Ten reasons to vote for Martha Robertson rather than Tom Reed

martha3

Please vote for me if you agree with me at least half the time.–Martha Robertson

“Republican Rep. Tom Reed nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory last time.”–Nathan L. Gonzales, Rothenberg Political Report

  1. Martha is a Democrat. Tom is part of the Republican/tea party roadblock in the House.
  2. Martha is supported by the people of NY-23. Tom is supported by special interests. Much of Tom’s support is from out-of-state.
  3. Martha opposes Paul Ryan’s reactionary, austere budget proposal. Tom voted for it.
  4. Martha supports Social Security. Tom would cut benefits at least for future retirees.
  5. Martha supports progressive taxation. Tom favors a “flat tax,” a windfall for the most wealthy taxpayers and a heavier burden on most of us.
  6. Martha favors environmental protection. Tom seeks to rescind environmental regulations at every opportunity.
  7. Martha favors acting to promote economic recovery. Tom favors rescinding regulations and cutting business taxes instead.
  8. Martha supports public education.
  9. Martha supports low interest student loans. Tom voted to raise interest rates.
  10. Martha supports affordable health care. Tom voted again and again to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act which would leave millions of us without insurance and restore the Republican “doughnut hole.”

© William Hungerford – July 2014

 

 

Advertisements

About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2014, Congress, Constituents, Economics, Education, Environmental, Health Care, Political, Reed's Views and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Ten reasons to vote for Martha Robertson rather than Tom Reed

  1. Jimmy Henry says:

    Martha Robertson has a record raising property taxes, raising her salary and increasing unemployment. Her support for eliminating Medicare Advantage shows just how out of touch she is with reality.

    As much as she may try to hide from her past and play the moderate her statements and record show something else entirely.

    • whungerford says:

      Is Jimmy Henry an alias for Henry S. Kramer? In any case, can you explain why you believe what you say is true?

    • solodm says:

      I’ve never seen Tom Reed turn down a raise, has he?
      It seems Tom is the Washington insider who needs to hide. He hides behind committee cloaking, NRA rhetoric, out of state money, and most unfortunately – when called on to explain himself and his actions – he hides behind his own family.

      • Jimmy Henry says:

        The last time the House took a pay raise was before Tom Reed took office while Nancy Pelosi was still the Speaker of House and Democrats controlled Congress.

        In fact he voted against a pay raise in 2013 that a majority of Democrats including Nancy and company supported. So yes, he has turned down a pay raise.

      • whungerford says:

        Tom didn’t turn down a pay raise; he did vote for a temporary pay freeze.

        • Jimmy Henry says:

          You can call it whatever you want but his salary stayed the same while Martha increased her salary four times.

          • Deb Meeker says:

            Tom certainly made a huge deal out of touting “No Budget No pay”, but after the chips fell from the 24 billion dollar government shutdown; he voted once to create and once more to continue – he happily took his back pay. What a Prince.

        • solodm says:

          ” Jimmy” just started his Facebook page 22 hours ago. Since he’s a newbie to the scene, and his only purpose is to continue to smear Martha Robertson, perhaps we can forgive his apparent lack of facts.

    • josephurban says:

      When did Robertson vote to raise unemployment? Do you have a Bill # and date for that one. I would be interested in reading the text of the “Raise Unemployment Bill”.

      • Jimmy Henry says:

        She did not vote to raise unemployment, but under her leadership Tompkins County unemployment has nearly doubled.

        • whungerford says:

          If Martha did single-handedly cause unemployment to rise not only in Tompkins County but simultaneously almost everywhere else too, she must indeed be an extraordinarily powerful and effective person.

          • Jimmy Henry says:

            Incredibly ineffective…

            I never said the blame lays solely with her. However, if she is going to campaign on the low unemployment rate in Tompkins County she should expect questions about why it has nearly doubled since she took office.

            I notice I am the only one citing actual votes, records and statistics — might be refreshing if I started writing the blogs and you took your partisan cheerleading back to the comments section where it belongs along with your sarcastic comments.

      • Maddie Lane says:

        Robertson is talking about low unemployment in Tompkins County – which is great, we all want low unemployment. We have to agree on that. The only catch is, she simultaneously has the highest poverty rate with high job loss. That means people are dropping out all together. This is the problem and this is what needs to be solved. She can’t have it both ways, but should instead propose solutions to the growing problem in her own backyard.

        • whungerford says:

          It is puzzling that Tompkins County, where the median family income is relatively high, should have more poverty than other counties in NY-23. I believe the explanation is that TC has atypical demographics–fewer youth and fewer seniors than other counties–so that the poverty figure is misleading.

  2. josephurban says:

    The so-called “cuts” to Medicare advantage are NOT cuts to patients. They are savings from reducing overpayments to providers and the elimination of overbilling of the US government. This is simply a GOP falsehood (You can see it on the NRCC website). In other words, while they CLAIM to support streamlining government and eliminating waste, in reality when a Democratic Congress did just that, the GOP intentionally mislead the voters. Not a single Medicare RECIPIENT will be cut. The “cuts ” to Medicare are simply a LIE.

    • Jimmy Henry says:

      That simply is not true. Medicare goes bankrupt in 2026, so taking $700 billion from Medicare today to fund another program is the definition of irresponsibility. It might not effect me today but my children and grandchildren are literally going to pay the price for these cuts to Medicare.

      • josephurban says:

        If what you said was accurate I would agree. But it is not accurate. Medicare will not go bankrupt. No money is being “taken out of “Medicare today. According to a 2013 study by the Center On Budget and Policy Studies the Medicare fund is COMPLETELY solvent up to 2026. At that point, IF NOTHING IS DONE, Medicare will still be able to pay out 87% of benefits. Eventually those payments will be for 76%. So, this means something has to be done, but the statement (often repeated) that Medicare will go BANKRUPT in 2026 is simply FALSE. And cutting the payments and cutting waste does not in any way increase that insolvency. So. NO. Medicare will not go bankrupt. As the population ages it will need to be re-examined, but the scare tactics simply false.

        • Jimmy Henry says:

          You make my point — insolvent and bankrupt are synonyms. But taking the savings from reducing fraud and abuse and applying them to another program applies the same drain on the program as the theft itself.

          • josephurban says:

            Jim…”bankrupt” and “insolvent” are not synonyms but i am not going to split hairs. In both cases an organization is paying out more than it is taking in. In the case of Medicare the insolvency has actually been lessened due to the ACA (See the CPBS study I mentioned earlier). Seems to me the role of government is to make sure that 100% of Medicare is covered, don’t you think ? Continuing to closely monitor payments, a very small rise in the Medicare tax and the ACA’s new emphasis on preventative care all contribute to solving the problem. We are going to have more older people. That is demographics. We need to face reality. If the position of the GOP is to ADD another $700 billion to subsidize private Medicare Advantage plans then they should be open and honest about it. And tell us WHERE the $700 billion is going to come from. Raising taxes ? Raiding Social Security ? Repealing the ACA and going back to the days when millions of the working poor could not afford insurance at all?

  3. Jimmy Henry says:

    Joseph — the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program has said that Obamacare does not reduce the insolvency of Medicare.

    And lets not forget that Democrats greatly exacerbated this problem by raiding Obamcare in the first place. There needs to be long term change to the program to make it work but you simply cannot suggest that taking $700 billion for the program has made it better for seniors today or more financially stable because that is not true.

    • solodm says:

      ” the Chief Actuary of the Medicare program has said that Obamacare does not reduce the insolvency of Medicare.”

      “Jimmy” :
      ” The ACA also includes a number of other provisions related to
      health care that are estimated to reduce net federal outlays (primarily
      for Medicare). By repealing those provisions, H.R. 6079 would
      increase other direct spending in the next decade by an estimated
      $711 billion.
      http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf

    • josephurban says:

      Jim…According to the independent study by The CPBS the date of the start of insolvency (not bankruptcy) for Medicare has been pushed back 9 years due to the ACA. And , from the report of Mr Foster, the CHIEF ACTUARY of Medicare comes the following analysis of the impact of the ACA…..
      .”..Based on the estimated savings for Part A of Medicare the assets of the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2029 compared to 2017 under the prior law–an extension of 12 years… “(Page 9, Estimated Financial Effect of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, April 22, 2010…from the Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services).
      http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf
      I think what some folks may be missing is this. When you provide better quality health care, especially preventative care , at younger ages the drain on Medicare/ Medicaid will be lessened. Why ? Because people will be getting treatments before they become too costly. An ounce of prevention philosophy.

  4. Deb Meeker says:

    I’ll add one more reason why I am voting for Martha Robertson:
    I am a woman.

    I demand :
    equal rights,
    equal pay,
    rights over my own health care decisions, and,
    to be respected as an individual apart from religious beliefs –
    none of which has been supported by Congressman Thomas Reed II.

    • Maddie Lane says:

      Deb- I have to personally reply to you because I am so disappointed that women are reusing the war on women rhetoric dems are trotting out in a year they have no chance to win. If you have a job I implore you to prove yourself, work to excel, and ask for a raise. The equal pay act was passed in 1963 and it is illegal to pay a woman less. The government can only do so much for you.

      • Anne says:

        I’m always disappointed to see women who roll over as though things were just tickety-boo.

      • Deb Meeker says:

        Oh Maddie, I’ve owned my own business in the NY 23rd district for going on 34 years – and yes, I did “prove myself, work to excel”, and gave myself raises, along with giving my employees a living wage at the same time.
        I’m thinking even by your tender age, you should have been taught about the struggles and conditions women have suffered to get equal rights, and frankly I’m very disappointed that someone your age still sees women as losers.

        Tom Reed will be happy to continue to keep you and your generation stripped of your rights with Congressional votes, as long as you agree to allow it. Perhaps that’s how kids are raised in Massachusetts, I don’t know – but here in New York State, and outside of bubble thinking – women are joining together to continue to protect your and our rights for our own choices in career, family planning, college loan rates, equal pay…etc., those things which Tom Reed has voted to, and would continue to vote – to deny us all.

        • BOB McGILL says:

          and I suppose that you don’t take advantage of the fact that women owned businesses are given preferential treatment when it comes to government contracts and loans

          • BOB McGILL says:

            http://www.sba.gov/content/women-owned-small-business-program‎ Cached
            Feb 1, 2011 … Loans & Grants · Small Business Loans …. Economically disadvantaged women-
            owned small businesses (EDWOSBs). WOSB Program
            Federal Contract Program

          • Deb Meeker says:

            No Bob, I was very fortunate not to need that assistance, but would certainly taken advantage of them if I had needed to. First consideration for women and minority businesses is still sadly out of pace with what could be done for starting entrepreneurs.

            In terms of numbers of loans, businesses owned by women receive only 16 percent of all conventional small-business loans, and 17 percent of loans backed by the Small Business Administration. Their loan applications are more likely to be rejected than those from businesses owned by men, and the loans they get are likely to have more stringent terms.
            Women also receive only 7 percent of venture-capital funding. […]
            Women are also falling short in receiving government contracts. Although Congress in 1994 set a governmentwide goal of awarding 5 percent of federal contract dollars to small businesses owned by women, it hasn’t met that goal. The closest it has come is 4 percent, in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2012, the report said. Failing to meet the goal costs women-owned businesses nearly $5.7 billion in government contracts each year, it said.
            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316057/-Women-owned-businesses-are-common-but-loans-and-funding-for-them-aren-t#

  5. josephurban says:

    I admit I tend to be a or two issue voter. If a woman does not have complete control over her own body she is not a full person, in my opinion. I cannot support any candidate who is wishy-washy or opposed to a woman’s right to choose. Pretty basic stuff. You either control your own body or the government does.

    • Maddie Lane says:

      Josephurban- I can understand that. We all have our issues that we care about, but you have to think about which of your issues are actually being threatened to change, and what overarching issues are threatening the nation? Which leadership would you rather have on those issues?

      • josephurban says:

        Maddie…good points. I think that IF the GOP had control of both branches of government they would institute the following changes (according to their own people). 1. A constitutional amendment giving personhood to fetuses. The legal can of worms that such an amendment would open is catastrophic. Not to mention how that makes women into little more than “carriers”.2. They would repeal the ACA, leaving millions without health insurance, decimating Medicaid and allowing insurance companies to once again refuse or deny individual coverage. I think that would be a major step backward in providing adequate health care to our citizens. 3. The GOP would gut the Food Stamp program. 4. A GOP POTUS would rescind the executive orders giving fair pay to all federal contract workers. 5. The GOP would eliminate most environmental protection laws under the misguided assumption that short term job creation is more important than long term clean water, air and protection from chemical and biological contamination. 6. In foreign affairs the GOP seems much to eager to use violence as a first , rather than last, response to problems. So, yes, I do look at the leadership on important issues when I decide for whom to vote.

  6. Maddie Lane says:

    Martha is extreme liberal and has very little support outside of Ithaca (see famous green bumper stickers)
    Tom is a member of NOLABELS working to get things accomplished in a bipartisan way.
    Martha opposes Paul Ryan’s reactionary, austere budget proposal. Well what budget does she support? The Democratic budget? The POTUS budget? The Liberal budget? No one knows.
    Martha supports progressive taxation and any strain she can place on hardworking Americans.
    Martha favors environmental protection–let’s be real here, she blindly supports a green movement without any facts to back up her support and is comfortable putting thousands of jobs at risk.
    Martha supports public education—but what about COMMON CORE????
    Martha supports low interest student loans. Tom still has student loans to pay off, and has never voted to jeopardize students interests.
    Martha supports affordable health care even though millions lost coverage and it made DRASTIC cuts to Medicare to bankroll the operation.
    Come up with real answers and then I’ll consider what Martha Robertson is about, because you seem to be the only person that can properly articulate anything she stands for.

    • whungerford says:

      If Martha has little support outside Ithaca, why did Tom feel the need to spend $1.4 million already to defeat her?

      • Maddie Lane says:

        Do you know her stance on Common Core? It’s such a big issue now and I’d like to know. Can’t find anything on her website.

        • whungerford says:

          No, I don’t know. From my limited experience as a volunteer in a second grade classroom this year, I think Common Core is mostly good. You could ask her.

        • solodm says:

          Maddie, can you answer whungerford’s question? It seems you actually haven’t a clue about Martha Robertson, which is borne out by your almost word for word copy of Tom Reed’s propaganda. Do yourself a favor, go and meet Mrs. Robertson next time you’re in New York State. if you did, i’m sure you’d find no need to attack a person you a) don’t know from Adam, b) who would fight to protect your rights, instead of take them away, and c) seeks to promote education ( and Sweetie, you could use some on political issues).

      • BOB McGILL says:

        and I suppose that Tom can just sit on campaign contributions, what else is he supposed to send the money on ?

    • josephurban says:

      Maddie…Let me suggest a couple things. 1. Student loans. What is wrong with lowering the interest on student loans so working people can pay them off quicker? After all, didn’t we give Wall Street NO INTEREST money to lend out? And don’t we guarantee every major bank and financial institution against failure ? Why not working class students ?
      2.Progressive taxation does the opposite of putting a strain on “working ” people. It reduces the tax load on the workers. Those who benefit most from our society SHOULD pay more. And working folks don’t have the tax breaks that the wealthy are able to take advantage of.
      3 Regarding the ACA. Million did NOT lose health coverage. That is simply a false statement. Over 14,000,000 now have coverage who did not have it before. A few thousand who did have to change coverage did so because their old policies did not meet minimum insurance coverage standards (just like auto insurance…there are minimum coverage standards).
      4. Medicare cuts. Another false statement that has been repeated over and over (Like Obama was born in Kenya). As discussed elsewhere there ware NO CUTS to recipients of Medicare. When I called Tom’s office to ask SPECIFICALLY what cuts there were to Medicare NO ONE was able to give me an answer. There are cuts to providers and a tighter restriction on payments. But no cuts to recipients.
      Now, I don’t think Mrs. Roberston is the greatest thing since white bread, but every election is about choice. When I see the kinds of things Mr Reed has supported and the votes he has taken I see him as a person who is a short-term thinker, pro-big business and seemingly in step with the very radical (in my opinion) Tea Party element of the GOP. Robertson seems to me to be a person who is more likely to support sane environmental laws, health care options and education. Someone who is looking ahead beyond the next financial statement to the future.

  7. Anne says:

    I’m still curious why it is, this many years after his graduation, Tom has not paid off his student loans and still has a personal worth of around $1M.

    • Maddie Lane says:

      Reed doesn’t have a personal worth of around $1M. Where are you getting these facts? Let me throw out an idea…I have student loans that I won’t be able to pay off for another 10 years…Many people experience this with the rising cost of education. Sounds like a normal guy to me that put himself through college like many of us have.

      • whungerford says:

        Note that Reed’s wealth seems to have gone down, but don’t worry–he isn’t going broke.
        https://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00030949&year=2012

      • Anne says:

        Here’s another look at Tom by the numbers (slightly out of date, but we can expect things haven’t changed a whole lot for our guy): http://apps.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-assets/member/tom-reed/ His failure to pay off his student loans doesn’t add up. He graduated nearly 20 years ago, and although I haven’t been able to track down what tuition costs were at the third-tier law school he attended in the mid-90’s, I suspect it was at least on par with other third-tier law schools; at Reed’s salary, he should have been able to pay off his debt by now. My daughter’s law school debt will be just north of $70K, and even though she’ll be working in public service law her debt will be paid off well before 20 years have passed. But Tom’s always had a funny way with money. Look at the dozens of late tax payments he’s routinely made, even since entering office.

        • solodm says:

          Oh, yes, I had forgotten that, Anne! Seems like Maddie is helping us refresh our memories of the many very questionable things Tom Reed has done.

      • solodm says:

        So you are personally acquainted with Mr. Reed’s fiances? How could that be? Are you related to Tom?

  8. Peeps Brignac says:

    I came to NY a few years back. I’m a moderate Republican. I believe small businesses, not large do deserve tax breaks, as they are backbone of the US economy. If a large corporation needs large tax breaks to remain profitable, that equates with government sponsored business, i.e. communism. The large corporations could remain profitable if they cut the obscene salaries of their Good Old Boys clubs. Tom Reed promised he would work for the workers, and with the Democrats to stop the obstructionism. His voting record is nearly 100% Tea Party ideals. I deplore the oligopoly based platform of the Tea Party. It is communism disguised. So I vote using these criteria. Moderate Republican first, Democrat second, Tea Party third. Their is no moderate republican running. So Martha will get my vote. Voting records are public. Tom is no moderate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s