Cuomo OKs Special Prosecutor–Reed Disapproves

Governor Andrew Cuomo recently announced that Attorney Eric Schneiderman  would AG EricShave the power to appoint Special Prosecutors in cases where an unarmed person is killed by a law enforcement officer.  Cuomo had to use an Executive Order for this, since the legislature failed to agree on a bill would create that position. The majority leaders of the Senate and Assembly were with Cuomo at his announcement. This appointment is to last for one year.

“We were working on a piece of legislation. I don’t believe the best approach is to have one special prosecutor for the entire state. We were close to reconciling them (the legislation). This isn’t horseshoes. The buzzer went off, and we’ll work on it next year.” It should be noted that in the past 15 years there have been 179 fatalities involving NYC Police. Only three cases led to indictments—and one conviction.

With well known homicide cases involving Police Officers  and unarmed victims in Ferguson, Cleveland, Baltimore, Charleston, and Staten Island in less than a year, creating a Special Prosecutor would put a space between the accused police officer and the officers/investigators working on the case. It makes sense to have a Special Prosecutor in placed.

How did Congressman Reed react to Governor Cuomo’s move for to restore confidence in the criminal justice system? Radio station WLEA from Hornell had an interview with Reed on Saturday (June 27) and asked him about the Governor’s appointment. Reed’s response:

“I stand with Law Enforcement. I have talked with these men and women. I’ve met with their families. The bad apples are there, sure. Let’s not lose sight of the 99.9% of them that are good hard working men and women fellow Americans doing a tough job. Let’s not say they are all bad. That’s where I’m concern the Governor is going. A lot of these other prosecutors are going. They are looking to get a scalp in a group of employees that honorably serve us who put their lives at risk. I’m going to stand with law enforcement because they are the ones doing the yeoman work to keep us safe.”

Hopefully the Attorney General won’t have to use his newly acquired power. The fact that New York State has a plan in case the worst happens is important.  It’s sad that Rep. Reed refuses to even acknowledge that Governor Cuomo’s announcement is admirable. Matter of fact, Reed found this as an  opportunity to dive to  despicable depths of disrespect by contenting that the Governor is “looking to get a scalp” of law enforcement officers. Reed has nothing to base that statement on–except his own biases. That statement tells us volumes about Rep. Reed’s political agenda.

Reed’s supporters generally despise Governor Cuomo because he has stepped on the toes of the gun lobby and the oil/gas industry to promote safety in New York State. Rep. Reed is a politician who needs to remind his political base that he stands with them against the evil Governor Cuomo.

The middle of the road, common sense NY 23rd constituents appreciate the work our Governor has done to protect us. Rep. Reed could at least praise the plan (Special Prosecutor) even if he can’t praise the planner (Gov. Cuomo).

Posted in Constituents, Gun Violence, Protests, Reed's Views | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Propane Caucus

Gas Free at Sen Gillibrand in PYRecent developments in the energy sector have generated a strong domestic propane supply projected to remain plentiful for the foreseeable future.–Rep. Robert Latta (R-OH)

Tom Reed posted a June 9, 2015 Jamestown Post-Journal article by Jimmy McCarthy. McCarthy writes:

The plentiful propane commodity serves the needs of American consumers from heating to farming.

Challenges, however, remain for maintaining a reliable, consistent and affordable source.

Yes indeed. One current challenge is finding a place to store surplus propane. As Rep. Latta notes below, there is currently a glut of propane unable to be sold.

The caucus aims to administer a bipartisan forum, engaging members of Congress, their staff and the public on issues related to the propane industry and its consumers. Reed said propane is a valuable part of the comprehensive energy strategy needed to drive Western New York’s economy in the 21st century. The caucus is striving to ensure a long-term policy is in place to address propane needs.

To address “propane needs?” Does Tom mean “propane producer’s needs?”

“We had a shortage that was brought to our attention in the northeast recently,” Reed said. “It could have been devastating in regards to the ability to keep people warm, especially this past winter in particular.”

“It really is a part of an all-of-the-above energy plan that I hope we as a nation will adopt,” he (Reed) said. “It’s a component to the needs of America’s energy, especially when it comes to home heating sources. That is critical to making sure that people are safe and have a quality of life.”

America’s energy will heat homes, but not here. Much propane is exported. Is Tom ever honest with his constituents?

“I am pleased to start this caucus in order to educate fellow members of Congress on the many uses of propane, its importance to the constituents we serve, and the issues both the industry and its consumers face,” said Latta.

“It is imperative that we do everything in our power to protect families and local businesses from facing the price shocks we witnessed in the winter of 2014, when a lack of supply put people’s lives and livelihoods at risk,” said Rep. Tim Walz (D-MN) co-chair.

propaneThe price shock the industry is concerned about isn’t the prospect of high prices in the future, but rather low and falling prices today. That’s why they are looking for more places to store the stuff.

http://reed.house.gov/propane-caucus-features-reed-founding-member

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/grillers-rejoice-as-u-s-shale-boom-sends-propane-to-13-year-low

Posted in Congress, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, Political, Reed's Views | Tagged | 1 Comment

Tom Reed wants to “do stuff.”

catoA lot of us came here to do stuff.–Tom Reed

Its (No Labels) version of a platform is a “national strategic agenda” of four goals that polling identified as important to majorities across the political spectrum: creating 25 million net new jobs in the next decade, securing Medicare and Social Security for 75 years, balancing the federal budget by 2030 and achieving energy security by 2024.

It’s easy to be cynical about this. The goals may be easy to agree on in principle, but they are divisive as soon as you start talking about the how.

No Labels leaders don’t entirely disagree. “You can’t talk about energy very long without talking about climate,” Huntsman said. “You can’t talk about jobs very long without talking about immigration.”

Rep. Tom Reed is a member of No Labels. Reed relies on trickle down to create jobs, would save Social Security and Medicare by cutting benefits, fails to acknowledge the recessionary impact of a balanced budget, and would seek energy security by burning the last drop of fossil fuel. It is hard to see how Reed would work with more reasonable people to make progress on these issues.

Reed opposes most efforts to combat climate change, he seeks to repeal Obamacare heedless of the cost of that, and he has a very limited concept of immigration reform. Reed’s hard-line views make it most unlikely that he will be part of a solution to the problems we face.

Rep. Tom Reed, a New York Republican, said members of Congress hear from many organizations that are narrowly focused on single issues. “No Labels taps into the silent majority and organizes them,” Reed said. “That makes us a little more comfortable sticking our necks out.”

Reed has occasionally stuck his neck out, most often by backing the GOP leadership on issues that right-leaning Republicans oppose–Fast Track is one recent example.

Reed, the Republican representative from Corning, New York, said many legislators are “tired of not having results” and would gladly join in a process built around strategic goals.

Maybe many legislators would “gladly join in a process built around strategic goals,” but not many have joined No Labels  yet. And from those like Tom Reed who have joined, there is not much to show for it.

“A lot of us came here to do stuff,” Reed said.

Yes, but what kind of stuff? That matters.

http://www.middletownpress.com/opinion/20150629/another-view-no-labels-stakes-out-a-national-agenda

Posted in Congress, Economics, Education, Environmental, Health Care, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, Immigration, Political, Reed's Views | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Politics Matter: An Update on the Older Americans Act

pystew:

Ray Copson, who wrote many articles for the New NY23rd, and his wife, Donna have started a blog, “Common Sense for Seniors” . This is an article on the “Older Americans Act.”

Originally posted on Common Sense for Seniors:

To what extent should we be discussing politics at this blog? After all, we’re seniors. We’ve heard it all before, and what difference has any of it made? At this point in our lives, we should be focusing on ourselves, particularly on our health, our finances, and our loved ones.

This line of reasoning has its appeal, particularly when we’re feeling a little grumpy. But accepting it would be a mistake. We have to take an interest in politics if we’re going to protect Social Security, Medicare, and all the other government programs that have an impact on our lives.

That’s why I’m bothered by the nearly complete lack of attention being given by the media and our national leaders to the June 10 update on the Older Americans Act issued by the Government Accountability Office. Among the presidential candidates, only Senator Bernie Sanders appears to have mentioned it

View original 425 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Reed: Supreme Court Ignores Legislation with ACA Ruling

cato“I am disappointed by the ruling (King v. Burwell). Obamacare has been flawed from the very beginning, and as a Congress we need to make every effort to repeal the law.” — Tom Reed

(Yet Tom Reed’s motto once was “Fix not Fight.”)

In his June 25th Press Release, Tom writes:

In the original Affordable Care Act language, the bill states “an Exchange established by the State,” when discussing which types of individuals are eligible for subsidies. During implementation, subsidy guidelines were extended to all citizens who purchased health insurance on any public exchange.

“The original wording was not sloppy legislating, or an oversight, but was an intentional position as part of the Administration’s coercive tactics to force the states into accepting Obamacare. The Administration and Members of Congress are now back peddling for political expediency, but this was and has always been the intention of the law,” Reed continued.

Reed claims that the administration intended ACA to be non-functional without State Exchanges to force States to to create such exchanges. Therefore Reed suggests the text of the law singled out by the petitioner’s reflects what Congress intended and should have been upheld. The Court rejected this view.

The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well. 

The Court then concluded:

(e) Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid.

The final words of the majority opinion:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt

Amy Davidson, writing for The New Yorker, concludes:

It is not the business of the Court, Scalia writes, to “repair laws that do not work out in practice.” But the opposite truth seems to be the problem for Scalia and his cohorts: Obamacare has worked. And they can’t break it.

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-supreme-court-ignores-legislation-aca-ruling

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-114_qol1.pdf

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/obamacare-survives-the-scalia-treatment

Posted in Congress, Health Care, Political, Reed's Views | Tagged , | 6 Comments

Why DID the Chicken Cross the Road?

pystew:

Coach Muller liked our article about the National Heritage Area and I went to his blog, Good Time Stories (https://goodtimestories.wordpress.com). This article is a bit political…and it might give you a smile!

Originally posted on Good Time Stories:

Photo Credit: Becky via CC Flickr Photo Credit: Becky via CC Flickr

Have you ever REALLY wondered why the Chicken crossed the road?  Well the following answers are from famous people around the world. You will be enjoy reading there answers. Read them to find out what they are!

—————-

GEORGE W. BUSH

We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or it is against us. There is no middle ground here.
AL GORE
I invented the chicken. I invented the road. Therefore, the chicken crossing the road represented the application of these two different functions of government in a new, reinvented way designed to bring greater services to the American people.

COLIN POWELL
Now at the left of the screen, you clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing…

View original 676 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

War Powers

head-in-the-sand

Congress

H CON RES 55   YEA-AND-NAY   17-Jun-2015   4:06 PM
QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Resolution
BILL TITLE: Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces deployed to Iraq or Syria on or after August 7, 2014, other than Armed Forces required to protect United States diplomatic facilities and personnel, from Iraq and Syria

According to Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA):

This resolution calls on the Administration to remove most of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq and Syria unless Congress votes to authorize additional military action. The Administration recently announced plans to send 450 more U.S. military personnel to Iraq, bringing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to approximately 3,500. Despite this increased activity, Congress has not debated an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF). Instead the AUMF from 2001 is being used to justify current activities.

The President has a Constitutional obligation to bring this matter before Congress and Congress has a Constitutional obligation to take a vote on it. 

Dana Milbank explains:

Four months ago, President Obama sent Congress a proposed “Authorization for the Use of Military Force” for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — consistent with earlier demands by the House that the president seek just such an authorization.

But nothing happened — until Wednesday, when a quixotic band of lawmakers led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Walter Jones (R-N.C.) used a provision in the War Powers Resolution to force a debate and a vote on the House floor on military action in Syria in Iraq. Their proposal — a withdrawal from the region — was acknowledged by supporters to be a “blunt instrument,” but they figured that they could use the threat of an artificial deadline for a withdrawal to force their colleagues in the House to take action on passing a use-of-force authorization.

Milbank concludes:

It won’t be easy to pass a use-of-force resolution. Many Democrats thought Obama’s request too broad, and many Republicans thought it too narrow. But that’s no excuse for inaction. 

At Rep. Reed’s “Listening Meeting” in Geneva on Tuesday, Sept. 3, 2013, Reed started the session by praising President Obama for requesting that Congress weigh-in on his decision of having limited strikes in Syria, and Reed feels, “That is the right call according to the Constitution and the War Powers Act.” Yet Congress continues to avoid this issue.

H CON RES 55 failed 139 to 288; Rep Reed and most Republicans voted NAY.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/06/17/a37abc4a-1534-11e5-9518-f9e0a8959f32_story.html

http://newny23rd.com/2013/09/04/geneva-listening-session-on-syria/

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll370.xml

Posted in Congress, Political, President, Reed's Views, War | Leave a comment