americans.

The third way budget also shuts down offshore tax havens that companies use to hide their profits. It closes unneeded military bases around the world and eliminates foreign aid to countries that hate us. 

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and the responsibility to promote the general welfare – jobs. Congress must return to first principles: put America first and put Americans back to work.

ON TAX DAY, JACK DAVIS OFFERS INDEPENDENT VISION TO PUT AMERICANS TO WORK, MAINTAIN MEDICARE, CLOSE OFFSHORE TAX HIDEOUTS
 
(AKRON, NY) With the deadline for filing income taxes approaching, Jack Davis, independent candidate for U.S. Congress, is putting forward his vision for a federal budget that cuts deficits and spending and puts Americans back to work. It accomplishes these goals without eliminating Medicare as the Republicans propose, and without raising taxes, as Democrats propose. 

Jack Davis advocates shutting down offshore tax havens and closing tax loopholes supported by both parties that allow multinational corporations like GE to hide profits overseas and evade paying taxes. 

A provision of the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, allows companies to avoid taxes by booking their profits overseas.

When that provision was set to expire in 2008, it was two New York Democrats, Rep. Charlie Rangel, then-chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and Committee Member Rep. Joe Crowley, who went to bat for the corporate tax evaders to keep the loophole open.  Crowley claimed it would help the financial services giant Citigroup. (See http://nyti.ms/eUQAce)

“This shows how both parties have sold out to the multinationals and big banks which are American in name only, ” says Jack Davis.

The key to balancing the budget is putting Americans back to work.

“The inflow of revenue to the U.S. Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from taxes paid by working Americans and profitable businesses will solve the deficit problems,” says Davis.

Analysis by authoritative financial experts bears this out. Dan Fuss, manager of the $18.5 billion Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, has been managing bond portfolios for 50 years. Earlier this month, Fuss pointed out that about 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are now gainfully employed. If that percentage rises to 64 percent, Fuss says, the budget deficit disappears entirely. (See http://reut.rs/f6GJKH)

And the key to putting Americans back to work is leveling the playing field for American businesses and working men and women. Right now, China and other foreign competitors are flooding the American market with manufactured goods of all kinds because they have an unfair advantage over American producers. This is putting Americans out of work and bankrupting American businesses.

Bert Baker, of Baker Drivetrain, an American manufacturer of motorcycle components, knows firsthand the unfair competition American producers face. He points to a Chinese company that sells its finished parts at a price equivalent to the cost of the raw materials.

“There are some parts being made in China, and the cost of that finished product is roughly the cost of my raw materials if I were to make it in this country. Aluminum and most raw materials are globally priced, they’re the same all over the globe. So what gives here -- how could they do that? I know their people are not working for nothing. What I’m guessing is that China is providing subsidies so they can sell it so cheaply,” says Baker. (See http://bit.ly/hJgNex)

A tariff on imported manufactured products would level the playing field for American producers.

“Businesses would invest in America and hire Americans to produce the goods Americans buy,” says Jack Davis.

Tariffs are as American as apple pie, Davis points out. Until the adoption of the income tax in 1913, tariffs on foreign goods, not taxes on working Americans, were the major source of revenue for the U.S. government. (See http://bit.ly/fgeOtb)

Davis opposes eliminating Medicare or cutting Social Security to reduce government spending. He advocates cutting expenditures on the nearly 900 military bases the U.S. maintains around the world and cutting foreign aid to nations that do not share our values. (See http://bit.ly/2j7oY)

Press release:

Statement from Jack Davis, Independent candidate for U.S. Congress (NY-26), on federal budget proposals:

The budget proposals from both parties in Washington fail to address the real issue: jobs for Americans. Putting Americans back to work is the way we will reduce the deficit and balance the budget.

I oppose privatizing Medicare and forcing seniors to buy insurance with vouchers. This would throw millions of senior citizens into poverty or worse, and it fails to lower health care costs.

Instead of cutting Medicare and Social Security, we can save money by cutting foreign aid and foreign military commitments, from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to Germany, Japan and Italy. We must end corporate welfare and tax giveaways that allow companies like GE to pay no taxes at all.  

We have given government an unlimited expense account – and it has exceeded it. Giving Washington more money is not the solution. That’s why I oppose raising taxes.

We need to put Americans back to work instead of pushing more trade deals like NAFTA that send our jobs overseas.

Putting Americans back to work is the best way to reduce the deficit. Right now, about 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are working. If the percentage of working Americans increases to 64 percent, the budget deficit disappears. To put it another way, working Americans and profitable businesses pay taxes and pay into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The jobs offshored to China do not pay U.S. taxes.

But instead of focusing on jobs for Americans, the leaders of both parties are pushing for more failed trade deals that send American jobs overseas.

In the next 90 days, Congress will vote on a Korea trade agreement that would outsource thousands of American jobs and open the door to more imports from communist China. The party leaders are also pushing a NAFTA-style deal with Colombia that will cost us more jobs.

I will oppose these trade deals and will fight for American jobs. I ask Jane Corwin, Kathy Hochul and Ian Murphy to join me in making an iron-clad commitment to fight against these unfair trade deals.

Jack Davis, Independent candidate for U.S. Congress, is an engineer, innovator and entrepreneur who founded and manages I Squared R Element Co., Inc. a manufacturing company in Erie County. He has given the company to his employees and they will own and manage it when he retires.

Press release: 

The first television ad from the Jack Davis independent campaign for Congress contrasts Jack’s record of creating good-paying American jobs with the record of both parties in Washington that support trade deals like NAFTA which encourage companies to move American jobs offshore. The spot begins airing on cable and broadcast in the Buffalo and Rochester media markets on Thursday.

The factory scenes in the commercial were shot at I Squared R Element, Inc., in Akron N.Y., the company Jack Davis founded and manages. Jack’s commitment to his country, his community and his employees led to his decision in 2009 to give his company to his employees. 

“The success of my company was made possible by the loyalty, dedication and hard work of the men and women who work here. They will own it when I retire. They don’t have to worry about the company being sold and losing their jobs,” Jack Davis says. See the attached letter from Jack Davis to his employees for details.

NAFTA passed Congress in 1994 with support from President Clinton and both political parties in Congress. After its passage, multinational companies closed U.S. plants and relocated to Mexico. Today, President Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress are pushing trade deals with Korea, Colombia and Panama. The Korea trade agreement alone will lead to 159,000 lost U.S. jobs, more imports from China and a higher trade deficit.  

Press release:

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

“Yesterday, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, challenged her opponents – Republican, Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis – to tell the voters of the 26th District where they stand on Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal that would decimate Medicare. After not responding to last week’s challenge on the budget compromise, it is not surprising to see that neither Corwin nor Davis have responded to Kathy’s challenge this week.

“This is the second week in a row that Kathy Hochul has called on her opponents to take a position on an issue currently facing Congress, but both Assembymember Jane Corwin and Jack Davis seem to be hiding out.  Instead of telling voters how they would vote on a budget that will inevitably be presented to the next Representative from the 26th District, Kathy’s opponents are keeping silent on an issue that will affect all Americans.

“The voters deserve to know if Jane Corwin and Jack Davis support ending Medicare as we know it or will they join Kathy Hochul in rejecting any budget proposal that will hold our seniors responsible for burdensome costs.”

There are a number of questions I have for the candidates in the NY-26 special election race, and I'm sure you do as well. Rather than sit back and wait for position statements, I thought I would just start asking questions.

I plan to ask about a question per week until election day.

Today's topic: Foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the use of the U.S. military abroad. Each of the candidates were given four days to formulate a reply. 

Below is the question (which was a bit longer than I imagine most will be). Because of the length, and the length of answers, the question and answers appear after the jump.

The answers are presented in the order received, Ian Murphy, Kathy Hochul and Jane Corwin. We got no response from the Jack Davis campaign.

The question:

What is your position on our current military operations?

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same … 

Ian Murphy's answer:

What is your position on our current military operations?

All of them? It's getting hard to keep track.

Some military operations are good, like aiding in Japanese tsunami relief, but most strike me as the counterproductive actions of a waning empire, which is ruled by a corrupt and wealthy elite (see the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and the drone strikes in Pakistan,Yemen and Somalia).

Our current, aggressive military operations are guided by shortsighted greed. We've known since Eisenhower's “Military Industrial Complex” final address that war would be foisted upon the American people—under various and questionable pretexts—just so the business of war would boom. And it has.

A conservative estimate by former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz pegs the total costs of Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 trillion. This is $3 trillion in debt our children will have to repay. This is $3 trillion spent destabilizing the world, making us less safe, and further perpetuating the war economy.

Again and again, we've been rooked into conflict after conflict. Our kids are conned into killing and dying for oil profit, for jet engine profit, for base construction profit, for the profit Halliburton makes selling cases of Coke to the Pentagon for $45 a pop, etc.

So my position on our current military operations is that most of them are a mechanism by which war profiteers rob the American people blind.

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

In a conventional military sense, it is not winnable. Battling insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan has been a costly and pointless undertaking, historically. Every day we're there, we breed more enemies. And the more enemies we have, the longer we stay.

But some kind of victory is possible. An Afghanistan lifted out of abject poverty, which breeds religious tyranny, incubates terrorism and fosters rampant misogyny, would be a resounding victory. However, the road to that victory leads our troops back home.

Our obligation to the people of Afghanistan is the same obligation we have to our own people—to maintain a policy of diplomatic pressure, passive exertion of cultural influence, and wise economic support—in conjunction with the international community—to ensure a prosperous and less dangerous Afghanistan.

I should note that maintaining reliable intelligence efforts in the area is smart policy while we work toward the above.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

No. No. Trucks, airplanes & ships.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

Well, the Constitution states that declaring war is the responsibility of Congress alone. But there's also the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives high authority to treaties, so it could be argued that the prevention of genocide in Benghazi falls under our obligations to NATO. However, our international obligations should not usurp the power allotted to Congress in the Constitution—and make no mistake, the actions in Libya are the actions of war.

We should support the rebels with “Support the Rebels” bumper stickers. However, if that ridiculous suggestion is not adequate and our allies are determined to fund a revolution against Qaddafi, we should fulfill our obligations—or reevaluate them. But all efforts should be extremely limited in scope and duration.

Frankly, readers of The Batavian, I'm quite torn on Libya. We're engaged in far too many military operations as it is. On the other hand, if our quick action truly prevented the slaughter of tens of thousands in Benghazi, that seems morally righteous to me. That said, we can't always act as the world's police force.

Well, we've already sent the CIA, funds and weapons. Should we have? No, we should not take the lead on this thing. We should also be very wary of mission creep. We've seen the justification for the Iraq War change from one lie to another. As George Bush put it: “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Our military can be a force for good. I'm hesitantly OK with using our military power to save lives. The hesitance comes from our inability to predict the resulting obligations and commitments of an action.

More fundamentally, our actions in Libya highlight our hypocrisy. We actively support brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia & Yemen. The people in the Middle East and Africa see this and question our motives in Libya. A more prudent strategy would be to encourage democracy, civil liberties, and economic freedom in troubled regions of the world with a preemptive, non-violent approach.

Our interventionist policies have included CIA training of Osama bin Laden, arming Saddam Hussein and, as recently as 2009, sending U.S. Senators to discuss selling Qaddafi military hardware. It's time we used our heads and stopped fighting monsters of our own creation.
 
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same … 

Drastically decrease. We spend double what the next top ten nations spend combined on defense, and that money should go toward rebuilding America.

George Washington warned against funding and deploying standing armies around the world. He realized a long time ago that the business of military empire is a) very expensive and b) largely counterproductive. We have a war economy and ethos. It's unsustainable. Just as it was in Rome. An empire is like a balloon. If it gets too big, it will pop.

The more we spend on maintaining our empire, the less we have to invest in our own country—on our own people, our bridges roads and schools. War creates great suffering at home and abroad, for the profit of the very few. We need to reevaluate our priorities, and decide on a smarter, more ethical and democratic future.

Kathy Hochul's answer:

Q: On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan.

A: After nearly one decade at war, it is time for the U.S. to draw up a clear exit plan.  While we cannot simply disregard all the work that has been done over the last 10 years, the financial costs of our mission in Afghanistan has been far too high – costing the United States nearly $350 billion. We must begin the transfer of full operational control to the people of Afghanistan.

Q: On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

A: I did not support the invasion of Iraq.  Last year, I supported the end of combat operations in the nation and I currently support the plan to end all military operations by the end of 2011. 

Q: On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

A: The situation in Libya poses a grave threat to human life.  I stated early on that Moammar Ghadafi should be removed from power, but not by U.S. military force.  We cannot afford to lead another war, which is why I supported the transfer of operational control to NATO and believe that we must continue to develop a plan that works as part of a much larger coalition. 

Q: If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …

A: We must continue to protect the United States against all threats against us.  While I do support cuts to unnecessary programs like the new F-35 fighter jet engine under Pentagon recommendations, we must provide the military with the resources necessary to protect the American people.

Jane Corwin's answer:

What is your position on our current military operations?

As the daughter of a former Air Force Reservist, I have a deep respect and appreciation for all our men and women in uniform, and if honored to be WNY’s next representative in Congress would do everything I can to support those who proudly serve our nation. I recently attended a deployment ceremony for about 70 troops in Amherst and it was one of the most humbling experiences I’ve ever been a part of. I would take my responsibility as a federal official very seriously and would vote to bring our troops home as soon as the generals on the ground say it is possible.

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

Yes, it is a winnable war. We need to listen to our generals on the ground to determine when our mission is complete and we have secured freedom and liberty for the Afghan people and ensured that Afghanistan will not return to a safe haven for terrorists.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

I did support the decision to invade Iraq. Our men and women serving overseas deserve our support and the resources they need to be safe and successfully do their job. As with Afghanistan, I believe that we must listen to our generals on the ground as to when our servicemembers can come home.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

I was deeply disappointed that the president did not consult with Congress before issuing orders for military action against Libya. The president needed to define the purpose of our mission beforehand and the threat posed to our national security. There were no public hearings or discussions and thus taxpayers and servicemembers – not to mention many Members of Congress – did not know what the president’s objective was until military action had already been taken. Now we are deeply involved in another conflict overseas and there is not an end in sight. The president and his Administration must clearly outline what their plan is for sending more troops, arming the rebels (or anyone else), etc. If Congress was consulted before military action was taken, we would not be in the situation we are now.

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …

We need to find efficiencies and savings wherever we can to address the long term spending pressures our nation faces.  However, the fundamental priority of any government is to protect its citizens and I will fight to make sure our military remains the best-trained, and best-equipped in the world.

UPDATE Wednesday, 9:34 a.m.: Adding response from Jack Davis:

What is your position on our current military operations?

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

As a former Marine and officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, I say it is time to find a way out of Afghanistan. Our soldiers and Marines are being killed and maimed in an endless conflict.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

The invasion of Iraq was based on false premises and I did not support it at the time. It is time to bring our troops home.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels.

The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.   By dropping bombs on Libya, President Obama has declared war.  We should not be expending our airmen’s blood or our treasure in Libya without Congressional approval.

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations?

We need to end our foreign entanglements and bring our troops home from around the world.  We are spending billions to station troops in places that haven’t seen hostilities in over 60 years.  We no longer fear Soviet tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap, but we still have troops stationed in Germany to stop them. We can no longer afford to foot the bill as the policeman of the world when Washington is planning to cut health care for our seniors and Americans’ needs are ignored.

Press release from Kathy Hochul campaign:

“Tonight, with just over one hour before a massive a government shutdown, the United States Congress finally came to a budget compromise. 

“For days, I have called on my opponents, Republican Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis, to join me in supporting a budget compromise to no avail. I am thankful Congress has worked through their disputes and finally come to this compromise that cuts spending. However, I am greatly dismayed at the lack of concern Jane Corwin and Jack Davis have shown on this issue. Instead of supporting what was right for the people of the 26th District, my opponents chose to play politics and avoid the issue at hand. 

“If Jane Corwin and Jack Davis were currently serving in Congress, their apathy towards the budget compromise would have delayed students their loans, seniors their social security benefits, small business owners their loans, veterans their benefits, military men and women their paychecks, and hard working families their tax refunds.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to stand, which is why once elected I will work with all Members of Congress to make sure this fiasco does not occur again. I will work hard to pass a 2012 budget on time that makes substantial cuts, while still ensuring essential services are not disturbed. We cannot decimate Medicare and break the promises made to our seniors.”

Press release from Jack Davis' campaign:

Jack Davis, independent candidate for U.S. Congress, was endorsed by the Tea Party Coalition on Thursday evening. This endorsement builds on the broad support Davis’ independent candidacy is receiving from voters of all affiliations throughout the 26th District.   
 
“I am honored to have the support of the Tea Party Coalition. Along with the Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives and Independents I have heard from, they are fed up with both parties which have failed to deliver the jobs we need to support families, keep Social Security strong and ensure a prosperous future for our children. For too long, we’ve seen politicians make promises then break them when they’re bought off in Washington. I’m not a politician and I can’t be bought,” Jack Davis said.

Press release from the Jack Davis campaign:

Washington politicians are bickering like children. It’s another example of how both parties have failed us. They are doing nothing to put Americans back to work, which is essential to balancing the budget and securing Social Security for seniors. 

Right now, about 56% of Americans over the age of 16 are gainfully employed. If that percentage rises to 64%, then the budget deficit disappears entirely. If the Washington politicians took the budget deficit seriously, they’d be focusing on increasing the number of jobs for Americans instead of shipping our jobs overseas.

Both parties continue to push trade deals like NAFTA that have destroyed our economy and our childrens’ future. Both parties continue to spend valuable tax dollars around the globe instead of putting Americans first.

We need to bring our troops home from places like Germany and Italy that have not seen hostilities in more than a half a century. We need to end our endless wars in the Middle East. We need to stop giving money to every country on Earth. We need to create American jobs and put tariffs on China’s unfair imports.

The money saved from doing these things would solve the problems that Washington politicians use to threaten a shut down.

We need people in Congress who will stand up to the special interests that control both parties, and who will fight for what’s right for America.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) has proposed what he claims is a bold plan to reduce government spending by $4 trillion over 10 years.

The plan would:

• Repeal health care reform
• Turn Medicare over to private insurances and provide vouchers for recipients
• Turn Medicaid into a block-grant funded program with state's picking up any unfunded expenses
• Lower the highest individual and corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 percent
• Lift drilling moratoriums on and off shore
• Cap government spending at 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product
• It also makes claims for job creation, claims to spur growth and higher wages, bans earmarks and cuts corporate welfare.

Since this is a plan that the next representative from the NY-26 could be asked to vote on, we asked each candidate to respond to Ryan's budget proposal.

Jane Corwin:

Our country is facing a historical challenge – we can either keep pursuing a path of runaway spending, and job-killing debt, or we can choose to get serious about reducing spending, cutting taxes and creating sustainable long-term economic growth for our children and grandchildren. The plan unveiled today recognizes this reality. I look forward to studying the proposals and working to change the direction of our country.

Kathy Hochul:

It’s time to get our fiscal house in order and start working toward reducing our national debt. There is no question that we need to make substantial cuts to our budget, but decimating Medicare cannot be the solution. Once elected, I look forward to working with all members of Congress to cut wasteful spending, while still keeping the promises made to our seniors and ensuring the survival of job re-training programs, so that our businesses can innovate, create jobs, and compete in the global market.

Ian Murphy:

Ryan's budget proposal represents the height of Republican dishonesty. It's a reverse-Robin Hood, where they rob from the poor and give to the rich. You can't reduce the deficit by lowering taxes on corporations and the super-rich, and cutting social spending. Anyone who suggests such an obvious lie should be laughed off the political stage. It's just one more example of our elected officials representing wealth, not people. 

As for Jack Davis, his communications director Curtis Ellis wrote, "This is a large and complex proposal. As an engineer, Jack wants to give it the attention it requires and deserves. He's looking closely at it and we'll get back to you." That was yesterday afternoon and we've not yet received a response from Davis.

For further reading:

• Paul Ryan in WSJ: The GOP Path to Prosperity
• WaPo Fact-Checker: Ryan Budget Plan 'Relies on Dubious Assertions, Questionable Assumptions and Fishy Figures
• Paul Ryan's Budget Plan: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

The Buffalo News is reporting that Batavia resident David Bellavia failed to turn in the proper paperwork to qualify for a line on the May 24 special election ballot for the NY-26.

While Bellavia's campaign turned in 3,600 signatures and the other campaigns apparently indicated they were not going to challenge the petitions, Bellavia was required by law to turn in an "acceptance letter," which he did not do by today's deadline.

The letter is required for a candidate running on a line that is not his party.

Meanwhile, Roll Call is reporting that Jack Davis should qualify for the ballot and is expecting to spend $3 million on the campaign. He reportedly plans to use most of the money targeting Republican candidate Jane Corwin, especially on jobs and free trade issues.

Davis is running on the "Tea Party" line, which has upset Buffalo's Rus Thompson, according to Roll Call.

Thompson said the "Tea Party" is a movement, not a political party.

Our old friend Jack Davis caught the attention of Robert Harding over at The Albany Project. Apparently, now that Dick Cheney is out of office, Davis is falling back into the GOP fold.

Davis was seen, reportedly, at a GOP fundraiser in Niagara county.

Surely, regional Republicans won't object to his cash switching sides.

Official word is coming out of the Buffalo News this morning. Three-time Congressional challenger Jack Davis will not make it on the ballot this time around. Davis lost in the Democratic primary to Alice Kryzan. He was hoping to still get on the ballot under his "Save Jobs and Farms" party, but he failed to submit the paperwork on time.

Reporter Robert J. McCarthy writes:

A State Supreme Court justice Thursday rejected congressional candidate Jack Davis’ attempt to remain on the November ballot, ending his third attempt to win the job.

[...]

Justice Richard M. Platkin of Albany disagreed with Davis’ contention that his petition to form a minor party line called Save Jobs and Farms should have been accepted even though he failed to file a certificate of acceptance on time, as required by state election law.

Davis argued that the state Board of Elections should have provided him an opportunity to submit the late application anyway and that the board acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in not allowing him to file.

The judge ruled otherwise.

Davis has not said whether he would support Democrat Alice Kryzan's bid to defeat Republican Chris Lee in the 26th Congressional District. She would have to support Davis' "anti-free trade message," he said, but he doesn't "think she understands" it.

Will he try yet again? It doesn't sound like it. Davis told the Buffalo News that it's too bad he didn't get the opportunity to do some good: "I’m not going to get that opportunity to do it again."

When you're a reporter, you just love ledes that write themselves. Jerry Zremski of the Buffalo News had a real zinger fall into his lap.

Jack Davis collected 7,000 signatures to get his “Save Jobs and Farms Party” on the November ballot, but he forgot the most important one: his own.

Too funny.

If Davis can't beat Powers or Kryzan in the primary, it's unlikely his Save Farms and Jobs Party, will qualify for the November ballot.

Davis, an Akron millionaire who has vowed to spend $3 million of his money on the race, has until next Wednesday to go to court to appeal the decision.

Brehm indicated, however, that the ruling was an easy one on the part of the board.

“I don’t see how we can waive a statutory requirement,” he said.

I don't expect this flub will help him any in the polls.

Public radio station WBFO has posted interviews with Jack Davis and Alice Kryzan.  Check the site tomorrow for Jon Powers (hat tip 26th District Congressional Blog).

Here's the audio from today's 26th Congressional Debate between Alice Kryzan and Jon Powers.

I haven't had time yet to listen to it. If anybody wants to write up a report of it, that would be great.

As for Jack Davis not participating -- his reported demands that his opponents sign various pledges before he'll debate them is down right anti-democratic (and I mean that with a small "d").

If you run for office, you don't get to dictate what issues your opponent will support, what ethics (or not) they will follow, what sort of campaign they will run. To expect otherwise is just basically anti-American.  Either Jack Davis wants to be a lawfully elected representative, or he wants to be a dictator. To dodge debates under the pretense of lecturing other candidates is unconscionable.

We need representatives who will speak up for what they believe without fear or favor. We need representatives who will be transparent about what they believe and why they believe it. We need representatives who will discuss with anybody -- other candidates, media or constituent -- what they believe an why. We should fear those candidates who purposely make themselves inaccessible.

Again, i'm not taking sides here. I'm just saying why Jack Davis was wrong to dodge the debate.