Tom Reed’s beliefs

mow.jpgThe (Corning) food pantry, its dedicated volunteers, and all those who have donated strengthen families and support communities,” Reed continued. “When our neighbors are facing tough times, the entire community steps up to positively impact their lives. Whether that means food, a monetary donation, or their valuable time, the local community understands that we need to care for everyone in our community so that we can make it better.–Tom Reed

For Tom, private donations of food, money, and time are all that is needed.

Meals on Wheels

How can Tom Reed be supportive of federally funded programs like Meals on Wheels and oppose Federal funding? There is an easy answer–his support for MOWs is tempered by his dislike of Federal spending.  If funded privately, it’s fine; if funded by the public, not so much.

This is true of other hunger programs:

  • Tom doesn’t dislike SNAP, he just doesn’t want to pay for it.
  • Tom does support the Foodbank, he just doesn’t want to pay for it, except thru corporate tax breaks.

The premise of Tom’s views is that the cost of Federal spending on these programs outweighs the benefit of them. Tom would shift the cost from relatively well-off taxpayers to those in need.

March 2018 Budget Bill

Tom’s views on the budget are similar–there is a hierarchy of concern:

  1. Above all, Tom hates taxes, no matter what.
  2. Tom hates deficits, but not so much as taxes.
  3. Tom dislikes spending, especially spending for programs that directly benefit people.

Here is an explanation in Tom’s own words:

Rep. Tom Reed (R-N.Y.), who also opposed the bill, pointed to the Federal Reserve’s hike of a key interest rate this week. He warned that the benefits from the additional spending will hit taxpayers with larger debt and the financing of the more than $20 trillion debt.

Spending which benefits the people is less important than the deficit. Tom sees interest paid on the national debt as going down a rabbit hole, rather than being in large part paid to American people and institutions that choose to buy government bonds.

“You’re going to eat that up in an interest payment in seconds given the nature of where the rates are going,” Reed said.

Spending which benefits the people is less important than the deficit.

…spending is a different kind of impact on the deficit. That’s a direct bean-counting effect,” Reed said.

Low taxes–good; less spending, also good, says Tom. Tom holds the voodoo belief that tax cuts pay for themselves. What Tom means by a direct bean-counting effect, I can’t imagine. Bean counter is a pejorative term for one overly concerned about spending, much like Tom.

Cutting spending for Meals on Wheels, Foodbank, and the like has consequences:

  • Agency staff and volunteers will devote more hours and effort to fundraising.
  • Cost of services may rise.
  • People may have do to without needed services.
  • Poverty will increase.

Many likely cuts to domestic government programs are penny wise and pound foolish, anything but “common sense.”

About whungerford

* Contributor at 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 Constituents, Reed's Views and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Tom Reed’s beliefs

  1. josephurban says:

    Whenever Mr Reed talks about NOT helping the needy, keep in mind that when he was a boy his family received federal assistance.


  2. Rynstone says:

    The USA and especially New York State are pretty good places to be collecting federal and state government benefits compared to the rest of the world.

    My daughters were shocked to see how the “poor” live in the countries that they have visited. Mexico, Trinidad, The Caribbean, Spain & Columbia poverty shocked them.


  3. Rynstone says:

    The Federal Tax System explained in beer. This explains you how the poor get taken advantage of by the Federal tax system.


  4. Rynstone says:

    With the new Federal tax cuts we are seeing the “beer tax theory” taking place in NY State. I have a brother who is a CPA at a large Financial firm downstate. They are very busy with wealthy NY City clients who are purchasing houses in PA to claim as their primary residence.
    Due to NY State’s high taxes these wealthy clients are actually saving money by purchasing an additional residence in PA and claiming that as their primary residence.
    The Beer Tax system is happening right now in NY State.
    We are all going to end up paying more in taxes.

    Thanks Governor Cuomo and the past 30 years of Governors and state legislators


  5. whungerford says:

    I agree that some, not necessarily all, are going to end up paying more in taxes. But it has nothing to do with Governor Cuomo and the past 30 years of Governors and state legislators. It is because this year Republicans cut taxes for wealthy individuals and profitable corporations, shifting the burden to the rest of us.


  6. whungerford says:

    I have wondered about Reed’s views. I suppose Tom sees the assistance his mother needed as a stigma, I don’t know why.

    I once had a boss who informed me I would be laid off from my job due to a lack of work. He offered that I could resign instead if I wished. Why would I do that, I asked. Why to avoid the stigma, he said.

    My Dad had a WPA job during the depression. He never talked about it. Maybe he saw it as a stigma.

    Even if Tom were troubled by poverty in his youth, I don’t understand why he would visit that experience on others.


  7. josephurban says:

    You get what you pay for. Anyone who is unhappy in NY is free to leave. See what kind of services they get in Mississippi. What kind of roads and bridges they get. The quality of school systems. Etc. You are always free to move to a low tax, right to work state. Of course, these states take much more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. The they the true beneficiaries of “federal welfare”.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. whungerford says:

    The State of Michigan once ran a TV ad showing a businessman whining at length about high taxes in Michigan. At the end he said he would move to Florida, if only he could afford to leave Michigan where his business was making so much money for him.


  9. R Pawlak says:

    Perhaps the solution then is not to tax the wealthy, but to instead foist every public spending measure on those who are in the top 1%. Corporations, to, since Citizens United has defined them as individuals as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. josephurban says:

    Perhaps Tom Reed should survive only on contributions from his constituents. Voluntary contributions, not a government paycheck.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.